Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Who are the environment reporters who explain the science of the environment to the general public? Do they consider risk when writing environmental stories? How often do they say they use a risk assessment angle compared to other issues? Are they concerned that they may be exaggerating environmental risks, excessively frightening their readers and viewers?

This study used a census approach to interview 354 environment reporters in four regions of the United States. The majority of environment reporters in all four regions said they used risk angles at least sometimes, many more than might have been true in the past. However, the journalists said they more frequently framed their stories using government, human-interest, business, nature, pollution, politics, science, and health angles, and some reporters, ranging from 28.3 percent in New England to 41.8 percent in the Pacific Northwest, said they rarely or never included risk assessment in their environmental stories. Although most journalists in the four regions did not believe that news reports generally sensationalized environmental risks, some reporters (16.9–25.0 percent) said that environmental journalists generally have overblown environmental risks, unduly alarming the public.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ader, C.R. (1995) “A Longitudinal Study of Agenda Setting for the Issue of Environmental Pollution,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 72: 300–311 .

Chaiken, S. and Trope, Y. (1999) Dual-process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford .

Davis, J.J. (1995) “The Effects of Message Framing on Response to Environmental Communications,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 72: 285–299 .

Epstein, S. (1994) “Integration of the Cognitive and the Psychodynamic Unconscious,” American Psychologist 49: 709–724 .

Ferguson, M.A. , Valenti, J.M. and Melwani, G. (1991) “Communicating with Risk Takers: A Public Relations Perspective,” Public Relations Research Annual 3: 195–224 .

Greenberg, M.R. , Sachsman, D.B. , Sandman, P.M. and Salomone, K.L. (1989a) “Network Evening News Coverage of Environmental Risk,” Risk Analysis 9: 125-125 .

Greenberg, M.R. , Sachsman, D.B. , Sandman, P.M. and Salomone, K.L. (1989b) “Risk, Drama and Geography in Coverage of Environmental Risk by Network TV,” Journalism Quarterly 66: 275-275 .

Griffin, R.J. and Dunwoody, S. (1995) “Impacts of Information Subsidies and Community Structure on Local Press Coverage of Environmental Contamination,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 72: 271–284 .

Kasperson, R.E. , Renn, R. , Slovic, P. , Brown, H.S. , Emel, J. , Goble, R. , Kasperson, J.X. and Ratick, S. (1988) “The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework,” Risk Analysis 8: 177–187 .

10.

MacDougall, C.D. (1982) Interpretative Reporting. New York: Macmillan .

11.

Peiser, W. (2000) “Setting the Journalist Agenda: Influences from Journalists’ Individual Characteristics and from Media Factors,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 77: 243–257 .

12.

Petts, J. , Horlick-Jones, T. and Murdock, G. (2001) “Social Amplification of Risk: The Media and the Public,” Contract Research Report 329/2001. Caerphilly, UK: Health and Safety Executive Office .

13.

Sandman, P.M. , Sachsman, D.B. , Greenberg, M.R. and Gochfeld, M. (1987) Environmental Risk and the Press. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books .

14.

Singer, E. and Endreny, P.M. (1987) “Reporting Hazards: Their Benefits and Costs,” Journal of Communication 37: 10–26 .

15.

Sloman, S.A. (1996) “The Empirical Case for Two Systems of Reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin 119: 3–22 .

16.

Slovic, P. , Finucane, M.L. , Peters, E. and MacGregor, D.C. (2002a) “The Affect Heuristic,” in T. Gilovich , D. Griffin and D. Kahneman (eds) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, pp. 397–420. New York: Cambridge University Press .

17.

Slovic, P. , Peters, E. , Finucane, M. and MacGregor, D.G. (2002b) “Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis, December. New Orleans, LA.

18.

Valenti, J.M. (1998) “Ethical Decision Making in Environmental Communication,” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 13: 219–231 .

19.

Valenti, J.M. (1999) “Scientists Meet to Learn How to Communicate,” Science Communication 20: 348–350 .

20.

Valenti, J.M. (2000) “Improving the Scientist/Journalist Conversation,” Science and Engineering Ethics 6: 543–548 .

21.

Valenti, J.M. and Wilkins, L. (1995) “An Ethical Risk Communication Protocol for Science and Mass Communication,” Public Understanding of Science 18: 177–194 .

22.

Weaver, D.H. and Wilhoit, G.C. (1996) The American Journalist in the 1990s: U.S. News People at the End of an Era. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .

23.

Weaver, D. , Beam, R. , Brownlee, B. , Voakes, P. and Wilhoit, G.C. (2003) The American Journalist in the 21st Century: Key Findings. Bloomington, IN: School of Journalism, Indiana University .

24.

Willis, J. (1997) Reporting on Risks. Westport, CT: Praeger .

25.

Zajonc, R.B. (1980) “Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences,” American Psychologist 35: 151–175 .

Risk and the environment reporters: a four-region analysis

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References