Simran Sethi

“The reason, according to Hind [Greenpeace], is simple. Apple is seen as a tech leader, especially when it comes to innovation. Even though companies like Dell and HP are much larger and ship many more computers, Greenpeace singles out Apple in order to draw attention to the whole tech industry’s eco policies, Hind says.”

It makes sense. Every tech reporter across the globe wants to be at the Macworld conference. I bet you could find at least one Apple post on prominent tech blogs Gizmodo and Engadget just about every day. It’s no wonder Greenpeace makes it a point to single out Apple.

Bobby G

Lindsay C

I wonder though, if as you pointed out, it is possible in broadcast and newspapers.

Maybe that is why so much of the environmental communication is done on the internet. If you have a 45 second bit on the local news about an environmental story that doesn’t get to the meat of the matter, it probably does start debate on the web. I can only hope that enough people start getting involved with the discussions. Because the issues are too big to be condensed into a sound bite.

Here’s a question, is it the scientists, or the media that politicizes science? Or the politicians?

After watching the debate last night, I kind of feel like the politicians aren’t going to be the point people on this.

Like the rest of us, they seem to be trying to figure out how this whole environmental movement fits into their lives.

Ranjit A

I agree that examination of even lies reveals some truth, but I think science has become so politicized lately that it is worth pointing out that a certain faction of scientists makes their money/living by actively contradicting the consensus within the science community…

To me, ethics in environmental reporting would mean reporters felt obligated to disclose the affiliations of the scientists they quote. That’s not a tall order, really. But it does mean, for example, that a local TV news reporter is going to have to do some additional research before/after shooting the story, and, of course, there isn’t time for that when stories have to be filed on a daily turnaround.

Well, what do you know… according to my tally, I managed to respond right at 50 words!

Ranjit A

I tried leaving this comment earlier, but I don’t think it got through…

Anyway, thanks for the comments–you raise an excellent point: The scientists were rarely ever happy with the results. It was never going to sum up their hard work properly–and I get that–but many of them brought the bad experience on themselves simply by approaching it with the wrong attitude. If they had simply said, “This reporter probably isn’t going to get it right, but I’ll keep trying to steer him/her in the right direction,” they would fare much better. It’s all in what you choose to make it, really.

You’re right about tight deadlines being out of the hands of most reporters. What they can control, though, is their science literacy. I did that by going through entry-level textbooks and reading books aimed at reporters attempting science writing. The best one–at the time–was Science Matters.

Ranjit A

But yes, there is no excuse too, given ample time that some reporters might have, to check all the facts of the press release before them, and use it as a basic information source, rather than copying the style and content of the author of the report.

Ranjit,another key element that I’d like to have seen you address is the response of scientists AFTER a story has been publicized. We know that space constraints means a reporter is likely to use either a portion of the release and often by omission and interpretation, the story is not framed the way it’s anticipated. The result – an irate scientist who said he or she didn’t say such and such, and why did the reporter alter the story that way and why was something else omitted. I guess that would have also placed you in an awkward position, but yes I can imagine that there must be this constant debate between what ought to be conveyed and what is ultimately publicized. My take though is that with such competing news interests, getting some publicity is not half as bad as getting nothing at all. I could go on here, but let’s leave the rest for further debate in the classroom. But thanks again for some fascinating perspective – ones that, as reporters, we never really privy to.

Denzyl J

I think there is some reasons to be skeptical. But also remember that even in a false statement, there may be some elements of truth buried in there that have some value.

One thing I would like to see in environmental journalism and communication is a little bit of ethics.

For example one of the board members of the Sierra Club, Paul Watson, takes his passion of the environment too far sometimes and hurts the environmental message. (You can find more about him in activistcash.com and other sites on the net)

Taking the low road in environmental communication is only going to put people at odds. Having people at odds will make the solution slip farther from our finger tips.

Adam B