Brian Christian Consulting

A recent opinion piece by Bret Stephens in the New York Times has helped me articulate an issue that I’ve long struggled with in the context of environmental news reporting. While his editorial concerned a completely different topic, his central theme was that the media is too often guilty of ideological bias and failed basic reporting. Now, this not an earth-shattering observation by a pundit—media bias complaints date from the first pamphlets and newspapers. It is, however, a succinct and elegant expression of the core problem, and it has crystalized how I think about it.

Having worked at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for nearly 25 years and having had job responsibilities that exposed me to almost every major issue/crisis/initiative encountered by the agency, I have often felt on the receiving end of misinformed, biased, and sensationalistic news reporting. Often, news coverage was one-sided, usually from the same point-of-view, and there was a lack of balanced representation in sources.

Now, I believe bias and the failure of basic reporting are not the exclusive domain of one side of the ideological spectrum. Some news outlets have a long history of being hyper-partisan and agenda-driven, whether they are newspapers or cable news. There are numerous examples of these news outlets that are selective and sensationalistic in their coverage.

I do believe, however, that when it comes to coverage of most environmental issues, certain viewpoints are more pervasive and integrated into the mainstream media (I define “mainstream” media in a manner consistent with the dictionary—newspapers, television and radio news, and other sources that are widely known and generally considered reliable). Further, these viewpoints often tilt toward the perspectives, beliefs, and agendas of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that promote an environmental agenda that heavily weighs reducing emissions at all costs, regardless of the impacts on the economy. This has been driven, in part, by the NGOs’ increased wealth, sophistication, and media savvy. They have shrewdly and successfully gained control of the larger narrative. Their opinions, data, and study results are accepted as fact by the media, with no apparent fact checking or presentation of alternative views. It helps their cause that sensationalism and overemphasizing risks, without any discussion of benefits, is appealing to the media to create interest and increase sales.

And, as the title of this piece notes, I believe this is abetted by incurious and failed basic reporting on the part of mainstream news outlets. This may be in part because sensationalism and over-emphasizing risks or alleged wrongdoing elicits interest in the reader and thus helps sell their message or product in a time when some media outlets are struggling financially.

One note to be clear on–my interest here is in discussing the journalism and not attacking the activism. NGOs are entitled to their opinions (but, of course not their own facts). In fact, I would suggest my thesis would show that certain of them have been very good at their jobs, insofar as they have effectively seized the “moral high-ground” in the eyes of environmental reporters and many in the general public.

No, the journalists are my concern, because I believe journalists should report news with fairness, accuracy, and objectivity. This is hard-wired for me. Though I work outside of journalism (a family business), I’ve spent my career communicating to a professional standard of accountability and accuracy, whether the audience was a legislator, a member of the public, or a regulated entity.

So, let’s cite a recent example of what I see, and I’ll suggest some steps forward that l believe could help improve things.

Case Study: EIP Report on Harris County Plastics Industries.

On September 5, 2019, the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) issued a report purporting to demonstrate that, “the Houston region’s rapidly growing plastics industry is significantly increasing air pollution and safety risks.” The report goes into emissions events, permitting, and the TCEQ’s enforcement process, citing various statistics and its own analysis of TCEQ data and actions.

On the same day, the Houston Chronicle published an article under the headline, “ Plastics industry accounts for one-fourth of Houston-area industrial air pollution, report finds.” While the reporters commendably reached out to TCEQ (which appropriately declined to comment on the report’s contents before the report’s public release), Exxon Mobil, and the American Chemistry Council for comment, the lion’s share of the news story is devoted to the report’s findings and comments from EIP’s spokesperson for the study (someone with whom I worked on TCEQ’s 2001 Sunset review, when I was a TCEQ legislative liaison and he was a Sunset Commission analyst). Not surprisingly, that spokesperson advocates for the report’s findings and prescriptions to address its conclusions. But, is EIP’s report itself balanced? Of course, not—it’s an advocacy piece and any reader should view it as such.

But what of the reporters? Did they take a full picture of complicated and important issues? Did they treat the report’s findings with healthy skepticism and seek to understand how the state’s regulatory and permitting system works, rather than take the report’s findings on their face? The short answer appears to be, no.

To me, the most glaring omission is that the journalists did not drill down further into the report’s findings. On its face, the article leaves a reader with the perception that emissions events are virtually unregulated and TCEQ’s enforcement is toothless Let’s look more closely at those issues.

