Email late posts to rob.williamsATmadriver.com for partial credit.
Read our COVERING THE ENVIRONMENT book, assigned chapter(s) above.
In a SINGLE blog post below for ALL chapters in the section, provide for EACH chapter:
1. A single sentence, IYOW, that captures the THESIS (main argument) for each chapter.
2. THREE specific pieces of supporting documentation - ideas, concepts, stats, data - to bolster your thesis for each chapter. (Use 2 - 3 sentences for each.)
3. A SINGLE specific question you have after reading and blogging on ALL chapters of assignment.
The heat is on,
Dr. W
The heat is on,
Dr. W
Chapter 3:
ReplyDelete(1) One of the biggest challenges in environmental reporting occurs when journalists must convey risk in accordance with scientific information and also communicate the risk definition, exposure, response, and management without instilling fear in their audiences.
(2) A major concern that many science reporters must deal with is that decisions often have "to be made with incomplete information" (Wyss, 40). This means that studies must absolutely be conducted to "understand the level of risk," the first step being "defining it" (Wyss, 40).
Another important step in risk identification is to understand what news is; some journalists such as James Bruggers of the Louisville Courier-Journal feels that there is nothing "'wrong with scaring the public, as long as there's a good reason to do so'" (Wyss, 47). However, it is also important to recognize that "the biggest problem in risk reporting was the reluctance of reporters to challenge scientists" (Wyss, 52).
Lastly, as in the example case presented at the beginning of the chapter, it is fundamental to identify 1. what was the hazard that might cause harm? 2. how large a dose or quantity would it take before it became dangerous? 3. How significant was the exposure that people could get?
(3) Specifically dealing with the DDT issue, what kinds of studies have been produced saying that using DDT would cause more long-term harm than actually benefit the 350 million people a year who are affected by malaria? What kinds of numbers have been produced, and how recent/accurate are they?
Chapter 4:
(1) Not only is it necessary for environmental reporters to understand the risks presented in their coverage, but it is entirely fundamental that they be able to understand science in order to communicate to their readers.
(2) "Good environmental reporters understand science in order to explain and interpret it to readers" (Wyss, 54). It is interesting to note that journalists do not necessarily need a background in science; in fact, most do not "know the details of all disciplines but they should understand the basics of the scientific progress" (Wyss, 55). Some of the requirements are demanding and have a wide range from "marine science to nuclear physics" (Wyss, 54).
Perhaps the most interesting section in this chapter to me was the fact that balancing every story is not necessarily the best thing to do in environmental journalism. "The public has become the loser in such stories, because a balanced report is actually an imbalance of what science has been finding" (Wyss, 63).
Many environmental journalists, with or without backgrounds in science, have conducted experiments and tests themselves. Bill Moyers, Julie Hauserman, and Dan Fagin are among a group of science writers who have carried out tests on their own for relatively inexpensive costs. Having a background in environmental science certainly helps, but knowing the basic scientific process can put a journalist in the right direction when covering such topics.
(3) Are there currently or have there ever been two or more people "double-teaming" in this field--i.e. a journalist working with an environmental scientist in order to study and publish together?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChapter 3:
ReplyDelete1) This chapter dealt with the importance of journalists understanding the scientific and societal risk that they take when reporting on an environmental topic that can cause some outrage.
2) Christine Russell, a former science writer with the Washington Post said that "reporters rushed from one environmental scare story to another and relentlessly provided readers with a weekly dose of worry." (page 46). Journalists need to figure out a way to report a story that will bring about discussions about fixing the issue instead of causing widespread panic.
Journalists should always ask some questions when they are making decisions on what to focus on in order to bring about the truth without the threat or outrage, such as, "Was the source of the information reputable? Was it from one source, or multiple sources? Who funded the work?" (page 51)
One quote that I found interesting was at the end of the chapter when Dorothy Nelkin says how "the biggest problem in risk reporting was the reluctance of reporters to challenge scientists." (page 52). IF journalists question scientists then how would we know if anything about environmental issues were true?
