Focus on Diversity: The Journeys of Black Professionals in Green Careers

by

Folks, this isn’t a forest planning issue, not directly, but it may be of interest here on Smokey Wire. The outfit I work for (I’m Director of Sustainability Communications at the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, SFI), just released a book, Black Faces in Green Spaces: The Journeys of Black Professionals in Green Careers.

The 120-page publication, was produced by Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Related Sciences (MANRRS), Project Learning Tree, and the SFI—all are non-profits. It profiles 22 Black Americans who share their personal stories about finding their passions and overcoming challenges, and offer advice to the next generation about exploring their own careers in the forest and conservation sector.

This is a very positive Black History Month story. Journeys includes a brief history of Black Americans in forestry from the colonial period to the present, along with a foreword by Randy Moore, chief of the US Forest Service and the first Black American to hold the position. Several USFS folks are profiled, including Beattra Wilson, Assistant Director for Urban and Community Forestry.

Although you may not be a reporter, you’re welcome to attend the virtual Media Briefing and Q&A session tomorrow, Wednesday, February 15, 2023 from 11–11:30 a.m. Eastern Time. You can register for the Zoom session here. You’ll be able to ask questions of Mia Farrell (Past-President) and Marcus Bernard (current President) of MANRRS, and others.

You can download Journeys as a PDF for free. Individual printed copies of Journeys are also available for $39.99. Bulk orders for organizations that want to distribute printed copies to employees, students, networks, and partners are welcome ($800/box of 25 copies). We’re asking folks to consider buying or donating a box and give them to schools, colleges, and universities across the US, such as Title I schools and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

Forgive me for shamelessly promoting this book. I’m proud to have been a part of the Journeys team.

Celebrate Valentine’s Day with a BLM Solar EIS Scoping Meeting! Or Check Out Other Opportunities For Input

by
The dark brown areas on this map depict lands in southwest Wyoming that might be suitable for utility-scale solar energy development. The image was taken from the Nature Conservancy’s “Wyoming Brightfields Energy Siting Initiative” online mapping tool. (The Nature Conservancy)
 

.Dustin Bleizeffer of Wyofile has a really nice article looking at solar in Wyoming.  Here’s the BLM page for checking out other scoping meeting opportunities (they seem to be by state and tomorrow is Wyoming). Also the powerpoints and other miscellaneous info describing the project can be found here.

“Federal land managers are calling for public input on plans to select sites for solar energy projects in Wyoming, developments that — if poorly sited — could interrupt wildlife migrations or ruin critical habitats and cultural resources

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management plans to reboot a 2012 initiative to attract more utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands, expanding its scope to include Wyoming among 10 other western states. One conservation group is already weighing in, drawing a map of where solar farms might have the least impact.

The BLM will host public scoping meetings Feb. 13 from 12:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. (click here to register), and Feb. 14 from 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (click here to register). The deadline for public comment on the plan is March 1.

**************************

Evaluating landscapes

Wyoming’s nascent commercial solar energy industry, which consists of two facilities in operation so far, has already provided an example of poor planning that harmed wildlife.

The Sweetwater Solar farm, located on BLM land north of Green River, straddles Highway 372 in an area that wildlife officials knew to be part of a pronghorn migratory route. After construction, wildlife biologists observed it created a bottleneck for the ungulates.

Such poor siting can and should be avoided, Loyka said. With more renewable energy development to come, The Nature Conservancy embarked on a West-wide effort to take inventory of public land values to learn where it makes sense to develop solar — as well as wind and other forms of renewable energy — and where the industrial development might clash with other land values.

Because utility-scale solar energy farms are typically fenced off, they can “industrialize” the lands they occupy and even interrupt wildlife corridors that provide a lifeline between seasonal habitats, Loyka said. That’s why scrutiny is critical, he said.

Some protections against industrial development already exist for U.S. Forest Service lands, sage grouse core areas and other designated wildlife and wetlands habitats. Other areas without existing protections might also warrant avoidance, depending on local knowledge, Loyka said. But there remains room for suitable development.

