EW Home > Pre-2002 Back Issues > February 1999
Environment Writer Newsletter
February 1999

Scroll down for complete issue or use this menu:

Just Thinking ...
Pew-Funded Study May Offer Insights for Local TV E-Coverage
Just for Fun …
Brill’s Editorial Standards: A Measure for Environmental Reporting?
With Risk Management Plans Approaching, How Do You Find Your LEPC?
LEPC and RMP Information Key Contacts
Letter to the Editor: (1)
Letter to the Editor: (2)
Monthly Backgrounder — N-Butyl Alcohol (currently unavailable)

Just Thinking ...

Back to Top

Time comes now to recognize and appreciate, though not necessarily deify, those who reporters love to hate.

We’re talkin’ flacks here, yes. Get over it. But we’re talking more, too. We’re talking those whose responsibilities call for their arguing regularly for what most see as less environmental protection.

Be they flacks. Or be they industry or “think tank” public policy advocates and spokespersons. They are due their due. And fact is that they have one tough job, given the scheme of things.

Don’t get me wrong here. There are benefits and advantages, there always are. Job security, in all probability, may be one of them: Their clients, their employers, their benefactors, likely will always have a need for the perspective, for instance, that the public loves the environment … but ….

Here’s the thing: The public does love the environment. But ….

That alone doesn’t mean, you understand, that the public similarly holds sacred all that is done to protect the environment. Consider:

Poll after poll shows the public highly supportive of environmental protection efforts. That basic and longstanding finding has been an essential element in the long-lived political support for those efforts nationally and locally.

Things have gotten to the point that the real news would lie in a credible poll’s finding otherwise, not merely finding more of the same.

Most serious environment watchers recognized long ago that merely responding Yes to a motherhood and apple pie question about the environment doesn’t mean the respondents walk the way they talk.

But it all leaves some groups arguing, for instance, that Americans may love their environment … but they certainly don’t love the regulations and other means aimed at protecting it. Or the not insignificant costs involved.

They love their lakes and rivers and bays and fresh air and wildlife. But certainly not the accompanying restrictions on their own personal freedoms or “property rights,” or on their own free choices.

They love their parks and forests, but not the hassles and bureaucracies involved in managing them.

Added to the “Yes, but…” defenses there’s also, of course, the generic “Americans love, but they don’t really understand” defense.

It ain’t easy, you see, arguing against (or appearing to) an issue that is so much a part of the apple-pie fabric of contemporary society.

So be nice, today or at least soon, to those whose job has them making the “Yes, but…” response to the public’s self-professed environmentalism.

But, at the same time, keep your guard up against all those claiming to know, or to speak for, “the public” on such issues.

Writing in an entirely different context recently, Washington Post political reporter and columnist David Broder made an interesting point on the public’s mood towards the scandal du jour in Washington.

Writing of the American public’s support not for the environment, but for the President, Broder wrote: “As is almost always the case when large majorities of the public take a position and hold it over a long time – more than a year now – they have good reasons,” Broder opined.

A year? That’s a nanosecond compared to the “long time” Americans have been supporting their environment.

As good ‘ol Walter Cronkite might have said in signing-off: “And that’s the way it is.” And it is.

So you need not necessarily hug or even thank a flack. But you at least might wish one a nice day.

‘Quality Sells…’

Pew-Funded Study May Offer Insights for Local TV E-Coverage

Back to Top

Reporters covering environmental issues for local TV stations may find some support for their beat in a new study done by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

But to do so, they’ll likely have to read between the lines, combine the findings of the new study with other independent data, and determine to what extent a national perspective applies locally in their work.

“Quality, it turns out, sells,” says the report, which says it “soundly refutes the conventional wisdom that audiences will punish stations for producing quality local news.”

“The best stations as defined by local news professionals in the study were more likely to succeed commercially than fail,” write authors Tom Rosenstiel, Carl Gottlieb, and Lee Ann Brady.

The study does not suggest that only quality sells. On the contrary, “the study found that tabloid can sell too. The lowest-scoring stations were just as likely to succeed in the ratings as the best stations,” the authors write in the February issue of Columbia Journalism Review. “The stations least likely to be rising in ratings were those in the middle, which were often hybrids — part tabloids and part serious. This suggests that audiences are not schizophrenic — they are segmenting. There is a group that embraces news full of revelation, scandal, and celebrity. There is another group that prefers a more sober, information-based research.”

