Reporter’s Toolbox...Continued from p. 10


When you begin an investigative science reporting project, fig- ure out — in general terms — which questions you seek to answer. I asked, “How does this industry affect the climate, and how does it affect forests?”


3. Read journal articles, but don’t assume you can trust them.


Like the editing process, peer review can be extremely valu- able when done right — but worse than useless when done wrong. Different members of a team of scientists that produced a study should be interviewed. Their interpretations of the findings will be shaped by personal biases. Scientists who weren’t involved with the study also need to be interviewed. A good scientist won’t just be eager to explain what he or she already knows, but will tell you what he or she still wants to know. 4. Ask the standard questions about scientific studies. ● Who funded the research? Why? ● What did the study reveal? What previous findings and ideas did it confirm — or reject?


● How did the researchers involved in the study work to-


gether? Who did which parts of the analysis? ● How thorough was the


methodology? Are there shortcom- ings, such as small sample sizes? ● Have findings described in press releases and media coverage accurately reflected the findings de- scribed in the study? ● Does the study describe find-


tially damaging to a corporation’s bottom line, it’s going to be the people who are employed or paid by that corporation. Sure enough, the wood pellet energy companies told me that a lot of research I intended to cite in my coverage was flawed, and that the scientists behind it were incompetent. But their inability to meaningfully rebuke the substance of the findings helped assure me that the findings were valid and reliable.


Because the corporate critiques were unsubstantiated, I did not mention those particular criticisms in my series. If they had been substantiated, I would have found a scientist to quote instead. Published criticisms of science should come from scientists and other independent experts who are specifically qualified to dis- cuss it — not from those whose bottom lines are threatened by it. 8. You don’t have to mention all scientific disputes. The global wood pellet energy industry obfuscates the science around several main issues.


The crux of investigative science re- porting is figuring out which find- ings and assertions can be trusted and which are dubious or uncertain.


ings from experiments, or does it review the findings of other stud- ies? The personal biases of scientists can easily lead to misleading review studies.


5. Interview a lot of scientists from a lot of different back- grounds.


The crux of investigative science reporting is figuring out which findings and assertions can be trusted and which are dubious or uncertain. That often involves identifying scientific consensuses among those who are qualified to reach judgment, which requires a lot of interviewing. It also requires a lot of vetting. A forestry scientist who pro- duces a paper on emissions from wood energy won’t necessarily be an expert on the topic. An atmospheric scientist won’t necessar- ily understand potential ecological impacts or benefits from differ- ent logging practices. 6. Look for a clear science answer, but don’t assume that you will find one. It’s the job of an investigative science journalist to sort con- temporary scientific fact from scientific conjecture, misinterpreta- tions and outdated findings. Sorting through all of this involves persistence, and extensive reading and interviewing. Be dogged, but if you can’t reach a clear conclusion, don’t force one into your story. Claiming a scientifically rigorous answer exists where one does not can be as misleading as doing the opposite. 7. Allow industry to comment on scientific research, but be wary of quoting it.


If anybody is going to critically analyze research that’s poten-


It tries to pretend that producing pellets doesn’t require trees to be cut down (by implying they’re made from waste wood). Once you cut through that spin and realize that trees are being cut down to make pellets, it’s argued that cutting down trees to produce pellets makes forests healthier (because increased forestry revenue increases spending on forestry). Finally, the companies claim that the carbon dioxide re- leased when wood is burned doesn’t warm the globe (because when forests grow back, they absorb car- bon dioxide) — even though burning


wood releases more carbon dioxide pollution than coal. Once debunked, claims such as these do not need to be in- cluded in a story. Such decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis. To include debunked claims in a story, even if referencing the disputes around them, can sometimes be dishonest, because it could suggest that legitimate scientific doubt exists where really there is none. 9. Be sure the editor and reporter share the same goals. When I filed the first draft of my series, it described entrenched disputes between corporations and environmentalists regarding en- vironmental impacts, many of which focused on science. But one of the first things that my editor Geoff Grant did was cut that section. I was disappointed to have wasted time writing it, but I knew that I agreed with the decision. By working as part of a team that dedicated itself to the same ideals that I held, the series was much better than it would have been otherwise. I aim to put these ideas into greater practice during the years ahead, and to continue to refine this list and my approach along the way. Your suggestions are warmly welcomed.


John Upton is a senior science writer for Climate Central in


New York, and his investigative report on the impact on climate of burning wood pellets, “Pulp Fiction,” can be read at bit.ly/1QxVDpy. Upton has written for The New York Times, Slate, Nautilus, VICE, Grist, Pacific Standard, Modern Farmer, 7x7 San Francisco and Audubon magazine. He can be reached at johnup- ton@gmail.com.


19 SEJournal Spring 2016


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