Journalism has been melting down faster than Antarctica’s Pine Island Glacier. Science journalism is “basically going out of existence,” as one top science reporter recently put it. And Columbia University suspended its Environmental Journalism Program even though “our graduates have done well in their careers.” If you want to hear from some of the reporters themselves, here is a piece by Tyler Hamilton, first published here. Tyler is senior energy reporter and columnist for the Toronto Star, Canada’s largest daily newspaper. He’s written some great stories — see “Toronto Star: ‘Why media tell climate story poorly’ ” and “Nuclear Bombshell: $26 Billion cost — $10,800 per kilowatt! — killed Ontario nuclear bid.”
We’re doomed. It seems the mainstream media believe that the most pressing issues of our times — climate change, environmental degradation, energy security, etc. – should be left to general assignment reporters or treated as political news covered by political reporters. Copenhagen, for the most part, was covered as a political event, yet the issues underlying this political conference were highly scientific in nature. Covering these issues properly requires a certain expertise, specifically when we’re dealing with a politically charged issue like climate change. Environmental reporters know when they’re being duped by faux experts; political or GA reporters don’t. Environmental reporters are better at explaining complex issues in a way that the average person can better understand; political or GA reporters can often make matters even more confusing to the reader or gloss over important details.
Sadly, the environmental reporter has become an endangered species. I heard yesterday that the Oregonian just disbanded its environmental reporting team and made them all into general assignment reporters. Also yesterday Keith Johnson announced that his Wall Street Journal blog Environmental Capital was “closing its virtual doors.” In October, the prestigious Columbia School of Journalism announced it had stopped accepting applications for its Earth and Environmental Science Journalism program because of “the current weakness in the job market for environmental journalists.” In a letter to its faculty, the school wrote “media organizations across the country are in dire financial straits and thousands of journalists’ jobs have been eliminated. Science and environment beats have been particularly vulnerable.”
Again, this is all happening at a time when we need this kind of experienced coverage most, and when governments and the business community both are giving environmental issues more attention than ever. My own newspaper, the Toronto Star, used to have two environmental reporters a year ago. Through newsroom attrition both positions are vacant, but given plans to downsize the newsroom there appears no desire to fill those spots. It’s discouraging to say the least.
But, hell, we can all take comfort that Sarah Palin is joining Fox News.
– Tyler Hamilton
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
good to see you’re giving Tyler some recognition. It’s well deserved.
While this is a very disappointing development and a definite social loss, I wonder if there will be a space for people submitting and newspapers accepting articles from trusted sources, to fill the gap? Someone who knows more about newspaper functioning than I do might be able to say.
A big problem I have seen with my local newspaper, the Denver Post, is even gaining their interest in science reporting. I have forwarded them highlights from Climate Progress and occasionally had an exchange with them about important recent findings, but for some reason, their editor is prone to categorize almost all climate change science or research findings as “old news.” Coverage is scant and front page article on slowing of the loss of pine trees due to the bark beetles (first time I’ve seen front page coverage of the issue), no climate connection was mentioned, though connection to “crowding” was. I don’t understand their model, but the number of articles and amount of news in the paper has diminished markedly, over the years. Nothing seems to be filling the gap, yet.
You might want to indent Tyler’s words to make the distinction between his and yours clear. For example, I suspect the very last line is Joe, not Tyler, but there’s no way to tell at the moment.
[JR: On reposts, my stuff is in italics. Other people can be snarky, you know
]
This issue is much more multidimensional than some people might appreciate – perhaps including many science or environmental reporters themselves. It won’t be solved unless all dimensions are addressed.
Let’s face it: In the mainstream media, even before the financial pressures intensified, there was very little genuinely excellent science reporting that was “excellent and effective” in all senses – continuity of coverage, actual placement in the paper (according to the importance of the issue), context provided, focus on the matter at hand (as opposed to the boxing match), and etc. etc.
A BIG part of the problem (and we could name names) is that even some prominent science/environmental reporters who think of themselves as truly excellent, working hard, dedicated, science-savvy, and so forth greatly diminish their ultimate value to society and to readers when they (and/or their employers) write stories out of context, put forward the media’s typical version of “balance”, highlight the boxing match, write unclearly (which they not infrequently do), place important stories on page 11 (or not write them at all), jazz-up story titles and headlines to the point that they are misleading, and sometimes generate more confusion than clarity.
