Reflection #8

Mary Nally
JOURN 792
Reflection #8
May 20, 2009

Environmental Communication Chapters 8 & 9

The linkage between environmental problems and justice issues is so tightly wrapped; it resembles a tightly spun web. Not only do most environmental issues directly effect minority, under-represented or oppressed persons, but using the term “justice” frames the situation using a rights-based perspective.
It is truly appalling what some people have had to live through, such as the residents of Cancer Alley. Crossing the border, there are significant environmental justice issues in the maquiladora towns in Mexico. It typically isn’t until privileged (aka white) people become concerned and involved that action is successfully taken to remedy the injustice. However, the emphasis that the environmental justice movement is making is that the environment belongs to all of us, equally. We all have the right to live, work, and play in a clean environment, free from toxins and environmental perils.
If it weren’t so sad it’d be funny that people even argued over if environmental justice issues are environmental enough. This was a failure to see the interconnectivity between environmental, labor, civil rights and human rights issues. What is good to know is that the momentum for environmental justice is growing, and acts as a tool of empowerment for people to organize and fight for their rights.
Another way in which the environmental justice movement is unique from the traditional environmental movement is that it invites and encourages a more diverse group of people to be concerned for the environment. No longer is the environmental movement just a bunch of long-haired tree huggers, but now includes people from all walks of life and all spiritualities. This inclusiveness that is allowed under the umbrella environmental justice has created a great deal of new growth for the environmental movement overall. Networks have formed between groups that may otherwise have not seen their common interests.
Finally, in Chapter Nine we get to a discussion on the precautionary principle. I know I’ve brought this concept up in class before, but I feel like it never gets enough coverage. This is particularly true in the U.S. where industry and business feel that the free hand of the market place will weed out any toxic concerns, and lobby hard to prevent the making of, and works to dismantle current environmental protections. “We need further research!” is the perpetual cry, statements that the evidence is inconclusive continue to slow progress for environmental safety and justice, often until the damage is already done. This is called, as the author Robert Cox explained, the trope of uncertainty.

Questions:

How has the framework for environmental justice changed the global environmental movement? Do you think it’s helped to use a rights-based approach?

How has the media been involved in prolonging the sense of uncertainty about environmental issues, such as global climate change? When is it the media’s role to step in and inform the public of faulty information being disseminated by brownlash scientists?

Reflection #7

Mary Nally
JOURN 792
Reflection #7

Environmental Communication: Chapter 6 Risk Communication
Science In Public: Chapter 7 An ABC of Risk

“I don’t want to be a statistic.” This is something I’ve heard people say many times, when discussing risk. At this point in modern history, we all know somebody who has battled cancer. With the vast majority of cancers environmentally related (Steingraber, April 13, 2009), it is imperative that citizens and communities are educated about risk.

One of the significant challenges with risk assessment is that, either as humans or as a culture, it is difficult for us to wrap our minds around long-spans of time. Complex environmental pollutants, such as nuclear waste, have extremely long lives. This means that dealing with them will be a multi-generational project. “We cannot be very confidant about guaranteeing this protection reliably.” (Brooklyn College website). Scientists have created so many new chemicals and products so rapidly, and there are very few reviews to test for the long-term potential effects these products may have on our health and environment. Without these checks and balances in place, there are now hundreds of toxins in the environment, and we still don’t really know what the long-term effects may be. If one of us gets cancer tomorrow, we don’t often know where to point our finger.

This is precisely the dilemma Ulrich Beck addressed in his book Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Modern society is growing increasingly complex, but we have done little to safeguard ourselves. Instead, experts have taken to mathematically determining the probability and severity of environmental problems, with PR firms following behind to abate public concerns.

Chapter 7 in Science in Public told the disturbing story of Alar and apples. The media coverage of this event, in terms of reference to expert information was distinctly slanted toward the apple industry, in other words minimizing concern for risk. Although it’s true that a child would have to eat a ton of apples to get cancer from Alar, the media coverage did little to educate the public with news they could really use.

What I think is a sad effect from this, is that it seems to teach the public to not trust the media or the governmental agencies that they see as responsible for their protection from such risks. Again during the BSE scare in Great Britain, the majority of the public felt the government was ineffective. This kind of response does not take place in a vacuum-when the public looses trust; it takes years to regain it. It’s much like a relationship where the wife finds her husband neglectful in some way. He may apologize and assure her everything is okay. But at some point, she’ll say, “What have you done for me lately?” This kind of ongoing mistrust of the government spirals into the helplessness and apathy we see around us today.

