|
|
| |
| Survey Results The people behind the words — profile of the journalists covered by the survey This section looks analytically at the findings of the survey, providing comments, conclusions and explanations on the results obtained. Charts are used to illustrate the findings. The full set of survey results is available in the form of tables in Appendix 2 of this document. The numbering of the charts and the tables in Appendix 2 correspond to the numbering of the questions, included in the survey questionnaire available as Appendix 1. Thirty-eight journalists from nine South Eastern European (SEE) countries filled out the survey questionnaire. Eleven of the journalists were from FYR Macedonia, seven from Romania, six from Albania, four from Bulgaria, three from Serbia, three from Bosnia and Herzegovina, two from Kosovo and one each from Moldova and Croatia. Additionally, questionnaires were filled out by one journalist from each of the following nations: Brazil, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Armenia and Georgia. Those, however, were eventually excluded from the analysis, as their countries of origin are clearly outside the target region for the survey. However, one questionnaire from Moldova was included into the research sample because, in many political, economic, and geographic aspects, Moldova belongs to the SEE region and the information added value to the survey. The respondents work for various media, but those from daily newspapers and TV accounted for the largest number of respondents: 14 and nine, respectively (chart 1.1). Each country was represented by multiple forms of media, with the exception, of course, of those nations where just one journalist was surveyed (Appendix 2: table 1.2). Chart 1.1: Media types It should be noted that most of the respondents specialised in environmental issues — 25 of the respondents answered positively to this question, as visualised in chart 3.1 and table 3.1 from Appendix 2. Environmental problems were a sideline for the other 13, who wrote mostly about social and international problems. Based on the situation in the Bulgarian media, which tends to give sparse coverage to the environment, the journalists in this survey were an appropriate and competent source of information and judgement. At the same time, it is difficult to define a clear distinction between an environmental and non-environmental journalist. One reason is the multidisciplinary nature of environmental knowledge as such. Another one is the fact that in many newsrooms in the region the environment is not considered a serious enough topic to devote a full-time reporter to it. As a result many of the journalists covering the environment are actually working on other sectors too — mainly energy, economy and politics. Chart 3.1: Environmental versus non-environmentally
specialised journalists Media practices in covering the environment of SEE It should be noted that journalists from different countries in South Eastern Europe gave very similar answers to a number of questions in the survey. This indicates common media practices and problems in the region, despite the differences in the country media landscapes. Journalists were asked how frequently their respective forms of media cover environmental issues. Twenty-one answered not more than once a week, 13 indicated two to three times a week and three said on a daily basis (chart 5.1). Given that the respondents represent mostly daily newspapers and television stations, environmental problems are clearly not a major media priority. It is not surprising that most environmental stories in the media are topical (26), and more rarely, analytical (9) or investigatory (3) (chart 6.1). Serious analyses of environmental issues or of other issues from an environmental perspective are rare. This is a reflection of an overall trend in the media and the press, in particular, towards more newsy, sensational coverage, rather than in-depth analyses or commentary. But this is also a symptom that indicates the lack of knowledgeable and qualified journalists who would deal with environmental commentary.
