An Ecology of Journalism
Questions for Grantham Prize/Metcalf Institute from Frank Mullin and Ashley Mercado at The Agenda. November 15, 2006.
Answered by Sunshine Menezes, Ph.D.; Executive Director of the Metcalf Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting, based at the URI Graduate School of Oceanography.
Can you talk about the importance of the relationship between scientific researchers and environmental journalists in clarifying a message to the public?
As an oceanographer by training, I know first-hand how difficult it is for many scientists to communicate their research in a clear, understandable fashion. Although the scientific community has placed an increased priority on effective communication of its research in recent years, many scientists still struggle with this. There is also a concern among researchers that they will be misquoted or misinterpreted by journalists, thereby discrediting their research or reputation. Meanwhile, journalists are often left feeling that scientists give ambiguous answers or use so much jargon that it is impossible for a non-scientist to understand the point, forcing the reporter to come up with a more accessible explanation of the science. These are all valid concerns.
So, you can see that it is really critical to improve the communication between journalists and scientists. The Metcalf Institute was created to address this need. We seek to improve the clarity and accuracy of environmental reporting through science training opportunities for journalists. We hold an annual workshop that gives journalists a hands-on refresher course on the scientific method, taking them from data collection to analysis, and then discussing the ultimate use of scientific information: public policy. We have also held Science Seminars for Editors, and most recently, the Grantham Prize Seminar on the State of Environmental Journalism, which was aimed at elevating the discussion about environmental journalism to the so-called “gatekeepers” of the journalism profession. A well-informed editor makes all the difference in placement of a story. With the Grantham Prize Seminar, we brought over fifteen high level editors, producers, and even general managers together at URI to discuss the barriers and solutions to getting more, high-quality environmental stories into the public eye.
I think that journalists and scientists really do the same thing—we’re all storytellers of some sort. The communication problems arise from the fact that scientists and journalists target different audiences and operate under very different time constraints. At the Metcalf Institute, we hope to bridge this gap in understanding so that the public ultimately benefits from a greater understanding of the important science and environmental news of the day.
With regard to point-of-origin, can you give an example of an article that is considered the beginning of environmental investigative reporting, one article that caught the public’s eye and paved the way for more frequent environmental news?
Most people feel that this honor goes to Rachel Carson for her book, Silent Spring. Although there are some debates about whether Rachel Carson was a journalist, many people feel that Silent Spring qualified as journalism.
What are some of the issues or perceptions of the competition that exist between environmental reporting and “hard” news in media?
The traditional news media is going through some serious growing pains right now as the internet continues to expand. This results in smaller newsrooms where one person is expected to cover more issues, and also changes in the way news is covered. These leaner newsrooms are therefore focusing on more straightforward beats like crime, government, and business.
Many journalists come to environmental reporting without any scientific training, other than what they learned in high school or college. There are an increasing number of graduate-level journalism programs that offer specializations in science journalism, but I think that most current reporters did not have that kind of preparation for their career. This means that they have to absorb a lot of scientific background information on any given environmental topic before they can write about it knowledgeably and responsibly. In addition to interviewing scientists—who may or may not be effective communicators—the reporter must read up on the history of the issue and maybe even read scientific journal articles. This makes environmental reporting much, much more challenging than, say, crime reporting, which typically has the facts laid out in a very simple fashion.
What criteria does the Grantham Prize recognize in solid environmental journalism?
The Grantham Prize recognizes exceptional environmental reporting, as judged by a panel of five highly esteemed journalists or journalism experts. The Judging Chair was Philip Meyers, Knight Chair in Journalism Professor at the University of North Carolina School of Journalism and Mass Communication. The other judges were David Boardman, Executive Editor of The Seattle Times; Diane Hawkins-Cox, Senior Producer with the CNN Science and Technology Unit; Dennis Bueckert, National Affairs Reporter with the Canadian Press (the Canadian AP); and Robert Semple, Jr., Associate Editor of The New York Times Editorial Page.
To select the Grantham Prize winner and the Awards of Special Merit, the judges looked at the overall quality of each story, its presentation, the environmental significance of the topic, and the impact of the story on its audience. Although this year’s winning stories reflected local concerns and environmental impacts, each of the themes (environmental toxins and public health, contamination of public water resources, climate change) covered by the prizewinners is broadly applicable around the U.S. and the entire globe. Another of the major impacts of the Grantham Prize, therefore, is informing and educating the public at large about environmental issues that are likely to affect any reader, viewer, or listener, regardless of their geography.
How do you see the significance of the Grantham Prize evolving, as market and public demands on media evolve?
In terms of the evolution of the Grantham Prize, we hope that it will continue to grow in recognition and prestige as more people learn of the prize and its objectives. Obviously, a $75,000 award is going to gain attention simply by virtue of its size. I expect that as newsrooms continue to adjust to the new media landscape, there will be changes to the traditional model for environmental reporting, also. One of the topics of conversation at the Grantham Prize Seminar on the State of Environmental Journalism was the need to adjust environmental reporting to this evolving news model, by merging the environment beat with business, or technology, or even lifestyle reporting. Our world is becoming more integrated every day, and I agree that many news consumers want to know how environment stories are connected to these other parts of their lives. Actually, I think that this is a good parallel to science: the scientific community has been trending toward multi-disciplinary studies that address a research question from many perspectives: biology, chemistry, and social science, for example. Due to many technological and cultural changes, we no longer live in a world where any given issue can be viewed from a single, or even a primary perspective. Environmental reporting, likewise, may have to move toward this multi-beat approach.
I’m sure that in future years we will see a host of different issues addressed by Grantham Prize winners, and different approaches to those issues. Regardless, the Grantham Prize will continue to honor truly exceptional environmental reporting.
Outside of the print media, what other cultural forces are causing people to pay more attention to environmental issues?
Our national focus on environmental reporting comes in waves, with the peaks focused on major environmental catastrophes, such as the extreme pollution of the Cuyahoga River resulting in open flames on the river or the Exxon Valdez oil spill. I do think that as the scientific evidence of climate change and its effects has become increasingly solid over the past few years, the public has really started to pay attention. Five years ago, who would have guessed that a full-length feature film starring Al Gore lecturing about climate change would actually make it into theater franchises…much less draw an audience? But as people learn more about climate change—thanks in part to a slow but steadily growing media focus—and see how it might affect them—in their wallets, in the severity of their child’s asthma, in the slow biological change of their favorite parks—they will keep pushing for more information. This brings us back to that crucial relationship between scientists and journalists, and the need for organizations like the Metcalf Institute and awards like the Grantham Prize.