References:
Steingraber, Sandra. Kennedy Lecture Series, Ohio University. April 13th, 2009.

Brooklyn College. http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/physics/sobel/Nucphys/waste.html

Questions:

How can the media balance offering helpful information in a time of crisis at the same time working to keep the public calm?

What will it take for the U.S. government to regulate the scientific industry using the Precautionary Principle, and thus limiting the number of new toxins introduced to the environment?

The Revkin Question

Mary Nally
JOUR 792
May 14, 2009

What is your vision of how the public will track environmental issues and
developments in five years?

It would be nice to see an increase in localized and citizen-created news sources. I envision more personalized coverage of environmental issues, stemming from a greater awareness of the fact that humans are connected inherently to the environment, and are deeply dependent on it’s well-being. This transformation may come as part of ecological citizenship, and the environmental justice movement. All of this is happening at the local scale. Thus it makes sense that the public may turn to local news sources with a higher degree of trust, and an increased expectation of accuracy, as well as having their interests and welfare in mind when choosing news topics.

Reflection #6

Mary Nally
JOUR 792
Reflection #6

Environmental Communication Chapter 5: Media and Environmental Journalism

It’s an issue of salience. Issue salience effects citizen and political action. People are most concerned, and most likely to take action, when there is a visible, known problem that affects them directly. Conversely, they tend to not be driven to action by invisible problems or problems that are not perceived as imminent. It is important to note that low issue salience is not to be mistaken for low levels of concern. Thus, when Anthony Down’s proposed his issue attention cycle, he was really gauging the public response, and not their interest.

The trade-off distortion, how environmental issues are framed in the media as jobs vs. environment, discourages citizens from action, because they are not willing or able to make such a choice. Most citizens, in fact, do not see such a dichotomy when it comes to environmental issues; they believe we can have both a strong economy and environmental protection.

So it’s not so much about whether environmental issues ought to be news, but how to develop the skills to make news out of invisible or complex problems. It is also crucial to not set up the story dichotomously, because it only tends to confuse and frustrate the reader.

Science in Public Chapters 5 & 10

The conundrum of how, where and when to publish findings in the scientific community is an interesting problem. In Chapter 5, the authors describe the coverage of Iben Browning’s and USGS’s predictions of earthquakes, and how Browning’s predictions were followed more closely, causing quite the uproar to the residents of New Madrid, Missouri.

This story reminded me of Bjorn Lumborg, the Swedish author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist.” This book is about how environmental problems aren’t as bad as scientists say they are, and the book follows this up with fancy charts and statistics. The catch here is that Lumborg is not a scientist, he’s an economist, and therefore has no qualifications to be discussing complex scientific issues. Be that as it may, Lumborg has now written several more books that have been hot sellers, and has been interviewed as an environmental expert by the media worldwide.

Not only is it crucial for the media to filter their sources, but also I do believe they have a responsibility to the public to inform and educate as well as deliver the news.

Questions:
How can journalists increase the number of science-based articles covered by the media?

Have channels such as National Geographic and Discovery increased our scientific literacy rate?

The media is often seen as bias or having other flaws which weakens the trust of the audience. How can journalists entering the field improve this trust?

Do you think it is the media’s responsibility to educate the public?

Reflection #5

Mary Nally
May 8, 2009
JOUR 792
Reflection #5

Science is not infallible. As much as some people would like to be comforted by the idea that science stands on firm ground, there is still much that is uncertain, and ideas touted as facts have been proved faulty throughout the years. Gregory and Miller review the arguments for and against the field of science in Chapter Three of their book.

Of particular interest to me are the voices that command the field to assess its perspective for sexism, racism and cultural bias. Sandra Harding’s critiques from the feminist viewpoint, and Evelynn Hammonds comments on racial inequality in the field demonstrate that the scientific field is still a product of its history. Forming from Western European societies, modern science grew out of a culture steeped in biases. This is evident reading the field journals of anthropologists and naturalists throughout history, that identify indigenous people as primitive and in need of proper Christian values, or projecting Western cultures ideas of gender roles and sex patterns.

Evolution’s Rainbow, by Joan Roughgarden, exemplifies the wave of critiques the modern scientific community experience. Roughgarden, a Biological Sciences professor at Stanford University, argues that Charles Darwin was faulty in some of the details of his theory of evolution. Specifically, she faults him for sex and gender stereotyping in the animal world, for projecting our cultural ideas onto the rest of nature.

