Wednesday
Jan132010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Environment correspondents
This is a guest post by Andrew K.
This is as much as anything an appeal for information: to do a little crowdsourcing.
I have been aware for a while that the post of Environment Correspondent isn't necessarily held by either scientists or economists, and can be a favoured career destination for activists.
I have produced a small list which can be downloaded here. It is by no means comprehensive. In particular the tabloids are poorly covered, as they tend not to be forthcoming with byelines. What I am looking for is people to fill in the gaps and add to our knowledge, either by posting in comments or if preferred by e-mail to my gracious host for forwarding. What I particularly need is
- Any missing names, and the publications or media sources they are attached to.
- Educational backgrounds, in particular degrees held
- Career backgorounds: e.g. former fashion correspondent.
- Any history of activism in the area of Climate Change, either convinced or sceptical.
It would be helpful of sources and/or references could be provided.
I hope in due course to produce a comprehensive listing which should help to inform the debate
Reader Comments (58)
Andrew: If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BBC_newsreaders_and_reporters you'll find the background information on some of the BBC correspondents.
Andrew: You are correct. Richard Black is missing.
It will be a very useful resource when complete.
Would it not also be interesting to put another column listing outside/vested intrests a la Harribin ?
Here in Australia we are blessed to have Melissa Fyfe of The Age newspaper explaining the environmental damage we users of automobiles, hair driers and whatnot are doing to our poor, persecuted planet. Melissa has moved on from the environmental-catastrophe beat and now covers state politics, in which capacity she still manages to reprise vast volumes of alarmist piffle drawn from her thick contact book of Chicken Little quote generators.
And she takes it seriously, too!
Only a few weeks ago she jogged down the entire length of Australia's east coast to "raise awareness" of climate change -- a journey that might, had she undertaken it while on the staff of any other newspaper, have raised questions about her ability to report environmental matters with dispassionate.
But not at The Age, not at the paper which ran a recent scare campaign that asserted dredging the bay beside which Melbourne stands would raise sea levels, kill all the cuddly sea mammals and inspire nervous conditions in various species of seaweed.
Indeed, the Age and its editor were so keen on Melissa's jog-a-thon, they gave her a blog to report her progress.
Her biography is here and, as you may see, she has no science background. This deficiency is somewhat compensated by having done a stint at The United Nations, and also by that body's award in recognition of her reports on the fate of a particular tree, which was felled cruelly in the forest and sliced up into builder-friendly lengths to aid the evil construction industry.
http://about.theage.com.au/view_profile.asp?intid=1310
We Melbournians greatly lament the tree's passing. If only it had been given the opportunities emanating from a liberal tertiary education, it might have made a fine reporter. It certainly would not need to have tried very hard to exceed the foot-sore Melissa's efforts in this area.
The Age, incidentally, is shedding profits and circulation at a great rate and must be regarded as having only a year or two to remain in the news racks.
When it dies, as it will, it will be one of the few confirmable casualties of climate change.
An excellent project, Andrew K. You're definitely on to something.
I've been keeping a few notes about about bad science reporting in the Press. The following link is the only one whose relevance to your project is immediately obvious:
http://www.intervol.org.uk/casestudyno103.html
It's about the Telegraph's in-house NGO press-release regurgitator, Louise Gray.
Its interesting that the British Science Association does not list Sarah Mukajees "science" qualifications in its biography of her.
http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/web/ScienceinSociety/x-change/_SarahMukherjeeBiography.htm
Maybe its because she studied Law
"She was educated at Loughton County High School in Essex, before attending St Hilda's College, Oxford, where she read Law. After working at the House of Commons of the United Kingdom in PR and consultancy, Mukherjee completed her diploma in Journalism at the Polytechnic of Central London."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Mukherjee
You should look at the Columbia School of Journalism in the US also. They had an environmental journalism degree until recently. It was in essence a journalism field of study with either a minor or dual major in environmental science. They would likely know many of the environmental journalists in the US.
What an astonishing lack of relevant qualifications and expertise is displayed by this motley crew!! I'm quite amazed.
