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.

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.