The nice thing about a combined December-January issue: It allows, almost invites, you to think both ahead and back.

But. There’s a but here.

Cranky.

What if, as happens, the deadline nonetheless occurs when crankiness best describes your state of mind. As here. Perhaps it’s redundant, deadlines breeding crankiness, and vice versa.

Get over it.

One thinks back to a year in which journalism generally continued, from my perspective at least, to have more low than high points. I’m not talking just Monica here, nor would I. There’s more to the lows than that.

It was a year in which:

• We came to appreciate (?) sponsored environmental “news,” using the term loosely, in Time magazine compliments of Ford Motor Company. The alternative being virtually no environmental news at all in the nation’s largest news weekly, so who’s complaining and why, you might ask. Theory being, of course, that some coverage is better than virtually none, not that Time is alone in that respect.
• We came to find our weekly U.S. News &World Report regularly coming shrink-wrapped eight- to 16-page “special report” supplements brought to us compliments of something called Universal News Inc. The flyers, let’s call them somewhat generously, provided upbeat insights on, for instance, Suriname, Hong Kong, Turkey, South Africa, and Zambia. You with me so far? Each page with — let’s call it “editorial copy,” considerably more generously — bore a six-point caption: “This supplement has been produced by Universal News Inc. The editors of U.S. News & World Report did not participate in its preparation and bear no responsibility for its content.” No kidding!
• A year too in which the liberal media watchdog group, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, Inc., (FAIR) in New York, did a survey to support its clearly pre-ordained view of “the myth of the liberal media.” In its July/August issue of its publication Extra!, FAIR reported a “policy scorecard” professing to show issues on which the media are “to the left” or “to the right” of the public at large. On only one issue — you guessed it, environment — did the magazine report the media to be “to the left.” On eight other major policy areas, the group reported the media to be “to the right.” But what the Hey! It’s only one survey. Right?
• You expect more from the media’s own media. Right? For instance, you’d expect the highest standards of journalistic excellence from those pubs which themselves cover the media. Right? Explain, then, the Editor & Publisher cover of December 12, 1998.
  That’s the white-background cover with the bold yellow triangle in the upper right-hand corner and the teaser “EPA Rules Gone Awry.” Look more closely. Under that bold head, you find yourself being sent to a two-page spread not of news copy … but of a paid display ad. Specifically, it’s a Gannett ad boasting of a series of Detroit News exposes professing to expose shenanigans in EPA’s environmental justice policies, written by David Mastio of the News’ Washington, D.C., bureau. An interesting take on an important policy for sure, but one pretty clearly reported with an edge, a perspective perhaps better confined to the editorial pages or to a column. So … a news media pub’s hawking on its front cover a paid ad inside? Oh, well ….

None of which necessarily suggests that the year’s general press coverage across-the-board was deficient. It wasn’t, as surely you should know. There were high points too.

But not so many, one can hope, as there may be in the year ahead.

But let’s face it. At the beginning of this decade, there was talk, some serious talk, about environmental and natural resources issues’ being the hallmark of the 90s, “the story” of the 90s, some said half seriously. As we approach the end of the decade, few still maintain that, though there’s some talk now of environment’s being the defining story of, you got it, the next century.

Maybe. But maybe not. If it’s to be, journalism will have to do a better job ahead than it’s done in the recent past.

It’s time now to start, and none too soon.

Environmental journalists wanting an intellectual break from the newsroom have a choice of a range of upcoming fellowships and scholarships.

Former Washington Post science writer Boyce Rensberger is now directing the Knight Science Journalism Fellowships program at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Funded by the John S. & James L. Knight Foundation, the mid-year journalists’ program this year has no environmental journalists registered, but Rensberger says he is ecouraging applications.

The MIT program, which provides a $35,000 stipend, expects to award at least six fellowships for the 1999–2000 academic year.

Reporters and editors with at least three years experience in journalism “for the public” need to apply by March 1. Details are available at http://web.mit.edu/ksjf/www/, or by calling Rensberger at (617) 253-3442 (e-mail is boyce@mit.edu).

Across town, Harvard University is offering two environmental journalism Neiman fellowships for 1999–2000. Funded by the V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation, the environmental Nieman Fellows must be full-time or staff or freelance environmental journalists “working for the news or editorial department of newspapers, news services, radio, television, or magazines of broad public interest.” U.S. reporters with at least three years professional media experience and with their employer’s consent for an academic-year leave of absence must apply by January 31. For foreign journalists, the application deadline is March 1. Information on the fellowships is available from http://www.Nieman.harvard.edu/nieman.html or by e-mail from nieman@harvard.edu. Phone inquiries should be made to the Nieman Foundation program officer at (617) 495-2237.

The Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, is hosting its annual summer fellowship program for print and broadcast science journalists. The program offers reporters “a chance to forget about story deadlines and the latest breakthroughs, and instead immerse themselves in the process of basic biomedical and environmental research.” With a March 14 application deadline, the MBL program includes a week-long session of laboratory courses, with some reporters staying on for an additional three to seven weeks to do field research. The week-long program is scheduled from June 4 to June 12. At least one fellowship will be awarded to reporters to participate in Arctic ecosystems research on the North Slope of Alaska. For information on the MBL fellowships, contact Pamela Clapp Hinkle at pclapp@mbl.edu or by mail at 7 MBL Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1015.

Also in New England, the University of Rhode Island’s Graduate School of Oceanography is hosting the Metcalf Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting from May 22 to May 26. The program is aimed at “journalists working in all media who are beginning to specialize in environmental and marine reporting and want to learn about the science underlying marine and environmental topics.” Program sponsors say it “emphasizes the integration of science into public policy and the local community” through guest lectures and debates and panels involving “leading writers, scientists, and policy experts.”

The Metcalf Institute was established in 1997 with an endowment from A.H. Belo Corporation, owner of the Dallas Morning News and parent company of the Providence Journal; the Providence Journal Company, and The Washington Post’s Philip Graham Foundation. The deadline for applications is February 1. Information on the Metcalf Institute workship is available online at http://www.gso.uri.edu/metcalf or by e-mail to jack@gso.uri.edu. Telephone inquiries can be made to Jackleen de La Harpe, Metcalf Institute executive director, at (401) 874-6499.

In addition to the New England-based fellowships and scholarships, the University of Colorado’s Ted Scripps Fellowships in Environmental Journalism is also accepting applications until March 1. Five full-time U.S. journalists will be chosen for the 1999–2000 academic year in Boulder. Applicants, who need not have prior experience covering the environment, will receive a $28,000 stipend for the nine-month program starting in mid-August.

Information on the Boulder program, which is funded by the Scripps Howard Foundation Ted Scripps Memorial Fund, is available online from the university’s Center for Environmental Journalism at http://campuspress.colorado.edu/cej.html or by e-mail at cej@stripe.colorado.edu.

A different kind of journalism training program — and one that has attracted some criticisms from some working reporters — is a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit group’s “Environmental Journalism Academy.”

Run by the Center for Environmental Citizenship, the program seeks to “provide the skills and training student journalists need to start covering environmental issues.” The group recently advertised for a “low $20s” recruitment director to help recruit young journalists for its new “National Environmental Wire for Students.”

With a goal of increasing campus media’s coverage of environmental issues and with links to other activist “green” activities, the group is seen by some reporters more as an advocacy than as a journalism organization. Information is available by contacting Britney Bartlett at (202) 234-5993 (e-mail is campusnews@msn.com).

PBS Station Discusses ‘the Beat’

Picture seven of your peers — environmental journalists and educators — seated before a potted plant for a full hour of gripping (?) television on the practice of environmental journalism.

Not your notion of prime-time sweeps-week fare? In this era of declining media attention on substantive environmental issues, let alone on the journalism thereof, take what you can get!

And, now, you can get it indeed, for it actually exists.

WTCI-TV 45 in Chattanooga, a Public Broadcasting Service station, last October aired the talking-heads and moderator “documentary” as “The Environment: A Discussion with the Journalists.”

Underwritten by DuPont Company’s Chattanooga plant, by McKie Foods (the makers of “Little Debbie” snack foods), and by Colonial Pipeline Company (“dedicated to protecting the public and the environment”), the piece was aired during the Society of Environmental Journalists’ (SEJ) annual meeting in Chattanooga. It featured an otherwise unidentified moderator (“Dr. Jim Catanzaro”) posing questions to the seven guests, in Chattanooga for the SEJ meeting.

The reporters participating in the one-hour presentation will be familiar to many who have watched and worked with SEJ over the years or followed environmental reporting generally: Jim Detjen of Michigan State University, SEJ’s founding president; Bob Thomas of Loyola University in New Orleans; Steve Curwood of NPR’s “Living on Earth”; Barbara Pyle of CNN in Atlanta; Mark Schleiffstein of the Times Picayune in New Orleans; freelance reporter Angela Swafford; and David Ropeik of WCVB-TV in Boston.