3) How can a journalist bring people to help an important environmental issue without causing some sort of scare effect?
Chapter 4:
1) Environmental journalists should have some sort of understanding of science and how scientific studies are produced, in order to better communicate the findings to the public audience.
2) There was a study conducted between 1988 and 2002 that concluded that major news organizations, such as the New York Times, spent 52.7 percent of their stories giving equal attention to the scientific view that climate change was increasing and the industry sponsored position that it was a natural fluctuation with no obvious tie to human activity. (page 63)
Some journalists do their own research to get to the bottom of a story, such as, Bill Moyers in 2001 whose urine and blood was analyzed in conjunction with a PBS television program on the chemical industry.
Having a background in science can help environmental journalists by giving them previous experience to how to handle a research project that benefits a story they are researching. An example is when Dina Cappiello set up a research project to monitor the air in Houston; she had a background in science which she claims helped her to set up the study.
3) In the future, would it be possible to say that a scientist could just write about their experiments and what they've found out about the environment and wipe out the environmental journalist field?
Chapter 3:
ReplyDelete1. The concept of risk is difficult to assess, and journalists often have difficulty accurately illustrating a risk associated with an environmental issue; as such, articles concerning risk can be misunderstood, which results in it being misrepresented.
2. The first example of this is the opening story at the beginning of the chapter. Parents were overly concerned about their children’s exposure to EMFs from the power lines that were put above a local soccer field. In reality, EMF exposure only causes severe health issues when the exposure is prolonged and constant, (and therefore, the likelihood of problems occurring after only a few hours a week for a single season would be minimal at worst), but the parents did not understand this. This exhibits the misunderstanding associated with risk. The next example illustrates the difficulty in assessing risk. There are several characteristics to look at when determining the severity of any possible risk, including what hazard might cause the harm, how large a dose or quantity would be necessary for it to be dangerous, and how significant the exposure people could get was. Even when adequately researching and testing a risk, these defining characteristics may still result in a vague description. The third piece of evidence is a quote from John Graham stating that “what constitutes news is not necessarily what constitutes a significant public health problem,” (46). This demonstrates that journalists may cover something unlikely and bizarre to make the news more interesting, and also how they may quickly jump from one environmental issue to the next, causing a different worry every week. While journalists might not have felt that they were overstating risks or causing unnecessary fear, it is often felt in the attempt of reporting “news,” journalists create unwarranted panic.
3. How can we ensure that the public receives an accurate depiction of risk, without causing undue fear? Also, who’s responsibility is it to make certain that any reports of risk are accurate?
Chapter 4:
1. As a journalist, it is important to have a comprehensive understanding of the topic you wish to cover in order to properly convey the full picture to readers, which in the case of environmental journalism includes some kind of basic background in science.
2. The first example is, once again, the opening story at the beginning of the chapter. Dan Fagin, a journalist for Newsday and professor at New York University, published a series of articles in Newsday addressing the failings of the health department in regards to the health concerns on Long Island. Not only was he able to make this claim, he put together a study simultaneously that backed his opinion. Due to his comprehension of the issue, Fagin was able to authoritatively communicate his concerns to the public, even with such a complicated topic. The second piece of support comes from the section of the text titled “Finding reliable information.” Borenstein, a reporter for a news service in Washington, was able to write about a relevant instance of arsenic pollution with authority after having read and researched on the topic. He was able to communicate to his readers pertinent scientific information after establishing some background knowledge on the topic. The last piece of supporting evidence is when journalists have been known to do their own findings. Many journalists have tested and hired experts in order to gather more information and make a stronger story, but in doing so they also establish themselves as a first-hand authority, possessing both the knowledge of the subject and the skills to adequately convey the subject to the public.
