The topics of symbolic legitimacy and symbolic legitimacy boundaries are relatively unknown to the public, but they are very interesting.  Cox defines symbolic legitimacy as “The perceived correctness, authority, or common sense of a policy or an approach to a problem relative to other competing responses” (p. 333).

The boundaries deal more with the associations that politician or the public place on an action or person.  In this case, the truth is not the only aspect that’s important.  What’s at stake with symbolic legitimacy boundaries is not the truth of the matter, but the public perception of it.  Some of the best examples of this can be found in any political campaign.

When rivals use symbolic words to continually refer to their opponent, it becomes part of the public perception.  According to many political analysts, one of the major reasons John Kerry lost the 2004 election to George W. Bush was that he failed to react quickly enough to Bush’s constant barrage of negative associations.  Words like “flip-flopper” became common in describing Kerry, even though it could legitimately be used to describe almost any politician if you look at their records.

Another example during that election was the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” commercials.  Though none of the people on those commercials served with Kerry and their stories were disproved by other veterans who were truly with him, the constant barrage hitting the public day after day took its toll.  The public viewed it as truth, because they had been exposed to it so much.

The “Trope of Uncertainty” is used in much the same way.  This consists of creating confusion and uncertainty among the public about a certain issue (in our case, scientific issues).  Cox said that the trope of uncertainty “functions to nurture doubt in the public’s perception of scientific claims and thereby to delay calls for action” (p. 345).

A good example of this concept can be found in the “anti-global warming” movement.  They create videos and publications that challenge the claim that a vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is real and that human activity is having an effect on it.  Their goal is not to necessarily disprove global warming, but simply to make people question established concepts.  Philip Leslie said, “There is no need for a clear-cut ‘victory’…Nurturing public doubts by demonstrating that this is not a clear-cut situation in support of the opponents usually is all that is necessary” (p. 345).

Proponents of the trope of uncertainty want the public to hesitate and think twice.  Friends of the Earth called this strategy “lobbying for lethargy.”  If the public can’t come to a consensus for or against something, they will not get up in arms over the subject.

Questions:

Is there anything that can be done to combat the “trope of uncertainty” and other tactics that use misinformation to confuse/deceive the public?

Should scientists ever serve as advocates for environmental policy or enter public debates as scientists?  What role can they play without crossing the line between scientist and advocate?

One example of our unwillingness to deal with the real issue can be seen in the problem of catastrophic climate change.  The facts have been around for quite a while and have only been reinforced over the years.  However, many people refuse to look at the facts and try to develop a solution.

Instead, they look at the scientists and the public figures who have become advocates and try to make it an issue about them.  It then becomes about the science and the “cult of global warming,” instead of about dealing with the real problems.

Technology has played a big part in creating risks as well.  “Unlike risks from nature or from 19^th-century factories that affected specific individuals or groups,” Robert Cox wrote, “Beck characterizes today’s risk society according to the large-scale nature of risks and the potential for irreversible threats to human life from modernization itself” (p. 207).  Cox is referring to Ulrich Beck, who said that technological advances are increasingly being “overshadowed by the production of risks” (p. 207).

Gregory and Miller also discuss the way the media covers issues that deal with unveiling risks.  They use the “ABC of Risk” to explain certain examples.  When Americans found out that apples, one of our most romanticized fruits, could actually cause cancer, it was obviously a shock.  Some people thought that the media handled it with an alarmist approach.  Upon conducting studies, however, it was found that many articles cited the fruit industry, which obviously tried to allay everyone’s fears.

In Great Britain, a similar incident broke out when scientists discovered Mad Cow Disease.  As the authors put it, “the relationship between the British and their beef has been as close as the relationship between Americans and their apples” (p. 173).  Though this conjures up a strange image, it does explain why people became so impassioned about it.

Gregory and Miller said that “the mass media is largely responsible for communicating risks to the public, particularly in times of crisis” (p. 188).  This can lead to a great deal of tension between the public and the media.  It becomes like classical conditioning.  If new risks are constantly being told to the public, then they may eventually come to associate the mass media with those risks and develop more negative connotations with it.

It is something from which the media cannot run.  Gregory and Miller wrote, “In a world divided up into experts and lay people, the mass media are often the only point of contact” (p. 188).  No matter how unpleasant, it’s the media’s duty to explain risks and dangers to the public.