The moderator opened the discussion by asking the group if environmental reporters are in effect environmentalists. Detjen initially replied “Not necessarily so,” and the group went on generally to point out that the most conscientious environmental reporters, like political reporters or religious reporters, keep their private views out of their news judgments. The reporters by and large rejected implications that environmental news coverage is tainted by a pro-environment tilt, at one point rejecting the moderator’s implication that reporters have to “juice-up” environmental reporting to nudge it from the back to the front pages.

Curwood explained at one point that responsible journalists should not merely parrot claims that “two plus two equals five” when common sense and other criteria are compelling to the contrary. When the host suggested that such a journalistic approach “takes you back to advocacy,” Curwood and the others — generally speaking in the context of global climate change — explained the journalistic responsibility to be open-minded and dogged in pursuit of accuracy and “truth.”

Much of the one-hour discussion in fact focused fairly heavily on climate change and global warming, and the reporters by and large said they believe the preponderance of scientific evidence in fact points to causes for legitimate concern. They panned “disinformation campaigns” from some business interests suggesting otherwise.

Even Pyle — widely recognized as being among the broadcast personalities most closely identified with an environmentalist and activist approach to her work — was relatively restrained in her remarks. Pyle’s own two-sided business card identifies her as “Environmental Editor” with CNN, a Time Warner Company, on one side, and as “Vice President, Environmental Policy, Turner Environment Division” with TBS Superstation on the other. Critics of traditional “observe or participate, not both, journalism” balk at such a two-faced distinction.

Asked by the program’s host if environmental activists do themselves harm by coming across in the media as being throwbacks “to the late 60’s … clamoring for change almost irrationally,” the reporters acknowledged that those screaming loudest often get the easiest media exposure.

“You hear the most strident voices in many cases,” Ropeik acknowledged, urging reporters to do better in dealing with this problem. “If there’s no conflict, there’s no story,” Pyle agreed.

While the program itself dealt with environmental journalism, one wrinkle toward the end suggests that the program’s producers themselves might have been more astute: In recommending sources of additional information, “The Journalists” identified three “environmental organizations”: SEJ, EPA’s “CLU-IN” home page, and “Greenpeace U.S.” (correct name is Greenpeace USA). That kind of listing won’t help SEJ in its efforts to distinguish itself as an organization of journalists — not of activists or, for that matter, civil servants.

Oh well.

Single copies of the video, which some might find a useful resource in journalism education classes, are available for $35 from WTCI Video Services, 4411 Amnicola Hwy., Chattanooga, TN 47406. Phone is (423) 629-0045; on the World Wide Web is www://wtci-TV45-TV45.com.

The Radio and Television News Directors Foundation (RTNDF), an educational organization for news professionals and journalism students, is looking for a writer who is familiar with the myriad of environment issues involved in land use and urban sprawl. The job requires a writer to develop a Resource Guide for Journalists on land use issues that would include background information, a complete list of national and some local key contacts on these issues, lists of story ideas, and a glossary of terms.

The national audience for this publication is broadcast environmental, business, and general assignment journalists. RTNDF is looking to have a final product by late spring.

Qualified applicants will have knowledge or background in broadcast journalism and experience in covering land use stories. Fees negotiable. Please call or e-mail Colony Brown at (202) 467-5217, colonyb@rtndf.org.

The first rule about 1999 is to call it 1999: because of the Y2K problem, two-digit references to years are now unacceptable, warns the World Future Society. The second rule is to remember the acronyms of the environmental issues that will be important in 1999, including SUVs, CAFOs, RMPs, USTs, NOS, and Y2K.

Some of those key environmental issues include:

• Determining the future of SUVs: Sport utility vehicles, once the domain of people who lived in the mountains, are now everyday vehicles for people who commute, carpool to soccer games, and shop. Last year saw sales of SUVs, minivans, and pickups (the category called “light trucks) exceed those of passenger cars, despite their low fuel economy, high pollution emission rates, and safety hazard to other vehicles. But the California Air Resources Board last November approved new automobile emission standards that will require SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks up to 8,500 pounds to reduce their emissions to passenger car levels by 2007. The implications are national: EPA, which is in the process of drafting Tier 2 vehicle emission standards under the Clean Air Act, has been waiting for the California precedent.