3. Is there some kind of policy or guideline that could require journalists to have a certain level of expertise on a subject in order to report on that same subject? Would this help to maintain accuracy and understanding?
ReplyDeleteChapter 3
1. In order to convey what is necessary to the public, there are psychological, cultural, ideological, economical, and political risk-based involvements to consider when reporting. Identifying risk according to these different viewpoints along with appealing to specific risk communications will strengthen the effectiveness of the piece.
2. Identifying whether or not something is a risk, and then further developing the risk into understandable segments improves public understanding. Break the risk down into three parts: what the exact hazard is, how large of a dose or quantity makes it a risk factor, and how significant is the exposure?
The public has always been interested in what is extraordinary and different. In order to appeal to this preference, it is important to include things that are a source of conflict, personal, well-known, close to home, relevant, and recent.
Journalists should ask questions like how great the exposure was, the likelihood of the exposure, what the legal standards are, how credible the source is, and what are the benefits and costs of the problem. An important part of evaluating the risk factors of a problem is by making comparisons to other issues.
3. How do you constitute what is news while appealing to all cultures and age groups?
Chapter 4
1. In order to report successfully as an environmental writer, one must have an adequate understanding of science and the scientific method. In order to properly explain and interpret the information to their audience, this basic understanding goes a long way.
2. Environmental writers use epidemiology to investigate what they are writing about. For example the cholera epidemic's cause was determined by an epidemiologist who mapped the outbreaks and determined that it was spread by water.
It is important to try to avoid biases in writing, but it is very difficult to do this with science. Because there is always a distinct right or wrong in science, it is all about how it is presented and explained.
Similarly, it is very difficult to present two sides of a story when one is reporting on one specific viewpoint. It is usually important to get a balance, but in environmental reporting it is very difficult to achieve this.
3. How much science should be involved in environmental writing?
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. This chapter shows us how risk is identified, calculated and analyzed and the struggles journalists have with how much risk to expose to readers without causing too much fear, but still allowing them to get their point across.
2. To fully understand and identify risk, you must break it down into 3 parts: identify the hazard that may cause harm, identify how large the dose or quantity can be before the hazard becomes dangerous, and how significant of an exposure period can be imposed before causing risk.
Journalists also have to keep in mind what interests the public and the competitive pressures from other reporters. The news consumers have always been curious about the extraordinary (47). Bogart gave an example that if a dog bit a man, that is not news, but if a man bit a dog, that is news. We are drawn to the bizarre and the mysterious so reporters have to keep that, along with other things, in mind when reporting news.
Making comparisons helps us understand risk, however, this has to be done very carefully. If the comparisons are not relatable to one another, as in the example of trash incinerators and eating peanut butter, then the comparison will have little to no effect on the reader. Using common sense has its benefits while reporting.
3. How do journalists know the line between too much fear or not enough?
Chapter 4
1. In order to explain and report to readers, you must know what you are talking about. Therefore, it is important to have a decent background and understanding of science in order to correctly interpret and convey environmental issues to readers.
2. Epidemiology is one type of study reporters can use to see if diseases have environmental characteristics. They can be descriptive, analytical, or ecological. In the case of the cholera outbreak in 1854 John Snow plotted the cases on a map and figured out the source as a drinking water well. He was able to see this on his map because of the large number of cases surrounding the one well.
The results to a specific study can be extremely difficult to evaluate and in some cases, contradictory. For instance, there have been studies that have proven chlorine in drinking water helps prevent diseases, but other studies that have proven it to cause certain cancer like bladder cancer. Having a scientific background helps give you the tools in deciphering the contradictory results and interpreting them in a proper fashion.
Julie Hauserman was working on a story about pressurized lumber and the environment and decided to conduct her own experiment. She wanted to see if this lumber used in playgrounds was contaminating the soils. She found in some areas the arsenic levels in the soil were 13 times higher than the safe amount. She was able to use scientific evidence to show people that a threat was actually present, not just a potential for a threat.