The study comes amidst continuing signs of lagging environmental coverage from many TV outlets despite continuing expressions of relatively high interest in environmental issues from the public at large. Some researchers point in particular to the “favorable demographics” of 25- to 49- year-olds’ expressing strong concerns over environmental problems. Though that age group is an attractive target for many advertisers, they point to a “disconnect” in terms of newsrooms’ interest in reporting substantively on environmental issues.

The Pew-funded study analyzed some 8,500 stories compromising more than 300 hours of broadcasting and drawn from 600 broadcasts.

The study pointed to “something of a formula for how to produce quality and succeed commercially”: stations “had it both ways” through better sourcing of stories, more enterprise, and more stories “about big ideas and issues” and involving “everyday people” through person-on-the-street and human interest stories.

The study “found no good news about politics and policy coverage, be it local or national …. At best, politics and political policy may have no effect on ratings.” It did say that stations covering policy and political issues fare best when they “anticipate governmental actions by laying out the issues before they get mired in legislative polemics.”

“The notion that people want shorter stories is a myth,” the study reported, a finding that may be as relevant to print as to broadcast reports on environmental issues. “Stations succeeding in ratings produced more long stories and fewer very short stories (under 20 seconds) than those dropping in ratings.”

“One big step that can improve quality — and ratings — is doing longer stories. Story length is the factor that affects quality more than any other.” The study found that the “best” stations had stories averaging 79 seconds, the “worst,” 48 seconds.

“Despite the good news,” the report cautioned, “the study found that most local newscasts are far from excellent. The general picture of local TV news is superficial and reactive — journalism on the run.” Nearly half of the broadcasts reviewed “were about commonplace events,” and “of those stories involving controversy, many (43%) gave only one side.”

The study found that big-city stations “overall” scored lower for quality than stations in medium-sized markets, perhaps because it examined the highest-rated half-hour time slot for news in each city, and that often turned out to be the late 11 p.m. news programs in the larger cities.

“The lower scores in big cities, however, may also reveal the difficulty of trying to cover a community in such diverse and geographically widespread areas as New York or Los Angeles.”

In outlining “approaches that work,” the study recommended, among other things, that news directors avoid sending a correspondent to cover a story “with the reminder, ‘give me the fear and loathing.’ In short, make it scary.” The study said successful stations do a better job of also “providing viewers with useful advice and coping strategies.” It suggested also that TV correspondents use numbers and data “to illustrate the scope of issues — and avoid scare tactics.” It reminded reporters that “sometimes you have to get out of town to better understand things back home,” comparing experiences in other communities.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism is a Washington, D.C.-based journalists group funded by Pew and affiliated with Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism.

Just for Fun …

Back to Top

There are countless editorial codes and policies, perhaps as many as there are editorial outlets.

So perhaps nothing makes the “What We Stand For” editorial of publishing magnate Steven Brill’s Brill’s Content stand out. Particularly for the audience of Environment Writer, you might say, since nothing from Brill applies exclusively (or even particularly) to environmental journalism.

Then again, it’s a new publication. One that promises to help drive a higher editorial standard for quality journalism. (NO! That is not an oxymoron.)

So … just for fun.

Okay … so you’re not the executive editor, maybe not an editor at all. And you don’t drive policies at your news organization, though you often may feel they are driving you.

So … just for fun. Take a look at the “What We Stand for” and corrections policy statements from Brill’s Journal (see below).

And indulge yourself: If there were an environmental journalism czar (Yiikes!) … and YOU were it (Kaplooie!), how might these approaches work for you? How, if at all, do they materially differ from what your newsroom already is doing? And how might you revise them to better serve environmental journalism specifically?

(For those wishing to do so, Environment Writer will follow-up next month with your responses to us at ehc@nsc.org. Responses from “working press” and journalism faculty members please.)

The Editors

Brill’s Editorial Standards: A Measure for Environmental Reporting?

Back to Top

Does your environmental coverage measure up to the editorial standards that Steven Brill’s Brill’s Content – The Independent Voice of the Information Age claims to apply to itself?