It's obvious from the things they say/write and the words they use that most of them don't really understand what they're taking about but I'd always assumed at least some basic, intelligent rationale had been used by their bosses to put them in these jobs. Obviously not.
Excellent project.
You might care to add Andrew Bolt of the Melbourne Herald Sun to your list.
His Bio is here
http://www.icmi.com.au/Speaker/Media/Andrew_Bolt/Biography
and his blog (which gave excellent cover of cClimategate) is here
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
If this is not limited to the UK, here are a couple:
Glen Martin - San Francisco Chronicle Environment Writer
Jane Kay - San Francisco Chronicle Environment Writer
Dina Cappiello - Houston Chronicle Environment Writer
Digging around in the article archive here:
http://www.environmentwriter.org/resources/archive.htm
might provide more sources, too.
I have to say, I am not a "warmist" (I am a green realist :-) whatever that means) , but I am not sure I like the tone of this post.
Isn't it a little bit like collecting a "little black book" of names....?
Attack their facts (or lack of them). Don't attack the person.
"Attack their facts (or lack of them). Don't attack the person."
Journalists have a byline for a reason. That is so that they can, to some degree, accept some responsibility for their content. Too often I hear people complain that AP wrote something or Reuters wrote something when the journalist who wrote it should be the one held responsible. In many cases, a story carried on a wire service is actually a local article that the wire service is distributing so it is important that the individual journalist be recognized as being responsible for the content.
So when I hear someone complaint that "AP" wrote something they don't like, I go and check to see who the journalist is and often you will find the same person writing the same kinds of articles over and over again. So once you learn to apply the correct filter to the source, information begins to make sense in a different way.
Professor Bunyip:
"If only it had been given the opportunities emanating from a liberal tertiary education, it might have made a fine reporter. It certainly would not need to have tried very hard to exceed the foot-sore Melissa's efforts in this area."
Couldn't hold it in any more at that point. Broke out laughing aloud. Hope I didn't wake my daughter.
MikeE
"Isn't it a little bit like collecting a "little black book" of names....?
Attack their facts (or lack of them). Don't attack the person."
Try Monbiot's most recent blog post. There are no facts to attack. It is nothing but a pure personal attack by Monbiot.
Mke E
One of the most interesting aspects to the history of AGW is the sheer unquestioning awfulness of the media coverage. This is an attempt to explain that phenomenon, and is not unreasonable.
Vijay Vaitheeswaran was an excellent energy and environment correspondent for the Economist. He was moved to health (big boost in quality there), but the Economist has lost its edge in climate change.
Vaitheeswaran, by the way, has no obvious qualifications in either climate or health. He's just a good journalist who asks hard questions and sees beneath the surface.
Christopher Booker - Daily Telegraph - Corpus Christi Oxford - AGW sceptic
James Delingpole - Daily Telegraph - Christchurch Oxford - AGW sceptic
more details on Wiki
Christopher Booker and James Delingpole have both supported the anti-AGW position with logical analyses.
BTW, having a science orientated degree undoubtedly increases a columnist's authority on the subject of Global Warming. However, I don't believe that it is essential. I believe a good reporter can collect data from both sides of an argument and present effects and, with logically argued and demonstrable causes for them, draw reasoned conclusions. A good reporter would also subject his report to scientific scrutiny before publishing if he wants to be regarded as authoritative and believable.
Reporting effects as being driven by undemonstrable causes can lead to irrationally drawn conclusions and, if done on purpose, may be described as propaganda or lying.
'The Scotsman' environmental correspondent is a Jenny Fyall (nee Haworth, name changed in 2009). Her contacts book for quotes seems to be mainly the World Warmongering Fund, Frauds of the Earth, and Greenpiss activists. An alarmist with no obvious grasp of anything scientific.
Associated Press have a Seth Borenstein. Not sure of his title, but he sure is one of the faithful in the Church of Warming Alarmism.
There is a website dedicated to the bias of the BBC. Here is a good post on Shukman's recent effort and here they slam the propaganda levels on children's programmes - CBBC.
The top 3 beebers are all totally out of their depth covering anything scientific - like trying to cover Japanese culture without knowing the language or visiting Japan. That's how Richard Black can write
This is meaningless, but because a professor wrote those words in that order, Black thinks it makes sense.
