How journalism works (according to some)
Trying to avoid adding to the blog echo chamber, I have some original articles up my sleeve soon (honest) but some examples of journalism commentary caught my eye today, for a number of reasons.
Commentary One
First, the story that slid across the digital garden, so to speak, of how human sewage, or sludge, was tested as a lead poisoning fix in the homes of nine low wage black American families. This story was then picked up by new UK green reporters Environmental Graffiti who pointed out “it would be funny if it wasn’t dangerous and disgusting”. True. That is, if it is true. A US college graduate, Sarah Werning, dug a bit deeper to examine the original paper and sources of the testing, carried out by one Mark Farfel, and came to the conclusion that it was sensationalist journalism on the part of Associated Press (and Yahoo, who ran the story). The bit that interests me is Werning’s comment on the knowledge of methodological and “scientific specialisation” on the part of the reporter:
The article seems to imply that [Farfel's] reign of lead and toxic waste terror extends further than this study, but to me it makes sense that if he studies the effects of lead poisoning, he would do it more than once, and in areas with high levels of lead. I dismissed this as the reporters’ not understanding [sic] the nature of scientific specialization. The story briefly mentions that the study passed the standards at Johns Hopkins for public health studies involving humans.
Last night I read Kris Wilson’s summary of “Communicating climate change through the media: predictions, politics and perceptions of risk” in Environmental Risks and the Media (Routledge, 2000), who makes exactly the same point about the reporting of climate change: that “the reporters with the most accurate climate change knowledge were found to be full-time environmental specialists who primarily used science sources” (215). As he also points out, science writers use the term ‘greenhouse effect’ whereas “non-science writers preferred the term ‘global warming’.” ‘Global warming’ as a term is scientifically misleading for the range of changes that will occur across our planet due to the rapid anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. As such, it is a simple but effective indicator of how major terms can be incorrectly communicated across the mass media when journalists simply don’t have the scientific knowledge to get it right.
Commentary Two
Just because it’s good to know there are people out there making accurate, irrefutable claims about “how journalism works”. There is nothing that suggests the ability, over a 29 month period, to update your understanding of a particular issue, in this case biofuels, should be regarded as a journalistic disgrace. If this commentator really is “the most amusing non-stop critique of the Labour Government available” (from EU Surf) then no wonder Blair and Brown have gone unchallenged for so long.
Comments
Leave a Reply
