<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Top environment reporters talk about journalism vs. activism]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by ffletcher http://www.grist.org/article/reporters/ Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:29:19 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/reporters/1 Good Photos

I could not help but notice the artistic quality of the photos of the journalits both as single photos and as a collection.

]]> Good Photos

I could not help but notice the artistic quality of the photos of the journalits both as single photos and as a collection.

]]> Comment #2 by jglave http://www.grist.org/article/reporters/ Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:33:02 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/reporters/2 Not An Activist But..

I have been a journalist for 15 or more years, and  as such I am something of a professional skeptic. My interest in global warming really kicked into high gear after my wife and I tried - and for the most part, failed - to build a green home. (I wrote a story about the adventure called "The Crying of Lot 55," you can read it via my blog The Big Melt)

My frustration with that process led me to dig into the "eco-chic" movement, and in the name of due diligence, I ended up drinking the Kool-Aid, as it were. The more I educated myself about what's going on up there, the more I realized that it was time to redouble my own personal efforts to live a greener life. Most people, certainly most up here in Canada, now understand that carbon is the culprit; I don't see much evidence of major media outlets up here giving "equal" airtime to the climate-change doubters, who have by and large been exposed for who and what they are.

I certainly don't think of myself as an activist - the term makes me squirm; I start my reporting from the baseline, scientifically sound understanding that our systems of transport and energy generation are doing some profoundly bad damage, and I look for the interesting stories that emerge from the conundrums that result. I don't consider this advocacy journalism; it's getting the facts straight and moving forward from there.

]]> Not An Activist But..

I have been a journalist for 15 or more years, and  as such I am something of a professional skeptic. My interest in global warming really kicked into high gear after my wife and I tried - and for the most part, failed - to build a green home. (I wrote a story about the adventure called "The Crying of Lot 55," you can read it via my blog The Big Melt)

My frustration with that process led me to dig into the "eco-chic" movement, and in the name of due diligence, I ended up drinking the Kool-Aid, as it were. The more I educated myself about what's going on up there, the more I realized that it was time to redouble my own personal efforts to live a greener life. Most people, certainly most up here in Canada, now understand that carbon is the culprit; I don't see much evidence of major media outlets up here giving "equal" airtime to the climate-change doubters, who have by and large been exposed for who and what they are.

I certainly don't think of myself as an activist - the term makes me squirm; I start my reporting from the baseline, scientifically sound understanding that our systems of transport and energy generation are doing some profoundly bad damage, and I look for the interesting stories that emerge from the conundrums that result. I don't consider this advocacy journalism; it's getting the facts straight and moving forward from there.

]]> Comment #3 by sunflower http://www.grist.org/article/reporters/ Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:34:31 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/reporters/3 Voiceless on Fox Island

I have worked against global warming for 30 years.  I am available as a source against global warming.  I have no currency, no credibility, no voice. <30>

]]> Voiceless on Fox Island

I have worked against global warming for 30 years.  I am available as a source against global warming.  I have no currency, no credibility, no voice. <30>

]]> Comment #4 by soekershof http://www.grist.org/article/reporters/ Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:38:36 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/reporters/4 Beyond the Line

Being a journalist in my previous life (google to Soekershof and find out that I'm in the environmental related tourism business nowadays) I know how difficult it is to make an objective story about 'hot' issues. Do I have all the right facts? How to judge these facts in the right context? There is always a conflict of interests. In case of conflicting parties (f.e. activists versus chemical industry) who is telling the full truth and who provides desinformation packed in a truth? I like reading stories of Michael Grunwald for I can read, between the lines, that he can be quite persistent and critical. But he is one of the few with space to go in the deep. Most of the journalists however are swept up in a ratrace and don't get the time to get the facts in order. This besides the fact that some publishers/managing editors judge a story on 'what their readers want to read'. Journalists are in these cases the commercial (pr) tool of their employers. Independent - impartial - journalism is difficult nowadays (one of the reasons I quit the job 6 yrs ago); just look to the difference in 'critical' reporting about the war in Iraq between American and European media.
Ross Gelbspan is right in the sense that specialist PR people are nowadays making the headlines but only to rely on what mayor scientists are saying is also dangerous. For who are they working and where are they getting their additional income? Are they telling a truth packed in desinformation and to what degree can they afford to do so (they also have their critical opponents in their world and where are their commitments?)? Example: most of the forestanding scientists in the medical world have a relation with a pharmaceutical industry ....... The same applies more or less with scientists who deal, in one or another way, with environmental issues. This makes independent, impartial, environmental journalism even more difficult.
I might sound old fashioned but your own intuition is the best guide and always report 'on the spot' instead from behind the PC and telephone. Not very cost effective but for me it has always been the way to get a story right.

