Recognizing What Triggers Environmental Misinformation
[This was published originally in the April 2009 issse of PRSA's TACTICS newsletter.]
The Angora Fire at Lake Tahoe. Image courtesy of the U.S. Forest Service.
Environmental concerns are driven by good intentions and, often, a sense of urgency. There is a reason for this. Climate change indexes, regarded by scientists as credible indicators of global environmental health, are painting an unflattering portrait of our future.
Consequently, environmental issues are laced with controversy. The conflict is often perceived as human interests versus environmental interests. At one end of the spectrum is a view that Earth was made for humans to manipulate it as we see fit. The other end of the spectrum is guided by the belief that we must tread lightly in order to save the planet.
Most people reside somewhere in the middle of this spectrum and many lean toward one side or the other. However, in the news media, those who are most passionate about the environment often drive these issues. Because of this, environmental misinformation has the potential to run rampant.
The Alar scare of the 1980s and 1990s typified the success of misinformation in shaping policy. Alar is a growth-regulating chemical sprayed on fruit crops that was said to be carcinogenic. It was eventually banned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The amount of Alar to be carcinogenic to humans, said to equal 5,000 gallons of apple juice per day, was debated. The end result: the risk to infants consuming apple products was considered too significant. The ban went into effect.
Today, the Alar ban is viewed as being the result of a campaign of fear and misinformation rather than careful consideration of the scientific evidence.
Campaigns like this one are based on misinformation that becomes exacerbated by concerns about environmental issues. Many debated the perceived environmental benefits of having a hands-off attitude toward nature after Lake Tahoe’s Angora fire in June 2007. The blaze was started by an illegal campfire and it destroyed more than 300 homes and structures. Several factors caused the fire to become unmanageable — people realized that tree thinning and forest-fuel treatments were lacking because of an historic laissez-faire approach to forest management in the Tahoe basin.
The public view of forest management practices has since changed and it is now generally understood that better forest management improves environmental health, especially if devastating fires can have a negative impact on the quality of Lake Tahoe’s water. After the Angora fire, a bi-state fire commission, formed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons, recognized the need to better manage the forest fuels that enable fires to rapidly spread.
Misconceptions about the environment also influence how the news media cover environmental stories. Credible environmental information should ideally come from scientific journals, which have a built-in system to help guard against potential bias. Peer review, where scientists evaluate their colleagues’ research, exists in order to weed out poorly conducted studies and possible scientific bias.
Peer review is not foolproof, but it is a better way to detect mistakes than the editing process in most newsrooms. Journalists are not bound by the procedures designed to guard against scientific bias. In addition, reporters are often not trained in research methodologies and draw conclusions and parallels where they might not otherwise exist. Cautionary principles guide scientific research, while news stories and David-versus-Goliath environmental battles, such as a grassroots environmental organization versus a large, multinational corporation, often generate a lot of reader interest.
Sometimes it is common for an advocacy group to release a study that indicts a government entity or a corporation. The media often cover such studies, even if the research may not have much scientific validity.
When the Associated Press published an article in 2008 about the amount of pharmaceutical drugs found in public water supplies, the story diminished the fact that there have been advancements in water testing technologies. The regulation and monitoring of public water supplies has improved since this story to better detect contaminants of any amount. This indicates advancements in testing methods, and not necessarily an increased risk for consumers.
PR counselors have an obligation to look critically at potential sources of misinformation, such as studies released by advocacy organizations that are presented as scientific reports. When an environmentally themed news story gains popularity, despite being loosely scientific in nature, it behooves the PR professional to ask specific questions such as:
- Does the study try to avoid broad conclusions?
- Was the study disseminated to the news media before being peer reviewed?
- Is the study published in a peer reviewed, scientific journal?
- How was the study funded?
- Do the researchers or authors have potential conflicts of interest?
Any one of these questions may not be worthy of concern. Lesser-known journals publish plenty of research, which does not negate the validity of the research findings. Similarly, research funded by a corporation or interest group may or may not be biased if the published results are reviewed by other researchers.
As PR counselors, however, it is our responsibility to carefully gauge how environmental issues are reported in the news. When controversy is heightened, we need to understand how misinformation flourishes. At the same time, we have a responsibility to communicate the most credible information in ways that can be easily understood by our publics.
When it comes to environmental issues, it is paramount to ensure that all information is accurate. Because our environment is so fragile, misinformation can needlessly impair workable solutions to the planet’s many environmental challenges. Our future depends on clarity, honesty and solutions that arise through mutual understanding.
Ike
2 years ago
Bob, you’ve found PR’s next “third rail.”
Raising the issue as you did, in a level-headed and even-handed manner, would be just fine for any other topic you might plug into the formula. But there’s something about the Epic Scope of environmental issues that immediately invokes fear and stokes claims of ad hominem bias.
Advocate for one side, and you’re a business-hating socialist.
Advocate for the other side, and you’re in the pocket of Big Business. (Or Big Oil, or Big Anything With Capital Letters.)
Your advice is on the money, I’d just add a bigger emphasis on transparency. Any hint that a group or entity might be hiding a connection becomes “proof” that its stance is immoral and its data is tainted.
Which is a shame, because this conversation has to be settled before we can move on to anything else. For better, or for worse.
bconrad
2 years ago
Thanks for your comments, Ike.
What seems to change the temper of the discussion is when lives and properties are dramatically impacted. Even then, the concern is short lived.
As far as transparency, it’s not the panacea many in the journalism world make it out to be. While necessary as a general operational credo, reporters and other critics will always find a way spin light onto something that fits the perceived problem of the day regardless of how open an organization is in practice and/or theory.
I vividly remember when there was a disease outbreak at one of the University’s animal facilities, and, after finding out the incident and ensuring the safety of the other animals, we quickly convened a meeting on what to do next. We ended up notifying the press – preemptively and by choice, which we didn’t have to do – within about three hours of discovering the problem. One reporter’s response: “What took you so long to call me?” (Incidentally, this is the same media outlet that two weeks ago waited more than 24 hours to tell the community it had laid off about 35 of its employees while many of us were aware of the layoffs as they were happening and as word was quickly spreading over the Internet.)
Another example that is more to the point: today’s third-round of fear mongering by the Associated Press and its “drugs in the water” series continues to bury and de-emphasize the most salient of points – the negligible effect on consumer health and safety.
A significant chunk of the problem is that reporters are not well trained, or simply not trained at all, in understanding science, risk, impacts and statistics. Too often reporters satisfy their own ingrained fear-based responses mixed with their tall-order needs to speak for the rest of us. The result is a dangerous amount of potential misinformation for a public that is even less equipped to think critically about complex information as it comes in.
To be fair, these traits are also what make journalism so great and have made society better because of the persistent dogging of bungled, harmful organizations and arrogant authoritarians. The problem, though, is when our misperceptions, biases and assumptions aren’t kept in check. We all suffer from these distortions and we all share a responsibility in keeping an eye on them and admitting when we’re wrong.