Questions: In the end, do the problems associated with modernization outweigh the benefits, or not?

How exactly can the media find a good balance between conveying important risks and becoming alarmists?

For environmental news in particular, the internet is going to play a very large role.  As most people know, “going green” has become a trendy lifestyle change.  Many of us are paying a lot more attention to environmental news than we used to in past decades.  The “environmental decade” of the 1970s was different in that it was not as widespread.  There was a loud contingent of people campaigning for change, but the majority of the population was not quite as involved or interested as they seem to be today.

The internet has the ability to equalize everything.  Large media corporations take up the same amount of space on a website as a small, grassroots environmental publication.  In the next five years, there will continue to be an influx of web-based environmental media that can offer a limitless number of perspectives.

One interesting problem Gregory and Miller bring up is that, even if a science journalist successfully finds news within the science field, it is not up to him.  The editor obviously makes the final decision.  The editor most likely is not specifically interested in science.  He is a news editor whose main concern is with news, not with catering toward one narrow demographic.

The news values that Gregory and Miller present could be very useful in getting scientific stories into the newspaper.  The value that seems the least effective for science writing is unambiguity or negativity.  This aspect involves drawing immediate conclusions and concrete solutions for the conflict presented within the article.

For science journalism, this could be troublesome.  Many complex scientific issues do not have such a simple resolution that can be explained in a few hundred words.  This watered down style does not fit science writing.  In Environmental Communication, Robert Cox quotes Stocking & Leonard.  They wrote, “The environment story is one of the most complicated and pressing stories of our time…Perhaps more than most stories, it needs careful, longer-than-bite-sized reporting and analysis, now” (1990, p.42).

The news value that may benefit science journalists the most is co-option and composition.  This value allows science writers and editors to piggy-back certain scientific perspectives onto a more mainstream news story.  Gregory and Miller wrote, “The Gulf War was a major media event, and on the back of that came many technology stories, pollution stories, and health stories” (p. 111).

Another possible opportunity for co-option in modern news could be in freak weather events.  With the high number of hurricanes, floods, droughts, earthquakes, and other such natural disasters, there is no shortage of opportunity to discuss the scientific causes and possible solutions to such problems.  With some of these occurrences, the hot button topic of catastrophic climate change could be co-optioned into numerous other stories that may generate a great amount of interest.

Politics is another area in which co-option could be a viable possibility.  In the recent election, both major presidential candidates tried very hard to jump on the environmental wagon (it’s a hybrid).  Stories focusing on the actual facts behind many of the claims and promises could be very successful.
In addition to simply telling the scientific perspective, science journalists should also try to facilitate public participation.  Gregory and Miller discuss this in Chapter 10.  There is a bit of a paradox in the system of scientific funding in the United States.  The funds for scientists’ research rely heavily upon the public sphere.  Without public support, it is unlikely that a scientist will have the chance to continue with his studies.

This system sometimes seems backward.  If a scientist has no results for an experiment, it can be hard to generate interest in it.  Thus, without interest, the scientist will not get funding to figure out the results.  It can, however, also be a positive influence.  This system forces scientists to at least attempt explaining their work to the public.  If they did not need to rely on the public for funds, this probably would not be the case.

First, it is very interesting to think about whether scientific understanding in the public is a positive goal at all.  Much of the time, everyone seems to assume that it is.  Gregory and Miller present some points and counterpoints from prominent scientists.

Sometimes, scientists seem to get a bit too disconnected with the rest of the world.  According to Gregory and Miller, Richard Dawkins said that “pseudoscience” threatened the proper appreciation of science and dampened “the appetite for wonder” that it could satisfy.  Dawkins laid much of the blame on TV and the media.  Specifically, he named shows like The X-Files as having the ability to turn public attitudes.

I often comment about the overabundance of TV shows that sensationalize ghost stories or mysteries, but to think that they could actually change the public’s opinion of science in general seems to be a stretch.  Dawkins went as far as to call it an “epidemic of paranormal propaganda.”

Another predicament that comes with public understanding of science is a larger group of people who reject it.  According to Gregory and Miller, this “anti-science” has a direct correlation with the degree to which the public is exposed to science.

The correlation seems logical, since there is always a group of people who will reject the “norm.”  However, does that group constitute a large enough number to be relevant or important?