The new media watchdog magazine in its February 1999 issue publishes this to explain “what we stand for”:

1. ACCURACY: Brill’s Content is about all that purports to be nonfiction. So it should be no surprise that our first principle is that anything that purports to be nonfiction should be true. Which means it should be accurate in fact and in context.

2. LABELING AND SOURCING: Similarly, if a publisher is not certain that something is accurate, the publisher should either not publish it, or should make that uncertainty plain by clearly stating the source of the information and its possible limits and pitfalls. To take another example of making the quality of information clear, we believe that if unnamed sources must be used, they should be labeled in a way that sheds lights on the limits and biases of the information they offer.

3. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: We believe that the content of anything that sells itself as journalism should be free of any motive other than informing its consumers. In other words, it should not be motivated, for example, by the desire to curry favor with an advertiser or to advance a particular political interst.

4. ACCOUNTABILITY: We believe that journalists should hold themselves as accountable as any of the subjects they write about. They should be eager to receive complaints about their work, to investigate complaints diligently, and to correct mistakes of fact, context, and fairness prominently and clearly.

The monthly says its corrections policy calls for it to publish corrections “at least as prominently as the original mistake was published,” and it emphasizes that it is “eager to make corrections quickly and candidly.” Those critical of its work are appreciated, the pub says, even if the correction isn’t reflected in a letter to the editor but rather “on our own and in our own voice as soon as we are told about a mistake” and can confirm the correct information.

The magazine says it asterisks published letters to the editors that have been edited for space, and it places the full texts of such letters on its Web site (A HREF="http://www.brillscontent.com">http://www.brillscontent.com) and at its America Online site (keyword: brills).

With Risk Management Plans Approaching, How Do You Find Your LEPC?

Back to Top

Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) are critical to the risk management planning process now in the works, headed for EPA’s June 21, 1999, deadline. Because they serve as a primary link to right-to-know information and community action, LEPCs can use industry’s risk management plans (RMPs) to increase emergency preparedness and public understanding.

When facilities have completed their risk management plans and submitted them to the EPA, the plans are to be available to the public. According to EPA, “The information in the RMP will be very useful in furthering chemical safety at the local level and making the LEPC more visible in the community. By combining RMP information with EPCRA [Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know] data ... [an LEPC] can further enhance its role as a key player on issues that relate to the use of hazardous chemicals in the community.”

If that’s going to happen, journalists need to find their LEPCs. That may be easier in some areas than others.

There are approximately 2,800 LEPCs across the country. But not all are called LEPCs. Several LEPCs in Florida are housed within Regional Planning Councils. In Pennsylvania, LEPCs co-exist with a structure of Emergency Management Agencies.

On the Internet, LEPC/SERC Net [http://www.rtk.net/lepc] lists and offers links to the Web sites of 81 LEPCs in 29 states. It also offers a search [http://www.rtk.net/www/data/lepc.html] for the address and contact of a specific LEPC if it is not listed in the Web directory.

Here are the addresses of LEPCs which maintain Web sites, according to the Right-To-Know Network:

LEPC AND RMP INFORMATION: KEY CONTACTS

Back to Top

There are several ways to find your LEPC and to get information about EPA’s Risk Management Planning regulation, either on the Internet or by old-fashioned phone. LEPC Locators:

  • Right-to-Know Network’s LEPC/SERC Net: This Web site lists and links to Web sites of 81 LEPCs across the country. Phone: (202) 234-8494, URL: http://www.rtk.net/lepc
  • Right-to-Know Network’s LEPC Searchable Contact Database: This Web site finds an LEPC for a specific locality, and lists address, phone, and contact. Phone: (202) 234-8494, URL: http://www.rtk.net/www/data/lepc.html
  • EPA Regional Offices: EPA’s 10 Regional Offices can provide information about LEPCs.
  • Region 1 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont): 1 Congress Street, #1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023; (617) 918-1111; toll-free within New England, (888) 372-7341.
  • Region 2 (New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands): 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007; (212) 637-3000.
  • Region 3 (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia): 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029; (215) 814-5000; toll-free within the region, (800) 438-2474.
  • Region 4 (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee): Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-3104; (404) 562-9900.
  • Region 5 (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin): 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604; (312) 353-2000; toll-free within the region, (800) -621-8431.
  • Region 6 (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas): 1445 Ross Avenue, #1200, Dallas, TX 75202; (214) 665-2200; toll-free within the region, (800) 887-6063.
  • Region 7 (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska): 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101; (913) 551-7003; toll-free within the region, (800) 223-0425.
  • Region 8 (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming): 999 18th Street, #500, Denver, CO 80202-2466; (303) 312-6312; toll-free within the region, (800) 227-8917.
  • Region 9 (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa, and Guam): 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; (415) 744-1500.
  • Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington): 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; (206) 553-1200.
  • EPA’s Risk Management Planning information:
  • EPA’s Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office: http://www.epa.gov/swercepp/
  • EPA’s Right-to-Know Hotline: (800) 424-9346.
  • Environmental Health Center: Phone (202) 293-2270, URL: http://www.nsc.org/ehc.htm
  • National Safety Council’s CAMEO Crossroads Chemical Emergency Management Homepage: Phone (202) 293-2270, URL: http://www.nsc.org/xroads.htm
  • Right-to-Know Network: Phone: (202) 234-8494, URL: http://www.rtk.net