Despite existing land-use evaluations and continuing modeling, any attempt to truly understand opportunities for “smart” energy development requires intense “ground-truthing,” Loyka said. That’s why TNC Wyoming is soliciting input from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, county commissioners and several Wyoming conservation groups.

TNC Wyoming also recently sought input from Wyoming lawmakers during a “Camo at The Capitol” event this month.

“Right now, we’re wanting to talk to stakeholders across the state,” said Monika Leininger, TNC’s Wyoming director of energy and climate solutions. “Sportsmen are really important stakeholders because we know that you all are in touch with Wyoming wildlife and lands,” she told a crowd of lawmakers and hunters Feb. 2 at the Cheyenne Botanic Gardens.

******************

Developers tend to prefer to build on private land because it’s easier than going through federal permitting, Loyka said. The intent of updating the BLM’s Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement is to help speed up the federal permitting process, in part, by collecting and evaluating local input.
But the prospect of intentionally encouraging renewable energy development on BLM-managed lands raises concerns of industrializing undisturbed areas.Jay Carey of Denver said his family owns property west of Larmie that’s growing into a small residential community among interspersed BLM tracts where wild horses might struggle to survive if public lands are fenced off for utility-scale solar installations.
“​​It would be very hard on the local wildlife to take another 900 acres off of the grazable land for the large animals, not to mention the access to water and for them to be able to move around,” Carey said.For more information see the program’s website.”

 

This map from a study shows year-round (2017–2019) movements of migratory pronghorn captured from the Opal herd, which migrates through the study area periodically in response to harsh winter conditions. (Screengrab/Trade-offs between utility-scale solar development and ungulates on western rangelands)

“We think there’s an intelligent way of going about how this stuff hits the landscape,” Loyka said. “We want to see this smart-from-the-start planning that looks at both the resource value and the economic value of lands and how we can protect the most high-value areas such as wildlife habitat.”

TNC’s Power of Place study builds “energy modeling tools with the latest ecosystem and wildlife habitat data to advise the deployment of clean energy infrastructure across the West.” Although the work is far from complete, the study offers an optimistic view: “Western states can affordably and reliably meet all their future energy needs, achieve economy-wide net-zero greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 2050, and avoid the loss of their most sensitive natural areas and working lands.”

Some protections against industrial development already exist for U.S. Forest Service lands, sage grouse core areas and other designated wildlife and wetlands habitats. Other areas without existing protections might also warrant avoidance, depending on local knowledge, Loyka said. But there remains room for suitable development.

Pay Raise: Solution to Hiring and Retention Problems?

by

One thing that’s come up in discussions about staffing up for the Forest Service work under BIL and IRA is the extra pay/benefits for new people, but not for current employees.  The Forest Service is working very hard to get more folks.  What’s interesting to me about this story from Greenwire (this is as far as I could see, so maybe there’s more interesting stuff behind the paywall) is why EPA would have more trouble hiring than any other agency.  Yes, and us old folks retiring (HR folks have been predicting this for the last 20 years or so).  What FS folks say is that people want to work remotely and not be in the field or small towns with few resources.  Seems like EPA jobs would be perfect for that.  I also wonder how some agencies can hire people (although with difficulty) and others cannot..

I particularly liked.. “if we don’t get a pay raise the future of the planet is at stake.”

Anyway I had heard that something like 25% of the positions on the org chart at BLM are open… perhaps BLM and FS jobs need to boost pay as well?

GREENWIRE | EPA employees are pleading with members of Congress this week to help boost pay and retain staff at their agency that’s central to the Biden administration’s climate agenda.

Members of the American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, EPA’s largest union, are meeting with lawmakers this week and plan to rally at the agency’s Washington headquarters Wednesday to draw attention to what they warn is a “mounting staffing crisis.”

The agency’s mission has expanded with the enactment of major laws including the climate law known as the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law, according to the staff union, but hiring and staff retention haven’t matched the new workload.