To provide genuine value to the public, BOTH the media organization (e.g., the paper, the TV station, etc.) AND its reporters and presenters must “get it right”. Albert Einstein himself could be a science reporter, or John Muir an environmental reporter, these days, but if they “balanced” their stories, highlighted the boxing match, jazzed their titles into confusion, provided no context, deferred to other journalistic conventions, allowed their stories to be put on page 33, clouded one out of every three issues they reported, and so forth, it would do little good, and the net result to the public would still be mush. Of course, Albert Einstein and John Muir wouldn’t have put up with all that – and good for them! That is, in part, why we remember their names. But, the vast majority of mainstream science and environmental journalists apparently DO put up with all that, or do it themselves, or do it to themselves, and that substantially diminishes and devalues the value of their work to the public. Readers know, sooner or later, consciously or subconsciously.
“I don’t care if the reporter has a PhD. If the paper itself isn’t taking the matter seriously, and if the public’s understanding is mush or worse, and if the reporter bows down to journalistic conventions that are downright silly and irresponsible, given the stakes, and if the paper can’t even appreciate its responsibility to genuinely convey understanding that will serve the public good, then it’s fine with me if the paper fires the environmental staff. I’ve been fired before. What’s new?”
AND EVEN THE PAPERS KNOW! After all, if a media organization (e.g., The New York Times) REALLY realized the vital importance of excellent science reporting, presented in concert with the vast importance of the issues involved – “hey, it’s our own planet and future at stake too!” – would it put vital stories on page 11, twist titles, aim at “balance” and the boxing match, lay off reporters, and give about 10% as much space to its vital stories on a subject such as climate change as it provides to ExxonMobil for confusing advertising? No. Of course not. Consciously or subconsciously, the media organizations are truncating their science reporting, and letting go of environmental reporters, either because they (the organizations) don’t genuinely see the importance of the issues being covered in the first place, OR because they realize, in their hearts, that it doesn’t matter anyway, GIVEN the ways that THEY present the stories and run their overall businesses.
“Bill, the public’s understanding of this climate change stuff is still dismal. A substantial part of the reason is how WE treat it. Since we don’t want to face that fact, or (for goodness sake) change our ways, we may as well reduce the size of our environmental staff. It won’t really make a difference anyhow, given how we do things around here. By the way, how is your new place in the mountains?”
Of course, that’s not what they say to each other (I hope!), nor even what they think, but that is the net effect of their paradigms, most likely. It wouldn’t surprise me if that don’t see this.
So, as it relates to that “Help” sign in the post, my response is this: I (public) will help ONLY if the whole enchilada promises to improve, a lot! I’ll start buying the paper again, rooting for science and environmental reporters, hoping for them, and so forth, WHEN the papers themselves get their act together and when the reporters, and the papers, INSIST on doing a full and responsible job to genuinely serve the public good, like any good journalist should.
How can people expect the public to value science and environmental reporting IN MAINSTREAM MEDIA when we know that the stuff we get FROM mainstream media is, more often than not, muddy, ineffective, and half-hearted? And, how can you expect the media organizations themselves to value the reporting if they ALSO know that this is the case or, instead, if they don’t even get it?
It’s not even clear to me whether the organizations that are supposed to “get it”, get it? For example, do you hear the conventional journalism watch-dog organizations insist on improvement, loudly enough? Sometimes, the same organizations that complain about the reductions in environmental reporting staff also, at the same time, applaud and pay tribute to the media giants, give the reporters awards, only infrequently notice that public understanding itself isn’t well, and then only offer the most gentle kid-glove critiques to the news organizations – amidst all the honors bestowed. Meanwhile, everyone knows that the critical job ISN’T being done effectively, in good times or in bad times (financially speaking).
Until the reporters themselves understand and face these problems, the journalism watch-dog organizations point them out vigorously, the public insists on better coverage and reporting, and the media owners realize their immense human responsibilities to society, these problems aren’t going away.