Science has brought the world many benefits, created greater understanding of the world in which we live, and encourages our natural curiosity. That said, I believe the criticisms facing modern science are important to take seriously, and to take time for reflection on the impacts science has on the world.

Chapter Four, “Popularization, Public Understanding, and the Public Sphere,” details the arguments within the scientific community about how to deal with the public, and the role of science in the public arena. While reading this chapter, I grew increasingly irritated with the egoism from some of the scientists in their assertion that the public is incapable of understanding scientific information.

Scientists who fear the public’s power to scrutinize and react to discoveries and information aren’t worth their weight in lab coats. Lewis Wolpert’s comment on modern science being “irrelevant” to common people’s lives strikes me as not only false, but an elitist statement.

I was reminded while reading this chapter of Elise Hancock’s thoughts about the average reader. They are intelligent and curious, even if they aren’t informed on the details of the science. The public deserves more credit and respect than the modern scientific community gives them.

Questions:

1. How is modern science bias against other cultures, particularly in the field of medicine? Is it true that we have to be able to prove something empirically before we can acknowledge it works?
2. What are some ways in which the scientific community could strengthen the peer-review process in publishing, and remove or reduce the bias of politics and favoritism?
3. Do you agree that science is objective, in light of there being faulty “facts” in history?
4. What are your thoughts on McQuail’s comments in Chapter Four on mass communication and it’s effects of dumbing down the public?

References:
Roughgarden, Joan. Evolution’s Rainbow. University of California Press. 2005.

Reflection #1

Learning the history behind any piece of modern life is fascinating to me. Not only does it put the present day in perspective, but it tells the story of how things came to be this way. In this way, history helps make sense of the increasingly complex and fast-paced world.  The introductory chapters of Science in Public, by Gregory and Miller, paint a picture of how science and the public have interacted, and influenced one another, throughout modern history in Western civilization.

Chapter One discusses the increasing interest, and controversy, of scientific literacy among the general population. Beginning in the early 1970’s, scientific associations in the U.S. and Great Britain began testing how well the average person understood and appreciated science.  The results were initially dismal, and don’t seem to have improved dramatically since. However, these surveys created significant changes within the scientific community and effected government education policies.

There are several reasons why creating a scientifically literate society is important for the scientific community, including potential to increase funding and political support, increasing national economies and political strength globally, more educated individuals able to do science-related jobs, and more informed voters and consumers.  There are, however, those who argue that science is not the be-all-end-all panacea for society, and that it would be wise to keep science in perspective with other fields of study and aspects of living.

Chapter Two is Gregory and Miller’s book reviews science and the public through a wider historical lens, detailing the ins and outs since the 1600’s. One notable element of this story to me is the periods of controversy over whether an educated public would be a benefit or a hindrance, or even worse (particularly in light of the French Revolution) a lit match that could create political and cultural upheaval.

The development and encouragement of public interest in science has also changed over time in dynamic ways. The 19th Century had a great amount of public interest and involvement in science. People of all backgrounds (meaning not solely societal elites) attended lectures and demonstrations of scientific discoveries, and there was extensive science covered in literature, both in books and popular magazines.  Perhaps it’s just my perception, but I feel that we in the U.S. no longer hold the same kind of interest in science as we have in the past. Gregory and Miller also touch on a sense of distrust or disillusionment with science among the public following World War II and particularly since the 1960’s, and how the environmental movement used (and continues to use) science to back up their arguments.

Elise Hancock’s book, Ideas into Words, offers direct and explicit instructions and tips to becoming a good science writer. Her focus in the beginning chapters is on keeping the audience in mind, and to grow the sense of curiosity within. She cautions the writer be aware of funding sources in research and to check scientists’ credentials and validity. I was pleased to see this stressed, as it seems media frequently takes a bad rap for not checking sources or making copy straight from press releases, thus turning an advertisement into a news story.

1) How has the immense growth in technological sciences over the last two decades affected the public’s scientific literacy, in both understanding and appreciating science?

2) With the immense of amount of information available, is the public any better able to apply critical thinking skills to make decisions, both for their personal lives and for their political decisions?

3) How has “data smog” and corporate/industry/government “spin” affected the public’s ability to understand, decide and act on scientific issues?

