Home » Science & Nature » Environment » Problems in Environmental Journalism

Problems in Environmental Journalism

© Kenneth Friedman

Environmental journalists have a tough time reporting on some kinds of environmental news. In some cases, it's hard to remain objective when you care deeply about the environment. In other cases, the subjects involve a lot of science that a journalist might not understand. Often, journalists are confronted with opposing opinions to make sense of. These problems can mean trouble for readers who don't know whether or not what they are reading is accurate. According to S. Holly Stocking, a professor at Indiana University,

In her chapter, "How Journalists Deal with Scientific Uncertainty," in the 1999 book Communicating Uncertainty, by Sharon M. Friedman, Sharon Dunwoody and Carol L. Rogers, says researchers have found out a lot about the way journalists report science news. In the interest of brevity but with all due respect, I won't cite the researchers she discusses in her chapter; I'll ask readers to remember that she is summarizing the research of others. If you want to know who; read the chapter. Knowing what behaviors color the news you read can help you be more critical about what you read.

Stocking explains that journalists tend to remove the uncertainty from information that scientists report. She says, quoting other researchers, "journalists tend to transform provisional findings into certain findings." She also says that other research shows that there is a difference between what appears in science journals and what appears in the popular press, including The New York Times. The popular press tends to transform the scientists' "hedge words," such as "may," "might" and "could," into unequivocal positives, she reports researchers as saying. Other studies have shown that journalists reporting on natural and man-made hazards tend to minimize uncertainties.

Journalists also may not report a complete or comprehensive story. According to Stocking's review, "a significant number of journalists. . .limit themselves to single sources in reporting science stories." This means those journalists are not questioning individual scientists by getting the opinions of other scientists, so readers end up reading "narrow" stories. Another way journalists create a similar problem for readers is by omitting historical context. This means that readers get news in pieces even though it is part of an evolving story. If you don't read all the articles about the same subject, then you might make decisions based on only one small part of the issue.

At least some of what we read also tends to make it appear that what scientists are working on will succeed. In other words, if scientists are looking for a solution to some problem, journalists report the story as if a solution is guaranteed. By taking this approach, journalists reduce the uncertainty inherent in most science, which makes the scientists unhappy because they're busy trying to tell people that science is full of uncertainty, which it is.