EPA staffing levels are 20 percent less than under the Clinton administration, according to AFGE Council 238, and 3,000 employees — 21 percent of the agency’s workforce — are currently eligible for retirement.

“Our mission has grown enormously, and climate challenges continue to escalate, but EPA’s inability to hire and retain staff has created a crisis,” said AFGE Council 238 President Marie Owens Powell. “Salaries are not competitive and promotion opportunities are scarce. We need to raise pay and restore career ladders now. The future of the EPA and our planet are at stake.”

…

 

First Wildland Fire Commission Report Focuses on Aviation

by

 

Ron Steffens at Wildfire Today has a nice summary with links. I don’t know anything about this topic, but  I thought these two were interesting…and might require attention in NEPA docs? Or perhaps a multi-fed programmatic for  drones?

Using Aviation for Prescribed Burns (p 35)

Aerial resources may be used to support the use of proactive, beneficial fire like prescribed fire, both through assisting with aerial ignitions and by being on hand to respond to contingencies or undesired outcomes. However, the Commission heard that cost and availability make it difficult for agencies to access aviation resources for these project-related (rather than response-related) purposes. For example, when used for project activities not associated with wildfire response, some aviation costs must be charged to agencies’ general program budgets, which are often strained by a number of needs and priorities. For most entities, this fact makes aviation resources cost prohibitive. As an additional challenge, Commission members shared that aerial assets are often unavailable during prescribed burn windows, either because those burns happen outside the terms of seasonal contracts or because resources are occupied on wildland fires in one region when other regions have opportunities to proactively burn. In sum, greater use of beneficial fire is currently limited, in part, by overall aviation capacity and available funding. Improved aviation availability and capacity may help allow for more proactive management options in addition to providing contingency resources [F8]. As such, the Commission recommends that Congress and agencies ensure greater availability of aviation resources for risk mitigation projects, including prescribed fire [R17]

National Drone Policy (p 36)

While issues of national security are clearly important and require careful consideration, the Commission recommends improvement in the availability of drone technology for use in wildland fire [R18]. Emerging development and integration of UAS technology is a significant operational innovation in wildland fire (NIAC, 2017) and is seen by some as potentially replacing or complementing use of manned aviation resources for activities such as sensing and monitoring.
Indeed, the NIAC Vision 2027 strategic plan notes that UAS “may be the first aviation-associated operational innovation for wildland fire management operations in almost fifty years” (NIAC, 2017). UAS technology can, and should, be more robustly utilized overall in the aerial wildland fire space. In addition to needs associated with the overall availability of UAS technology, the Commission was informed that at this time, the wildland fire community lacks a national strategy for integration of this technology. Given this status, the Commission recommends that agencies develop a national UAS strategy for wildland fire [R19].

A Dead Sheep

by

 

Sheep grazed on allotments on the Bridgeport Ranger District, Toiyabe National Forest. 

As the eastern Sierra summer of 1966 wore on, the Toiyabe National Forest dried out. By the middle of July the fire danger was extreme, and fire safety restrictions including prohibition of open campfires outside developed campgrounds were announced. These required special signage and increased the intensity of my patrols.

I was on patrol in the Twin Lakes area early one August afternoon. It had been a relatively slow morning and, just as I began to wish the pace would pick up, it did. But not in any way I expected.

“D-4-5, this is KMB-652.” It was Pam, the district clerk.

“KMB-652, this is D-4-5, over.”

“Les, we’ve had a couple reports of a dead sheep in the Honeymoon Flats Campground. Will you check it out, please?”

A dead sheep? I hadn’t seen sheep in the Twin Lakes basin for days. This one, I surmised, must be a stray from an allotment. Oh well, all in a day’s work. Hoping the poor critter wouldn’t be too ripe, I responded affirmatively.

A few minutes later, I approached Honeymoon Flat. The sheep wasn’t difficult to locate. Lying just off the highway, on the road into the campground, it appeared to have drawn more people than flies since its demise. The small crowd’s attention shifted to me as I pulled up alongside the wooly carcass of a fully-grown ewe.

