On one side are the good guys — any person or organization that agrees with the government’s plans. On the other side are all the bad guys — those who question them. And according to a government strategy paper uncovered by environmental groups last week, the bad guys include aboriginals, environmentalists and the media.
Would that be all journalists and news organizations? Or just journalists who report on the environmental consequences of oilsands development? Who knows? The strategy paper tars all media with the same brush.
As usual, the truth is a lot more complicated. Harper and his team may see the media as enemies but in fact most articles about the oilsands are written from a business or finance perspective.
A 2009 study by a University of Alberta political scientist of articles about the Alberta oilsands that appeared in the Globe and Mail and National Post found that 86 per cent of the stories appeared in the newspapers’ businesses sections. Surely, that is exactly what the government wants.
The study also found that journalists relied on a greater diversity of sources when stories focused on environmental issues compared with economic issues but business representatives were still the primary source, followed closely by environmental non-governmental organizations.
It would be tempting to say there are now more stories written from an environmental standpoint given the current controversy over the Keystone and Northern Gateway pipelines. But according to journalists who have covered the oilsands extensively, there are still many untold stories, and most have to do with environmental issues.
This was revealed during a recent research project sponsored by the Oil Sands Research and Information Network (OSRIN) based at the University of Alberta’s School of Energy and the Environment. I was part of the research team and co-authored the final report with Janice Paskey of Mount Royal University in Calgary.
Twenty journalists — 18 of them had more than five years experience covering the oilsands, one had 40 years of experience — agreed to in-depth interviews about their work. Since they were guaranteed anonymity their responses were quite frank.
When asked if there are stories that are not being told, 14 out of 20 said yes. Seven cited environmental issues. One journalist said: “I always get these anonymous phone calls about incidents on-site . . . the leeching of the pipelines from some sites that will spew oil onto aboriginal land . . . The actual number of wildlife that are lost to tailings ponds.”
The research also revealed that a clear majority of the 20 journalists who participated believe that the tension between economic and environmental aspects of oilsands development is the key issue and will likely be so for some time to come.
Asked about key issues, one respondent said: “The environmental impact, the impact on the workers, and the scientific aspect because we’re going with new uncharted technology and there could be problems with the people who have to live with it.”
There were also biting comments about federal spokespersons being slow to respond, sometimes completely unresponsive, to queries. One journalist who works for an international media organization said: “If I call the federal environment ministry, I get a call back from Energy, Mines and Resources.”
Many of the journalists said they would rather speak to people in industry and government who have relevant expertise, or are decision-makers, than communications staff, who usually give them “spin.” Academics with peer-reviewed work were considered the most trustworthy sources.
All the respondents but one said the oilsands are fascinating to cover. “It’s one of the greatest issues of our time, inside Canada, and outside Canada,” one journalist said.
Like any complex, controversial subject, the oilsands are difficult to cover in a way that satisfies all stakeholders, including the ordinary citizen. And it appears the Harper team wants to make it even more difficult.
Original Article
Source: Star
Author: Gillian Steward
No comments:
Post a Comment