by Jackleen de La Harpe

Consolidation of the media, entertainment trumping content, declining readership, politicized science, spin, and thinning news content -- these are a few of the concerns that a group of journalists and scientists met to discuss in Seattle in November 2004 as part of a series of national workshops aimed at better communicating climate change to the public.

Twenty reporters, editors, and researchers convened for two days to take a hard look at the state of science and environmental news coverage, specifically climate change, and what can be done to strengthen communication between scientists and journalists. This NSF-funded workshop, sponsored by the Metcalf Institute, entitled Science Communication and the News Media: A Journalists/Scientists Dialogue, is the third in a series of workshops that have been held at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the University of Rhode Island. Here is a brief overview of some of the comments and perspectives presented by participants and speakers.

Regardless of how the news media are perceived, there is no question of the critical and essential role it plays in society -- the public learns much of what it knows about science and environment through the media -- principally from television news (80%), but also from newspapers (50%), the Internet (20%) and radio (18%). Mainstream news circulation has declined, the quality of news is thinning, and credibility in the news is declining in daily newspapers and major television networks, according to a Pew Research Center 2002 report. In television news, this is attributed to fewer news correspondents, increased workloads, and staff cuts. As environmental issues have become more complex, they are considered harder and "riskier" to cover on television. Environmental news has another obstacle to overcome -- according to television news directors, it is considered part of a "liberal agenda." This perspective, compounded by limited access to information following the September 11 terrorist attack and a shrinking news hole, has resulted in poor coverage of the environment by television.

At the same time, the public's interest in environmental news is high and the media landscape is shifting. Public radio audiences have doubled in the past decade, Hispanic news circulation has tripled, alternative news has doubled, and online media, with more than 150 million readers, is flourishing. As well, environment and science journalists are better educated and professional societies that focus on environmental news are growing.

It's all profit driven, was Frank Blethen's description of the state of the media. As publisher of the 106-year-old family-owned daily paper, The Seattle Times, he speaks regularly against the profit-driven atmosphere of the media. Blethen's own company (he is also president of the Blethen Corporation) is fending off a possible purchase by the Hearst Corporation. The Seattle Times is one of only 250 independent papers left in the US -- the remaining 80 percent, said Blethen, are controlled by media conglomerates.

"Eighty percent of my counterparts are low-level bankers for Wall Street," he said. Pointing to what he described as unsustainable profit margins in newspapers (20% to 30%) and television, Blethen said this kind of profit is generated by cuts in news content, staffing and service, and a continual disinvestment in the newspaper business that will result in lost reader base, followed closely by a lost subscriber base. Corporate ownership of the media has become monolithic, he said. In 1980, there were 30 companies that owned the majority of American media; today, there are just five. The Center for Public Integrity reported that since 1998, the broadcast lobby has spent $1.1 billion -- and in one year, reportedly spent $2.8 million -- strictly on travel and gifts for the FCC. This, he said, translates into stories that go unreported because of their potential impact on the corporation's interests and a disinvestment in complex news and controversy. Corporatization of the news is itself an example of unreported news. Blethen said that fortunately, there is a grass roots awakening based on the idea that if someone else's voice is silenced, it's only a matter of time until it's your own. Blethen asks the board that governs the family-owned newspapers to remember these rules -- pay attention to the environment, pay attention to inclusiveness (racial, cultural, gender, and lifestyle), and support media diversity and variety of ownership. The Hearst Corporation and The Seattle Times are currently in litigation concerning the Joint Operating Agreement between The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and The Seattle Times.

How did a notoriously difficult news story, climate change, land on the cover of Business Week -- and according to its chief writer and architect, John Carey, become a story "that has had more impact than anything I've done." Carey covered climate change in Business Week by recasting the common approach of the scientist-versus-skeptic and avoided scientific "controversy" by instead focusing on how the world will change, what policies will address those changes and, irrespective of continued controversy, how business is reacting to global warming. The science was somewhat secondary, he said. Instead it was policy that was the hook and how it "was changing in response to science," how policies are becoming institutionalized and why. The cover story was effective because he worked to convince his editors of the importance of the story. And there was good luck, timing, and Hollywood. At the time Business Week went to press, the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" premiered and academic institutions encouraged their scientists to speak publicly about climate change. And then there is the competition. Carey noted that residual anxieties among his editors about the focus of his cover story were eased a few weeks later when The Wall Street Journal published a similar piece for page one on businesses moving ahead on the issue.

"Men discuss, nature acts." Voltaire

We are already in a regime of climate change -- ecologists understand that the global economy is a "wholly owned subsidiary of global ecology," said Richard Gammon. He advised scientists dealing with the media to establish credibility with the press -- their right to speak on an issue. He also said they should be clear about who is paying for their research. Gammon advised journalists to read the abstracts in professional journals, not an interpretation of an abstract, and to remember that science is essentially self-correcting on its own timescale. In addition, journalists must remember that science is not about belief -- journalists should differentiate between the phrase "most scientists believe" (incorrect) and "most scientists are convinced" (correct). Scientists need to be clear when they are speaking about whether they are talking about their personal opinions or their research results. Journalists should also think about how to make credible science carry more weight -- this might be done by linking climate change to an issue such as drought.

Ratings are television. Pressure to increase revenue while decreasing costs is "what's responsible for the decline of environmental reporting in television," said Scott Miller, a former environmental reporter for KING-TV in Seattle. The business of television affects news decisions -- it's a business-driven world that has eliminated documentaries and specialty beats of any kind (except health) in order to save money, he said. In addition, television stations have chosen to increase revenue by increasing the news hole but haven't hired extra people, so the same number of reporters are filling double the news time. Television recognizes its niche, said Miller: It is good at immediacy, but not necessarily analysis. As an immediate medium, television doesn't cover "two days after tomorrow," choices that people can make or meaningful solutions. There are two areas where viewers are consistently underserved, he said -- education and environment -- but environmental protection, he insisted, has a lot of traction -- no one objects to clean air, clean water, or sitting under a tree. It's important, said Miller, that reporters work to make global stories local, so that people have a sense of empowerment -- otherwise, they get discouraged. The impact of climate change is an important story, but not the whole story. There is no doubt that it is tough to get editors interested in these stories -- there is a lot of inertia in journalism, he said.

The pressures and constraints in daily journalism, Doughton said, are akin to those facing a scientist writing a grant proposal every day -- on deadline. Beyond deadlines and working hard to be accurate, Doughton explained other issues about getting a science story into the newspaper. The story needs to be "pitched" by a reporter who understands that a naysayer in the newsroom can kill the idea. The more relevant a story, the better chance it has of being published. Editors in a daily news meeting advocate for stories, but they are also possibly the least informed or comfortable (or interested) in science. (Doughton noted that she is one of the few people in the newsroom who can calculate percentages.) Educating editors is important, as they hold the key as the gatekeepers of the news. Journalists who are more grounded in environmental reporting could make a big difference in environmental coverage.

To learn more about what this group and 40 other prominent scientists and journalists have said about how scientists and journalists can work together to improve and increase reporting on environment and climate change, visit the Metcalf Institute website (publisher of this newsletter). Learn more about this project in the "Also see" listing at the top of this webpage. The NSF-sponsored workshops will continue at other universities around the country and will culminate in a report that describes the outcomes and recommendations of this distinguished group.