Last year an activist judge who was disgraced in a scandal and lost his election, ruled that I am not a journalist. Paul Burka, Senior Editor of Texas Monthly says I am a journalist. I believe Texas law also says I’m a journalist.
(2) “Journalist” means a person, including a parent, subsidiary, division, or affiliate of a person, who for a substantial portion of the person’s livelihood or for substantial financial gain, gathers, compiles, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, investigates, processes, or publishes news or information that is disseminated by a news medium or communication service provider . . .
Writing for this blog and other online sources, submitting letters to the editor and opinion pieces is a big part of my job. To my son’s dismay, Twitter and Facebook are also part of my job.
But the internet, where news is free, is shrinking print media. While journalism struggles to reinvent itself, PR firms are stepping into the void.
In their recent book, “The Death and Life of American Journalism,” Robert McChesney and John Nichols tracked the number of people working in journalism since 1980 and compared it to the numbers for public relations. Using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, they found that the number of journalists has fallen drastically while public relations people have multiplied at an even faster rate. In 1980, there were about .45 PR workers per 100,000 population compared with .36 journalists. In 2008, there were .90 PR people per 100,000 compared to .25 journalists. That’s a ratio of more than three-to-one, better equipped, better financed. ProPublica
All that to say: I know the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ) is hurting but making a Faustian deal with the fracking industry is not the answer.
It’s tragic and disgraceful to see adds like this one from EnergyFromShale.org in the SEJ Magazine.
Society of Environmental Journalists Winter 2013 Ad
Even more tragic: This ad ran in the same SEJ Magazine issue that focused on Hurricane Sandy.
And Even worse, the only session on fracking in the upcoming SEJ annual conference will not allow a discussion about the pros and cons.
THE CRAFT 1
Follow the Frackin’ MoneyFracking has its supporters and detractors. It also puts enormous piles of money at stake from small-town America to Washington to Wall Street. While we won’t discuss the arguments for or against fracking, our veteran reporters will help unravel fracking’s financial pipelines: Whether money’s influence may be seeping into fracking science, fueling political decisions, funding fracking’s opponents, or spinning the lives and fortunes of small towns and rural areas.
Moderator: Peter Dykstra, Publisher, Environmental Health News and The Daily Climate
Speakers:
Brian Grow, Enterprise Correspondent, Reuters
Don Hopey, Environment Reporter, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
3rd speaker TBA
While I have nothing but praise for Hopey and the PPG for their reporting on the Baby Gaggers, I have to ask SEJ:
Why not discuss the fracking pros and cons?
Just FYI:
About Sharon Wilson
Sharon Wilson is considered a leading citizen expert on the impacts of shale oil and gas extraction. She is the go-to person whether it’s top EPA officials from D.C., national and international news networks, or residents facing the shock of eminent domain and the devastating environmental effects of natural gas development in their backyards.
- Web |
- More Posts(5121)
From their description:
“Whether money’s influence may be seeping into fracking science, fueling political decisions, funding fracking’s opponents, or spinning the lives and fortunes of small towns and rural areas.”
Whether? Weather?? Weather??? May be? May be??
How can they write these incredibly non-denominational and sterile summaries?
Stan Scobie, Senior Fellow, PSE Healthy Energy
I know. The whole thing blows my mind.
All Judges in Texas are not worth the paper that their name is written on, as far as them helping the peasants. They are ALL worthless.
you’re a journalist just not an objective one
It’s called advocacy journalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_journalism
Sharon Wilson is objective and she has made herself a journalist. The truth is what isn’t objective when it comes to fracking. We first found out about this force of nature in the September issue of More and were blown away. This article really nails it. It is excellent. Veteran investigative journalists worth any salt feel their teeth ache over a story like this. Having judged journalists from all over the country, including a five-year stint as judging chair of the Los Angeles Press Club, this is the kind of article that makes me jump out of my seat it’s so good. Here’s a piece we did last week that should interest TXsharon and hopefully the better-informed folks who are lucky enough to visit this site and read this top-notch investigative journalism. http://www.enviroreporter.com/2013/08/fracked-nation/
That the fracking industry tries to woo environmental reporters is not surprising, but that they go for it (and the money, ad revenue, etc.) is however reprehensible. Here’s another example of an SEJ board member, former Los Angeles Times reporter Gary Polakovic, whose not-so-secret plan to help Boeing greenwash radiological and chemical contamination at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory included hosting a “hospitality reception” (http://www.sej.org/sej-annual-conferences/AC2013-independent-exhibitors) for Boeing at this upcoming SEJ annual conference that Wilson expertly exposes! Even now after “Greenwashing Rocketdyne” (http://www.enviroreporter.com/2012/12/greenwashing-rocketdyne/all/1/) came out last December, Polakovic still maintains that “He helped establish and lead the Society of Enviromental Journalists.”