3. When do you know if you should conduct your own studies on a subject or report on previous studies of that subject?
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. Chapter 3 outlines taking into consideration the importance of risk evaluation when covering environmental and public health issues.
2. The first piece of supporting evidence in evaluating risk comes with the example given about the power lines linked with cases of cancer in Colorado in 1979. Parents became worried when they calculated the risk of having their children play on a soccer field so close to EMFs.
A second piece of evidence in evaluating risk came in the 1980s when the EPA decided to take action to clean up hazardous waste sites. The public weighed in that the risks were serious enough to warrant spending for the clean-up, even though the EPA estimated it would cost $30 billion to clean the
The third piece of evidence noted on evaluating risk came up when malaria case spiked and people felt they might be able to go back to the use of DDT to lower the deaths due to the illness. However, the EPA has called DDT a probable carcinogen and studies in 2002 pointed out that the chemical can impair an infant’s immunity system. In this case it was important to weigh the risk of lowering the amount of malaria cases with the effects of DDT.
3. How will the importance of assessing risk come into play in the Green Beat?
Chapter 4
1. This chapter emphasizes the importance of understanding science and its basic terminology when covering the environment as it plays an important role in covering the environment.
2. One epidemiology study conducted by John Snow in 1854 plotted cholera cases on a map and pin pointed the source to a drinking well where there were a large number of the cases surrounding the water source. This study emphasizes the need for environmental journalists to present a case through understanding the science behind different types of epidemiology studies. A second piece of evidence that supports this thesis was seen in the the case of using chlorine in drinking water. In small amounts it is effective in cleaning but in large amounts it can be dangerous. Here it can be seen that it is important to have an understanding of science because it is essential when evaluating the results. If you cannot evaluate the results accurately, the news may not be covered correctly. A final example of the importance of understanding science comes up in biases. When covering the environment it is important that biases are not too heavily swayed, unreliable data can cause biases.
3. How does scientific evidence help or take away from the general public’s willingness to read about environmental news?
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. This chapter highlights the importance of fully understanding all the factors that are included in comprehensive definition of risk, and the difficulties associated with appropriately reporting on said risk.
2. The first supporting example of this is the opening anecdote about the perceived risk and fear that surrounded electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from power lines. This fear was later developed up on in the chapter as things like vulnerability of children and familiarity came into play. The parents were scared of the unknown without rationally assessing the risk. This leads into the second important point of the chapter, which is the ability to identify and manage risk. This is shown to be a multi-step process which involves identifying the hazard, assessing exposure, researching dose response, and then forming a management plan. All of these steps must be taken into account during the journalism process to produce a reliable and honest report. A third point that I found very interesting was the separate section about the EPA’s “Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems”. It is very interesting to see the significant discrepancies between the public’s perception of environmental risk/danger and what scientists developed using the steps listed above. The public bases much of their risk assessment off the information they receive from the press, which can often be somewhat sensationalized. Therefore it is shown to be even more important that journalists make reliable reports to warn the public of the most pressing issues.
3. How can journalists avoid sensationalism and still achieve their goals of both accurately representing risk and selling large quantities of their stories?
Chapter 4
1. This chapter provides an overview of the basics of scientific study and the relationship to environmental journalism practices, including the overlap that sometimes occurs.
2. The first big point that is discussed in the chapter is a sort of history of the scientific method and epidemiology. There is even a breakdown of things like significance and p value, as well as sample size. Bias, confounders are shown to be potential problems that must be avoided, and reproducibility and peer review are necessary to prove the integrity of the experiment. After this overview, journalism is reintroduced. The challenges of covering scientific material include finding reliable information among other things. Journalists do not have to be completely informed about all aspects of a scientific topic, but they have a certain responsibility to do their research. Showing both sides of a story is said to not be the most important thing in a journalism piece as long as the story is reliable. Finally, there are several examples given of journalists who actually initiated their own scientific research upon which to report. While fairly uncommon, this can yield great results.
