The Observatory

Five Inconvenient Truths…

Of environmental journalism

• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Single page

In its June issue, Wired dedicated its cover story to the “inconvenient truths about global warming,” taking conventionally unconventional looks at ten strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The feature aimed to turn tenets of modern environmentalism on their heads by declaring that “A/C is OK; organics are not the answer; and carbon trading doesn’t work.” It also urged readers to “accept genetic engineering; buy used cars, not hybrids; and embrace nuclear power.”

Whether or not Wired’s analysis is correct, it goes to show that reporting on climate-related issues is constantly frustrated by inconsistencies such as emissions balance sheets. What is green one day is gross the next, corn ethanol being the perfect example. So as much as The Observatory loathes the abuse of this phrase, we had to ask ourselves this: What are the “inconvenient truths” about environmental journalism? We came up with a five-point list, then fact checked it with Tim Wheeler, the president of the Society of Environmental Journalists and a reporter at the Baltimore Sun. Here’s what we compiled.

1) It Ain’t Sports Writing: A reporter covering, say, baseball doesn’t have to define a home run in every article, but a reporter covering climate almost always has to remind readers what greenhouse gases are. That chews up space—especially in traditional print publications where physical restrictions can chop a nuanced, thirty-six-inch piece into an oversimplified, ten-inch disservice to readers. In fact, Wired’s decision to break up its cover story into 200-word blurbs is an example of such foreshortening, and all the more perplexing for being voluntary. One of the scientists at RealClimate.org pilloried the “witless” approach, calling the work a series of “Incongruent Truths.”

Wheeler adds: “I’d add to the ‘simplistic’ category: the never-ending search by some editors (and reporters) for “bad guys” or villains to explain environmental problems.”

2) Deadlines Lead to Dead Ends: Sensationalism hits the echo chamber long before nuance does. Deadline pressure can lead editors to push through a story with a sexy hook like the imminent danger of chemicals in the water supply, without discussion of how little we know about environmental chemical exposure. Generally, reporters find such hooks in the latest batch of peer-reviewed journal articles, some of which are much less important than toxins in drinking water. America’s rash of python stories (“New Threat to Our Way of Life”) and run-of-the-mill earthquake scares (“Huge state quake predicted in next 30 years”) both qualify.

Wheeler adds: “[#1 and #2 are] some of the biggest chronic struggles environmental journalists have, at least those of us in traditional media.”

3) One Paper Does Not Consensus Make: Scientific papers are journalistic catnip, especially when they appear to contradict dogma. Consequently, we’ve seen the advent of what New York Times environment reporter Andrew Revkin calls “whiplash journalism,” with the mass media oscillating from one optimistic report to the next dire one in a “new hope” or “no hope” story paradigm. The back-and-forth over anthropogenic climate change and its relation to hurricane frequency and intensity is a good example. Model-based predictions of “more hurricanes” and “fewer hurricanes” appear in the press every year—compare recent scientific declarations like “New MIT study validates hurricane prediction - Provides confirmation that climate change intensifies storms” with headlines that appeared a year ago, such as, “Study: Global warming may diminish Atlantic hurricane activity.”

Wheeler adds: “Another bugaboo is a lack of a sense of history—an increasing problem as the institutional memory of journalism fades with the winnowing out of older reporters and editors. Also, too often we feel pressure to put a new face on an old problem, to act like we’ve just discovered it. That helps sell it to jaded editors, but it does our readers and the public a disservice.”

4) Sources Are People Too: Beware the tyranny of the great quote. Be aware that some scientists will never talk about policy, while other scientists won’t stop talking about it. For example, after the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report last year, NOAA scientist Susan Solomon unequivocally rejected policy prescriptions. NASA’s Jim Hansen, on the other hand, has long advocated a moratorium on coal-fired power plants that don’t sequester carbon, and he has found his way back into the news recently with calls for a “cap and dividend” emissions reduction scheme. Beyond policy, some silver-tongued scientists are always good for a headline; take James Lovelock, who recently told Britain’s The Guardian, “Enjoy life while you can.”

