We asked 50 journalists in Asia how they’d improve environmental journalism. Here’s what they had to say.
International collaboration, scientific literacy, and journalistic professionalism are key to the future of the beat, according to our survey of environmental reporters.
Environmental journalists foreshadowed the dangers of zoonotic diseases and alerted us to the perils of climate change that are now part of our lives. But writers of environmental news see vital areas for improvement.
According to a survey of environmentalist journalists mostly based in Asia by the Environmental Reporting Collective, the future of the green beat rests on coverage that stands apart from advocacy and makes science more accessible.
Respondents indicated that they want reporting that is fact-based and data-driven, and that takes into account all viewpoints rather than promoting just one.
“Personally, I would like to see journalism separated from advocacy, not only in environmental reporting but also on other topics,” said Karoline Kan, a Chinese journalist who covers the environment from Beijing.
“One of the most important things is that journalism is objective, rational, and neutral–especially environmental journalism, which is always linked to science,” Kan said.
Treating environmental reporting as advocacy risks “preaching to the choir” instead of reaching new readers and educating the widest audience possible, she said.
80% of respondents said quality mattered more than cost or brand.
Nearly all said they want the news to highlight new research, data sources, and on-the-ground reporting from the field. The two most prominent themes of interest across all of those surveyed were the stalwarts of climate change and wildlife and biodiversity. Several respondents expressed a desire to see more reporting on crime and corruption.
About fifty people participated in the survey, 70 per cent identified primarily as creators of environmental news, while roughly 27 per cent said they were primarily consumers, and three per cent were supporters.
Over 40 percent said they felt training for journalists was deficient. They said they and colleagues lacked the skills needed to be able to use and analyse environmental data and know how to communicate it effectively to audiences.
Which of the following would influence your decision to read an environmental news report?
Environmental journalism needed to do a better job in connecting the raw data to the lives of ordinary people, to understand how it impacts the everyday lives and society at large, they said.
Across various regions, many said that they felt isolated from their colleagues who work at different publications, in different countries and perhaps in different languages. This, they said, limited the scope and depth of their work despite a recent uptick in collaborations.
“Working together, cross-boundaries, cross-publication is the way to go” says Jakarta-based environmental journalist Basten Gokkon, who cautions that journalists’ egos sometimes lead to a sense of ownership over stories that would benefit from wider cooperation.
“Scoops aren’t that big of a deal,” Gokkon says. “The goal must be reporting mismanagement of natural resources instead of trying to be the first to break the news.”
The greatest proportion of respondents – close to 80 per cent – said it was the quality of reporting which most directly influenced their decision to consume it, above the cost of access or the prestige of the publication.
Ryan is a freelance journalist from Hong Kong covering politics, culture, and the environment.
