Earlier this week, Jeffrey Brainard sent me an email asking whether I’d look at a series on sea level rise in the Chesapeake Bay, produced and published jointly by the Chesapeake Quarterly and the Bay Journal.
“I think this is a good example of emerging, hybrid platforms in science journalism. Our two publications joined forces to match our complementary strengths and reach more readers.”
I’m sorry to disappoint Brainard, but I disagree.
Brainard explained that the Bay Journal is a monthly newspaper, and the Chesapeake Quarterly is a free magazine published by Maryland Sea Grant at the University of Maryland. I can see how joining forces could allow the two publication to do more than either could alone.
But there is one problem. Maryland Sea Grant is funded jointly by the federal government (NOAA) and the state of Maryland. And Brainard is assistant director for communications at Maryland Sea Grant College.
I sent Brainard and the editor of The Bay Journal, Karl Blankenship, an email briefly outlining my concerns. Both sent thoughtful replies.
First, Brainard:
…I think you would draw a different conclusion if you had a fuller picture of Maryland Sea Grant and Chesapeake Quarterly.
The communications team I lead at Maryland Sea Grant, which produces Chesapeake Quarterly, is atypical of university publications in that we strive to produce high-quality, independent science journalism. Chesapeake Quarterly is not like the traditional university alumni or research-oriented magazines that report solely on the research conducted at their home institutions for the purpose of alumni and public relations. Rather, Chesapeake Quarterly was conceived as an independent source of information about Chesapeake Bay science for a general audience, a role we have carried out successfully for the past 12 years, as you can see in our articles archive at http://www.chesapeakequarterly.net/issues/…In quality and substance, I think it’s fair to say that the magazine fills a niche in the Chesapeake Bay region unlike any other publication.
I’m persuaded that Brainard is doing good work–and, indeed, I’m sure that Chesapeake Quarterly is a useful source of information for a general audience.
But that doesn’t change my opinion. The publication is, first and last, part of a government-funded effort to spread information to the public. Journalists covering climate wouldn’t and shouldn’t partner with the public affairs department of Exxon Mobil, and they shouldn’t partner with the University of Maryland or NOAA.
And here’s Blankenship:
I don’t share your concern that such a partnership is problematic. All Sea Grant colleges have different areas of emphasis, and Maryland has always (certainly in the 25 years I’ve been here) placed a high degree of importance on producing what most everyone around here would agree is objective content. Over time it has been reprinted in newspapers and its documentaries appear on television. Further, we’re under no obligation to run any of their material, and they’re under no obligation to run ours — and neither of us is running all the content. — we just created a pool of material that can be shared. All the authors and affiliations of all articles are disclosed on all articles.
Environment reporters in this region, as elsewhere, are falling like flies, and this arrangement lets us cover sea level rise while covering more stories that would otherwise go uncovered.
I’m willing to stipulate that he’s correct when he says Maryland has always produced objective content. But that doesn’t change the argument. Do we really want the government–however good the track record of one of its agencies–funding stories on climate change? Do we want the administration that is debating whether to approve the Keystone pipeline funding journalism on the Chesapeake Bay? Blankenship might, but I don’t–and it doesn’t matter which party is running the executive branch.
I suspect that if I took a close look at this series, I would find a lot to like. But it isn’t journalism; it’s public relations.
-Paul Raeburn
Respectfully, Paul, my one concern with your arguement is that you’re assuming funding equals editorial control/influence. Sometimes it does, and I’m sure with Exxon et al. it’s quite likely. But is that the case here?
I subscribe to both publications. Both are reputable, honest sources of reliable information. One is “government-sponsored” and the other, Bay Journal, independent. It is clear to me and to anyone who reads them which is which. But I can’t agree with the notion that “publicly-funded” automatically means “suspect.” Skepticism is always warranted, but suspicions must have facts to support them or they are just speculation.
I’m with you, Paul. Either we are accountable to our readers (listeners, viewers), or we are accountable to our sources of information. Often the two don’t conflict, especially for science journalists, but when they do, there should be no question whom we serve.
Very old discussion. Doctors for many years have said that because they take money from Pharma doesn’t mean they are influenced by it. But the data has proved them wrong, again and again. They are influenced. Doesn’t mean you can’t do some good work, but put a label on saying where the money comes from.
Raeburn’s full of–ahem, the rarefied gas breathed by holders of prestigious fellowships funded by dead tycoons. MIT (like the university at whose Sea Grant program I currently work) receives massive federal funding; are its scientists therefore engaged in “public relations” rather than research?
Perhaps Raeburn prefers the traditional “pure,” market-driven media business model of journalism, where support comes largely from advertisers and secondarily from readers. No compromises there: Surely the last space-starved daily in my town devotes a Saturday section to celebrating overpowered gas guzzlers out of dedication to the public’s right to know, not to snag the car-dealer ads that fill the rest of the section.
Whoops, that model’s half-dead anyway. That daily solicits grants from foundations that have their own agendas and dictate areas of coverage. The Knight Science Journalism Program’s website boasts of all the top dailies and TV networks it’s placed fellows at. PBS gets funding from the Koch brothers–for science coverage! Then again, Raeburn may not have a problem with that. He equates NOAA and Exxon Mobil.
The sad fact is, journalism, advocacy, and p.r. are getting mixed and remixed in a thousand ways these days. It’s not that the differences between them don’t matter; they very much do. But it’s not enough to recite the old pieties. It takes more discernment and closer consideration to parse the elements of each in a given piece of reportage than Raeburn displays in his sweeping dismissal.
In such circumstances, disclosure is indeed essential, as several commenters have noted. Did Maryland Sea Grant fail to perform it?
On that score, I’m off the clock, and speaking only for myself.
Eric Scigliano
If we were discussing a publication produced directly by a government department or agency, I would expect there to be that kind of editorial control. In one produced by an independent group that receives government funding, I wouldn’t make the same assumption.
I agree with Phil Hilts’s comment, though: “[P]ut a label on saying where the money comes from.”
Why would we think that the government is any different from Exxon in terms of getting its message out? Imagine the party you don’t like is running the administration. Would you expect it to be objective and non-partisan?
You imply that the alternative to this is non-government-funded reporting – but as we all know, that’s less often the case. The alternative to this is probably silence. This is better than silence – although less good than independent reporting, of course.
As the director of an independent nonprofit magazine affiliated with a
university, I respectfully disagree with this piece. The author makes it
sounds like all “traditional” journalists and publishers are simply
operating without outside influence. While this is the ideal, the money
to support journalism comes from somewhere. It’s just a matter of
whether it’s disclosed or not and how much of a firewall exists between the business and editorial sides in my opinion. I wonder why the writer
didn’t disclose who funds the Bay Journal, which is every bit as
pertinent as who funds the Chesapeake Quarterly. Plus, is it ironic that
this is being written on a platform supported by MIT and Knight? Does
that make it less trustworthy? I don’t think so, but just pointing that
out.
Paul might agree with today’s House bill which would prevent scientists who received EPA funding in the past 5 years from serving on Advisory Committees, due to a presumed conflict of interest. But then, some things that sound correct turn out to be not such clear insights. Those same scientists might be the most capable evaluators of research and uncertainties on a given topic. If they are barred access to decision-making fora, there is little means of guaranteeing that those seats will be filled by completely impartial voices, for example, from industry.