This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Sachsman, D. B. Articles by Valenti, J. M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Risk and the environment reporters: a four-region analysis

Communication and Public Affairs; 210 Frist Hall, Department 3003, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, 615 McCallie Avenue, Chattanooga, TN 37403, USAdavid-sachsman{at}utc.edu

James Simon

Fairfield University, Fairfield, CT

Joann Myer Valenti

Brigham Young University in Utah

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.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 13, No. 4, 399-416 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0963662504046634


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?