Wheeler adds: “It’s hard to resist ‘money quotes,’ since they help get your story on page one. But responsible journalism means going beyond the snappy, extreme position to quote the most credible one, or at least concluding the story with it.

5) Buzzwords Cause Hangovers: Buzzwords like “inconvenient truth”, “green”, “clean coal”, and “tipping point” can be misapplied and abused, rendering readers cynical and numb to actual news. A recent New York Times article title, “That Buzz in Your Ear May Be Green Noise”, delved into the backlash that may result from media oversaturated with environmental emergency.

Wheeler adds: “[Wired’s June issue is] fairly typical of journalism today, in that it follows the counterintuitive theme: ‘Everything you thought you knew about the environmental movement is wrong!!’ Stop the presses. They seem to have outdone themselves in looking for angles that seem to debunk “conventional wisdom” about global warming - but I’m not sure they haven’t done a disservice to the issue by straining so hard to say something different. That’s a problem all journalism faces, not least environmental journalism.”

We invite readers to add their own “inconvenient truths” about environmental reporting in the comments section. To get you started, here’s one last comment from Wheeler, about the lack of attention to population issues, and one from Jane Holtz Kay, a freelance environmental journalist and author of Asphalt Nation.

There’s a Dearth of Demographics

 1  |  2 

Comments

Trevor Butterworth

Thu 26 Jun 2008 01:02 PM

Route of Exposure

The key thing overlooked by journalists in reporting risks from environmental "toxins" is that studies which examine oral exposure generate different metabolites than studies which examine intravenous exposure. For example, Bisphenol A or BPA is a weak estrogen. That's been known for years. But ingest BPA and it loses all estrogenic capacity by virtue of gaining a sugar molecule. This fact has been noted by the European Union in its risk assessment. Inject BPA into a rat or a mouse and it retains its estrogenic power - plus, it creates different metabolites. So when reporters call BPA gender bending, as has been the case in scare story after scare story, they miss the point that the humans don't inject BPA intravenously, they ingest it orally.

Weight of Evidence

A study that disagrees with the conventional wisdom isn't necessarily correct. Again, take BPA, which Congress is debating banning. Independent risk assessments (that is, carried out by independent scientists) in Europe, Japan and the U.S. have all, largely, reached the same conclusion - and they have rejected numerous studies claiming risk because they are not relevant (route of exposure not realistic), statistically underpowered (six rats does not a convincing sample size make), insufficient range of dosages, lack of multigenerational studies etc. Now which studies have the media seized on to determine public debate - why yes, the ones that scientists the world over have rejected.

Industry-funded vs Independent

There are objective criteria for determining how good a study is. Focusing on who funds what at the expense of how a data point was found and whether it is statistically reliable and consistent with the weight of evidence is deeply misleading, and potentially deadly to public health. If you don't understand what a study says and whether it is statistically reliable, you shouldn't be trying to explain it to the public or writing a story based on its conclusions.

Biswanny

Fri 27 Jun 2008 12:22 PM

Anyone reading comments by Trevor Butterworth of STATS should be forewarned. STATS is little more than a front group apologist for industry.

Just take a look at the STATS page on Sourcewatch and you'll understand why Butterworth is so worried that journalists might dig into funding bias in science.

Nick N

Fri 27 Jun 2008 01:11 PM

It's interesting that a publication of CJR's alleged integrity would publish a piece by David Downs.

Do you realize how much heat his last employer, SF Weekly, took for a blog post in which Downs referred to a reader as "our Kunta Kinte"? The Weekly has expunged the post from its Web site, but fortunately, it lives on in the Bay Guardian's blog archives. See for yourself (scroll down to the first comment below the original post, then read the entire exchange between Downs and the reader):

http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2008/02/our_expert_their_expert.html

Is this who you want writing for CJR? Perhaps CJR needs to vet its freelancers a bit more closely. In the meantime, that's a dart for you, CJR. For shame.