3. Will “journalists doing science” become a more common trend, or will it remain relatively scarce due to high costs and the current way of things prevent this?
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. As risk, and it’s environmental and public health issues, is often misunderstood, environmental reporters must define and assess the risk, evaluate the exposure and dose risk, and understand what risk management system should be used to help communicate the degree of the risk to the public.
2. Journalists need to avoid creating uncertainty when reporting risks. The less information about a risk, the more likely people will assume the worst. A study by neuroscientist Joseph Le Doux found that the emotion of fear registered before rational thought.
Risks that warrant coverage should meet the following criteria: conflict, human interest, prominence, proximity, relevance, and timeliness. News consumers are curious and want to learn more about the extraordinary.
A hazard, even if identified, would not be a risk until one was exposed to it. When calculating this risk, the dose must also be considered.
3. Is it ethical for a journalist to overstate the extremity of a risk to create social action?
Chapter 4
1. Good environmental reporters understand science in order to explain, interpret, and report it accurately to readers whether it be from previous studies or by conducting their own research.
2. Getting both sides of a story does not always work in science and environmental coverage. However, research indicated that the concept of balanced reporting on climate change was still very common even in the most mainstream newspapers.
Bias can cause unreliable research data, and should be considered. Yet biases can simply mean that there could be another explanation for the result or confounding variables. Examples of these are age, minorities, gender, occupation, income and health status.
Journalists do not need to know the details of all disciplines but they should understand the basics of the scientific process. The scientific method states that a researcher must begin by developing a set of ideas and a hypothesis, conducts the experiment, and compares results to expectations. The researcher, or in this case the journalist, then interprets the data via statistical and procedural tools.
3. Does the amount of broad environmental topics journalists on the ‘green beat’ cover create a hindrance to the knowledge they can provide to the public about a specific topic?
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. The importance and methods of risk evaluation, how to determine the risk of a certain issue, and additionally, how the public perceives those risks.
2. "The first step in understanding risk must be defining it" pg. 40. Researchers have stated that individuals must identify the hazards the risk may cause before assuming it dangerous.
Journalists are expected to understand risk assessment thoroughly. Reporters often "rush from one environmental scare to another, providing readers with a weekly dose of worry". Therefore, it is essential for journalists to consider the risks conflict, human interest, prominence, relevance and timeliness to determine a stories true level of risk and importance.
The response from the public when informed of certain risks depends on the trust they have instilled in the person telling them about the risk. Additionally, it has been concluded that when one sees an image or hears a message about a possible risk, fear and a "fight or flee" mentality emerges before any rational thoughts towards the risk.
3. How can journalists determine what is a newsworthy risk to cover when different risks differ from various demographics?
Chapter 4.
1. To maximize feedback between reporter and reader, journalists must understand the science behind the certain issue. Also, when reporting on an issue, giving different perspectives equal attention is not always necessary.
2. "Good environmental reporters understand science in order to explain and interpret it to readers" pg. 54. To understand the science behind their stories, journalists have used scientific process and other studies (clinical, epidemiology) to better understand the issue.
The ability to understand the science behind certain issues can be difficult, especially when certain results contradict others. For example, small traces of chlorine in water have helped battle cholera, but the chemical has also been linked to bladder cancer. It can be noted that the journalists responsibility could include distinguishing the contradictory science.
A New York Times study showed that between 1988 and 2002, 57% of stories covering climate change focused equally on the impact of climate change and the industries claim that global warming was non existent. 35% of stories focused more on climate change and less on the industries. This data pertains to the claim that "Getting both sides of a story, while generally desirable in journalism, does not always work in science and environmental coverage".
3. Does the degree of danger or risk for a certain issue always depend on the amount of research done on that topic?
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. In environmental journalism we must ask understand the risk of the scientific findings that we are reporting on and balance that with its newsworthiness.