And don't forget that the BBC decided on it's climate change policy at a secret seminar in January 2006. The fact of this seminar is acknowledged, but the invitations, the agenda, the attendees and the minutes are all secret.
TonyN has the story at Harmless Sky.
The BBC seems to develop a house opinion on every subject from President Bush through to plastic bags. But usually this is an informal norming process, a case study in group-think. Not many other topics where they explicitly chose the house view in such a formal way.
Here's a useful-looking study for you: http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2008/GlobalWarmingCensored/GlobalWarmingCensored_execsum.asp
'The Business & Media Institute analyzed 205 network news stories about “global warming” or “climate change” between July 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2007. BMI found a meager 20 percent of stories even mentioned there were any alternative opinions to the so-called “consensus” on the issue.'
i am pretty sure david shukman has no science or maths qualifications beyond o level. i was at school with him
Not actually an environmental journalist (unless you count her time as Press Officer for the Greens): Caroline Lucas, Green Party leader and MEP. First degree in English Literature, PhD in Women's Studies. Heaven preserve us.
Roger Harrabin, BBC environment correspondent, first degree in English, St Catherine's College, Cambridge
"i am pretty sure david shukman has no science or maths qualifications beyond o level."
Well, he seems to have a geography degree and is an RGS fellow: ( http://www.geoconnexion.com/geouk_news_article/BBC-Environment-and-Science-Correspondent-to-speak../4146 ) His Fewllowship is also mentioned here: ( http://www.rgs.org/OurWork/Collections/Meet+the+Readers/Mark+Georgiou.htm ).
Christine McGourty has a Chemistry degree and an MA MA in the history and philosophy of science and medicine. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_3840000/newsid_3846300/3846397.stm ).
"the history and philosophy of science "
That just shouts "SOKAL HOAX".
I find it simply staggering that all these morons studying the sociology, ethics and philosophy of science (and whatever) didn't pick up on the scant regard paid to the scientific method, falsifiability, need for replication etc.
They ought to have been shouting about this from the rooftops, yet they're all so sodding Postmodern that it passed them by. Staggering.
And the length of that list for the Guardian!
Do they do anything else?
I spent a while looking for info about the Guardian's Adam Vaughan, whose name appeared above the startling news earlier this year that 'The dragonfly family has more species than any other mammal'. It turns out that he's an honest if fashionably green-tinged hack rather than an out-and-out activist masquerading as a journalist (as some Environment Correspondents undoubtedly are). He was a journo for several years, specializing in "boy's toys", before he started claiming to be green and, when not enthusing about green gadgets, he does a good job cobbling together quotes and facts (and dragonfly factoids) in a more-or-less neutral fashion. BA in English Literature, Manchester.
Geoffrey Lean, "the doyen of environmental journalists around the world" and for a while the UN's "External Editor of Our Planet" (not quite as weird as it sounds), was also a journo before he turned green but, unlike Vaughan, he did and does allow activism to taint his journalism. BA in Modern History, Oxford.
Lean fact (factoid?): He quit the Observer because the newsdesk rejected a story with the immortal words, "We've had enough of all that eco-bollocks".
Missing
John Connolley...for his Goebbel-ish way of using science as propaganda - JC edited over 5,000 wikipedia articles and banned hundreds from posting.... anyone who disagreed with JC (thought he was the son of god) was subject to delition and disbarment. All done in the name of goodness and greeness!
"i am pretty sure david shukman has no science or maths qualifications beyond o level."
""Well, he seems to have a geography degree...""
That would be a BA in Geography, would it?
In Ireland the chief theologian is Frank McDonald, with a BA in history and politics no less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_McDonald
This is a good step in a wider battle to bring journalists to account. The 'authority' hitherto enjoyed by the main media outlets has been built with precious little scrutiny of corruption and other misdeeds within journalists' own ranks. All sorts of biases, implicit and explicit, have been ignored for too long. Why not give media folk the same sort of scrutiny they choose to dish out to the rest of us when they sense a story? The hunters hunted...