Howdy,” I said to no-one in particular, closing the patrol truck door behind me. A cool afternoon breeze blew off the Sierra and stirred the aspen.

“It’s a dead sheep!” explained a helpful bystander. I nodded agreement and smiled thanks for his assessment. “Are you going to get rid of it?”

“Yes, sir.” Scratching my head briefly, I sized up the problem and then, in reluctant resignation, strode purposefully toward part of the solution. The crowd’s eyes followed me intently.

Fortunately, the campground garbage had been collected recently, and I found an almost empty can. Quickly transferring its content into another, I hauled the can back and pushed it under the ewe. Because dead animals don’t exactly leap into garbage cans, I had to pry this one into its casket with a shovel. Once the corpse was in the can, I set it upright and slapped on the lid. Then, dropping the tailgate to the horizontal position, I dragged the canned sheep to the rear of the patrol truck. There was just enough room for the can to ride behind the pumper unit and the fire tool box.

But one problem remained. That was one heavy garbage can! I doubt I could have lifted it, at least not gracefully. But an independent streak doesn’t allow me to ask for help—even in situations like that. With all eyes on me, I stooped to pick it up….

“Here, let me give you a hand,” volunteered a burly fellow. Saved!

“Thanks.”

We easily lifted the can onto the tailgate, where I lashed it securely in place. Having a dead sheep fall off one’s patrol truck onto the highway, it seemed to me, would be most embarrassing. With a ripple of applause and a few chuckles, the crowd dispersed. And the sheep was soon disposed of in the nearby Forest Service dump I would burn in a few days.

Adapted from the 2018 third edition of Toiyabe Patrol, the writer’s memoir of five U.S. Forest Service summers on the Toiyabe National Forest in the 1960s.

Who Knows More About… the EPA’s Proposed PM 2.5 Rule and Prescribed Fire?

by
From Raffuse et al https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266286743_Development_of_Version_2_of_the_Wildland_Fire_Portion_of_the_National_Emissions_Inventory

For whatever reason, sometimes it happens that agencies don’t coordinate and run off in many directions self-aggrandizing and extending their own power and/or asking for duplicate kinds of funding.  And sometimes the White House tells departments to do things that may be in conflict with Congressional intent (e.g. mature and old growth initiative).  But for something as important and expensive as the Wildfire Crisis Strategy, would it be so hard to have someone review potential rules for consistency? Hopefully, the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission will be able to nip these things in an earlier stage of the bud. But think about it.. if it has to get to the OIRA stage before someone notices these kinds of issues…something is broken in Federal Agency Coordination World.

I received the below information third or fourth hand, so I don’t know what the originating organization was, although I think the letter is well written. So kudos to whomever at whatever organization. I also don’t know what the current status is, so that’s why I’m posting this. Hopefully someone out there will know.

We understand that EPA is considering a reduction in the primary annual average PM 2.5 NAAQS from 12 ug/m 3 to between 8 ug/m 3 and 10 ug/m. 3 If such a standard is implemented without consideration for beneficial fire, it would significantly limit the number of burn windows available to public, private, and tribal land managers to implement beneficial fire across the United States. Preliminary research indicates that some areas would see a reduction in available burn days of 70-80 percent, at a time when relevant experts agree that more burn days are needed to implement beneficial fire at a meaningful pace and scale.

A key purpose of OIRA review is to ensure that EPA’s proposed rule does not conflict with the policies or actions taken or planned by another agency or the Biden Administration. (Sharon’s bold)

However, adoption of the lower PM 2.5 NAAQS without consideration for beneficial fire would result in a significant conflict. For example, the U.S. Forest Service recently issued its Wildfire Crisis Strategy 1 , which calls for “dramatically increasing fuels and forest health treatments [including beneficial fire] by up to four times current treatment levels in the West.” The Department of the Interior likewise articulated the need to increase the pace and scale of priority fuel management treatments, including beneficial fire. 2 The Biden Administration has assembled the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission to develop strategies to better prevent and manage wildfires, including through expanded beneficial fire use. 3 All of these targets are supported by significantly increased funding from the Inflation Reduction Act and bipartisan Infrastructure and Jobs Act for beneficial fire activities. Federal agencies, however, will not be able to spend these dollars and implement their planned actions if the PM 2.5 NAAQS is modified without consideration for beneficial fire.