Chart 6.1 Types of environmental stories The journalists were asked to list their sources of environmental information. NGOs were indicated by 33 respondents, research institutes by 29, specialised publications by 21, state institutions by 19, personal sources and citizens by nine and the Internet by five (chart 4.2). Chart 4.2: Sources for environmental journalists This shows a preference for the opinion of experts and civic organisations and a certain lack of confidence in state institutions as a source of information. The reasons for this may vary by country and should be the subject of broader research touching on political, economic and cultural realities in different SEE states that affect the work of environmental journalists. The journalists’ scepticism of state sources is confirmed by the responses to questions 8 and 9. Only one journalist believed that state institutions release 100% of the available information to the media. Four said this never happens, 13 that it happens very rarely and 19 that it happens only occasionally. The confidence in the NGO sector as a source of information is higher: 13 journalists said NGOs always offer 100% of the available information and the rest said that they do this “occasionally” or “rarely”. This is a rather surprising result and should be looked upon with a critical eye. Admittedly, the fact that this survey was done by an NGO and the REC could have prejudiced the results toward NGOs. But even in this case, the trend of increasing trust in civil society sources about the environment seems obvious and needs to be flagged (chart 9.3). On the specific nature of environmental stories, respondents said that the media in their countries most often covered pollution issues (15) and waste (12) (chart 7.1). The respondents agreed on this question and also concurred that the media rarely report about the consequences of business activity on the environment, or about the performance of civic organisations. Chart 7.1: Environmental issues covered most often
Regional cooperation: Real and desired dimensions According to respondents to the questionnaire organisations of environmental journalists exist in five of the countries represented in the survey: FONDEKO in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mass Media and Environment in Albania, Ecopresscentre and ERINA in Macedonia, ARZM in Romania and an association within the Journalist Union in Croatia for journalists concerned with environmental protection. It may be that in some of the countries organisations with similar names exist, but they are not active enough and are therefore not known by the journalists. For instance, the respondent from Moldova replied: “There is an organisation but nobody knows about its activity.” It is believed, in principle, that such organisations participate in professional exchanges, discussions and cooperation with groups from other countries. Therefore, they may be suitable country resource points for REPC activities envisioned by the project. The media in the countries of SEE are in general open to environmental information from neighbouring countries. They acquire and circulate such information. News sources and the number of respondents that relied on each are provided in chart 12.1 below. Chart 12.1: Sources of transboundary environmental
information for mass media However, cooperation between media outlets and individuals is not common. Seventeen of the respondents said that neither they nor their organisations maintained contact with colleagues from neighbouring countries. The rest said that such contacts were made mostly at the organisational level. Personal international contacts were indicated only in isolated cases (question 13). Financial and budgeting constraints in editorial work, as well as insufficient opportunities to travel abroad and establish contacts are among the possible reasons for this resource. According to the answers given to question 14, future
activities of the REPC in SEE should focus on three areas: The respondents unanimously backed efforts in these three areas but, unfortunately, gave few new ideas. The lack of a proactive approach demonstrated indirectly by this question should be taken as a warning of possible low involvement of journalists in the REPC’s work. It looks like respondents are more likely to receive what they are offered, rather than come up with their own suggestions. Such an approach does not necessarily mean that the effect of the REPC’s work would be doubtful, as it clearly indicates the willingness of journalists to receive and use the services offered to them. When asked directly what their possible individual involvement could be in the REPC’s work, the journalists sounded much more eager to participate in the future work of the REPC. The number of respondents that favoured each of the proposed activities is given below:
Journalism training in the field of environment: Necessity and preferences In terms of experience, the survey indicates the existence of two distinct groups that could be called newcomers and veterans. The first group consists of 19, out of which 12 had less than a year’s environmental experience and seven less than two years. This is a reflection of an existing situation in many news desks, where the environment is treated as an unattractive subject, both by the editors and the reporters. As a result in many cases beginners start dealing with it, and shift to other areas at the first possibility. Considering the dynamic development of the media in the region and journalists’ mobility, it can be assumed that reporters writing about environmental issues generally have limited experience in this field. Naturally, the representatives from the first group who do not change their main focus of work gradually become well experienced over time. There are a comparatively limited number of specialised environmental journalists, with extensive knowledge and experience. These are often people who work or used to work for national, state-owned and public media, where the interests are in socially relevant issues like the environment and health. The second group of 19 respondents consisted of reporters with two to five years experience in environmental problems. The distinction between these two groups of environmental journalists could prove useful in planning future training programmes. The preferences with regard to training by countries are as follows: Albania:
There were several similar ideas about the sort of training that would be useful:
2. Training on environmental problems — general course (indicated by all countries). 3. Training in specific areas of environmental journalism: environmental reporting, giving publicity to concrete problems, investigative journalism (Yugoslavia, Macedonia, Bulgaria and Romania). 4. Training on specific environmental problems: ecology (the term is presumably used in this case to replace environment) and business, transborder pollution, biodiversity (Romania). 5. Discussions on environmental problems within a regional context (Bulgaria). |
 |
Survey
Results |
    
|
|||
|
