Washington, D.C., is full not only of lawyers, but also of journalists. The Washington press corps, working "inside the beltway" and nearest the seat of government, might be expected to come up with the most and best coverage of national environmental issues.

That’s not always the case.

Journalists in "the Real America" lately have been challenging inside-the-beltway reporters as originators of nationally important environmental stories, a commentary, perhaps, on what passes for "national news."

This is not scientific, but anecdotal evidence often trumps hard data in the world of journalism, so let’s look at some examples.

One example was the proposed rule by EPA and the Corps of Engineers in January 2003 about the regulation of isolated wetlands -- in response to a Supreme Court decision in 2001 limiting application of the Clean Water Act's wetlands provisions. The Idaho Statesman and the Seattle Times both ran articles on the pending decision the week before it came down. The Los Angeles Times had covered it the week before that. The Washington Post and the New York Times did not cover the decision until after it had been made.

Of course this was "local" coverage only in the most limited sense. The January 7 Seattle Times piece was written by Seth Borenstein, who works out of the Knight Ridder's Washington bureau. The unsigned Statesman story was also datelined "Washington," and obviously a product of Gannett's bureau structure. Naturally, Washington bureaus of major chains package news for the state and regional markets of their client newspapers.

But the drive to find and explain the local impacts of federal government actions in this case actually motivated superior coverage. Coverage of government decisions before they are made (although in this case they may have been inevitable) is the only way the press can help the public participate meaningfully in the decisions of democratic government.

Perhaps the problem is that the "National News Hole" is only so big. CNN and MSNBC have only so many minutes for news, and even The New York Times and The Washington Post have only so many pages. There may be room for half a dozen or a dozen national stories a day -- while several dozens more are actually happening. Once most of that has been spent on … say … celebrity shoplifting trials, mysterious disappearances of individuals, and the inevitability of war on Iraq, there is little time and space left for other news.

-- "New Environment: Bush seeks to reshape laws of the land (and air)," Newsday, January 12, 2003, by Dan Fagin. Fagin went not to Washington but to Cortez, Colorado, to pursue the story of the Bush environmental agenda. One can find many of the issues there: federal land, grazing permits, drilling for energy resources, Bureau of Reclamation irrigation water, federal timber, and so on -- as well as the natural and cultural resources that many want to preserve. (Article no longer availabe via Newsday website.)

-- "Forest Service to review rents paid by ski resorts: MANY PAYING LOW FEES TO USE PUBLIC FORESTS," San Jose Mercury News, January 10, 2003, by Paul Rogers. After the U.S. Forest Service reported to Congress that it did not know whether it was getting fair market value for land rented to ritzy ski resorts, the Bush Administration announced it would spend two years investigating. The move came nine months after a Mercury News database investigation raised questions about rents paid by some 136 National Forest ski resorts from Vermont to California. Rogers has done similar work on federal grazing permits. See: http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/4915691.htm

-- "Bush opens up backcountry trails to vehicles: Rule change enrages some, who say wilderness areas would be damaged," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, January 1, 2003, by Robert McClure. McClure was one of the few to write about a Bush Administration gift to off-road vehicle enthusiasts, announced on Christmas Eve. Based on an 1866 mining law, the rule change would open to motorized traffic long-abandoned mining trails criss-crossing federal wilderness and national parks and also BLM land. It rolled back a Clinton Administration rule. While the rule would have major impact on Washington State, it would have equal or greater impact on many other western states. See: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/102348_roads01.shtml. Elizabeth Shogren of The Los Angeles Times did this story Dec. 24, 2002.

-- "Pollution rules bring lawsuit: Too easy on off-road vehicles, critics say," San Francisco Chronicle, January 8, 2003, by Jane Kay. This account of a legal challenge to the Bush EPA's rule on emissions from snowmobiles and other off-road vehicles is about an issue of national impact. The case was filed in the Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington by two environmental groups: Environmental Defense Fund and the Bluewater Network (which is located in San Francisco). See: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/01/08/BU173226.DTL.

-- "Project addresses pesticide risks among Kansas migrant workers," The Kansas City Star, January 23, 2003, by Mary Sanchez, tells of a local project, EPA-funded, that investigated the health impacts of pesticide exposures on migrant farm workers, many of them Hispanic. But it notes that 800-1,000 farm workers die each year from pesticide exposure, according to a 1997 report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Some 313,000 more may suffer pesticide-related illnesses annually, according to another report cited. Sanchez covers minority affairs for the Star. See: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/5008439.htm.