Reflection #4

Reflection #4
JOURN 792
Mary Nally
April 31, 2009

Environmental communication is based in human relationships. Thus, part II of Robert Cox’s book covers the topics of public participation and conflict resolution strategies. Most of this material felt familiar to me, since just last quarter I took a course specializing in environmental conflict mediation, in which we also covered material on the traditional style of public hearings and comment periods.

There are many limitations to the traditional model of public comment periods, and Cox does a good job stressing how most can be very one-sided in communication. Most frequently, citizens do not feel heard, nor are their concerns addressed. Indeed, there is no mandate for the government agencies involved to respond to citizen feedback collected at hearings or during comment periods. The government is only mandated to have the hearing and collect the comments-not to do anything with the information gathered.

Conflict mediation has created a successful shift in citizen involvement and increasing people’s sense of active citizenship. True, not all mediation ends 100% successfully, but this mostly has to do with either not having a well-trained mediator or incorrectly assessing the level of conflict. Interestingly, mediation does best when conflict is high and the problem in question is complex.

The mediation process, if led by a well-seasoned mediator versed in consensus decision-making, can be an opportunity to educate lower-power parties and therefore empower them to advocate more effectively for themselves and their community.

I do confess that consensus can be challenging. While living in Astoria Oregon, I was a founding member for a worker-owned bakery. It is run as a collective with all decisions made by consensus. All the founders had high aspirations and ideals. However, a mistake was made to not seek an experienced teacher to assist us in learning how consensus works in reality. It’s really all about finding an agreement that all parties can live with, and working together to maximize joint gains. This is different than everybody liking all the details of a decision. Sometimes (especially in environmental conflict mediation) the emphasis must be on the package deal, and accepting that in order to get the big picture you want, you may need to give up a few things.

The one great aspect of consensus decision-making that is interesting in terms of communication is how it changes how people perceive conflict and learn to communicate in a different way. Instead of being position based and opinionated and defensive when a problem arises, it gets turned to identifying needs and interests involved and seeking out alternative solutions. Instead of the problem being about the people involved (making it personal), it’s about the problem itself and how best to solve it. A much healthier response, I think.

Questions:

Are there other methods that could be implemented in increase the success of public participation in government decisions regarding the environment?

How does using consensus based conflict mediation to resolve environmental conflicts affect the participants’ world view and perspective on how environmental issues are dealt with in the media? Will it create more activists?

Reflection #3

Mary Nally
April 23, 2009
JOUR 792
Reflection #3

“Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.” (Dunlap, 2000. Page 433) Which statement rings true in your world view? These two statements are from a survey designed to measure paradigm adherence, developed by Riley Dunlap at the University of Washington, in order to determine how people felt about their relationship with the environment.

Paradigms are an interesting way to view how people communicate. The language and terminology used, and the framework for discussion. What is left unsaid, what is not part of the discussion, is just as important to pay attention to as what is explicitly said. Acknowledging that our culture is embedded in the Dominant Social Paradigm can be difficult because it is practiced as an assumption of reality.

Obviously, I was thrilled to see paradigms discussed in Robert Cox’s text. His experience as President of the Sierra Club offers him an excellent perspective on how language and issue framing is used by advocacy groups. Understanding how to use language, to hold the readers’ attention, to get the message across, is not a unique problem for journalists. Indeed, it’s important for advocates, businesses, and government.

The DSP is strongest at the national level and weakest at the local level (Nash and Lewis, 2006). Therefore, the best environment for creating change is at the local level. That’s why local activist groups, individual citizens and local media are so important. The coverage and proceeding discussion of local environmental issues, such as acid mine drainage and the pollution incurred from coal power plants in the area, are vital to making changes happen. These changes can be in creating or changing policy, and in shifting perspectives on the environment.

The story of Lois Gibbs and Love Canal is a superb example of this manifestation. She was an average middle-class citizen, with no strong environmental opinions, until her son began exhibiting signs of sickness after exposure to toxins in the schoolyard. Her and her neighbors concern for what their families were experiencing brought media attention to the problem, and everyone involved experienced a dramatic shift in their understanding and appreciation of their environment, and wanted it to be toxin-free. Any reasonable person would prefer not to subject themselves or their loved-ones to toxins. However, this is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid as our landscape is so rapidly being altered, and we learn that pollution doesn’t recognize state or country boundaries.

References:
Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig and Jones. Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues. Vol 56. Pgs 425-442. 2000.

Nash, Nicholas and Alan Lewis. Overcoming Obstacles to Ecological Citizenship: The Dominant Social Paradigm and Local Environmentalism. Environmental Citizenship. Dobson and Bell (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pgs 153-184. 2006.

