Cover the Planet

By David Poulson

That whole writer/reader/source interaction thing in Internet journalism gets a lot of hype. Some of it’s overblown.

But a writer who can orchestrate that kind of relationship on a complex beat like the environment clearly has a leg up on the competition.

Bay City (Mich.) Times environment reporter Jeff Kart looks like he’s got it figured out. Check out his recently launched Mudpuppy blog. In particular, check out how he has set the tone early with a post about reporting on Combined Sewer Overflows.

Like most environment journalists, Jeff’s written a lot about CSOs in terms of the bacterial load they bring to surface water. In this post, he notes how a state environmental official criticizes his reporting, saying that there is no bacteria in CSOs.

That’s a startling statement. And Jeff invites his readers to accompany him as he investigates the claim. He explains the official’s reasoning and even posts the power point presentation he was shown to explain the point.

The gist is that a local sewage treatment plant had less than one CSO a month over three years. And few of those reached the level of bacterial load that prompts beach closings or contamination advisories.

The official, according to Jeff, amended his assertion to indicate that while these CSOs do contain bacteria, the vast majority don’t contain high levels.

Rather than dismissing the criticism, Jeff investigates it publicly in a way that provides additional context - even prompting the official to amend his assertion for accuracy.

Jeff not only publicizes criticism of his own writing, he researches it and analyzes it in a way that’s transparent to his readers. Then he does a very cool thing. He asks for their input:

What do you think? Are CSOs something to worry about?

Or, based on this new analysis, should we be focusing our attention on other sources of contamination to the river, which don’t get reported when they occur, like illegal connections to drains and storm sewers, failed septic systems, agriculture and wildlife?

This is an excellent exercise in transparency. Readers can see how journalistic decisions are made. They see a journalist who is truly interested in getting the story right. And they are invited to participate in figuring out the best way of providing context and reporting pollution.

Regardless of how you feel about how CSOs are described and reported, the effort here has to build credibility. That’s true even if no one takes Jeff up on his invitation.

It’s a great demonstration of opening the reporting process up for inspection, and inviting a true wisdom of the crowds to participate in journalism.

And for a complex and controversial beat like the environment, that’s a pretty cool thing.

By David Poulson

In my early reporting days Ralph - a good friend and photographer with whom I often worked - often hassled me whenever I made out a photo assignment for him.

“How would you like it if I took a picture and assigned you to write a story to go with it,” he’d sneer. It irked me mostly because I knew he was right. Ralph had tons more journalism experience - heck he had at least 30 years on me at the time - and certainly knew news. What was I doing telling him what to shoot?

As a consequence I quickly learned to use the wisdom of photographers who possess it. Not only could they tip me to great stories I was otherwise oblivious to, their art often launched even my most pedestrian prose onto the front page.

That’s no great insight. Savvy reporters quickly learn this.

But how do you apply this lesson in the digital age? A good example is this story written by Jeff Gillies for GreatLakesEcho.org. It’s about the annual spring runoff that shifts tons of soil into the Great Lakes, an event exacerbated by intensive farming and loss of vegetative cover.

It happens every year. What makes it news now?

In this case, it’s the accompanying satellite images Jeff used to illustrate the story. The image of muddied water visible from space had been posted on an environmental listserv. Its existence is precisely what triggered the story.

What’s more, Jeff used another satellite image to drive the story home. It shows the algae blooms triggered later in the summer by the presence of the excessive nutrient load delivered in the spring.

I’ve written before about using satellite images to enhance stories.

This is an example of how they can produce story ideas.

By David Poulson

Did your favorite movie get snubbed by Oscar on Sunday? Cheer up, at least it didn’t win a Crappie.

A few months ago Jeff Alexander at the Muskegon (Mich.) Chronicle wrote this story about his state’s combined sewer overflows. It’s a pretty straight up traditional news piece.

But the neat thing about it is that Alexander loosened up a bit with a version of the story on his EcoLogic blog. With tongue firmly in cheek, he suggested a new award called the Crappies be given to cities in his state with the most overflows.

The item has a bit of an attitude, one that may attract a different kind of reader.

Is it stretching the limits for a print reporter to go in this direction? How can you argue against directing more attention to environmental issues?
State regulators might well claim that this information is online and available to the public. And yet…it’s hard to find and few readers regularly (if ever) read a state agency Web page.

Put Crappie in a headline and chances are you’ll grab some eyeballs.

Alexander took publicly available state data and repackaged it in two dramatically different ways to reach two different publics. A reporter would never propose the Crappies in a traditional newspaper. But it’s the kind of thing that you can get away with on a blog.

That’s exactly the kind of experimentation we need to be doing to keep environmental reporting relevant.