“. . .and then. . . they kill your dog”
What the mass media tell us about the environment
(and fail to tell us) and why:
A brief overview and history

“Tell it like it is,
without fear or favor.”
Michael Frome
Environmental journalist

Media FramingHow it affects what you know
Media framing theory:
Defines how issues or stories or persons are “packaged” so as to allow certain interpre-tations and rule out others, based on world view and other factors.
intentional or unintentional
unavoidable in human communication.
Examples in Environmental Media Coverage
Biosolids:
http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/3/359
Voyageurs National Park (and other issues)
http://www.environmentalframing.org/efc_main/p articipants.shtml
Population growth
http://dieoff.org/page118.htm

My Personal Favorite:Recycling (NYTimes headlines)
“Rewarding recyclers and finding gold in the garbage” (happy ending frame)
“Makers start bearing the cost of recycling TVs in Maine” (pro-business frame)
“Transfer stations in park raise doubts about city’s waste plan” (political frame)
“Aiming for a zero-energy home” (personal responsibility frame)
What’s out of the frame?
Full-cost pricing (What is the REAL cost of the raw materials that are considered waste and who pays for that cost?)
Why are landfills and garbage burning plants subsidized and recycling efforts are not or are subsidized half-heartedly?
Why can’t we legislate mandatory recycling efforts? Why aren’t current laws enforced?
Why is it that individual consumers are supposed to figure out what to do?
Some basics about mass media
Media are plural
News values:
Timeliness Unusualness
Proximity Conflict
Prominence Impact
The “5 Ws and H”: The News Questions
Who?
What?
Where?
When?
Why?
How?
Overview: 150 Years of Environmental Reporting
Walden (1854)
Muckrakers (1890-1910)
Silent Spring (1962)
Earth Day 1970 (emotion)
Reagan Years (1980s)
-- “voluntary compliance”
Earth Day 1990-optimism
Revisionism (90s)
Earth Day 2000 (realism?)


Focusing in on our century
1920sSocial science methods Applied to journalism
Objectivity
No human interest
1960s: Silent Spring
Thalidomide scare
Clean Air & Water Act
Social change
“New Journalism”
1970s
Emotional tie to nature
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Media hype
Public responsibility
Superfund cleanup
“Can-do” attitude

Recent History and Attitudes
1980s
“Morning in America”
EPA told to dismantle its own programs
Lobbyists write rules
Garbage barge looks for home (send it away)
George Bush vows to be environmental president
Exxon oil spill story wins Pulitzer Prize (1989)
Recent history
1990: Earth Day hyped
Optimism abounded
Personal responsibility
1991:
“Barely a flicker”
How do we feel? Good!



Backlash
Reporters harassed
Revisionist Reporting
No real problems
Environmental alarmists


Current State for Environmental Journalists
Professionalization
Graduate schools offer master’s degrees in environmental reporting
Society of Environmental Journalists (sej.org)
Respected science writers write as journalists
Best and worst reporting:
big, dramatic projects, but
Too little too late
Few regular beat reporters hired
Limited audience for alternative media sources
Last hired, first fired
Nonexistent at small, local media sources
Hostile editors and publishers
What’s Next? 2003 and beyond
Emphasis on environmental justice and democracy
Minorities
Poor individuals and countries
Worker and resource exploitation
Eco-terrorism watch
What’s Next? 2006 and beyond
Media frame the issues globally
Local reporters doing int’l stories
English as a world language
Issues more contentious
More grass-roots activism
More despair, but also more focused anger by activists
Current Criticisms of Media
Cover events, not trends
Cover stories as conflict, not as the search for truth
Unqualified reporters
Present all environmentalism as opinion or politics, not education or science
Overabundance of skepticism/cynicism
More Media Criticisms
Good reporters becoming “contrarian”
“Afghanistanism”: focusing on far away
“eco-journalism”: crisis reporting
Ignoring complexity & uncertainty
Too many officials/few citizens or scientists
Subtle risks not reported
Blurring of advocacy and objectivity
Media self-criticism by professional journalists
Forces in the field have intruded on the integrity of journalists’ domain
Impact of new technologies: 24 hr. news cycle
Push for market share: maximize profits
Retreat from in-depth coverage of serious stories
From Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics Meet, by Howard Gardner, et.al., Basic Books, 2001
What caused these mass media problems? Professionals theorize
The waning of family control: Mergers/buyouts
An insatiable quest for ever-higher profits
The diminishing returns of increased speed
Technology and short-range perspectives
“Pseudo-information” and a “bewildering barrage of facts” without context
Violation of the newsroom culture
No understanding of firewall between news/ads
Editors’ altered roles: money, not quality
Media names to know:Environmental Reporting
Tom Meersman, Star Tribune
Dennis Anderson, Star Tribune
Bill Moyers, PBS Television Reporter
Frontline, PBS Documentary series
Bemidji Pioneer? Sorry, nobody responsible
Northern Student? Sorry again
Society of Environmental Journalists (sej.org)

What can you do?
Respond to the media: criticize and praise
Bring issues to the attention of media
Understand how media work
Give up “whatever” attitude -- CARE
Understand media’s limitations
Media are plural, not singular
Different media have different roles
Suggested Improvements
The media must educate the public
Writers must educate editors & publishers
Scientists must work with the media
Scientists and journalists must advocate
Environmental groups must learn to use media effectively: be wise and assertive