We understand that the EPA may believe that PM 2.5 emissions from beneficial fire can be adequately addressed under the Exceptional Events Rule. Indeed, EPA engaged in rulemaking in 2016 that codified the conditions under which prescribed fires could qualify as exceptional events. 4 However, the regulatory process developed in the 2016 rulemaking is not sufficient to enable the amount of beneficial fire experts say is necessary to reduce wildfire emissions.

Exceptional Events filings are technically demanding and expensive. As such, local air regulators simply declare burn bans or deny smoke management permit requests on days where beneficial fire smoke may lead to NAAQS exceedances, rather than agree to pursue an arduous Exceptional Events filing. Indeed, we are not aware of any Exceptional Events filings for prescribed fires since the rule was promulgated. If the EPA does reduce the PM 2.5 NAAQS, additional regulatory solutions—either within the Exceptional Events rule or elsewhere in the CAA regulations—are necessary to ensure that land owners and managers can implement needed beneficial fire projects. We urge OIRA to ensure that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is sufficiently expansive to allow development of these solutions in tandem with any revised PM 2.5 NAAQS.

We are strongly supportive of the EPA’s intent to reduce PM 2.5 emissions. Additional regulation of stationary sources, tailpipe emissions, and similar anthropogenic sources are clearly warranted to protect public health. However, as the EPA acknowledges, the single biggest threat to public health from PM 2.5 emissions is wildfire smoke, which is currently unregulated. 5 If we are serious about protecting public health, EPA’s regulations must enable significantly greater use of use of beneficial fire, rather than continuing to treat it like other forms of pollution. Modifying the PM 2.5 NAAQS without addressing the burden of such regulation on beneficial fire use will nearly eliminate our best tool to tackle wildfire emissions.

BTW, if you’re interested, the American Lung Association funded this 2022 report called  “Can Prescribed Fires Mitigate Health Harms?” which seems to be a good roundup of current information.

 

Great Reporting, Running a Business, and Pursuing Equity .. The Case of E&E News

by

As promised, this is the third of three posts on the media.  Unlike TSW, most media outlets need to make money.  So to do good work, they might be tempted to hire “climate” reporters, or “political” reporters.  Because climate and politics get people engaged, and thereby more clicks; even if framing issues that way unintentionally changes the way they are reported.

Standing against this undesirable trend, as far as I can tell, is  Energy and Environment News.  They still have had the funding to hire people who keep up with, for example, our federal lands stuff.  Which is excellent.  So a shout-out to those reporters.

And they have a place to send corrections “E&E News strives to promptly correct errors in material published online. To request a correction, send an email to..”

E&E News was bought out by Politico. Hopefully that doesn’t encourage reporters to take a more political slant. They reassure us that “E&E News is a distinct brand,” so let’s hope they continue with that.

Nevertheless, there is a bit of a structural problem with this.  People cost money.  So if you have journalists with specialized skills, you need to charge for their time.  So..

I know one member of an NGO who is frequently called by reporters (if I mentioned the topic, it might give hizzer away).  However, the NGO hizzer works with can’t afford a subscription to E&E News, so hizzer has to ask other people, including me,  for copies of the article (to be sure, when I ask the reporters directly they have been helpful).  If this reminds you of academic publishing without open access… well, it reminds me of that too.

Folks from another (small) NGO told me that E&E News recently asked them for $4000 for a subscription for a year. As to The Smokey Wire, I filled out the form and the marketing people never even called me. But that was a while back.

Fortunately for us, there are enough TSW readers from large organizations who can afford subscriptions that ultimately for us, as of right now, it’s not a serious problem.  Still, we would discuss their reporting more if we had better access.

