Interview with Jane Kay, Environmental Reporter for The San Francisco Chronicle
 By Natalie Nava, Monte Vista HS, Danville
Note: This interview was conducted via phone, and thus may not be verbatim. We apologize for any errors of quotation. Editor
Q. Describe the work environment for a person in the media industry. Have you found that the majority of writers for major newspapers are passionate for the topics they are responsible for covering?
A. Surveys conducted by Brigham Young University overwhelmingly indicate that environmental journalists are satisfied with the profession. 80% of journalists polled responded with excitement about their jobs, which is a huge and surprising number. On the whole, people in this industry like their jobs, and it’s a popular field of work. Veteran reporters, who have been reporting for a number of years, usually work their way into environmental journalism field.
Q. How would you describe the reader-newspaper relationship? Does the SF Chronicle cover what the readers demand, or rather the most pressing news? How does this apply to environmental coverage?
A. It’s always a balance, but in the end the reporter and the editor have the final say about stories that are covered, and stories that are printed in the newspaper. When I’m trying to decide whether to write about mercury levels in the Bay or changes to specific environmental legislation, I have to keep the readers in mind. Although a policy-based story, such as the weakening of a law, may be a more significant story, the mercury story will get the coverage. Readers always want stories which contain health information, because they can use it to protect themselves and their children. I receive many emails from appreciative or concerned readers after a health-related story, so I know that it has touched public interest. Around Earth Day, I am always bombarded with requests for stories, many of them worthwhile (people receiving awards, particular beach cleanups, restoration projects, energy efficient technology, etc.), but we just can’t publish everything. We have to forge ahead on the work we’re doing. So in the end, we’re influenced, though not controlled, by public interest.
Q. You have covered some of the most controversial topics in your writings, from mercury in the Bay to the toxicity of Bisphenol A. What has been the public response to these topics, awareness or unrest?
A. For the most part, people are shocked or in awe, and many request more information. Sadly, a lot of times the public will want more information than I have. Some letters will come in with people telling me that the media is worrying too much, but I expect responses like that. I try to answer as many of these letters and emails as possible. With regards to the Bisphenol A, I want the Nalgene Company to give the public more information about the chemical found in their water bottles. I highly encourage everyone to find alternatives to the Nalgene water bottles, because Bisphenol A is definitely harmful.
*Note: if you own a Nalgene water bottle, read Jane’s article about the chemical Bisphenol A: http://sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/31/BAGIOC13FM1.DTL
Q. Which current environmental issues do you feel are the most pressing and most interesting? Are these issues receiving adequate coverage? What has been the most interesting and controversial thing you have covered?
A. My most controversial topic has been the Bisphenol A leeching out of plastics. It’s frightening that this information is just now coming in. Materials like these plastics are the backbone of consumerism, and so obviously large industries are fighting against laws that would phase out their products. Pressure is being put on scientists trying to study this, and money for research is drying up. Global warming is also an incredibly important issue for our time, as well as wildlife protection and health issues (food contamination from mercury, PCBs, farmed salmon, etc.) However, these things probably aren’t getting the coverage they deserve. We try to publish stories about global warming, putting our own spin on it but following the current studies, but it never gets enough attention.
Q.Are you satisfied with the ratio of environmental news coverage to non-environmental news coverage? For example, is it a comforting thought that the public receives more information about Terri Shiavo’s health than the toxins they interact with on a daily basis?
A. It’s not comforting at all; in fact the use of our news hole is very disturbing to me. Environmental stories should really get better play than they do. The media has a bad habit about getting on a story and not being able to get away from it. To me, it’s offensive to see the bombardment of the Shiavo family, and even the Pope. Our globe is full of religions other than Christianity, yet these are the types of stories we see on the news each night. But, as I said before, the amount of coverage a particular story gets isn’t the reporter’s decision. The Chronicle is a good example. This is a paper that likes printing environmental stories, and surveys indicate that the public likes it. However, there’s a point of disconnection because when it’s time to put something on the front page, editors tend to forget about the environment.
Q. What type of background do you need, or what do you suggest for an aspiring environmental reporter?
A. If you were trying to prepare for this job in college, you could an take infinite amount of courses such as botany, biology, toxicology, and others that would take forever to complete. You should concentrate on science, but take some literature and writing courses as well. I recommend being a general reporter for a few years before choosing a specialty. Then you get the practice of constructing a solid story. I compare environmental journalism to crime scene investigation, where you have to describe the crime, figure out what the penalties are, and how it has affected the victim. Environmental stories follow the same pattern but the crimes are against nature. You still have to determine the perpetrator and the extent of the damage. It is sometimes difficult because you have to remember that you aren’t representing any one side, but rather have to include all points of view: big industry, independent scientists, grassroots groups, the EPA. The more education and experience you have, the better off you’ll be. But don’t be intimidated if you don’t have a science background. We get tons of our information from independent scientists when it’s needed. I was an English major with no science background, and I learned about chemicals and everything else bit by bit when I decided to become an environmental reporter. Don’t be intimidated by what you don’t know.
natalien@earthteam.net |
