Can the success of investigative journalism be measured by the absence of environmental reporting awards?
By Dave Poulson
Six years ago the Society of Environmental Journalists gave the Washington Post an investigative reporting award for examining how public funds were spent on restoring the Everglades.
The Swamp showed how millions of tax dollars backed by good environmental intentions could be hijacked by special interests in ways harmful to the environment.
It’s a great story.
Yet I always wondered if that story would have been written if journalists dogged it earlier as it unfolded.
A nice plaque for unearthing a fiasco may be a sign of quality journalism. But where’s the plaque for doing the reporting that kept a disaster from happening? Is that not also watchdog journalism in the public interest?
SEJ held its 19th annual conference in Madison, Wisc., this past week. And because of the conference location, a federal initiative to restore the Great Lakes received some attention.
The Obama Administration has proposed nearly a half billion dollars this year as a downpayment on what could be a multi-year, multi-billion dollar restoration effort.
This bonanza has cash-starved agencies and interest groups scrambling with a new problem: How do you responsibly spend such a huge environmental investment?
It should also have Great Lakes journalists scrambling with a big question: How do you responsibly report the spending of such an investment as it unfolds?
It’s a question that I asked a panel which examined the new effort at the SEJ conference. Here’s what they said:
- Jeff Alexander, a longtime Great Lakes newspaper reporter and author, gave the answer you might expect from a journalist: “Follow the money.” If a disproportionate amount is going for one purpose or to one recipient, find out why, he said. Where did it go? Did political pressure divert it? If a cleanup in a reporter’s backyard is supposed to cost $10 million but ends up costing $15 million then ask, how come?
- Jane Elder, a longtime Great Lakes policy and communications expert and activist, said to “follow the benchmarks.” When the plan defines environmental restoration, hold officials accountable for that definition, she said. And when it doesn’t, press officials hard to set the benchmarks that define success.
- Cam Davis, the Environmental Protection Agency’s point person on this effort, said federal officials understood the need for accountability. As much as 14 percent of the funding is earmarked for monitoring progress, he said. But he also said that this multi-prong, ecosystem-wide effort is unprecedented. While federal officials can monitor the progress of individual projects, there is no way to know how quickly the ecosystem will react, Davis warned. “We’re going to have to have patience with the patient.”
That may make it tough to know when to declare success or failure.
Regardless, it’s clear that this kind of public works investment in the environment is more than a challenge to government officials, private contractors, scientists, environmental groups and politicians.
It is also a challenge to journalists.
And perhaps their success is not best measured by the satisfying presence of a plaque on the wall.
Sometimes a journalist’s success might be measured by early and aggressive reporting that prevents the need for the kind of stories that win those plaques
