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

I still haven’t seen the full Earth 2100 that ABC News broadcast this week. That’s the global climate change story told in the year 2100 through the eyes of a fictional woman born in 2009.

But I did view the online clips. What’s more I brought it up in my journalism ethics class. I asked two questions: Is it journalism when you quote a fictional source? And if it is, is it responsible journalism?

Students struggled with this. Some wondered if this was a creative way to push people to think of future consequences of present actions. Journalists are pretty good at covering disasters after they happen. Is this a way to cover them before they happen? Is that a good role for a journalist? Or is it mere informed speculation?

There was concern for whether this technique was pioneering an exciting new field of journalism or if it is a disastrous turn down the wrong path.

“Do you want to save journalism by completely blurring the line between what is real and what is entertainment?” asked one student.

Another thought the feature was creative, informative and worthwhile: “I just don’t think it’s journalism,” she said. “It reminds me of the Magic School Bus.”

Yet another said that the creative approach undermined credibility. This student thought charts and graphs like in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth represented a more effective journalism. Countered another: The use of the comic book character is “an awesome tool to reach an audience that has not grasped it yet.”

Some were uncomfortable with straying so far from the traditional technique of using sources to move the story. In traditional journalism, “you don’t say anything yourself. It’s always from the source. This story is about a girl who is a source, but she’s not real.”

Getting at greater truths has always been a hallmark of fine fiction. But is it journalism?

And should that matter?

By David Poulson

So I missed ABC’s “Good Morning America” feature on global climate change last night. But after reading a Wall Street Journal opinion piece on the reporting technique, I’ll make sure to check it out.

It appears to pioneer a journalism technique by telling a story through the eyes of a fictional character living in a world that does not yet exist. I’m not qualified to comment on this until I watch it. It’s online.

But I am interested in this comment in the WSJ piece:

Bob Woodruff, host of the special, called making up what will happen in the future “a different kind of journalism.” The segment quoted him saying, “not a prediction of what will happen, but what might happen.”

That certainly is “a different kind of journalism.”  If anyone has seen it, please weigh in with a comment.