So far so obvious. But let's also be honest. Climate issues involve a whole range of different scientific disciplines and indeed some social science disciplines, above all economics - the core way to try to work out how to cost climate changes and where if at all to invest now to stop future problems. That was why the Stern Report took such strong hits on the economics of what he proposed, even if (big if) the science was accurate.
So it seems to me that someone who has a good economics background (or at least understands and respects the key economics issues involved) is qualified to put himself/herself forward as an expert part of the Great Debate, as long as it all is done honestly and transparently.
Let's also not forget voters, who have to take a view on these complicated questions with whatever knowledge they can muster when politicians come along identifying problems and proposing their manifold solutions. A role for good communicators too, who may know next to nothing about the issues but can give a good faith and plausible account of them with the right briefing?
Even scientifically inept former diplomats may have something to say about the way climate issue negotiations are handled, as I have done: http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/395-charles-crawford-copenhagen-climate-summit-how-not-to-negotiate.html.
It all keeps coming back to Transparency at every step. Those who seek to avoid this are bound to find life increasingly more difficult.
Great Idea!!
@Mike - this is not a black book, this is about explaining why reporters don't use the scientific method when it comes to reporting on science.
They think a scientific debate is exactly like debating if Capitalism or Socialism is the greater evil! You can't agree to disagree in science - you are only about to remain right until someone proves you wrong! Galileo had to prove that the Earth went around the sun - it wasn't a debating matter! Einstein had to prove why he thought mass and energy were different forms of the same thing. Again, not a debating matter!!
If this works, we might be able to move on to politicians and find out if our chancellor has the skills to be able to do his job - before they mess up the economy - but that is for another post!!
"That would be a BA in Geography, would it?"
Probably. It could be a load of "cultural geography" for all that I know but I would not rule out that there was a serious science component to it. If you criticize someone publicly for having no science background at all you should be sure about that.
PEW studies consistently show that journos lean way to the left, by a near-total majority. It has nothing to do with having scientific/nonscientific credentials, it is all politics. Anything that has anything to do with big government socialistic programs for what they see as the common good will get positive press. It is the way of things.
The reason journos believe in global warming is because they have never taken a science class. Having done work in paleo-ecology, I'm shocked at how their beliefs are near religious in nature-- nothing can change their minds about AGW.
Dusty is correct to name the two sceptical journos at the Telegraph - Delingpole and Booker - but their good work is nullified by one of the most infuriating regurgitator of climate nonsense, Geoffrey Lean. His blog says that he is "Britain's longest-serving environmental correspondent, having pioneered reporting on the subject over 40 years ago." He is so obviously a campaigner that I'm afraid I now tune him out when I see his by-line. Lean was Environment Editor at the Independent before joining the Telegraph, apparently,
Sorry I just saw that Vinny mentiioned Lean above - hilarious, BA in Modern History - hey, I have one of those too - not from Oxford, alas.
I'm happy to help. I'm going to concentrate on the Independent scribes, as the Independent has been everything but...
Just an observational note: I would deem requests for 2 & 3 (educational and work background) to be a poor indicator of bad reporting (in any field). IMHO, lack of specific 'field experience' or training regarding the reported topic is rarely the main contributor in bad journalism (see many examples of good reporting by the untrained). It seems to me the 2 primary reasons are:
1. Lack of critical thinking
2. Ideology
Any solution needs to address these issues far more than the (lack) of formal training or previous work history.
Professor Bunyip!!! Is it really the good professor himself. (If someone has appropriated that venerable name, there is no punishment too great for the infamy. Waterboarding in boiling oil would about meet the case.)
If he's back, Hosanna! Lead me to his website forthwith.
Oh, yeah, and making these journalists own up to their words is a perfect corrective. Good work.
"That would be a BA in Geography, would it?"
"Probably. It could be a load of "cultural geography" for all that I know but I would not rule out that there was a serious science component to it. If you criticize someone publicly for having no science background at all you should be sure about that."
I was asking the question. Where's the criticism? I thank you most humbly for your wise advice.
