E&E TV has had a couple interesting interviews of late discussing the tricky balance between balanced journalism and scientific integrity. Today they interviewed Andrew Revkin, New York Times environment writer, children’s book author, and recent target of Senator Inhofe’s swift-boating. They touched on the subject of scientific integrity a few times. Toward the end of the interview, they directly address Inhofe’s attack.
Darren Samuelsohn: Your book has caught the attention of Senator Jim Inhofe’s staff, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. It was listed among several journalism outlets, I guess you could call them, Tom Brokaw’s Discovery Channel documentary and the Associated Press’s coverage of Al Gore’s movie. Saying that there’s questions about objectivity in the press and that there’s a love fest in the media about global warming. How do you respond to Senator Inhofe questioning your objectivity?
Andrew Revkin: Well, the book is very much science driven. It lets the scientists speak and show what it’s all about. It’s, by far, the least inflammatory book out there on this issue and there’s no spin, it’s a no-spin zone. I don’t believe in spin. In fact, I’ve worked hard to kind of cut that away, parse that away and see what we really know and don’t know and need to know. And the book really lays that out. It’s a portrait of the once and future Arctic.
Darren Samuelsohn: Senator Inhofe is one of the most outspoken critics of the science, a skeptic or denier, what have you. How do you deal with skeptics when you’re doing your reporting? Do they get any say whatsoever in your stories?
Andrew Revkin: Yeah, well it depends on the story. If I’m writing about science I talk to scientists who are publishing peer-reviewed work in the field I’m writing about. If it’s about what’s happening with Greenland’s ice, I talk to people who understand the dynamics of glaciers and ice sheets in that part of the world. And that if I’m talking about policy questions in a story, what do we do about it? How dangerous is climate change? How much is too much? Then I reach farther out, and I would be more apt to quote someone from, let’s say, World Wildlife Fund and someone from the Cato Institute or one of the groups that shapes the industry position. Because they are, that’s where that discourse broadens. The science stories, if I’m writing about an assessment of a new research project, then I talk to scientists alone.
In word and deed, Revkin is both knowledgeable and balanced. He does not deserve to have his credibility attacked for a book, a children’s book no less, that his attackers haven’t even read. You can watch the full interview here (subscription required).
A couple days ago they interviewed Jim Detjen, professor and director of the Knight Center for Environmental Journalism at Michigan State University. Detjen discussed the state of environmental journalism, and near the end of the interview discusses the tricky balance between balanced coverage and scientific consensus.
You can view the program here (subscription required). Below is an excerpt from the transcript:
Darren Samuelsohn: How do you teach students in terms of initially, like global warming, where there are many points of view? What do you teach them in terms of the skeptic’s point of view? Do they belong in their coverage?
Jim Detjen: I think I try to teach the students that it’s important to figure out where the consensus of knowledge is on an issue. And so, like in the area of climate change and global warming, the overwhelming, the majority of science, scientists, are in very similar camps. I mean I think it’s important to tell your readers and viewers that that’s the case. I think you can tell if there’s a knowledgeable minority. You can express that point of view. I think sometimes there are people that are throwing up smoke screens and I think journalists need to be authoritative. They need to be knowledgeable enough and authoritative enough so that they can say, “This is what science is telling us.”
Darren Samuelsohn: Vice President Gore, in his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” he actually criticizes the press for quoting skeptics too much in terms of how much majority or consensus opinion there is compared with the coverage. Is this really a no-win situation for reporters, where they’re going to be criticized from the left and from the right?
Jim Detjen: I mean it’s very difficult. I guess I like to say that if you’re a journalist, criticism comes with the territory. And if you’re going to be a journalist, you know, you’re going to be criticized and there will be some very strong attacks you will face. I think, as a journalist, the best thing to do is try to become as knowledgeable as you can, try to look at the best science as you can, try to report it as fairly as you can and do the best you can. And try not to be intimidated, because I think there are powerful special interests that are, in fact, trying to intimidate journalists from covering one story or the other or shaping the way you cover a story. And I mean this goes back for, in all beats. I mean I worked at the Philadelphia Inquirer for many years and we had our Middle East correspondents. You name it, on any given day there were people from the Palestinians protesting or the Israelis protesting in front of the building. And we used to think, well gee, he’s probably doing a good job because he’s getting a lot of people angry and upset.
Darren Samuelsohn: As long as you can get both sides angry.
Jim Detjen: Well, I think you try to be fair, OK? And you realize that there’s going to be special interests that are mobilized, who will try to shape your coverage. My hope is that you have strong enough editors and strong enough publishers who will let the journalists do their jobs and do it well if they have good reporters. And not be intimidated by people who are trying to shape the coverage.
It’s fairly obvious that as climate skeptics lose both the science and the public opinion, they are pushing to discredit those who challenge their world views. While some do it respectfully, others are unscrupulous in their personal and professional attacks.
