Which isn’t to say that reporters should ignore signs of recovery or trump up negative impacts where they don’t exist, but the media must avoid falling into the “mission-accomplished” trap until government, industry, and independent scientists have collected more data. Avoiding alarmism on one hand and complacency on the other is a difficult job, however. Take a controversial report that Michael Grunwald penned for Time magazine’s Web site on Thursday, arguing that “while it’s important to acknowledge that the long-term potential danger [of the spill] is simply unknowable for an underwater event that took place just three months ago – it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage.”
Grunwald argues that the media have an “obvious incentive to accentuate the negative in the Gulf … because disasters drive ratings and sell magazines.” That may be true to a certain extent, but, as Mother Jones’s Kate Sheppard fairly points out, “if he’s going to criticize folks for making premature doomsday predictions, then he, too, shouldn’t engage in making preemptive declarations that the problem is exaggerated, either.”
Indeed, Grunwald’s piece sparked a bit of disagreement at Time, where his colleague, Bryan Walsh, felt compelled to offer this response:
I think it’s far too early to declare the oil spill a bust… The truth is we know very little about what the release of tens of millions of gallons of oil underwater will do to the marine ecosystems of the Gulf. Add in the application of some 2 million gallons of chemical dispersants, which have never been used—and were never meant to be used—in such vast quantities…Grunwald is taking a land-centric view of the spill—as long as the oil doesn’t show up on the beach, it’s probably not doing much damage. But that’s far from clear today, just a little over 100 days from the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon.
To be fair, Grunwald doesn’t seem be “declaring victory” to the extent that Sheppard and Walsh imply, but in his effort to discourage alarmism definitely risks encouraging complacency. As The New York Times pointed out in an excellent survey of the long-term impacts oil spills in four other regions of globe, “Only 20 years ago, the conventional wisdom was that oil spills did almost all their damage in the first weeks, as fresh oil loaded with toxic substances hit wildlife and marsh grasses, washed onto beaches and killed fish and turtles in the deep sea.” But “hidden damage can last for years.”
The Times was careful to stress that “scientists … say the picture in the gulf is far from hopeless.” More journalists should emphasize that important fact, and Grunwald tried. But rather than complain about “overblown eco-fears,” he should have taken a cue from two recent articles from Reuters and The Washington Post, which highlighted the resiliency of marsh grasses and their importance to wetlands recovery without suggesting that we have nothing to worry about.
Indeed, until we can account for where all of the spill oil has gone, what was true at the beginning of the spill has never been more important: what is out of sight should never be out of mind. The crude on the surface may be “missing,” but to leave it at that misses the point.
Excellent. Thanks for covering this. I wrote similarly yesterday: http://wp.me/pJ91e-2PW
#1 Posted by Bob Berwyn, CJR on Mon 2 Aug 2010 at 01:09 PM
All I could do when I saw the Times' article and the suggestion that the oil was "gone" was shake my head wondering who's fooling whom now and where did these expensive writers learn their science--just basic everyday, common sense actions. Even looking at the underwater shots on tv should tell people the water is in horrid shape and it will take a long time to clear up. One of the factors seldom mentioned though some scientists have in passing is that NO ONE knows what's on the seabed and how what's there will affect both the fish above and the shellfish that breed on the seabeds--both in the midst of the gulf and on the coastline. The only shoreline shown was one in Mississippi and Mississippi didn't get as much gook in the water or sands as did Louisiana and the islands. Much more must be done in the marshlands to lessen the oil and replace some of that which has been destroyed. Scientists must not only test and re-test the water samples at various depths and at various dates but REPORT IT and if the papers don't take it, get it out online for many others to see. Too often they do their work, write their reports,turn them into the respective dept in state and federal bureaus and NO ONE else knows what's there and the governments want it to stay that way--It's both easier and cheaper. Put the reports on line but also break them down and add pictures explaining what has been found and what needs to be done. FDA must get in on this also. They are the ones that will be hit if someone gets sick on fish in anyone of the Gulf states or any fish that's shipped out of there. It may not take the 20+ years that were needed in Washington state or the East Coast oil spills but both the weather and time plus legal actions were all very different then. Also, the voters have access to more information but they also must be careful regarding the source and the purpose for which it was put there. The New Orleans paper will be much more likely to be right--since they are based there than The NY Times that comes through, get information, write it to suit Keller living in NYC and move on to another topic. Both of them from Times will also be very careful on what seafood they each or where the fish came from even though they don't state or imply the possible problems. Just as the better info for Katrina came from the New Orleans' paper since they were there from get-street; the same idea goes for the food in the Gulf. They have too much to lose if they are wrong; the Times doesn't--I'm sorry to say!!!
#2 Posted by Patricia Wilson, CJR on Mon 2 Aug 2010 at 05:08 PM