JoAnn M. Valenti

Regional Issues, National Norms A Four-Region Analysis of U.S. Environment Reporters

Does a national norm exist for environment reporters, or do they differ by region? This study used a census approach to examine environmental journalists in four regions of the United States. Across all four regions, these reporters spent much of their time covering nonenvironment stories. They relied more often on local and state sources than on national sources and used a variety of story frames and angles to construct their reporting. In discussing barriers to reporting, they were more likely to cite such issues as time constraints or the size of the news hole rather than interference by editors or advertisers. Most felt the need to remain objective, rejecting calls for advocacy or a civic-journalism approach. The study found more similarities across the regions than differences, suggesting that there is a national norm for covering the environment.

Risk and the environment reporters: A four-region analysis

Who are the environment reporters who explain the science of the environment to the general public? Do they consider risk when writing environmental stories? How often do they say they use a risk assessment angle compared to other issues? Are they concerned that they may be exaggerating environmental risks, excessively frightening their readers and viewers? This study used a census approach to interview 354 environment reporters in four regions of the United States. The majority of environment reporters in all four regions said they used risk angles at least sometimes, many more than might have been true in the past. However, the journalists said they more frequently framed their stories using government, human-interest, business, nature, pollution, politics, science, and health angles, and some reporters, ranging from 28.3 percent in New England to 41.8 percent in the Pacific Northwest, said they rarely or never included risk assessment in their environmental stories. Although most journalists in the four regions did not believe that news reports generally sensationalized environmental risks, some reporters (16.9–25.0 percent) said that environmental journalists generally have overblown environmental risks, unduly alarming the public.

The environment reporters of New England

Who are the reporters covering environmental issues in the United States? As the first step in a nationwide series of regional studies of environment reporters conducted over time, the researchers identified and interviewed 55 environment reporters working for New England daily newspapers and television stations in winter and spring 2000. The study found environment reporters working at half the regions newspapers and only four of the television stations. The New England environment reporters ranked everyday, practical journalistic process concerns such as time constraints and the size of the news hole as the most frequent barriers to reporting on the environment. They also said their sources most often came from government, and their stories often contained a variety of factors, including a human-interest angle, a government angle, and a pollution angle. Many wished to aid the environment while still remaining objective in their reporting.

Improving the scientist/journalist conversation.

How well do scientists communicate to members of the mass media? A communication scholar reviews potential barriers to the essential dialogue necessary between those in the sciences and journalists who report science to the public. Suggestions for improving communication within this relationship, in spite of professional process differences, are offered, emphasizing adherence to shared ethical standards.

Environment Reporters and U.S. Journalists: A Comparative Analysis

This study provides baseline data regarding environment reporters in the twenty-first century, and then compares this baseline information about a specialized journalism beat to existing studies of U.S. journalists in general. This comparison between 652 environmental journalists working at daily newspapers and television stations and more than 1,000 U.S. journalists in general found that these reporters share many individual and work-related characteristics, perhaps due in part to their similar backgrounds and to the basic professional training received by most journalists. The authors propose a uniform theory of journalism education, arguing that journalists are journalists first because they are linked by their studies, training, and experience, and that differences among reporters may be related to variations in their education. The researchers also found that newspapers employ more specialized reporters than do television stations, and that the bigger the newspaper, the more specialists, suggesting that bigger is better for specialized reporting.

Report: Continuing Science Education for Environmental Journalists and Science Writers In Situ With the Experts

Since the emergence of specialty beats in science and environment reporting, journalists have looked for opportunities to enhance their understanding of these complex subjects. Institutions both public and private have responded with programs designed to provide continuing education aimed at those writers and reporters who cover science or environmental stories in a range of mass media. One such fellowship program, now in its 7th year, takes place annually under the direction of the National Tropical Botanical Garden, with its headquarters on the Hawaiian island of Kauai. A report on the programs success demonstrates the need for this and similar efforts geared toward improving the publics understanding of science by targeting media messengers.

Wrestling with Objectivity and Fairness: U.S. Environment Reporters and the Business Community

Environment reporters have been criticized for allegedly having an antibusiness bias. This study, based on a series of regional surveys including 364 U.S. environment reporters, found the journalists commonly used a business or economics framework for their stories. The reporters used some business organizations as sources more often than some environmental groups. They acknowledged the need to be fair to both corporations and environmental activists. Nevertheless, a substantial minority of these environment reporters said they struggled with the issue of whether their peers are “too green.”

