Comments on: Media stunner: Columbia suspends Environmental Journalism Program even though “our graduates have done well in their careers.”

By: transatlanticnomad

transatlanticnomad — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:19:48 +0000

I think Seth Masia is right on the mark: This IS a bad decision.

Which is why the University of Montana is starting a master’s program in environmental science and natural resources journalism next fall.

Energy policy, climate change, the struggle for natural resources and conservation will be huge in the coming decade. They make for a story that crosses beats and media, and it needs to be told by reporters that “get” science as well as economics and (global) politics. My prediction is that there’ll be more than enough jobs to go around for journalists who are versatile AND knowledgeable, and our graduates will be.

By: Christopher Mims

Christopher Mims — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:02:46 +0000

Instead of killing the journalism program, they should have put a disclaimer on it: “Burdening yourself with massive student debt in order to get a job where you will be competing with more experienced, laid off journalists, not to mention talented writers who found another way into this profession is not a good idea. So, hand us $60,000 at your own risk.”

By: Seth Masia

Seth Masia — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:44:56 +0000

Newspapers are dying, and their science reporters are being laid off or reassigned to general reporting. But that just means the market for 800-word news stories has dried up. That format was long ago rendered useless for complex issues like climate by the balance fallacy.

Citizens who want to learn about complex stories like climate (or health care or Afghanistan or ???) have had to rely on long-form professional journalism in magazines, and that market remains healthy. J-schools should get over their fixation on deadline journalism and focus on reality, in every sense.

By: Kevin Matthews, ArchitectureWeek

Kevin Matthews, ArchitectureWeek — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:43:36 +0000

So many things hang in the balance these days.

Hopefully this widely-praised program will be re-started soon: As all note, it is needed now more than ever.

And that need will only be increasing as long as any of us are around.

BTW, at ArchitectureWeek, freelance environmental and technical/science writing opportunities continue around a wide range of sustainable design, building, planning, and development issues, for both pitched and assigned stories. We support appropriate time for stories to be developed in-depth, and long word counts when merited.

And these features have impact: Our in-depth assigned story comparing the FSC and SFI wood certification systems, for instance, was followed a few weeks later by a remarkably parallel story in the New York Times, interviewing and quoting the same list of people on the same topics.

By: Seth Masia

Seth Masia — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:49:07 +0000

It’s a bad decision. The fact that newspapers are failing and reassigning specialist reporters to general assignments doesn’t mean a smaller market for environmental journalism. Historically, citizens who wanted the full story about complex issues have gotten it from magazines — The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Scientific American, National Geographic etc etc are doing a fine job and provide a solid market for long-form professionally-done environmental journalism. The market drying up is the deadline 800-word story, which was corrupted years ago by the balance fallacy.

By: ecostew

ecostew — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:24:22 +0000

Most of the technology needed to shift the world from fossil fuel to clean, renewable energy already exists. Implementing that technology requires overcoming obstacles in planning and politics, but doing so could result in a 30 percent decrease in global power demand, say Stanford civil and environmental engineering Professor Mark Z. Jacobson and University of California-Davis researcher Mark Delucchi.
They then calculated that if no combustion of fossil fuel or biomass were used to generate energy, and virtually everything was powered by electricity – either for direct use or hydrogen production – the demand would be only 11.5 terawatts. That’s only two-thirds of the energy that would be needed if fossil fuels were still in the mix.
In order to convert to wind, water and solar, the world would have to build wind turbines; solar photovoltaic and concentrated solar arrays; and geothermal, tidal, wave and hydroelectric power sources to generate the electricity, as well as transmission lines to carry it to the users, but the long-run net savings would more than equal the costs, according to Jacobson and Delucchi’s analysis.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/ 2009/ 10/ 091019122954.htm

By: Jeff Huggins

Jeff Huggins — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:26:17 +0000

This is terrible. We LIVE in environments, are dependent on them, and are inseparable from them. Society NEEDS a much better, and more engaging, understanding of nature and ecology. We need a much better understanding of science in general. What are we thinking?

Sigh.

By: Brewster

Brewster — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:58:55 +0000

Truly Depressing, especially when I see the quality of the stuff being printed in most newspapers…

By: Ralph Smith

Ralph Smith — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:45:02 +0000

New York times did layoffs today. The supply of writers is huge.

By: WAG

WAG — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:16:42 +0000

“As you know, media organizations across the county are in dire financial straits and thousands of journalists’ jobs have been eliminated. Science and environment beats have been particularly vulnerable.”

Maybe that explains the recent deluge of denier talking points showing up in the MSM. Contrarian viewpoints draw in readers – so are environmental journalists, desperate to hold onto their jobs, doing their best to bring in dollars by dangling red meat for salivating denialists? Seems reasonable. Consensus doesn’t sell, and peddling faux controversy may be the best way for a threatened species of journalist to prove its worth to the bottom line.