In 2001, the Texas Legislature gave the TCEQ specific statutory instructions to strengthen the regulation of emissions events, provisions that were supported along the entire spectrum of entities interested in the issue. In fact, emissions events that don’t meet certain standards for an “affirmative defense,” or are deemed “excessive,” are subject to penalties and enhanced regulation. This is wholly appropriate. For example, large plants are engineering marvels, but they’re incredibly complicated and there can be incidents that are beyond the control of the operator. The law recognizes this, but it doesn’t give them a “get out of jail free card.” Rather, they must earn that affirmative defense.

Further, the Chronicle story could have addressed the fact that penalties are but one part of the enforcement equation. There are, for example, ordering provisions that cost a regulated entity money and are tracked by the agency to ensure compliance. Further, the TCEQ’s goal is expeditious compliance, and its regulatory system is geared toward that goal. That system appropriately rewards getting back into compliance quickly and considers as many variables as possible in calculating penalties (e.g. whether there was actual harm to human health). That approach makes sense to me as the emphasis is on timely correction of the problem in order to protect human health and the environment as quickly as possible. And, if there’s a bad actor, the TCEQ has the tools to deal with them. There is nuance in the process, appropriately so, because every case is different.

So, what do I see here? A lack of critical thinking. A lack of knowledge of the process. A seeming acceptance of an advocacy group’s findings as fact. In short, incurious reporting that results in a biased product. So, what to do? What follows is advice to both journalists and the regulated community.

Take Your Time and Give People a Chance to Respond.

Given the timing of the article, I’m going to assume that the Chronicle had an advance copy of the report. If that’s correct, that gets to the media savvy I noted above. But, why would the Chronicle rush the story? It wasn’t breaking news. So, why not take the time to get it right? Why not pause and give the industry and TCEQ more time to digest the report and prepare a response? The worst that could happen is that the story might have been longer and presented more points-of-view. I hope that the answer is not because the Chronicle wanted to hew to a certain narrative. If that’s the case, then the paper is not doing its job of objective reporting, and this can result in misleading the public. That is a disservice. The alternative is self-evident—give everyone a fair shake, report on what they say, and let the reader decide.

Think critically.

It should always be remembered that reports like EIP’s are advocacy pieces (again, the NGO’s right). But their reports are not academic and not journalistic. They are by design geared to steer public perception a certain direction. If journalists greet what politicians and industry trade groups say with skepticism, why not information developed and shaped by advocacy groups? Those groups, in the end, may be proven right on a given issue, but make them earn it through curiosity, objectivity, and relentless questioning. In short, treat them the same as any other entity. (By the way, I believe this same journalistic rigor should extend not just to NGOs, but government-funded scientific studies as well–such studies are also often accepted uncritically by the media.)

Recommit to journalistic integrity and trust the consumer.

I understand. Today’s media landscape is fractured, margins are thin, and the market for instant access to information drives deadlines. Further, narrow casting means it’s easier to confirm biases rather than encourage considering other people’s points of view. This makes it easier to take certain NGOs at their word. Journalists, however, should take the time to consider that environmental issues are complicated and nuanced. They owe it to their readers/watchers to be fair and complete in their reporting. Engaged readers will follow their own instincts and drill down without being told what to think.

Engage, engage, engage.

Journalism is a vital part of our discourse. My advice to any regulated entity would be to engage the local media. A lesson from my own experience. In 2006, I took several my staff to tour a large petrochemical facility on the Gulf Coast. I selected employees who I knew had pre-conceived notions about how the world works. The tour had the desired effect–it opened their eyes and gave them a greater appreciation of everything involved in the industry and compliance. Put another way, they gained a greater understanding of how at least this part of the world really works. So, take reporters on plant tours. Make sure they understand the regulatory landscape. Make your plant guys available. Make sure the reporters understand what you’re dealing with. Build an appreciation for what you do. Will it guarantee positive coverage? Maybe, maybe not. But maybe they’ll call you next time, and it could build capacity for the benefit of the doubt.

Pollyanna-ish? I’m not that naïve! But I do think it would help for regulated entities to proactively engage the news media, ideally through the words and actions of the men and women who are the boots on the ground at the plants and in their local communities. And, as a former TCEQ employee with a deep respect for that agency’s wealth of expertise and commitment to service, I’d like to see TCEQ follow that same course as well.

In closing, I commit myself to the idea that industry, journalists, and governmental organizations serve the same master—the public (and consumer). And the public deserves to not be scared, mis-led, condescended to, and mis-informed. They deserve a balanced presentation of the facts so that they can make up their own minds.