2. According to John Graham, “what constitutes news is not necessarily what constitutes a significant health problem” (46). For a story to be considered “newsworthy” it typically meets the following criteria: conflict, human interest, prominence, proximity, relevance, or timeliness. There are three questions you must ask to determine risk: 1. What is the risk? 2. How much would make it harmful? 3. How significant was the potential exposure? After evaluating the answers, you can put the dangers in perspective. Journalists should trust their instincts while reporting on environmental issues. Dorothy Nelkin believed “the biggest problem in risk reporting was the reluctance of reporters to challenge scientists,” (52) an idea that we see presented again in Chapter 4.
3. Do the criteria of what makes a scientific finding “newsworthy” differ between scientists and journalists?
Chapter 4
1. Despite the intensive and detailed scientific process, reports’ findings can be inconclusive or inaccurate and reporters must confirm the details of these reports before publishing further discussion.
2. There is a possibility of confounders, or confounding variables, where the researcher may have not considered all possible influential variables, causing a bias in their results. Giving equal voice to both sides is not always ideal in environmental reporting. While there is a consensus in the scientific community of the existence of climate change, the reporting of it has generally been balanced. Between 1988 and 2002, 52.7% of stories did so, while only 35.3% focused on the science over the industrial side. Without a peer review being conducted on a study, the findings are much less reliable. It is the job of the reporter to find a strong source and to be cautious in their evaluations of scientific findings.
3. Is it ethical for a journalist to give favor to the scientific side to a story on climate change over the industries’ perspective?
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1) We see a few examples in chapter three of how easy it is for people to get carried away with worrying about relatively minor environmental issues, rather than looking at a bigger picture. We also see that journalists tend to bring attention to these minor stories, rather than drawing attention to the larger issue. In order to bring attention to the accurate risk presented to our future, journalists need to understand which problems pose the greatest threat to us.
2). We need to understand that when people receive information, it is transmitted to the brain as emotion or fear before it can register as a rational thought. This is the main reason why people have such a difficult time understanding risk.
News coverage of risk is also skewed to events that are “bizarre and mysterious.”
As a result of the inaccurate information, when you look at a sample of what the EPA says are the biggest environmental problems, and what the public says are the biggest environmental problems, they’re completely different answers. Journalists need to be able to understand how to report on risk. They can use this information to deliver the information to the public in a way which will more accurately inform them of the true risk of the hazard. Journalists would be able to give people the opportunity to weigh the information on their own.
Chapter2
1) Some environmental journalists have scientific backgrounds, while others have begun to do research in order to publish stories. Regardless, any environmental journalist needs to have an understanding of science.
2) For example, one environmental reporter, Dina Cappiello was a journalist for the Houston Chronicle, and always heard reports of the horrible air quality in Houston. The State said the air monitors never picked up any data so she did her own experiment. Her tests found areas with air so foul that state employees were no longer staffed there.
Journalist also need to be able to understand other studies and data and be able to look at them and see if the information is bias or balanced. There is so much involved when researching a scientific topic that a journalist needs to be prepared to understand. The more well-prepared a journalist is, the more accurately informed the readers can expect to be.
3) How many journalists today are doing scientific work?
Chapter 3:
ReplyDelete1. This chapter focuses on the challenge that journalists face with accurately demonstrating risk associated with environmental issues. It also shows us what is identified as risk and how we can calculate and analyze it.
2. A good point that was made in the readings is the idea that sometimes “it’s ok for journalists to scare the public as long as there’s a good reason to do so” (Wyss, 47). President Franklin Roosevelt says, “All we have to fear is fear itself” (Wyss, 49). Another great example that portrayed the importance of risk management is the story that began the chapter about the parents being extremely concerned with their children’s exposure to EMFs on the soccer field. It is important that the reporters told the public the reality of this story and the real risk that is associated with it. In reality the EMFs do not have a strong link with children getting leukemia. “In this situation, running into another player or even being struck by lightning would appear to be more likely than getting cancer from EMFs” (Wyss, 39).