  “An agency official said that EPA had not yet made any decisions and would evaluate whatever California did,” wrote The New York Times in November. “EPA has been following California’s lead in a series of automobile emissions reductions for more than 25 years.”

  Other issues being considered in the drafting of Tier 2 standards are sulfur levels in gasoline, emission standards for diesel engines, and the availability of advanced technology and low-emission vehicles.

• Cleaning up CAFOs: EPA and USDA last fall proposed a strategy to clean up concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), also called factory farms. Of the country’s 450,000 animal feeding operations, about 6,600 are large operations with more than 1,000 animals. The pollution, odors, and damage to natural resources caused by these huge operations have been well documented, and voters in Colorado and South Dakota last November approved restrictions on large hog operations in their states.

  Public comments on the draft plan are being accepted through January 19, and EPA expects to release the final strategy this spring.

• Releasing RMPs: By June 21, 66,000 facilities must develop and file with EPA a risk management program (RMP) for their chemicals that incorporates a hazard assessment, a prevention program, and an emergency response program. A summary of each program, called a risk management plan, will be available on the Internet, but without its worst-case scenario data (see EW, November 1998). Part of the “off-site consequence analysis,” worst-case scenario data are being withheld from the Internet because of national security concerns that terrorists with laptop computers could plan deadly attacks by targeting the most vulnerable industrial sites.

  EPA has stated that off-site consequence analysis will be publicly available, but has not yet worked out a way to distribute this information publicly without being on the Internet. It is expected to announce that plan before June.

• Complying with UST regulations: Abandoning the acronym for leaking underground storage tanks (LUST), EPA set a December 22, 1998, deadline for compliance with underground storage tank (UST) regulations that required the upgrading or replacement of underground tanks more than 10 years old. Owners who are not complying now face penalties of up to $11,000 a day per tank, in addition to cleanup costs. But EPA announced last month that it will not focus its inspection efforts on small, independent gas stations, essentially giving them a six-month extension on complying with the regulations.

• Trying again with NOS: The first draft of USDA’s National Organic Standards (NOS), released in late 1997, were blasted by thousands of public commenters who strongly objected to three proposals: permitting the use of irradiation on organic food, allowing genetically altered food to be labeled organic, and allowing sewage sludge to be used as fertilizer. Last May, USDA backed off on all three issues and said the revised proposal would “contain fundamental changes from our initial draft.” That revised proposal is due in early 1999.

• Preparing for Y2K: How big an environmental story will Y2K be? Of course, the first question really is, how big a bug will Y2K actually turn out to be? Possible crashes include the electricity grid, transportation systems, water and sewer systems, chemical safety and protection infrastructure, the flow of information from federal and state governments, cell phones, modems, and environmental reporters’ computers and reporting systems.

• Warming up: Research announced last month found that the planet is its warmest in 1,200 years. “New research that documents climate change as far back as the Holy Roman Empire is strengthening the argument that humans are partly responsible for the rising temperatures,” wrote The Washington Post. September 1998 was the hottest September on record nationwide, marking nine consecutive months of record heat in the United States. If the warm-up escalates throughout 1999, will it be linked to pollution or natural cycles?

• Assessing Kyoto: The Kyoto Protocol remains on the agenda, both nationwide and around the world, working its way into every story about rising temperatures. Though the United States signed the treaty last year and progress was made by negotiators in Buenos Aires last year, Senate and industry opposition to the treaty continue to be strong.

  “Buenos Aires made clear, they [treaty supporters] said, that both industry and developing countries were becoming more engaged in the effort to control emissions and in trying to make the Kyoto Protocol eventually work,” wrote The New York Times in November. “Many businesses have abandoned a posture of hard opposition to emissions reduction in favor of being actively constructive ... But Mr. [Stuart] Eizenstat pointed out there was still considerable opposition to the Kyoto Protocol in the ranks of industry .... In general, the fossil-fuel industry and conservative American politicians continue to portray the protocol as a misbegotten instrument that will not work and will be too costly to the American economy.”

  After declaring success in Buenos Aires, the Clinton Administration may move into higher gear to start implementing the protocol, to the degree that Congress allows.

