Neuzil,
Mark. The Environment and the Press: From
Adventure Writing to Advocacy. 2008. Evenston: Northwestern University
Press.
In this
book, Neuzil offers a creative take on the relationship between journalism and
environmental subjects. I say creative
because he starts further back in the past they I would have expected. But more
on that later.
The
majority of the book traces our American history of environmental journalism. As
Neuzil says, “environmental
journalism, as a routine component of the mainstream American press, emerged as
a consequential factor in how citizens and their governments view, manage,
preserve, and exploit their natural surroundings” (184-185). The status today?
The environment is a legitimate beat in many of the American newspapers for
about 40 years. However, the beat is still fairly young comparative to many of
journalistic areas (204). And often environmental reporting in mass media is
lacks "depth and context" (206).
However,
the chapter on outdoor adventure writing seemed to focus more on the formation
of different groups, as did the chapter about early environmental concerns. I
do see the connection, though, between the need for an audience for the
environmental reporting, and these groups not only make a great audience but
also provide a lot of content for stories.
My idea
of outdoor adventure writing has more to do with John Krakauer and Outside magazine. Neuzil writes beyond
adventure enthusiast activities of backpackers today, and more about
organizational development of early hunting and fishing groups. On his chapter
on nature writing, he sought to inform the reader about the past writers of
nature in American history—although he did write significantly about Isaac Walton, who
I didn’t
know of. Then he covered basic outdoor writers such as the Thoreau, Borroughs
(who I didn’t
know much about), and John Muir.
I greatly
appreciated Neuzil’s writing about Sigurd Olson. I’ve read The Singing Wilderness and I knew of Olson’s advocacy work. I didn’t know that he had/has a national
following. Because of his relationship with the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness, I expected his fanbase to be more localized. I was wrong—he was voted one of the most
popular nature writers by the Sierra Club magazine. When I read that Olson died
with his snowshoes on, I teared up. If
only all of us can find that place in life to do what we love until the moment
of our death, I thought.
With
Neuzil’s
take, it was easy to see how environmental writing, or nature writing, changed
as society progresses. And its impact depends on proximity to population. As
Neuzil mentions, “Small
newspapers are more likely to be consensus oriented rather than conflict
oriented”
(174).
Objective
journalism in America did not show up until the 1890s (131). Around that time,
people advocated against the use of birds in fashion. During this time it's
estimated that 5 million birds were killed annually for their use in the
fashion industry—although
no one's really sure of an accurate count (134). The outraged bird lovers
formed a new movement, the Audubon movement. It gained steam as they fought the
women's fashion industry, which had plenty of it’s own ammunition to protect it’s causes. The press attempted
to cover both sides getting information from the industry and the group’s spokespersons in local
areas. The debate got so heated that volunteer Audubon wardens were killed
trying to protect the birds (144) which is hard to imagine happening today. It
does remind me Jnathan Franzen’s piece in The New
Yorker called “Emptying the Skies.” It describes a similar problem around Italy and Cyprus.
The area is a hotspot for migrating birds and many meet their fate from hunters
who blast them out of the sky illegally. Even songbirds are prey; they are
caught on poles covered in glue so they can be sold to restaurants. These
practices are illegal, but the enforcement is light, so few have any fear of
reprimand. Franzen tags along with rangers and finds real challenges to their
authority—they
have reason to fear for their life if they push enforcement too far.
As Neuzil
observed, the pattern that forms with environmental conservation is this: a
threat attempts to disturb the natural environment; then a social coalition
forms to protect the environment from the threat. He describes a similar
situation with dam building forces out west. The coalitions were key to pushing
back a dam in Dinosaur National Monument. He states, "As in the movement
against the Millners, the formation of coalitions is critical to any success of
the anti-damn forces” (147).
This book was full of great stories from times past. For
instance, when the industrial revolution was in full swing, he public held a
fascination with the “back to nature” movement. One journalist in Boston ran
into the Maine woods with only his undies on, and supposedly survived for
several weeks, emerging a hero. Neuzil makes a daft point about the whole
matter.
In journalism history one common assumption is that the
content of the press tells the something about the audience, even if, in the
end, the nature man stories were more like the moon hoax of 1835 – which claim the existence of
intelligent life on the moon – then Nellie Bly's adventures and 1880s. (173)
That was a sensationalistic story. Another story represented the
theme of the media as the government watchdog. It dealt with Taft, a reclusive
president. The office of
the president has held regular press briefings since the Administration in the
early 1900s. Taft did not hold press briefings because he didn't believe in
bringing information to the public media. As a result, the press got
information from critics (including Gifford Pinchot, the founder of the
National Forest Service). Eventually, Taft was implicated in the press for a
land grab in Alaska, due to the muckraking press (165).
Although
the trend is been moving away from superficial environmental reporting from the
early 1900s (like the sensational “nature man” story), national attention is paid to the reactionary
stories like that of the Sago mine disaster in 2006. Today in modern journalism,
environmental writing is institutionalized with a few professional associations,
such as the Society of Environmental Journalists.
In modern
journalism, the real trouble with environmental writing and media is that it
can be difficult to tell where advocacy begins in fact reporting ends. Michael
Frome, an advocacy journalist, urges environmental journalists to follow Rachel
Carson and write with “a desire to advance the cause of a better world” (130). The debate
continues today, although the SEJ keeps advocates out of the primary membership
of the group. Still,
even the more objective national media plays a critical role in drawing
attention to environmental concerns, especially when policy is about to be made
(194-195). It seems that the idea of objectivity does drift further from us (in
Neuzil’s
view) and journalism moves closer to the advocacy of some early journalism.
However, today’s
writing is much more steeped in peer-mediated science (232). Several modern
examples were given.
Living on Earth was an environmental radio show that ran on National
Public Radio in the 1990s. It was hosted by Steve Kerwood and provided more
in-depth reporting on environmental matters (207-208).
The book
describes Discovery Channel and Outdoors Life Network channel's growth and
development but later diversification into various programming not concentrated
on animal or environmental or conservation areas. In fact, OLN network grew and
became versus in 2006 (218).
The
complexity of environmental reporting can be difficult to report and broadcast
news because it's time and advertising constraints. One researcher Andrew Kendall
found that the coverage of environmental reporting consisted of only 2% of all
broadcast networks newscasts from 1998 to 2005 (220).
Neuzil
also listed some websites I’d like to explore more: Environmental Health News, worldchanging.com,
dateline.com, earth.com, gristmill.com.