Reflection #2

Mary Nally
JOUR 792
Reflection #2
Ideas into Words Chapters 4-7

Chapter Four: Getting Started and the Structure
This chapter offers the writer a springboard and methodology for article writing. Hancock offers broad stroke rules of thumb to go by, and then details things to keep in mind.

The key elements are to maintain clarity throughout the article, to only begin writing once you yourself have clarity on the subject and understand the material well enough to explain it, to formulate the article so that it has proper flow, and to understand the intended audience.

Having a clear understanding of the topic will give your writing confidence and that will be demonstrated by your ability to explain it to the readers. Hancock stresses the importance of keeping writing concise as well as weaving it into a story. In order to create a good story, Hancock suggests following its natural shape, whether it be a spiral, leaf shape (with veins leading to various points) or other organic shapes. Having a physical structure to work acts as a skeleton for the writing. It makes it easier to flesh it out if you know where the underlying framework is, and where it’s headed next.

Hancock, as in the previous chapters, emphasizes the benefits of focusing on the readers and audience or order to focus the energy and intention during the writing process. She alludes to having an understanding of the demographics for whatever magazine or journal for which you may be writing. Knowing who the average reader may be will help you know how to frame your story, and what details may need more explanation or be superfluous. Returning to your visualization of the reader(s) occurs throughout the writing and editing process.

Chapter Five: The Nitty Gritty

Now it’s time to get down to business and flesh out the story. Hancock suggests we repeat her mantra, “what am I really trying to say?” and visualize the audience of readers, and to just start writing. An important element of her advise on writing is to save the editing for another time. If a writer edits as they go, it can stymie creative thinking, and get very frustrating. On the first draft, there is no need for editing or polishing; that occurs down the line, and at this point in the game is a waste of energy.
Hancock reviews how to avoid common pitfalls in writing (beware of passive voice-stick to action verbs) and how to keep momentum going (suppress unneeded information that may confuse the readers). She carefully outlines how to deal with the important details of information, such as how important it is to understand the specific figures or specific indefinites mentioned by scientists. It is just as important to handle quotations with care. Not only is proper citation important, but a writer must be mindful to keep quotes in context and to not alter the meaning of what was said.

Chapter Six:

This chapter reviews the editing process. Some of the helpful tips Hancock suggests are using a print copy to make notes, jottings, and check on the shape of the story. This is something I learned extensively last quarter studying qualitative research methods, since this is how to find commonalities and trends written in field notes. The idea of problem prevention, where the writer edits by finding a problem and then backing up to see if there’s a way to lead into the story a different way that works better, is a new idea to me. It sounds like it may be helpful and could work well as a creative solution, especially when dealing with how to explain/describe scientific information.

Chapter Seven:

There are common questions and problems that all writers have, particularly when starting out. In this chapter, Hancock addresses these, with her usual straight forward, humorous, and encouraging writing. I was surprised that the first issue was on the importance of self-care, being sure to eat, and sleep, and take breaks. Good advice for anyone working on a big project, but in my experience advice that is rarely followed, especially in graduate school. Taking breaks is good for our mental health, but also gives us more perspective on our writing.

I agree with Hancock about avoiding writing like a term paper, and think that even school papers work better if they are told as stories. They’re more fun to write and hopefully more interesting for professors to read. The third key point that stood out to me what ensuring that the writer thoroughly understands what they’re writing about. It reminds me of the general rule that you only really know something when you can explain it to someone else.

Questions for Discussion:

Chapter 4
1) What shapes or structures do you use when writing? What would you add to Hancock’s suggestion of using organic shapes as a story-telling method?
2) Hancock warns of meandering stories, particularly that tell a story of uncertainty within the scientific community. What are your thoughts on this, particularly in the media’s coverage of global climate change (coverage often caters to showing a “balanced view” when it may not be justified)?

Chapter 5
1) How do you feel about Hancock on one hand suggesting clear, concise writing, but also encouraging the flowering of writing by using quotations and transitional phrases? How does a writer find a balance?
2) What are some methods of avoiding patronizing the readers when conveying complex, scientific information?

Chapter 6
1) How do you feel about Hancock’s suggestion to throw away all lines that you feel proud of?

Chapter 7
1) What are some tactics in dealing with becoming emotional about your work, whether it’s demonstrating a bias to a character or side in your article or the issue itself? This seems particularly challenging when writing about environmental issues due to the nature of the information.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!