• Counting smog alerts: Smog alerts, “code red” days, and ozone alert days were more frequent than they should have been during last summer’s milder-than-usual dog days. As cities try to comply with the new standards for ozone and particulate matter, smog alerts may become even more prevalent. If temperatures continue to rise, and American drivers continue to drive more (and in vehicles that pollute more), the summer of 1999 could be full of bad air days.
• Launching “enlibra:” Western governors last month launched a dispute resolution concept called “enlibra,” which The Washington Post said was “envisioned as a way for polarized environmental adversaries to find common ground in a ‘shared doctrine’ based on collaboration, local decision-making and an emphasis on free-market incentives rather than dictatorial government regulations.” Since environmentalists fear the negotiating tactic is a way around environmental regulations and litigation, the idea may not fly as swiftly as proponents would like.
• Zapping Zambonis®: In 1999, beware of the Zamboni®, which cleans and smooths the surface of ice rinks between figure skating lessons, hockey games, and family skating on Sunday afternoons. Indoor rinks cleaned by Zambonis® may have high levels of nitrogen dioxide from the machine’s emissions, Time reported. “The gas can cause chest tightening, difficulty breathing, and exacerbate asthma. Look for rinks that are well ventilated — or those cleaned with electricity-powered Zambonis®,” it said.

Environment Writer incorrectly reported in the November issue that in the November 3 election, the Georgia referendum question #1 creating the Land, Water, Wildlife, and Recreation Heritage Fund passed. It in fact failed, but was incorrectly reported by Americans for the Environment to have passed. Thanks to Peter Dykstra of CNN’s Environmental Unit for pointing out our error.

The World Future Society may have its hands full with the Year 2000, bugs and all — but it continues to forecast the future in another areas, including the environment. Outlook 1999 is a collection of “the most stimulating ideas and predictions” forecasts that have appeared in the Society’s magazine, The Futurist, in the past year.

“These forecasts are NOT those deemed most likely to prove accurate, but rather those considered the most thought provoking,” the publication states. “We hope these forecasts will help stimulate your thinking about both the problems and the opportunities ahead.”

Those forecasts include the following:

• Future cities may be redesigned to reduce people’s reliance on cars. “Transit villages” will build housing, entertainment, shopping, and parking facilities near train, bus, and subway stations so that residents can walk or use public transportation wherever they need to go.
• As China’s demand for automobiles increases, the country may avoid environmental problems by leapfrogging the combustion engine. By 2005, many cars will be fueled by electricity or by gas-electric hybrid systems; cars will then gradually move to hydrogen fuel cells, allowing the Chinese masses to get the cars they want without the pollution.
• Hydrogen will become competitive with oil as a fuel in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Experimental vehicles have demonstrated high fuel efficiency and reduced emissions.
• Solar and wind power are gaining popularity as an alternative to fossil fuels. Wind power is now a $2-billion-a-year business, expanding at a rate of 25 percent a year. Solar power is the second-fastest-growing energy source, and costs per kilowatt are expected to continue falling — from $70,000 in the 1970s to $4,000 in 1997 and $1,000 in 10 years.
• Automated highways and cars will reduce congestion, allowing 10 times as many vehicles in computer-controlled chains to travel in a lane.
• Growing more trees and green cover to cast shade on buildings could help cities lower their energy costs. Many urban areas experience heat islands — bubbles of hot air over asphalt and concrete. Future city planners may incorporate more greenery into plans for new or refurbished buildings and streets, thus enabling cities to stay cooler, reduce power consumption, save money, and improve air quality.
• Food production will increase because of genetic engineering. Crops will be created to meet the specific needs of consumers and farmers. New varieties of crops such as wheat can increase yields by as much as 50 percent.
• More seafood will be produced without the sea. Aquaculture is accelerating around the world: Nearly 40 percent of salmon marketed today are raised in captivity, up from 6 percent a decade ago; 40 percent of all clams, oysters, and mussels are produced on farms, along with 65 percent of freshwater fish.
• If medical technology postpones the natural deaths of hundreds of millions of people, overpopulation will greatly surpass even the most dire predictions. The environment will likely suffer from the added burden of people, as pollution increases and resources are depleted more rapidly.

As for Y2K, Outlook 1999’s outlook is grim: worst-case scenarios include “food shortages, defaulted loans, deaths due to unavailable medicines and lifesaving devices, and crime waves as people panic and jailed criminals are mistakenly released .... Y2K may also contribute to panic selling in global stock markets, spawning a crash. Compounded by other problems, such as Europe’s conversion to a single currency and Asia’s continuing economic woes, the millennium bug could trigger a significant economic shock.”

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