The pitfalls involved in the media’s coverage of environmental hazards in a societal climate characterized by the sometimes competing, sometimes complementary interests of government, corporations, environmental groups, lobbies, scientists, the public, and the press itself was the subject of a panel discussion in the Villard Room of the College Center at Vassar on Tuesday, April 8.
Entitled “Reporting Environmental Health Risks: Perspectives from Scientists and Journalists,” it featured Michael Specter, The New Yorker’s science and technology writer, Ira Flatow, host of National Public Radio’s “Science Friday,” Sharon Friedman, director of the Science and Environmental Writing Program at Lehigh University, and Dr. L. Earl Gray, the program coordinator at the Environmental Protection Agency.
“There are environmental risks all around us, but what determines which ones get covered?” Flatow asked rather pointedly. “After all, journalists do triage everyday. The greatest factor is often whether there is a local angle to it. Also, what is going on in the life of the journalist in question? ‘I’m having a baby – I want to cover baby issues,’ is a typical situation. I can trace the lives of many of my friends through their stories. But there are those inescapable mega-stories which cannot be avoided, whatever the circumstances -- Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, melting polar ice caps.”
Yet Friedman pointed out that there is actually a more professional and less subjective aspect to this process.
“A lot of what you see in the mainstream media, print and television, does originate in the scientific scholarly journals, and those of the medical profession,” she said. “So there is a hardcore of validity to these pieces and reportage in terms of soundness, and their being a reflection of what scientists and doctors are preoccupied with at any given time.”
If what gets covered is subject to so many variables, the panel members went on to affirm, how it gets covered is no less a slippery slope.
“As a reporter, I’ve never believed all this impartiality stuff,” Specter declared. “Individuals have their beliefs, viewpoints and prejudices, and they color their work. I believe, though, that you can and should be fair. Beyond that, I’m not one for impartiality.”
Dealing with opposing views
Gray agreed, and characterized fairness in terms of presenting clearly the reality that there are opposing views in regards to scientific and medical controversies.
“We’re far from perfect, but it is possible to be fair,” he said. The most important thing to see to as a journalist is that if there is a controversy, that fact must be stated in one’s articles and reports. And this will have an impact at the highest level, because as a government official I can tell you that people in power do read articles on the environment in newspapers and magazines.”
Flatow’s assessment of the dynamics of that impact was that it is fluid.
“As someone who has covered government agencies for 30-35 years, I can tell you that agencies are run by people, who are appointed by people in power. So there is a somewhat predictable tone to policies during a given administration, in terms of whether there will be regulation or whether the policies will be laissez fare, whether natural resources will be protected or exploited, etc.
“But it’s not absolutely rigid. As Gray pointed out, they do read newspapers, including polls, and they will listen to you if you express yourself, whether it be in the form of letters or demonstrations.”
Friedman voiced the opinion that the central question in environmental reporting was “risk communication,” whose dynamics involved “the best way of conveying the degree of scientific uncertainty” regarding any particular hazard.
“It’s hard to accurately assess environmental risk,” Specter said. “Often things seem scarier than they are, other times they are downplayed. For instance, the actual impact of the Chernobyl accident was hyped beyond imagination; Bhopal was vastly worse, but received far less attention. The real problem lies in the realm of long-range thinking. Nobody cares what’s going to happen 20 years from now – people are not programmed that way. If a certain course of action will lead to a coastal city washing away 20 years from now, they will worry about it then, and say ‘Oh, this is a problem’ – when it’s too late.”
When asked at the end what phenomenon posed the most immediate threat to the environment, the panel had a ready answer, with no time needed for reflection.
“People!” Flatow exclaimed. “An endless exploitation and competition for resources. How long we keep going like this before we use up the earth?”
“If we could produce a lot less people, we would be far better off,” Specter concurred.
“And consume less,” Friedman added.