Reporter’s Toolbox The Path to Better Investigative Science Reporting By JOHN UPTON


Investigative journalism and science reporting are both enjoy- ing post-recession era renaissances. That makes 2016 an ideal time to consider how these fields can overlap. Traditional investigative reporting reveals actions that violate rules or social standards. Science journalism seeks to explain sci- entific knowledge of how everything works. In my opinion, inves- tigative science reporting’s major role is to reveal whether rules and standards are based on the latest and best knowledge and in- formation.


This work matters a great deal, and when we fail as journalists, the consequences can be dire.


As I see it, widespread resistance to the reality that industrial activities are warming the planet can be traced back to a weakened and often unqualified press corps. For years, news editors and reporters pitted the state- ments of climate scientists against those of corporate spokespeople and their allies from other scientific fields, in- cluding astronomy. That created the false impression of uncer- tainty, allowing climate science denialism to fester. With global warming cross- ing the 1°C threshold in 2015, which was the warmest year on record globally, it’s becoming clear that those years of sloppy science journalism now threaten the viability of life on Earth as we know it.


Journalists must learn from the mistake. As environmental


journalists, we have an opportunity to lead our colleagues down a better path. A greater focus on investigative science journalism could help.


Project leads to startling conclusion


After years of producing in-depth science stories, I recently had the opportunity to put my ideas about investigative science re- porting into practice like never before. I spent nearly half a year re- porting for my news organization, the research and journalism nonprofit Climate Central, on a single difficult story. During the project, I reflected on my own long-standing ideas around how investigative science reporting can work best. I’ve put together a series of nine tips I hope will help others as well. First, a bit about the investigation. The nut of the story was that wood pellets from the United States are being burned in Europe in- stead of coal to satisfy climate policy. The practice exists only be- cause it is being subsidized by European governments as a solution to climate change. The reporting challenge was to figure out how


the climate is being affected, and how forests are being affected. By spending a lot of time in the field, by interviewing dozens of scientists and by reading and critically analyzing dozens of the most relevant reports and scientific papers, I reached the startling conclusion that the subsidized industry is actually accelerating global warming, while harming sensitive American forests. Wood energy can be environmentally beneficial, but only in specific circumstances. Those circumstances, I discovered, do not resemble the current transatlantic trade in wood fuel to produce electricity.


The industry that has popped into existence to harvest trees and produce wood pellets in North America and burn them in Eu- rope has kept this reality suppressed. It has achieved this largely by confusing journalists with overly general scientific reports and analyses. When discussing envi- ronmental benefits, the reports and analyses touted by industry tend to focus on local energy generation using waste wood — not on their real-world practices.


Nine ways to do the job better


Climate Central photographer Ted Blanco used a drone to document privately owned wetland forests in Louisiana, near the sites of new wood pellet mills and a wood pellet port.


Photo by John Upton That’s not their bailiwick.


So I interviewed stock market analysts, company CEOs, in- dustry consultants and others to help me grasp the scope and rapid growth of the industry. I visited forestry operations and wood pellet mills to learn how the pellets are made. I also toured power plants, and learned the difference between small plants that burn wood chips and large ones that burn wood pellets.


The industry is heavily shaped by government policies, so I had to learn about those, too — and that involved reading a lot of official E.U. and U.K. government documents. 2. Understand the questions that you want to answer.In- vestigative journalism often begins by figuring out what laws and standards are in place, and then it seeks to determine whether com- panies and public officials are playing by those rules. Investigative science journalism takes a step back, asking whether those laws and standards have been informed by the latest and best knowledge, with “science being the system that develops and manages the knowledge.”


Continued on page 19 10 SEJournal Spring 2016


1. Be prepared for a lot of non-science reporting. A large part of my story in- volved understanding and ex- plaining the nascent use of large quantities of wood to produce electricity. Science couldn’t in- form this aspect of my reporting, because scientists rarely sit around analyzing industries.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28