3. Is it really acceptable for reporters to stretch the truth in order to create fear among the public?
Chapter 4:
1. This chapter discusses the importance of well informed journalism, as a journalist, you must understand what you are covering in order to fully educate the readers. In the case of environmental journalism, journalists must have a basic background in science.
2. It is extremely important for journalists to have their scientific information correct. Over time information changes an example of this is chlorine in drinking water, “Chlorine in drinking water has prevented cholera and other illness, yet at one point studies showed that the chemical might be linked to a higher incidence of bladder cancer” (Wyss, 57). Epidemiology is a type of study that journalists use in order to tell if disease has environmental characteristics. An example of this is the cholera outbreak in 1854 John Snow plotted cases on a map and got to the source which was a drinking water well. A large number of the cases were around a water source. This is important because it shows the importance of having environmental journalists to be present through out the different epidemiology studies.
3. Is there such thing as too much scientific evidence in an environmental news story?
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. Risk exists around us at all times and can be extremely difficult to manage without prior understanding of exactly what risk is.
2. The risk that this chapter discusses is primarily concerned with chemical body responses to changes in natural habitat; the first change being EMFs. This is because the chapter differentiates risk from hazard by one word: exposure. Exposure then takes on varying degrees of dosage, amount of time elapsed, and how widespread the exposure is. Too often the press has covered "the bizarre, the mysterious, that which people have difficulty imagining happening." When it comes to public health issues, journalists have given far more attention to deaths caused by H1N1 (which is roughly observed around 300,000) than the annual deaths caused by tobacco (more than 5,000,000). The journalists who have a similar mentality to environmental writer James Bruggers would agree that there is nothing wrong with scaring the public as long as there is good reason to do so. Then there is the other issue that Dorothy Nelkin mentions about the biggest problem when reporting risk is the reluctance of reporters to challenge scientists.
3. To what extent are journalists hindered in their coverage of risk by their instinct that covering a risk issue could pose future health problems that they would rather avoid?
Chapter 4
1. If you want to be a good environmental reporter, you better have a firm understanding of the science involved so you can effectively communicate it to your readers.
2. The scientific process began with the idea of controlled experiments sparked by people curious about the world around them. This model is based on setting expectations, conducting research with variables and constants, and seeing how the gathered results compare with the expectations. In an ideal world, the study would be conducted perfectly and the results would communicate the exact newsworthy info that the experiment sought to detail. However, the scientific process is much more involved when we deal with the probability of the results occurring by chance, the ease of reproducing similar results. It is also difficult for us as human beings to identify our particular biases. This just gives a basic outline to the different aspects that a journalist must research when covering a story that includes scientific findings. The part about bias is not something to forget because a journalist should also understand the background of the scientist conducting the research so that any scientific bias would not reflect poorly upon the writer.
3. How can journalists and other citizens stay knowledgeable well-rounded when costs of education, particularly at the liberal arts level, keep increasing and program driven education is growing in popularity?
also, forgot to include links to my tobacco and H1N1 stats that I used
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2012/06/cdc-estimate-global-h1n1-pandemic-deaths-284000
Excellent reflections on chapters 3 and 4 here, colleagues.
ReplyDeleteLet's dive deep in class,
Dr. W
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. When it comes to reporting on an environmental issue the calculation and evaluation of risk is the main focus for a journalist, and we learn that risk is precisely what is so difficult to identify and publicize. There are many factors that go into identifying risk, and managing risk as well, which makes exposing the news to the public very tricky. We learn how hard it is, but how important it is, to find a happy medium as an environmental journalist.