One answer is that it doesn’t matter.  Whether or not the minority is a large one, the media has given voice to it, according to some in the scientific community.  They have accused the media of “scaremongering” and presenting this minority view as an equally valid opinion.

This technique, called “fair reportage,” is not a great one.  In journalism schools, the concept of give both sides equal weight is often hammered into students’ heads.  If the counter-opinion being discussed is only held by a very small number, however, why should it be presented as equal?

Gregory and Miller also talk about science’s power.  The power of science in the present day is enough to persuade me that it needs to be part of the public understanding.  They reference Rachel Carson and Silent Spring.  In Silent Spring, her predictions and depictions show exactly why everyone has the right to know about scientific advancements.  Carson’s predictions about our world in the future are beginning to look more and more like reality.  We now have the power to destroy this planet.  If we want to keep that from occurring, the public needs to know how and why to do so.

Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch wrote The Golem.  They describe science not as a perfect concept, but rather as being “clumsy and dangerous.”  Even when aspects of science are controversial, they need to be disseminated to public.  As Collins and Pinch said, “It is the mess, the disagreements, and the uncertainties of science that matter most in the public sphere.”  Some of the most important aspects of science remain controversial.  These issues are vital in public understanding.

In the third chapter, Cox presents several cases that have had a great impact on the environmental movement.  From the Endangered Species Act to the National Environmental Policy Act to the Freedom of Information Act to the new Homeland Security Act, Cox explains how evolving laws and regulations have impacted environmental policy.

One of the most difficult parts of environmental law is establishing standing.  In order for individuals or organizations to file lawsuits for environmental injustices, they must first establish standing.  This means that they need to prove that they have been directly harmed or damaged as a result of something the defendant did.  It is often difficult to prove standing, since it is often less obvious to see direct environmental impacts, such as air or water pollution, as opposed to a larceny or murder case.

Some of these laws have shaped the way that environmental organizations and lawyers can fight for the environment.  The Endangered Species Act is basically the atomic bomb of environmental laws.  If an environmental lawyer is able to invoke the ESA effectively, then all progress must be stopped immediately in that species’ habitat.

The National Environmental Policy Act is a law that uses a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether or not action should be taken in any certain situation.  Unlike the ESA, the range of NEPA is not as powerful and all-encompassing.

These laws reinforced some of the most important aspects of a democracy: “transparency, direct participation, and accountability of political and corporate authority to law and agreed-on standards.”  Direct participation is becoming a much more important part of environmental law.

In the fourth chapter, Robert Cox talks about several of the shortcomings of traditional modes of public participation.  First, lawmakers too often see their role as educating and persuading the public.  Second, it usually occurs too late in the process.  Third, participation is often conducted in a way that the public acts in an adversarial fashion.  Fourth, outlets for informed dialogue are usually lacking.  Finally, lawmakers often fail to ensure that public participation actually has any effect on the outcome.

The old ways of conducting a public forum may soon be coming to an end.  There could be more effective methods of communicating between the lawmakers and the public.  Instead of the traditional forms of participation, Cox suggests collaboration.  This is not as competitive and seems more like negotiation than debate and argument.  According to Cox, it could be a better way to manage conflicts and instill leadership within communities.

Cox began the first chapter by discussing environmental communications as field of study itself.  He explained the roots and reasons of having such a field.  He wrote, “As a growing number of people realize that our understanding of nature and our behavior toward the environment depend not only on ecological sciences but also on the public debate, media representations, websites, and even ordinary conversation, courses and research are emerging devoted specifically to environmental communication.”

The above sentence truly captures the essence of why this field that we are studying is so important.  It is the job of environmental and science journalists to disseminate all of the information so that the public as a whole can better comprehend the impacts of its actions and the best way to counteract the negative impacts.  The two major goals of any environmental journalist should be to “educate, alert, mobilize, and persuade others” and to use language and other related symbols as tools to “shape our perceptions about reality and the nature of environmental problems.”

Another interesting concept, which Cox mentioned in the second chapter, is that of antagonisms.  Many times, people talk about being antagonistic as in being confrontational.  This connotation may be appropriate for some sections of the environmental movement.  However, Cox said that he uses the word to explain the “recognition of the limit of an idea, a widely shared viewpoint, or ideology that allows an opposing idea or belief system to be voiced.”  This is a way to introduce new ideas by show the inadequacy of existing ideas.  I had not thought of it that way prior to reading Environmental Communication.  With concepts so vast as the environment, new ideas are constantly forming.

