Download issue (PDF) - Nieman Foundation - Harvard University

Environment Reporting
Environmental reporters also end
up being arbiters of competing science,
a difficult dilemma at a time when
the Bush administration’s scientific
statements and policies are at odds
with most of the other industrialized
nations on such things as global warming
and genetically modified foods.
Since September 11, I’ve also had to
become an instant expert on the national
security problems facing nuclear
power plants and chemical manufacturing
facilities.
Covering Environment Issues
in Washington, D.C.
During the 22 years I’ve written about
environmental issues in Washington,
D.C., environmental policy has changed
with the times. Congress is no longer
writing big new environmental laws. In
1990, Congress dramatically strengthened
the Clean Air Act and, in 1995,
lawmakers rewrote the pesticides control
law. Since then, I’ve specialized in
examining how government officials
apply, fine-tune, and reinterpret the
nation’s existing environmental laws.
Untangling the bureaucratic red tape
is far less exciting than covering the
landslide of legislation of the 1970’s.
Little wonder then that The Washington
Post and some other major newspapers
only sporadically dive into such
meat and potatoes environmental
policy issues. Occasionally, regulators
in Washington take dramatic actions
that draw significant media coverage.
During the late 1990’s, former Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)
administrator Carol Browner cracked
down on companies that had expanded
operations at their old, coal-fired power
plants, but had not installed modern
pollution control equipment. When the
Bush administration took over, the EPA
made news proposing to sidestep
Browner’s tough policies. In fact, the
Bush administration’s environmental
policies appear to be based on the
White House’s National Energy Strategy,
which places a higher priority on
energy development than environmental
controls and land preservation.
Bush’s EPA has been just one of many
government bodies at the table when
new environmental policies have been
developed. In many cases, EPA regulators
have been overruled by pro-business
factions in the White House.
Environmental reporters struggle to
call attention to the federal
government’s changing emphasis on
environmental policy. But it’s tough to
compete for space at a time when the
government, the public, and our editors
are far more focused on terrorism,
the economy, and Iraq. In addition,
environmental problems are less visible
than they were in the 1960’s and
1970’s when toxic sludge and belching
smokestacks provided dramatic visuals
for print and broadcast stories. As
today’s environmental problems become
more “invisible,” some reporters
find it hard to get their stories published
or broadcast. For example, how
do you photograph endocrine
disruptors, those man-made chemicals
that interfere with physical development
in humans and animals?
For their part, the public appear to
trust that government officials are protecting
America’s air, water and wild
lands. They view a clean environment
as a universal right, much like freedom
of speech and the right to vote. Public
opinion polls show that voters rarely
think about environmental issues when
they go to the voting booth, unless they
perceive that their environmental wellbeing
is under attack. This public
mindset puts Washington environmental
reporters in the critical position of
sorting through the promises of politicians,
who assure that they are doing
everything they can to protect the air
and water, and the claims of environmental
advocates, who contend the
environment is in crisis.
During the national elections, even
the most conservative candidates tell
voters that they have strong environmental
records. That’s been easier as
the term “environmentalist” has been
watered down over the years. During
the 2002 congressional elections, for
example, Republican Colorado Senator
Wayne Allard told voters he was the
most environmentally sensitive senator
in that state’s history because he
had backed several Colorado land preservation
projects. He didn’t mention,
however, that he had voted against
national air and water pollution control
measures. Often such claims are
not thoroughly analyzed because many
media outlets have their political reporters,
not their environmental writers,
cover the charges and countercharges
of elections.
Writing about the environment from
Washington carries some unique dilemmas.
Inside-the-beltway reporters
run the risk of losing their perspective
on environmental problems and the
impact of federal mandates on the
American heartland. One of the worst
pitfalls is relying solely on the he-saidshe-said
quotes of Washington industry
and environmental lobbyists. The
best way to keep a more realistic perspective
is to get a firsthand understanding
of the issues by traveling to
mining sites, nuclear power plants,
superfund sites, and regions hit by
forest fires. Because of declining newsroom
budgets for such travel, I’ve stayed
connected to real world environmental
issues in part through field trips
offered during the Society of Environmental
Journalists conferences and by
the Institutes for Journalism and Natural
Resources, which provides weeklong,
on-site seminars for working journalists.
Washington reporters also grapple
with continual efforts by the White
House and other government officials
to manipulate environmental coverage.
The Bush administration, for example,
has taken to releasing many of
its most anti-environmental policies late
Friday night in an effort to bury coverage
in weekend newspapers, which
attract less attention. Washington Post
media critic Howard Kurtz quoted
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer
as also acknowledging that he likes to
leak presidential proposals the night
before an official unveiling so that the
stories do not “become shoehorned
into a ‘Bush vs. the environmentalists’
formula.” Essentially Fleischer’s aim is
to get the President’s positions in the
newspapers before the environmental
community has time to react. And reporters
who are eager for a scoop go
along with the less-than-balanced coverage
that results.
48 Nieman Reports / Winter 2002