Our environment presents the media with some of the most exciting stories imaginable: colossal natural disasters in the form of hurricanes, tidal waves or avalanches - thousands dead, millions homeless, billions of pounds worth of damage.
But what if we're provoking the disaster ourselves? You can't scream at readers: "The planet is dying, and it's your fault!" How do you deal with conscience-pricking people in tents outside nuclear-waste processing plants? Call them "eco-warriors", perhaps?
Generally speaking, and without a conscious conspiracy, the media tends to portray people who question the status quo as deviant. Typically, people involved in environmental issues contend with a sandal-wearing-breast-feeding-woolly-hat-on-yer-bike sort of image. Essentially, they are a bit odd, aren't they? Meanwhile, the arguments fly back and forth, often between the huge corporations earning millions a year from their produce and pressure groups opposing them.
Often, each side commissions research, and each side feeds results to the media. Science rarely yields the perfect answer. However, answers win arguments - and the media is driven by "answers", also known as "hard facts". Suppose you were out for a night with your pals, having an illicit drink or two. On the way home you stopped for a burger.
Next morning you woke up feeling wretched. It might have been the drink, it could have been the burger. What would you tell your mother? A hangover or food poisoning? Tough call - not. When it comes to sorting out such causes and effects, hard fact is a complicated issue. The consequences may dictate the form "truth" takes. Should we err on the side of caution? "Until a thing can be shown to be positively safe, we ought to reckon that any contaminant should be avoided." That's from the introduction, 40 years ago, to Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. But awaiting comprehensive, definitive results from research takes time, and meanwhile both money and crops are being lost. Earlier this month an article on pesticides appeared in a local US publication. The journalist cited scientific evidence that exposure to pesticides linked to leukaemia, brain cancer, asthma and so on - and children, being lower to the ground, are most at risk. Sounds like dodgy stuff, doesn't it? However, breathe a clean sigh of relief: on the popular "Junk Science" website, dedicated to attacks on such environmental journalism, the article is rubbished.
Citing the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, "Junk Science" argues that increases in cancer among children are not attributable to environmental influence, but to changes in detection and reporting. So is there a risk or not? How many parents are thinking of testing it out on their children? In the end, multinational chemical companies stand to make, or lose, millions. Company directors endeavour to ensure media coverage will not have a negative impact on sales. In fact, they want consumers to feel very happy about buying their products - and public-relations officers are employed to create a consumer-friendly image. Meanwhile, some members of pressure groups worry about waking up in a wet bed because the planet has melted. Competing with wealthy organisations, these groups too have to spend money on their own images.
And newspapers have to sell, pleasing advertisers and readers alike. Complex factors come together to determine how an eco-story is told, why and when. Next week: All that Jazz - Maybe that improvised ,music sounds intimidating - but maybe you're listening to it already without knowing it!
