ABSTRACT
In 1990 journalists, environmentalists and newsmakers converged at a conference
sponsored by the magazine Utne Reader to debate their respective roles. Much of the
dialog centered on how far journalists should go in expressing their opinion in stories
about improving the environment. Should journalists present both sides of an issue, or
should they tell readers which was right? Author and futurist Hazel Henderson
complained that the press already did the latter. She said mainstream news organizations
were too dependent on advertising to be fair and balanced. “Never have we needed to
look further ahead than now, yet journalism schools still teach bean-counting, tedious
overload of details, and warn about leaving interpretation to others,” she said. “The mass
media put up their guard against advocacy” (Meersman, 1990-1991, p. 6). Journalists had
varying viewpoints on the issue. Barbara Pyle, an environmental editor for the Turner
Broadcasting System, said that she had abandoned any pretense of being an “objective
journalist” years earlier. She said that the world’s environmental problems were simply
too urgent and enormous to do otherwise (Meersman, 1990-1991). Amal Kumar Naj of
the Wall Street Journal questioned how journalists could engage in advocacy when the
scientific evidence on so many environmental issues was so uncertain. “The scientists
themselves don’t know,” he said. Teya Ryan with Turner Broadcasting contended that
“advocacy journalism is a misnomer” because “who is opposed to a better environment?”
(“Contributors,” 1990-1991, p. 7). Since no one is, she said “you can’t take an advocacy
position on the environment” (“Contributors,” 1990-1991, p. 8).
