The assigned chapters from Science in Public and Environmental Communication explore the compatibility or incompatibility of the media and science. In many ways, science and journalism have very different ideologies and do not mingle well. The authors show, however, that there can be ways to reconcile these differences to some degree and in some instances. But mainstream media does not cover environmental issues sufficiently, and an alternative environmental media has emerged to take on this task. Why is all of this important to discuss? Because the mechanisms by which people are presented with information affects the perceptions of environmental issues that the public develops. Presenting nature as best friend or worst enemy has consequences.
How is science incompatible with traditional journalism and the mainstream media? There are a range of views regarding the level of urgency in presenting environmental issues, but on the whole scientific stories are rarely breaking news. Additionally, many environmental issues or scientific research are very long-term phenomenon, and journalism is geared towards single events. This is part of a greater phenomenon identified by Downs called the “Issue Attention Cycle”, where environmental issues’ importance in the minds of the public waxes and wanes. Other challenges are that some news entities such as CNBC are owned by companies such as General Electric. The owners of these stations are biased in their presentation of environmental issues in an attempt to improve their own public standing. Journalism is also very influenced by politics. For example, U.S. cities covered the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge story in differing quantity and with different angles depending on the percentage of democrats or republicans that comprised the population.
Can these differences be overcome? In 1999 the Seattle Post-Intelligence did a story about the extraordinary environmental injustice in Libby, Montana. This story helped the incident gain needed publicity to address the health issues of the community. While this was more breaking news than many scientific stories, it shows that it is possible to present environmental issues in the mainstream media. Many scientific issues are very factual and therefore can make for interesting, straightforward stories. Environmental issues can also be “piggy-backed” with more breaking news or popular issues.
At the core, however, even science journalism is more about journalism than science, the authors of Science in Public argue. It is here that alternative environmental media have come into play. Publications like High Country News in the Rocky Mountain region specializes in covering environmental issues in the west, and has been very successful. At least to some degree, these publications have filled a vacant niche in giving extensive coverage to environmental issues.
There are many questions that remain unanswered regarding the relationship between science and journalism. How does journalism shape public perception of environmental issues? How could one ensure that the media presents environmental issues objectively? If environmental issues cannot be incorporated into the mainstream media, what does that mean for the environmental literacy of the public?