If one were to look at the situation in a more pessimistic perspective, one may find that there is little hope to truly change the many negative impacts human society has had on the environment.  Even in the present day, when there is a wealth of environmental information available to those who have any interest in finding it, many tend to remain ignorant or ignore what they already know.  There is indeed a strong “green movement” going on, but is it more than a phase?  Does it truly have the power to change things on a large scale?

On one hand, there have been signs that point toward the positive.  One example is the election of Barack Obama.  Though not specifically an environmentalist, he has placed environmental concerns much higher on the priority list than they have been years.

On the other hand, well we may need more than one hand to count the signs that point to the negative.  The situation reminds me of the example often used regarding a frog.  If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will likely jump out.  If you put it in a pot of water and slowly heat it until it boils, supposedly the frog will stay until it dies.

Perhaps there will not be significant action, because the Earth’s processes do not usually move fast enough to make the daily news. Perhaps we will not see our impacts until we are really thrown into a boiling pot and by then it would be too late.

Once you have reached chapter four, all the preliminary routines have been completed and the actual writing can begin.  Hancock continues her strategy of listing advice on how to successfully manage the transfer of complex, abstract ideas into concrete, black ink words on a page.  The preparation and interviews have been finished and now it is time to start.

What does Hancock suggest? “Begin writing by not writing: THINK.”  You need to step back once again and clarify thoughts and ideas.  This can help avoid the torturous process of draft upon draft upon draft.

One interesting point that Hancock makes concerns the idea of readers coming in clusters.  She writes, “When I write, I can almost see my readers, a ghostly crowd installed in my head by the city editor of the Corning Leader, the newspaper of Corning, New York.”  Visualizing an audience for which the article or story is written can help immensely.  This can lead to a clearer understanding of what exactly the slant may be or whether certain kind of humor should be included.

The ultimate goal is to “capture and serve as many different readers as possible,” while still appealing to the specific subgroups.  Of course, this method may need to be changed if the publication is highly specialized.  If you are writing a piece for a scientific journal or another publication meant specifically for scientists, you could obviously write it differently than if it were appearing in a community newspaper.

An interesting anecdote that Hancock included relates to writing down a specific plan for the construction of a piece.  According to her, someone gave this advice to Alexandre Dumas for three-act plays: “The beginning (first act) should be clear, clear, clear; the middle (second act) should be interesting, interesting, interesting; and the end should be short, short, short.”

This advice seems quite useful.  You have to start out with a clear beginning.  If the middle does not keep things interesting the reader won’t stay for the concise conclusion.

Chapter 5

The fifth chapter gets into the “Nitty Gritty” of writing, as Hancock puts it.  She lists several of the general tips for writing a good piece.  You must write continuously.  Writing includes many artistic aspects, but it is ultimately a craft.  This means that it must be practiced and skills need to be honed in order to develop a good style.

Hancock explains that a scientific or environmental writer should translate difficult concepts as the piece progresses and as the reader naturally arrives at them.  In the same vein, she says, “If a technical term will come up one time only, silently translate into something your key reader can get.”  For example, instead of saying “catalyze,” Hancock suggests words like “triggers” or “stimulates.”

Chapter 6

Chapter six focuses on the refining of the draft.  This can sometimes be the most difficult part of the entire process.  The writer has just spent hours, days, weeks, months, or even years pouring everything into the piece and now must go back tear it apart.

Hancock suggests finding someone to review it in addition to the writer.  If nobody else can do so, the writer should at least take a break and return later with “fresh eyes.”

One interesting part in this section is that Hancock says to read as a normal person would and simply note “your reactions, not fixes.”  Whenever I edit my own work, I seem to have trouble following this advice.  It’s difficult to see something you know needs to be changed and to simply note it, without fixing it then and there.

Chapter 7

In the final chapter, Hancock discusses several common questions that many writers should ask themselves once they have completed a story.  The organization and clarity of the piece should be apparent.  This is also the time to ensure that the writer has kept the reader in mind and that the piece is simply as good as it can be at that time.

Sometimes it seems that the best writers can simply sit down at the computer (or typewriter or piece of paper) and pound out a story with ease.  Hancock says that this is a big misconception.  Every writer goes through a lot of self-doubt at times.  Whether it’s during writer’s block or simply when the right word won’t pop into the brain.  However, writers must keep in mind that these stresses will probably always be present.  It’s just an occupational hazard.

