A media meltdown threatens the Great Lakes

The challenge for environmental journalists who work for commercial media is that their news organization's fortunes depend primarily on advertising, not subscriber contributions. So companies that were already in trouble because of their failure to adapt to the Internet now face deep cuts because of declining ad revenue.

Part of the problem my well be our out-sized expectations of what a commercial media can provide. We want investigative reporters to root out corruption among local officials and redress cases of wrongful conviction, while watchdogging the environment. Reporters must also cover breaking news – the fires, crimes and traffic accidents. Chances are it was always too much to ask, but it is certainly more than smaller news organizations can sustain now that their lucrative classified ad base has already migrated to Craigslist.

What we need is a new collaboration between a non-profit news sector and citizens in the community who care. We see the outlines of a model where grant-supported environmental groups can help to provide in-depth reporting that news organizations can no longer afford to pursue (if they ever did).

New online models can do a better job by engaging the community in reporting the news. Through forums, citizen video, and blogs, concerned citizens can provide story leads, analysis, and updates on environmental issues in their communities. A concerned bird watcher could easily keep track of the health of a local creek, posting digital images to an environmental forum. These new models may well include more voices, paid and unpaid.

What does that mean for the laid-off environmental reporter? Can he or she become a one-person environmental news bureau? Market a newsletter to corporations. Package video for the local TV station. Provide a weekly column for the local paper. Create a Web site with its own advertising base.

The news isn’t the only industry that must rethink strategies for long-term survival. If we had a social safety net that included universal health care, such dislocations could seem more like opportunities than threats. My hunch is that we might see more and better reporting in online publications that mix paid and unpaid environmental news producers, but getting from here to there will certain cause casualties. We need to put a decent floor under people laid off in tough times so that they can afford to become entrepreneurs.

The thing to remember is that the main stream media has never adequately covered environmental stories much less provided the kind of understandable scientific data people needed to participate in the decision-making process.

To the extent the main stream media covered environmental issues at all it was usually after concerned people established their own networks of communicating problems: leafleting, newsletters and now blogging and web sites.

To the extent that the main stream media has done a better job in the recent period regarding environmental concerns is that with activists using the Internet these newspapers, radio and t.v. stations risk losing all credibility.

Without the persistent efforts of environmental activists most of the main stream media would be happy not to ever had heard the term "ecosystem."

In my opinion, it is probably knowing that a citizen/blogger/activist is present that pushes hard on the main stream media to consider covering a story.

There is no doubt that these stories in the main stream media provide more credibility; that is one reason why we as citizen/blogger/activists always seek coverage of an issue by the main stream media.

On the other hand, I often find bloggers more accurate and thorough than the main stream media... especially when these bloggers are active in the issue they are commenting and writing about.

In fact, I know from experience that many main stream journalists rely on citizen/activist/bloggers for their research since hardly a day goes by I don't get a call from some reporter like: "Where did you find this; or who do I contact to verify this?"

I find most reporters very intent on doing a thorough job but they are limited in how much time they can put into a story so we should help them; then again, many journalists have editors who completely re-write their stories and twist them so even the writer doesn't recognize her/his own work... especially when corporate profits are concerned.

I have had reporters call me and apologize for what gets into print; sometime showing me what they submitted and what got published.

In recent years where established environmental organizations are more interested in stuffing envelopes filled with fund-raising letters than in organizing grassroots activism it becomes even more needed than ever to get coverage of issues in the main stream media because in order to begin solving problems requires lots of people discussing those problems.

Out of sight is out of mind; and coverage by the main stream media helps get an issue out front for people to think about the problem.

Also, we have the problem of the "one shot" article. A newspaper publishes one really good article and the editor figures society's needs have been served when we all know it usually requires very persistent coverage of an issue to resolve a problem.