Here’s their list of “notable subscribers”

Notable subscribers

  • Government: DOE, DOD, DOI, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s Office, Democratic Whip Richard Durbin’s Office, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee

  • Energy companies: ExxonMobil, Xcel Energy, Southern Company, Shell, Duke Energy, Black and Veatch

  • Corporations: General Motors, Honda, Caterpillar, Boeing, Apple, Google, General Electric

  • Environmental groups: Sierra Club, The Conservation Fund, EDF, Environmental Law Institute, NRDC

  • Universities: Harvard, MIT, Stanford, University of Michigan, Yale

  • Law firms: Latham and Watkins, Vinson & Elkins, Akin Gump, Sidley Austin, Baker Botts

  • Think tanks: Brookings, Heritage, CSIS, CEI, RFF, Council on Foreign Relations

I know that Politico has programs for “diversity, equity and inclusion” internally. But what about externally?  How do for-profit corporations with good intentions make sure that their products are accessible to the less well off financially? How do they struggle with this conundrum?

My other thought is that philanthropic organizations spend millions (at least) “communicating” about climate change.  I think to be more accurate, these campaigns message the beliefs of the folks donating.  But with the passage of the IRA, it seems like we need to turn from talking/writing/messaging to actually building.  Which will require good information, discussion, two-way communication, and trust.

So as for me, if I were a philanthropist, I would instead use the funds to build a sliding scale for small NGO’s, and even individuals that would be more affordable.  If all people could get the same kind of quality information, in my view, and create an environment for open discussion, we will ultimately get farther down the climate road faster and with more stronger relationships with each other.  Also if less-well-off NGO’s had access to these stories, they could help with correcting errors and providing context to reporters. Win-win-win.  Any philanthropists out there?

Less “Objectivity”, More Trust?: Downie Op-ed in WaPo

by

This is the second post of three on media.  The first post, Monday, was on Gerth’s piece in the Columbia Journalism Review that raised issues of whether the Times was following its own rules, and how such outlets might increase trust- via various forms of accountability and transparency.  It looks like Gerth’s piece was posted on January 30.

In this post, we’ll take a look at a WaPo opinion piece by a former executive editor  “Newsrooms that move beyond “objectivity” can build trust.” It also appears to have been posted on January 30.

But increasingly, reporters, editors and media critics argue that the concept of journalistic objectivity is a distortion of reality. They point out that the standard was dictated over decades by male editors in predominantly White newsrooms and reinforced their own view of the world. They believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.

As a veteran of many TSW discussions, I agree that individual and diverse perspectives are important in the newsroom, as everywhere else.  And that is how we jointly make a world, by sharing our own truths and seeking the outlines of the bigger truth, as in the old blind men and the elephant story.  As Wikipedia says, in that ancient parable, the moral is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people’s limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.

Let’s parse out the last sentence.  The subject seems to be “the concept of journalistic objectivity” which “negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.” So it sounds like he is arguing:

  1. We should trust what  journalists say.
  2. Journalists no longer need to explain other peoples’ points of view because
  3. Their truth is more true than other peoples’ truth.

And we know that because they earnestly believe it to be so.

Sorry, this does not build my trust.

Then Downie goes on to add some more practical suggestions that might help build trust:

We urge news organizations to, first, strive not just for accuracy based on verifiable facts but also for truth — what Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward have called “the best obtainable version of the truth.” This means original journalism that includes investigating and reporting on all aspects of American life.

Newsroom staff diversity should reflect the communities being covered — not just gender and ethnic diversity but also diversity of economic, educational, geographic and social backgrounds. Inclusive newsrooms should encourage their journalists to speak up and be heard by their colleagues and leaders in making decisions about coverage.

News media should also be as transparent as possible about their newsgathering decisions and processes. When possible, they should hire or designate an editor to field and act on reader complaints and questions.

Responsible news organizations need to develop core values by having candid, inclusive and open conversations. Making these values public could well forge a stronger connection between journalists and the public.