Sigh.
I think that this niche is going to end up being served by online magazines and blogs such as this one. It can’t be just cutting back staff that’s causing these jobs to disappear in MSM. TV stations and major metro papers are running scared, and even a very straightforward piece by an environmental reporter runs a high risk of offending an advertiser.
Thanks to Clinton’s actions, most major media outlets are owned by big corporations, which at the very minimum have entertwined relationships with fossil fuel companies, worsening the problem. I hope that this causes them to become irrelevant. After all, we have the Tierney “Lab” at the New York Times. That should be enough of a clue that we have to move on, and get our news on serious subjects from people who are not cowards.
One way to look at this is that the environment is finally taking its correct place as part of general reporting. The Energy and Environment section it the NYT is part of the Business section. Implication: you can’t do business without considering the environment.
Now there are aspects of that reporting that are technology and aspects that are science but we’re mainly moving to the bottom line.
But surly there is still a place for the Lorax who speaks for the trees and a place for an E. B. White who spoke of the trees. These voices seem to be missing at the present time. Really only Ken Burns’ “National Parks” strikes me as good quality recent work and that was not written though much of its power can from quoting older writings, particularly from John Muir.
I can’t recall when Carl Pope last wrote something about enjoying nature though I remember he used to be good at it. It is all issues issues issues and politics politics politics. You very seldom here that the world needs to be preserved because of its intrinsic beauty anymore.
Losing the environmental reporter to the business section is a fine development if it means that businesses will be informed on how to avoid environmental damage but I think we need to get a naturalist section going again because that subject is fundamental and timeless and not a business proposition.
Hi Chris (Comment 6) …
I agree that it’s vitally important for businesses to consider the environment as a key part of doing business — much more so than they do now.
But, I think it’s a paradigmatic problem, and mistake, to think of Environment and Energy as a subset of Business. Ecology (and the ecosystem) is a much more foundational part of our earthly situation (to put it one way) than is “economics”, using the latter term in its economy-and-business-and-finance sense.
I think one of our biggest problems in society is that we have a habit of getting the cart before the horse, confusing up and down, and mixing up parts and wholes. The New York Times has this problem, big-time.
So, although I agree with most of your point, I think that it’s important that the media, somehow, start to convey things in wise and proper relationship to each other and in sensible priority.
Cheers,
Jeff
The way I see it is there are two basic types of environmental reporters: the ones who catch companies and governments doing bad stuff, and the ones who explain to companies and governments about all the good stuff, like clean technologies. Both require a decent knowledge of science and technology, but one is more investigative and the other is more exploration and enlightenment. Both are needed, and while I see more of the latter, given the buzz around cleantech and greentech (include me under that), the true “endangered species” I’m talking about are the ones that look under rocks and take months to expose messes that are unknown or misunderstood, but equally damaging to the health of our communities and the planet at large.
BTW: I meant the original post as no offence to GA and political reporters, who bring unique skills, insights and drive to their respective jobs.
So maybe now is the time for the new philosopher journalists:
Is this carbon carpe diem time?
Or do we clean out the stables for tomorrow?
A refreshing news from UK
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/ story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=44896&c=1
Jeff (#7),
I guess we ought to expect reporters to report what is news. The linking of energy and environment is old news as science reporting but it is big news daily in the way we are responding. So, the shift in focus is understandable I think.
And, perhaps I should not have been so harsh. There has been reporting that national park visits are up with the recession. Maybe reporters on vacation will dabble a little more again in describing a sunrise.
Today the LA Times put warmest decade story way back on page A11 – headline: “Decade’s temperatures burn up record books.” But text (only 6 sentences with no byline) says ” … the planet MAY (my caps) be warming at a potentially disastrous rate.” That’s the sad state of science writing at this formerly great newspaper.
Why, for the love of northern peat, would Columbia eliminate environmental journalism when the news on this subject is increasing? A cynic might suggest that it is to be subservient to global power interests, such as nuclear power that their Earth Institute director, Jeffrey Sachs, has been offering as an (biased and unsupportable) answer to climate change. After all, this would nicely balance the sellout to Big Oil by the front page color propaganda of the New York Times.