Questions for thought:

With many people having minimal understanding of complex environmental issues, exactly what techniques can environmental journalists use to keep the readers informed without seeming like they are “dumbing it down”?

It seems like some writers who disagree about the writing process as a whole and drafts in particular.  Overall, how much argument is there among writers over this process?  Hancock presents it as if it were from a rule book, but certainly there are other theories.

In the first three chapters of Words Into Ideas, Elise Hancock provides very useful information and tips for writing on scientific topics.  She is able to succinctly summarize the main ideas of each chapter with a simple quote at the top of each new chapter’s page.

“Chapter 1: A Matter of Attitude” opens with E.M. Forster’s deceivingly simple quote, “Only connect.”  Hancock discusses the act of nonfiction writing as “an act of intimacy.”

The writer must pull the reader into his mind and allow him to share in very personal feelings and thoughts.  This may seem surprising at first.  Perhaps this would fit fiction writing, but is nonfiction truly the same?  No matter what the subject matter, that is what must occur to be successful.

Efforts to be unique and original are useless.  If one does not write from his or her own voice, it seems quite obvious and cannot be authentic.  To be original one must simply write with a distinct voice that belongs to them.

“Chapter 2: Finding Stories” fittingly opens with Louis Pastuer’s, “Luck favors the prepared mind only.”

Writers and journalists cannot expect a great story to fall into their laps.  They must be prepared and go find the perfect story.

In this chapter, Hancock explains that preconceptions about stories should be thrown out the window.  A good story can be about almost anything.  As long as it is thoroughly researched, interestingly written, and genuinely handled, there will be an audience for it.

“Chapter 3: Finding Out – Research and the Interview” starts out quite bare.  No quote appears on the first page.  Perhaps that is Hancock’s subtle way of telling the reader to research and find one that fits.

Both scientists and writers bring unique qualities to the table.  They must work together to truly produce good information for the public.

Hancock provides many useful tips on how to conduct the most productive and informative interview with a source.  She outlines some of the pitfalls as well as some sure ways to get good interviews (such as interview location, time of day, etc.).

One prime piece of advice is to take a copious amount of notes.  However, does it ever get to the point that note-taking will distract and damage some of the rapport with the interviewee?  How much have advancements in technology really changed this oldest form of information gathering?

Scientific knowledge and the public’s understanding of that knowledge have rarely been on the same wavelength.  The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) began a recent shift known as the “Movement for Public Understanding of Science” in the 1950s.  Warren Weaver was one of the most outspoken advocates.

Weaver said that if the public did not learn more and understand science, then “scientists will not be given the freedom, the understanding, and the support that are necessary for vigorous and imaginative development.”

The cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider project is cited as one instance in which the public’s uninformed and indifferent opinion negatively impacted scientific development.

For scientists, who are used to working with numbers and data, communicating these complex ideas to a lesser informed public was a daunting task.  Science writers and journalists have had the duty of disseminating such information.

A public understanding of science can benefit individuals, national power and economies, science itself, and many other aspects of people’s lives.  This could be easily seen in the recent boom of technological development in industry or in instances such as the “space race” of the ’60s.

From Herodotus and Copernicus to the 21^th Century, “popular science” has constantly existed.  Scientists and writers have been trying to pass on scientific knowledge to their respective societies.  Gregory and Miller write that Herodotus, the first great writer in Western history, explained to the public how silt in the Nile River had produced Egypt.

A number of media have been utilized throughout the centuries in order to promote popular science.  Between the 19^th and 20^th Centuries, a shift occurred that replaced books, the main form of communication in the scientific world, with academic and scientific journals and magazines.

The Athenaeum gave readers “not only closely argued text but also detailed stratigraphical sections.”  Science Conspectus was a short-lived magazine designed to “enable scientists in one discipline to communicate with those in another.”

The developments in the use of certain media created divides “between disciplines within science, and between science and the public.”

World War II created a myriad of new technologies and scientific development.  After the war, there was a scientific “bonanza.”  Support for scientific endeavors boomed as it came to the forefront of the public consciousness again.

Since Gregory and Miller wrote Science in Public in 1998, the Bush Administration governed for eight years and seemed to push science and public awareness of it to the side.  It makes one wonder, how many opportunities for development were missed?  How much permanent damage was done?