I think “making these values public” but more importantly “living up to those values” would forge a stronger connection with the public.  I think it would be helpful if they would provide a list of “expectations of reporting,” and then have a person designated to help readers track accountability (“complaints” have a negative connotation).  For example, I had never heard of some of the NY Times requirements Gerth wrote about.  I’d suggest an Office of Journalistic Accountability, at least for the WaPo and the NYT.  It seems to me that in terms of equity, there is an argument to be made that those whose profession includes holding others accountable should have their own public processes for others to hold them accountable. Sauce for the goose and all that.

Many of us have had the experience of being interviewed by reporters (not always coastal) who have already decided what the story is and don’t want to hear your perspective unless it fits into the pre-existing narrative.  We easily see the difference between what they are given and what they publish. Nice try, but at least in our world, it has nothing to do with negating anyone’s “own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”  It seems to have to do with finding the shortest distance between the observed facts and the preferred narrative.
This all reminds me of a Stephen R. Covey quote, but I’ll paraphrase it:
“You can’t redefine your way out of a problem you behaved your way into.”
Next post: third of three on media. “Great reporting and a business problem.”

Shout-out to Reporters! and Gerth’s Piece in the Columbia Journalism Review and How It Relates to Our Issues

by

The Alaska Roadless writing I did last week reminded me of how difficult it must be to be a journalist in our space. I worked on Colorado Roadless for years and it’s still complicated.  And simplifying tends to degenerate to good guys and bad guys. Not to speak of the fact that explanations are too lengthy and most people aren’t interested to that extent.  To which I would add Friedman’s Law of Natural Resource/Environmental Conflicts: there are always more than two sides.  With a corollary: If someone reports on only two, they are missing the picture.

Bottom line… a big shout-out to journalists who cover our stuff.  We know it’s not easy.  And an offer- my virtual door is always open to reporters who want a glimpse into the different perspectives and possible sources on any related issue.  I’ve been impressed by the quality of the discussions I’ve had with newbies (and the usual reporter suspects) in this space and want to make sure that you all feel welcome.

That being said- I’d like to talk about three things that came across my desk in the last few weeks that have to do with journalism institutions. I understand that many of these institutions are under a great deal of financial pressure (and of course transfer that to their workers), so I am sympathetic.  Today’s post is on the  Columbia Journalism Review piece by Jeff Gerth.

I recommend.. don’t read commentary on it.. just read it if you’re interested. It’s not that long.  If you do, you will be amazed and tired and impressed by how many documents, phone calls and other information Gerth sorted through. The key part for me was the Afterword.  It’s written by someone who obviously really cares about the profession of journalism, as I do, and I think all of us should. Because these are the folks who interpret our world for the public.

I think most reporting in our space doesn’t deal with anonymous sources or “people familiar with”, but others of Gerth’s recommendations might be relevant. The outlets NYT and WaPo, though, who do write in our space, do not come out very well in the Gerth’s story. Note what Gerth says is needed to build back trust.  I’m thinking a 90-day stand-down and a public process with sets of recommendations- whoops, that was prescribed fire.

I’ve avoided opining in my more than fifty years as a reporter. This time, however, I felt obligated to weigh in. Why? Because I am worried about journalism’s declining credibility and society’s increasing polarization. The two trends, I believe, are intertwined.

My main conclusion is that journalism’s primary missions, informing the public and holding powerful interests accountable, have been undermined by the erosion of journalistic norms and the media’s own lack of transparency about its work. This combination adds to people’s distrust about the media and exacerbates frayed political and social differences.

One traditional journalistic standard that wasn’t always followed in the Trump-Russia coverage is the need to report facts that run counter to the prevailing narrative. In January 2018, for example, the New York Times ignored a publicly available document showing that the FBI’s lead investigator didn’t think, after ten months of inquiry into possible Trump-Russia ties, that there was much there. This omission disserved Times readers. The paper says its reporting was thorough and “in line with our editorial standards.”