Interesting information and a worthwhile endeavor, but the science literacy and political inclinations of editors and opinion writers would be of more relevance than that of reporters. A good reporter gives us facts, not opinions, and can report fairly even about something outside the writer's expertise if he/she can ask good questions and seek out differing points of view. When an article reports only one side of a story, or expresses the writer's opinions as fact, it's easily disregarded as a worthless piece of bad reporting. Unfortunately, these are characteristics of most environmental "reporting" in old media.
Stephen Leahy at
http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=834207
describes himself as an international environmental journalist.
This is a good idea.
Seth Borenstein, AP "Science" Writer: attended Boston University, can't find any information on his degree--although I've not done an exhaustive search, by any means.
He also worked for Knight Ridder Newspapers' Washington Bureau, Orlando Sentinel, and Sun-Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale before he went to he AP.
Here's an overview of his climate reporting: Seth Borenstein: AP Has a ‘Science’ Writer Problem. If I dig up more, I'll be back.
Great project!
Working for an Oz network and having direct experience with an "Environment Producer" let me just say this: someone essentially on a Run of Show contract has little interest in producing stories which could see them back in the unemployment queue.
The Great Bunyip returns! I look forward to returning to this site to see what comes out of this little project.
I expected the BBC to have more "environmental correspondents" than any other organisation in the list, anyone would. But then I realised that The Guardian had even more! BBC 11, Guardian 19! Print media in general is in financial trouble. Maybe we now know why the Guardian is...
Regarding Editors:
I'm an American librarian who is monitoring authorship since October when Associated Press drew my attention.
I copied this comment two months ago for my own personal notes, and I have no idea who wrote it.
******Actually, the editors and publishers DO hear from their customers, regularly.
Thing is, we (you, me, the folks who read or watch) are NOT the customers. We're actually the product... or at least our attention and mindspace is.
The CUSTOMERS are the advertising agents and companies who pay the MSM guys to deliver their messages into our mindspace... and I assure you, the eds and publishers hear from those customers. After every issue.
Whereas we, unless we fit the "right" demographic categories ...have a bad habit of breaking the buying trance they're trying to create.
Contacting the media folks is a waste. If you want to be heard, you've GOT to contact the advertisers directly... and en masse.
They're the customers, they're the money. They'll get heard in the editorial offices. We won't.*********
Regarding Editors:
I'm an American librarian who is monitoring authorship since October when Associated Press drew my attention.
I copied this comment two months ago for my own personal notes, and I have no idea who wrote it.
******Actually, the editors and publishers DO hear from their customers, regularly.
Thing is, we (you, me, the folks who read or watch) are NOT the customers. We're actually the product... or at least our attention and mindspace is.
The CUSTOMERS are the advertising agents and companies who pay the MSM guys to deliver their messages into our mindspace... and I assure you, the eds and publishers hear from those customers. After every issue.
Whereas we, unless we fit the "right" demographic categories ...have a bad habit of breaking the buying trance they're trying to create.
Contacting the media folks is a waste. If you want to be heard, you've GOT to contact the advertisers directly... and en masse.
They're the customers, they're the money. They'll get heard in the editorial offices. We won't.*********
Regarding Editors and advertisers:
This led me to explore the advertising customers. It turns out they are multi-nationals who were born and bred in the Western world but have decided their future profits are more important than their national responsibilities.
I found a good starting list at nocapandtrade.com under Companies to Boycott.
During early December:
Google (on the list) tried to micro-manage its search engines so that auto-complete would not suggest the search term Climategate.
Associated Press mounted an almost hysterical daily barrage of catastrophic warnings through Yahoo (on the list) while Al Gore was featured on three consecutive network television prime-time shows. (60 Minutes, etc.)
Coca-Cola (on the list) used global warming polar bear danger as its Christmas advertising theme.
I could go on but you get my drift.
According to his Linkedin profile, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein does indeed have a bachelor's in science, from Boston University:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/seth-borenstein/8/b5a/438
The "science" in question is journalism.
Quoting the language in question, in case Borenstein makes his Linkedin profile inaccessible:
It's good to know that Borenstein also attended high school. He certainly didn't attend graduate or professional school, in any "science" including journalism, or it would be on his Linkedin page.
A journalism degree, of course, is for students who can't hack it in the English program, or get a fine arts degree in creative writing.