 

]]> Beyond the Line

Being a journalist in my previous life (google to Soekershof and find out that I'm in the environmental related tourism business nowadays) I know how difficult it is to make an objective story about 'hot' issues. Do I have all the right facts? How to judge these facts in the right context? There is always a conflict of interests. In case of conflicting parties (f.e. activists versus chemical industry) who is telling the full truth and who provides desinformation packed in a truth? I like reading stories of Michael Grunwald for I can read, between the lines, that he can be quite persistent and critical. But he is one of the few with space to go in the deep. Most of the journalists however are swept up in a ratrace and don't get the time to get the facts in order. This besides the fact that some publishers/managing editors judge a story on 'what their readers want to read'. Journalists are in these cases the commercial (pr) tool of their employers. Independent - impartial - journalism is difficult nowadays (one of the reasons I quit the job 6 yrs ago); just look to the difference in 'critical' reporting about the war in Iraq between American and European media.
Ross Gelbspan is right in the sense that specialist PR people are nowadays making the headlines but only to rely on what mayor scientists are saying is also dangerous. For who are they working and where are they getting their additional income? Are they telling a truth packed in desinformation and to what degree can they afford to do so (they also have their critical opponents in their world and where are their commitments?)? Example: most of the forestanding scientists in the medical world have a relation with a pharmaceutical industry ....... The same applies more or less with scientists who deal, in one or another way, with environmental issues. This makes independent, impartial, environmental journalism even more difficult.
I might sound old fashioned but your own intuition is the best guide and always report 'on the spot' instead from behind the PC and telephone. Not very cost effective but for me it has always been the way to get a story right.

 

]]> Comment #5 by Compas http://www.grist.org/article/reporters/ Fri, 25 Aug 2006 03:34:08 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/reporters/5 Facts with Feeling

Effective stories, ones that people really connect with are more than just a collection of some facts, but rather the fleeting human element between the words.

I'm reminded of a talk that Bill Moyers gave at a meeting for journalists last year in Austin, where he related the story of a young environmental hero given short shrift in the media's account of his death.  It was an emotional moment, true to the power of a well-told environmental story.

]]> Facts with Feeling

Effective stories, ones that people really connect with are more than just a collection of some facts, but rather the fleeting human element between the words.

I'm reminded of a talk that Bill Moyers gave at a meeting for journalists last year in Austin, where he related the story of a young environmental hero given short shrift in the media's account of his death.  It was an emotional moment, true to the power of a well-told environmental story.

]]> Comment #6 by Marilyn http://www.grist.org/article/reporters/ Fri, 25 Aug 2006 04:10:35 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/reporters/6 Why do we care what line enviro journalists walk?

I've been chewing on this question intensely, since a colleague who also writes about environmental issues was interviewed for acceptance to UC Berkeley's journalism school. He was asked by a panel member who would decide his educational fate whether he could be objective when it came to reporting, given that he had worked for an environmental publication.

The interviewer told him that, given his work history, he would have difficulty finding a job--even if he got into this prestigious grad school--because he would be seen as an environmentalist.

A week or so later I saw "Big Coal" author Jeff Goodell speak on C-Span's BookTV. In the first three minutes he bent over backward telling his audience that he was "not an environmentalist," as though this gave his damning account of coal more street cred. He also said that he'd been asked by his editor at The New York Times Sunday Magazine to write a story on Appalachia and coal, which had inspired his book, BECAUSE he had no experience writing about the environment.

What in the world is going on here? Do business reporters have to prove that they are not pro-business before they get into grad school, or get hired to write about any subject at all? Would Forbes hire someone specifically because they had NOT covered business issues before? Business reporters simply don't have to engage in this navel gazing waste of time. We should be asking why environmental reporters do--not asking them to defend their reportage.

I find this entire conversation about "Walking the Line" when it comes to environmental coverage offensive. Further, this adherence by those interviewed in Grist  to "science-based reporting" as some sort of shield against subjectivity is, to my mind, simply ridiculous. Editors who assign stories are making subjective decisions about their merit. Any journalist who's honest with him or herself knows that a million bits of information come into play in a story and subjective decisions are made at all points about what merits attention. Why should we have to apologize or lie about our interest in or concern for environmental issues?

]]> Why do we care what line enviro journalists walk?

I've been chewing on this question intensely, since a colleague who also writes about environmental issues was interviewed for acceptance to UC Berkeley's journalism school. He was asked by a panel member who would decide his educational fate whether he could be objective when it came to reporting, given that he had worked for an environmental publication.

The interviewer told him that, given his work history, he would have difficulty finding a job--even if he got into this prestigious grad school--because he would be seen as an environmentalist.

A week or so later I saw "Big Coal" author Jeff Goodell speak on C-Span's BookTV. In the first three minutes he bent over backward telling his audience that he was "not an environmentalist," as though this gave his damning account of coal more street cred. He also said that he'd been asked by his editor at The New York Times Sunday Magazine to write a story on Appalachia and coal, which had inspired his book, BECAUSE he had no experience writing about the environment.

What in the world is going on here? Do business reporters have to prove that they are not pro-business before they get into grad school, or get hired to write about any subject at all? Would Forbes hire someone specifically because they had NOT covered business issues before? Business reporters simply don't have to engage in this navel gazing waste of time. We should be asking why environmental reporters do--not asking them to defend their reportage.

I find this entire conversation about "Walking the Line" when it comes to environmental coverage offensive. Further, this adherence by those interviewed in Grist  to "science-based reporting" as some sort of shield against subjectivity is, to my mind, simply ridiculous. Editors who assign stories are making subjective decisions about their merit. Any journalist who's honest with him or herself knows that a million bits of information come into play in a story and subjective decisions are made at all points about what merits attention. Why should we have to apologize or lie about our interest in or concern for environmental issues?

]]>