More EW Q&As
Marla Cone
Osha Gray Davidson
Jim Detjen
Douglas Fischer
Amanda Griscom Little
Pete Myers
Craig Pittman & Matthew Waite
Ken Ward

Also see:
2002-Current Issue
Pre-2002 Back Issues
Article Archive
Journalists' Library

While a director of the now-defunct W. Alton Jones Foundation from 1990-2001, he helped fund the Society of Environmental Journalists. He was also the co-author, with scientist Theo Colborn and journalist Dianne Dumanoski, of Our Stolen Future, about endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Myers responded to emailed questions from Environment Writer's Bill Dawson regarding the impressions about environmental journalism he has gathered while producing EHN.

You've been producing Environmental Health News for more than three years now, providing users an incredible range of news coverage. Is there one predominant aspect of the coverage you've seen that has surprised or impressed you during that time?

When I started EHN, I expected we'd be lucky to encounter 30 or 40 stories on any given day. We average over 140 articles per day now and occasionally have exceeded 300. Admittedly not all of them are of the same importance, but what I've learned through this experience is that every day, 365 days per year, quality reporting is being published about environment and health, and lots of it – in local, regional and national outlets, on every continent except Antarctica. If you limit your reading to one or two of the media outlets plus your local paper, you miss most of what is out there. We're trying through EHN to make it easier for our subscribers and visitors to find the stories they need.

Are there particular subjects or issues that you've noticed receiving increasing or decreasing attention? If so, what do you think the reasons were?

We've seen surges in interest driven by events. Katrina, bird flu spreading, Mad Cow cases, refinery explosions, chlorine-transporting train derailments, etc. None of that is a surprise.

We have noted four larger trends that go beyond specific events.

Since last year's hurricane season, the amount of climate change coverage has increased and its tone has changed from a "he-said, she said" depiction of the science to one that, for the most part, accepts that climate change is happening and that it is caused by human activity. Clearly Katrina contributed to these changes, but it has also been driven by a series of stunning scientific papers that have raised the plausibility of links between hurricane strength and climate change, revealed much more rapid change in the Arctic and Antarctic than anticipated, and shown that large changes in ocean circulation are underway. We've also seen increasing numbers of stories in which local/regionally based reporters are writing about the impact of climate change on their local environment. Scientifically these wouldn't have been very credible until the last few years.

Related to that, the numbers of stories about energy have increased hugely, on renewables, coal, natural gas drilling controversies in the West, whether nuclear is about to enter a renaissance, and how other economies, like China, are dealing with the environmental and social consequences of obtaining and using energy. Much of this is clearly driven by rising oil prices and the search for alternatives, coupled with the implications of energy use for climate change.

We've also seen growth in coverage of the human health impacts of environmental contaminants. There appear to be several drivers here, the most important of which is increased scientific findings on the effects of low level exposures to "new" contaminants like bisphenol A, phthalates, brominated flame retardants and perfluorinated compounds (often related to Teflon®). The NGO community has played a role too, particularly through publication of "body burden" studies that take advantage of advances in analytical chemistry allowing direct measurements of contaminants in people.

Lastly – and mostly at the local level – water quantity stories are increasing. Some of these involve variations on classic western water war issues, with the new twist of what climate change may do to impact supplies. But I've been struck by the number of eastern towns and cities reporting shortages, and local political fights over how to fix them. While these are partly driven by episodic drought, they also appear to be the result of growth running up against water supply systems that haven't kept pace, with the growth not only increasing need but also decreasing options. I'm waiting to see someone knit all this together into a national story.

Have you noticed trends in the types of coverage being produced? For example, have you seen an increase or decrease in major investigations or other in-depth projects?

One certain change has been the emergence of multi-media projects, for example, the Record of Bergen County's superb (and impactful) story about Ford Motor Company's pollution of Ringwood, NJ, and the Oakland Tribune's coverage of human body burden.

While it feels as if there has been an increase in major investigations, I know that we've gotten better at finding them, and reporters are much more likely now to give us a heads-up that they're coming. So I'm not confident about trends. It is very clear, however, that national to regional to local newspapers are allocating significant resources to major projects. Never enough, of course, but within the last year I've seen not just the two above but also big series in The Wall Street Journal on toxic traces, the Toronto Globe and Mail on emerging contaminants, the Eugene Register-Guard on the aftermath of hard-rock mining, lead poisoning by the Cincinnati Enquirer and the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, climate by the San Francisco Chronicle and the Louisville Courier-Journal, chemical security on trains by the Riverside Press-Enterprise, an ongoing series in the Sacramento Bee about levee security; Associated Press on pollution hitting minorities, and the Orlando Sentinel on the "battered Gulf." And then there's the New Orleans Times-Picayune's ongoing coverage of the aftermath of Katrina. These are only a few.

EHN seems to have broadened its scope, collecting and highlighting coverage on a broader array of topics. Is this correct? If so, what's the reason?

We have. In large part this has been a resource issue. I've always wanted to cover "environment and health, writ large," but like everyone else we're resource-constrained. So as resources have allowed we’ve expanded into new areas.

Are there some issues or types of coverage that you would personally like to see journalists undertake more of?

First and foremost, there is an unending stream of new scientific discoveries in research on impacts of the environment and health. This is particularly true in the area of epigenetics – how environmental factors alter the behavior of genes and thus influence health. While most people react to these stories initially with dismay, because collectively they indicate our current health standards are not sufficiently protective, the upside is that they are suggesting that many more adverse human health conditions may be preventable than science would have suggested just 10 years ago. That, in combination with growing efforts by "green chemists" to design chemicals using criteria from environmental health research, may make profound contributions to public health.

Another theme that needs more attention: A small number of reporters have done superb investigative work, digging into ways that agencies and others have distorted scientific results, often to stave-off regulation. My sense is that there is much more to tell.

And water, not just the theme mentioned above but also what happens on the downstream side. Community after community is facing the need to repair, upgrade and extend sewage pipes and facilities decades old, at a time when the public treasury is ever more spare. Over the past three years there's been good coverage in Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Sacramento and elsewhere, but this story is far more widespread.

Describe the trends in your readership. More visits to your website? More subscribers to "Above the Fold," your daily email news update? More syndication agreements?

Up. We've never aggressively promoted "Above The Fold," because until recently we were concerned about having still-in-development software be overwhelmed, but readership has grown steadily. Our biggest distribution is through RSS feeds, with at least 70 sites taking news feeds from us. We estimate that the combination of direct visitors to our site, "Above the Fold" and especially the feeds, our top headlines are seen by well over one million people a month.

Any big changes or other notable developments in store for the service?

We're about to hire a science writer to help increase the flow of "new science" stories. We've just started work on a redesign of the user interface for EHN. And finally we're fully confident that our website can handle a lot more traffic without being overwhelmed, so we're going to be promoting it more widely and visibly.