Letter to the Editor: (1)

Back to Top

I was very disappointed with your latest “Just Thinking” column in Environment Writer, in particular your treatment of the Detroit News coverage of environmental justice. Setting aside whether Editor & Publisher should promote ads on its front page the way it did, I think you are overly dismissive of Mastio’s work.

Do his exposes have any more edge than many of the pieces that you profile in the Reading Rack? You say the articles only “profess” to expose EPA shenanigans. Are you suggesting that the EPA didn’t deep-six its own reports that failed to show “environmental racism”? That the EPA didn’t bury inquiry results calling for dismissing certain environmental justice complaints? That it didn’t resist Congressional inquiries about these matters? That it didn’t fail to look at the demographics around the Select Steel plant before pushing ahead with its investigation? That the report allegedly showing that Select Steel would disproportionatly affect minorities wasn’t withdrawn because the researchers (unlike the folks at the Detroit News) failed to check the numbers? That a substantial percentage of the groups filing environmental justice complaints with the EPA are not also recipients of EPA funding?

Granted, it is extremely rare for environmental journalists to expose this sort of abuse within regulatory agencies these days. But this hardly means that EPA’s misconduct is merely “professed” or that such information must be relegated to the editoral pages. This is a hugely important and controversial issue, and yet only a handful of publications (Nation’s Business, Reason, Nat’l Journal, the Louisiana papers) have given it substantive coverage in recent months. I think this says more about the state of environmental journalism than it does about the quality of Mastio’s work.

It seems to me that what distinguishes Mastio from most environmental journalists is not that he writes with an edge. Rather, it's that he’s one of the few environmental writers that FAIR would not characterize as left of center. I can see no other reason why you would discount his work, while not showing similar skepticism for those who criticize EPA from another direction.

Sincerely,
Jonathan H. Adler
Senior Director of Environmental Policy
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Letter to the Editor: (1)

Back to Top

Gosh, you're right. I am guilty of having an edge.

I think it's wrong for government agencies to take taxpayer dollars to conduct research but scuttle the work when researchers reach the wrong conclusions. The EPA did that at least three times in relation to its environmental justice policies and I sure thought it was worth reporting.

I think it's wrong for government agencies to conduct civil rights investigations, but throw out the results of those investigations when they find someone not guilty. The EPA did that at least four times in its investigation of Michigan, Texas, and Georgia. I thought those state's citizens deserved to know the results of those investigations.

I am suspicious when a government agency pays out millions of dollars to local groups for "education and research" on environmental justice and then those very same groups start filing federal complaints based on their research. I get even more suspicious when the EPA then cites the existence of those complaints as the reason for its new rules.

And gosh, when the EPA hires an activists from an extreme environmental group with fake credentials to be an unbiased environmental justice investigator, I wonder about the EPA's commitment to fair administration of the law.

Boy, if some evil chemical company was doing the same kind of things, I am sure it would be front page news all over the country. I guess environmental reports should just let it slide when our friends at the EPA are doing it. You have my apologies for breaking the rules.

Sincerely,
David Mastio
Detroit News

Back to Top

Note: Formerly published by the National Safety Council. Reprinted with permission.

Pre-2002 Back Issues | 2002-Current Issue | EW Home | Comments

March 2005