2. (a) "A plant explosion may sicken workers ho inhaled fumes for only a few minutes. But those same fumes, in far less quantities over several years, might create even more serious health problems" (p.42). This quote brings to light a serious question we must ask regarding environmental issues: What's worse - a high dose in a short period of time or a lower dose over a long period of time?
(b) In regard to the difficulty in risk-management: "What are acceptable and unacceptable risks" (p.43).
"The problem with risk-based analysis was that it involved not only science but psychology, culture, ideology, economics, values, and politics" (Victor Cohn, Lewis Cope, Washington Post and Minneapolis Star Tribune. p.46).
These quotes support the fact that there are so many factors to consider when evaluating and managing risk, and how to report on those risks as a journalist.
(c) "We have all been guilty, of course...Reporters rushed from one environmental scare story to another and relentlessly provided readers with a weekly dose of worry" (Christine Russel, Washington Post. p.46).
This quote supports the notion that environmental journalists need to find a happy medium when reporting on environmental issues. It also resonates well with the above quote about what is an acceptable and unacceptable risk, and how to evaluate that and report on in correctly.
3. After reading about all the different ways scientists conduct studies to try and find evidence surrounding environmental issues, specifically toxicity, what has been proven to be the most beneficial style of study, if any?
Chapter 4
1. Environmental journalism is unique and difficult, in that it does not require multiple perspectives but absolutely requires a thorough understanding of the science behind the story.
2. (a) "Journalists do not need to know the details of all disciplines but they should understand the basics of the scientific process" (p.55). This quote speaks to my thesis in that environmental journalism does no require multiple perspectives but does need knowledge in the scientific field in order to be a good report.
(b) Scientific studies take a while to get results.
"Science depends on replication; it is the essence of what builds knowledge. Scientists call this the weight of the evidence. New research that conflicts with this weight of evidence may be important, but until it is replicated one must tread cautiously in evaluating it" (p.59).
Again, scientific studies, environmental studies are very tricky. A journalist must be very careful on what to publicize.
(c) Balance: "Getting both sides of a story, while generally desirable in journalism, does not always work in science and environmental coverage" (p.62)
This quote directly supports how environmental journalism is very particular to it's own.
3. Are observational studies, conducted by journalists themselves, which collect non-computed data, possibly the best approach to conducted an environmental report?
Chapter 3
ReplyDelete1. For reporters covering environmental issues, understanding the impacts of the issues on our world are important to understand in order to educate those who read their story.
2. a. Identifying risk has been reduced to three parts for journalists: What is the hazard? How much of this hazard would there need to be in order to be considered dangerous? How much exposure could people get? (pg. 41)
b. In 1987, the EPA produced their own study that ranked the risks they saw as important, such as hazardous waste sites, oil spills, and radiation. (pg. 44)
c. One other important way for journalists to understand risk is to use common sense. Dorothy Nelkin wrote that “the biggest problem in risk reporting was the reluctance of reporters to challenge scientists.” (pg. 52)
3. If reporters stretched the truth in regards to a certain issue, I wonder how much of that exaggeration would be accepted in order to fulfill the greater good?
Chapter 4
1. As with any other beat they may cover, an environmental journalist must have a solid understanding in the science involved behind an environmental issue.
2. a. Similar to that of the centuries old scientific method, a journalist must research, find accurate information, and evaluate the results of the issue, but at the same time in a way that the literature is accessible to readers. In terms of finding results, science has evolved in a way, with “developed tools, both statistical and procedural, to help interpret and untangle the confusion. (pg. 57)
b. It is also important to keep the story fair and balanced when reporting. While it can be hard to argue scientific evidence in regards to a certain environmental issues Climate change is one such issue that is considered to be biased. (pg. 62)
c. Finding the most reliable and accurate information is also important. Because of this selection, it has been at times criticized by the scientific community because it is believed journalists have become too selective. (pg. 62)
3. Would a scientist with some background in journalism be more, less, or equally as qualified to write an environmental news story than a journalist with some background in science?