Week 9 Response Paper
Chapters 8 and 9 of Environmental Communication covered two important topics relevant to environmental journalism: environmental justice and the legitimacy of science. Environmental justice is crucial for science journalists to be aware of so that they can see not only what environmental problems are being addressed, but also those that are not and should be. The validity of science is also fundamental to a science journalists’ background, as politics often threaten cloud the waters of ecology and scientific understanding. Cox provides a broad background of each issue in chapters 8 and 9.
A key theme brought up in regards to environmental justice is the concept of nature. The first is that the environmental justice movement challenges the traditional view of nature. Early environmentalists (before 1970) viewed nature as some wild and far off place that should be protected. Marginalized groups saw the many flaws of this view because of the impacts it has had on their communities. Environmental justice proponents broke from this limited perspective, considering themselves as an integral part of nature, and demanding the quality of life that we all deserve.
Demanding equality has not been easy, however, as depicted by the story of Rose Marie Augustine. She was called a “hysterical Hispanic housewife” by a public official because of her concern about the health of her community’s environment. This is unfortunately not a rare occurrence—government agencies are all too ready to overlook environmental justice issues rather than deal with them properly.
This same dilemma is encountered in the relationship between politics and science, as Ian Thomas found out the hard way. He was fired from the USGS after posting a map of caribou calving grounds in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Scientific findings are not always politically convenient, and have been watered down, altered, or deleted by government officials. More subtly, politicians and members of industry have sought to affect the public’s perception of the legitimacy of science, itself.
Science has significant challenges in keeping pace with environmental degradation, and also in communicating its findings to the public without being discredited. Many scientists argue over their role in society: does it lie in advocacy or neutrality? To me, it seems ridiculous and impossible to remain neutral—what good are scientific findings if they are not put to proper use in decision making.
These chapters bring up several important questions for me. How much science should go into decision making without creating a technocracy? Where is the environmental justice movement today in relation to the traditional environmental movement? Is there any reconciliation taking place between the two movements?