My last reporting project for the Times, in 2005, was an inquiry into US propaganda efforts abroad. I interviewed a former top CIA expert on behavior and propaganda, Jerrold Post, who told me that leaving important information out of a broadcast or story lowers public trust in the messenger because consumers inevitably find the missing information somewhere else. (And Post, who died a few years ago, spoke before the arrival of social media.)

Another axiom of journalism that was sometimes neglected in the Trump-Russia coverage was the failure to seek and reflect comment from people who are the subject of serious criticism. The Times guidelines call it a “special obligation.” Yet in stories by the Times involving such disparate figures as Joseph Mifsud (the Maltese academic who supposedly started the whole FBI inquiry), Christopher Steele (the former British spy who authored the dossier), and Konstantin Kilimnik (the consultant cited by some as the best evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump), the paper’s reporters failed to include comment from the person being criticized. The Times, in a statement, says some of the subjects were approached on occasion, yet the paper’s guidelines also call for their comments to be published.

Another exhibit is a familiar target: anonymous sources. I’ve used them myself, including, sparsely, in this piece. What’s different in the Trump era, however, is both the volume of anonymous sources and the misleading way they’re often described.

One frequent and vague catchphrase—“people (or person) familiar with”—is widely used by many journalists: the Times used it over a thousand times in stories involving Trump and Russia between October 2016 and the end of his presidency, according to a Nexis search. The last executive editor I worked for, Bill Keller, frowned on its use. He told the staff repeatedly the phrase was “so vague it could even mean the reporter.” The Times, in a statement to CJR, said, “We have strong rules in place governing the use of anonymous sources.” Other outlets mentioned in this piece declined to discuss their anonymous-sourcing practices.

Another anonymous-sourcing convention that was turbocharged in the Trump era was the use of more neutral descriptors like “government official” or “intelligence official” or “American official” to mask congressional leakers. A few reporters admitted that to me, but, of course, only anonymously. Here’s how it works. First, a federal agency like the CIA or FBI secretly briefs Congress. Then Democrats or Republicans selectively leak snippets. Finally, the story comes out, using vague attribution. “It was a problem for us,” Mike Kortan, the former FBI spokesman until 2018, told me. Kortan, who also worked in Congress, added: “We would brief Congress, try and give them a full picture with the negative stuff, and then a member of Congress can cherry-pick the information and the reporter doesn’t know they’ve been cherry-picked.” The typical reader or viewer is clueless.

My final concern, and frustration, was the lack of transparency by media organizations in responding to my questions. I reached out to more than sixty journalists; only about half responded. Of those who did, more than a dozen agreed to be interviewed on the record. However, not a single major news organization made available a newsroom leader to talk about their coverage.

My reporting has been criticized by journalists, from the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, in the 1980s, to Harper’s magazine in the 1990s and the Daily Beast in the 2000s. When I’ve had the opportunity to respond, which hasn’t always been the case, I’ve tried to engage. On a few occasions, I concluded the inquiring reporter wasn’t really open to what I had to say, so l let my story speak for itself.

But during this time, when the media is under extraordinary attack and widely distrusted, a transparent, unbiased, and accountable media is more needed than ever. It’s one of a journalist’s best tools to distinguish themselves from all the misinformation, gossip, and rumor that proliferates on the Web and then gets legitimized on occasion by politicians of all stripes, including Trump.

Most Americans (60 percent) say they want unbiased news sources. Yet 86 percent think the media is biased. The consequences of this mismatch are all too obvious: 83 percent of the audience for Fox News leans Republican while 91 percent of the readers of the New York Times lean Democratic.

Jennifer Kavanagh, senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told me of her concerns about news silos.

“If you are only getting your news from one source, you are getting a skewed view,” which, she said, “increases polarization” and “crowds out the room for compromise, because people base their views on these siloed news sources.” She added: “People don’t have time to deal with nuance, so they settle on a position and everything else tends to become unacceptable.”

Walter Lippmann wrote about these dangers in his 1920 book Liberty and the News. Lippmann worried then that when journalists “arrogate to themselves the right to determine by their own consciences what shall be reported and for what purpose, democracy is unworkable.”

More on trust tomorrow.