Sharon
I am the organizer/moderator of the SEJ panel discussion on fracking that you have criticized. There are so many things that are wrong with what you’ve written that I don’t know where to begin. You wrote that my panel is the “only” fracking session on our agenda. That’s incorrect. A quick look at our agenda would have revealed to you that SEJ’s conference in early October also includes a day-long visit to a fracking site in Tennessee.
You also suggest that the panel’s focus on the money side of fracking is somehow a slight to the pro- and- con arguments about fracking. Our sessions are just over an hour long. Our rationale is that a session intended to help coach journalists to sort out the deep and seemingly impenetrable strands (or gushers) of money that surround the issue and potentially corrupt its science and politics is the most important thing we can do to serve our journalist members. I’m frankly surprised that you aren’t angry that an hour isn’t enough time for that enormous topic. But the goal here is for some journalists who may be just breaking into covering fracking to benefit from hearing from veterans like Don Hopey and Brian Grow on how they track and follow the money.
We also endeavor to cover the entire spectrum of environmental issues in a few short days. Last year’s conference featured a panel of scientists, including Tony Ingraffea, who is a board member of Earthworks, the group you are employed by. The agenda also spans, or tries to, everything from climate change to environmental justice to clean energy to biodiversity and literally dozens of other issues. Each one has its own subset of science, politics, economic, and ideological side issues. Fracking may be the single largest issue in your life, and it’s truly important, but with all due respect, it’s a little arrogant to assume that all these other things matter less. If you still disagree, let us know which other issues you think environmental journalists should ignore in the future.
Your implication that an ad from the fracking industry has somehow corrupted SEJ, the panelists, SEJ members, or me personally is simply baseless and insulting. I’ll leave it at that.
Your blog suggests you wish to be considered a journalist. A journalist does not spew first and ask questions later. In fact, you didn’t ask questions at all, and as a result you’ve gotten it wrong from top to bottom.
I admire your zeal, and what is clearly a selfless passion for your work and your cause. I don’t question your motives at all. If you want to question mine, or SEJ’s, in the future, it wouldn’t kill you to ask us a question or two before passing judgement.
Peter Dykstra
Peter,above-I’m not impressed with your blog. Just the statement “includes a day-long visit to a fracking site in Tennessee.”, is indicative that you haven’t been to the badly damaged areas, like Texas, Okla. and Louisiana. Get into the heart of the fracking and learn what is being done!
BTW, TxSharon, keep up the good work on your site.
Dear Peter,
Thank you for responding. I can tell that I hit a nerve.
Maybe you missed my response on Facebook so I’ll put that here:
“I agree that it would be interesting to hear what he has to say. Don Hopey has done an excellent job at the PPG. But I’m going out of town so wouldn’t be able to make that call for a while. I don’t think the declaration about not discussing pros and cons would raise any eyebrows if it weren’t for the full page glossy ads they’ve been running in their magazine.”
I know many journalists who are SEJ members and quite a few have expressed feelings ranging from concern to deep disgust over the oil & gas industry ads. One of the best environmental journalists I know quit SEJ for many reasons that built up until the first ad was the last straw.
In your response you have kicked up a lot of sand, hurled some insults, then ended with a Southern backhanded compliment. I’d rather address the issues.
I don’t think we would be having this conversation if the SEJ hadn’t taken out the industry ads. No one would have thought that much about the fracking session minus the pros and cons. (Although that discussion needs to happen! Some of the journalism on the topic has been less than stellar.) However, SEJ did take the ads and now–like it or not–they are under the microscope.
You said:
“Your implication that an ad from the fracking industry has somehow corrupted SEJ, the panelists, SEJ members, or me personally is simply baseless and insulting. I’ll leave it at that.”
First: Please don’t put words in my mouth or on my page. I did not make this personal; you did. And, I clearly stated my admiration for one panel member, Don Hopey. My criticism applies to the SEJ and is not personal to any member.
Second: Okay then, where does SEJ draw the line with ads? Will they be taking clean coal ads, or maybe a climate denial ad? I’m sure the Koch Brothers would love to place a climate denying ad in SEJ and I’m sure they would pay handsomely.
I have great respect for many of the journalists who belong to SEJ but I feel the organization has gone off track a bit.