Communication challenges for science and religion

How can the very different worlds of science and religion communicate effectively? Religion requires faith, belief without question. Science demands we take nothing on faith, reject any anecdotal evidence. How might these seemingly opposed disciplines collaborate to improve public understanding of science and impact pending policy making without undermining spiritual well being? Are scholars from both disciplines engineering the needed bridges?

Independent films communicating science at Sundance 2014.

Of the 200 feature films presented from over 12,000 submissions at the prestigious Sundance Film Festival, only a handful offer a realistic science theme or an accurate portrayal of a scientist. The Alfred P. Sloan Science Award winner was, for the second time, Mike Cahill, whose first Sloan science winner 3 years ago, Another Earth, imaged a slightly sci-fi astronomical future. In this year’s winning premiere I, Origins, Cahill wraps a serious science story around a molecular biologist dedicated to research on the evolution of eyes. Spanning over seven near-future years, the storyline moves from New York to Idaho to India, touching on everything from romance, sex, death, love, marriage, and the afterlife. The film stars Michael Pitt and Britt Marling, whose main wardrobe consists of the standard white lab coats, and Astrid Bergès-Frisbey, a non-scientist holding onto notions of reincarnation. The story includes essential audience attention-holding devices while viewers witness a laboratory environment rich with testing a new theory, following the data, and chasing a conclusion. Exposure to the process and the passion in science, even in failure, creates an accurate science scenario. “I’m trying to tell something so epic but in an intimate, personal story,” Cahill said. He’s convinced science stretched into a fictional future offers a continuing source of interesting, relevant themes for filmmakers. I, Origins is being distributed internationally by Fox Searchlight. This year marks the 30th Anniversary of the critically acclaimed film event founded by Actor/ Director Robert Redford. The non-profit’s mission remains the same, now with a three decade history of giving voice to independent filmmakers. “Change is inevitable,” Redford said, “You either resist it—we know who those people are—or you go with it. We want to ride with that wave.” In addition to screening films during the 11-day event, Sundance offers a variety of workshops and panel discussions. During the Sundance panel, The Cosmic Crossroads, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Deputy Chief for Solar Exploration Kevin Hand reported that as he serves as a consultant to filmmakers he advises that the focus be to “make science inspire wonder.” According to panelist Max Mayer, whose film Better Living and Adam won the Sloan Award in 2009, the key is to borrow the intelligence from science but make it poetic and understandable. Jurors for this year’s Sloan Prize included two well-known scientists: Kevin Hand, deputy chief scientist for Solar System Exploration at NASA whose research focuses on the origin, evolution, and distribution of life in the solar system with fieldwork in some of Earth’s most extreme environments from the McMurdo Dry Valleys of Antarctica, to the depths of the Earth’s oceans, to the glaciers of Kilimanjaro; and astronomer Jill Tarter, the Bernard M. Oliver Chair for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute who was the real-life researcher upon whom the Jodie Foster character in Contact is largely based. Flora Lichtman, a science journalist whose work has appeared in the New York Times, National Public Radio’s Science Friday, and Popular Science 534060 PUS0010.1177/0963662514534060Public Understanding of ScienceFestival review research-article2014

Informing to Educate or Communicating to Persuade? The Role of Film: Part II

Following what for decades has become for me a near annual trek to the mountains of Park City, Utah, to cover Robert Redford’s Sundance Film Festival, last year I asked, “Lights, Camera . . . Action? Are We Missing Data on Real Change From Environment in Films?” (Applied Environmental Education and Communication 9[2]). No one has yet to take the bait. Now, a year later and another Sundance past, I remain concerned about the influx of new video/film arrivals yet continuing dearth of data. Is mere information overload—no matter how well done—persuasive? Do the producers of the material consider what communication/persuasion theories argue? Is it really only about education—where information is indeed valuable—but not about attitude change—where chest pounding, no matter how entertaining, seems less than effective? Are filmmakers just preaching to the choir, and if so, what could make a difference, could reach out to new audiences? First, let me offer a few examples of recently produced, visually compelling new material out there for your taking.