The turn from journalism to advocacy is a tricky one for any reporter to make, though it's not necessarily uncommon. Journalists are supposed to be neutral and objective, and advocates are paid not to be.
Different newsrooms' understandings of journalistic objectivity, though, are evolving with the times, and that's important in the climate context. Climate journalists are increasingly rethinking how to approach balance on this beat, such as by avoiding amplifying climate science deniers just for the sake of "balance" (a practice also known as "both sides-ism").
There's a growing sense that we can and should frame climate change as a real and urgent problem with documented human causes, built on fossil fuel industry lies — one that poses a threat to equitable human survival, demanding solutions, adaptation and
greater public engagement.
But it's not a reporter's job to support specific solutions. Instead we present all the options, their merits and trade-offs, and allow the readers to decide what they think. This doesn't necessarily mean we should reflexively downplay the benefits or costs of one solution over another ("false balance"). Nor should we present a solution's trade-offs in a vacuum, ignoring the generally far greater impacts of inaction.
Our work, at its best, requires a relentless commitment to context and nuance. I've been proud to be part of what I see as a shift in that direction, and part of the rise of local climate reporting in general.
But I've also found myself frustrated. I've seen Maine's progress toward a more thoughtful climate discourse — one that accepts the premise of a problem that needs solving — stumble and slow in the face of fear, apathy, distraction and disinformation. I'm ready to do more to help.
In my new role, unlike as a journalist, I'll be helping people communicate support for specific solutions and specific projects. I'll be trying to change people's minds, not just inform them. Instead of saying, "we could take a specific action, and here's what that would mean," I'll be saying, "we should, and here's why."
I'm excited to bring my experience reporting on so many thorny community energy debates to a place where I can have a more direct impact on achieving consensus and bringing home local benefits.
I'm also very sad to leave journalism, the field in which I've spent my entire adult life. For 15 years, I've been paid to learn about something new every day. I've lived in and traveled to amazing places, where I've been welcomed into homes and neighborhoods, factories, farms, Superfund sites, laboratories and classrooms, and the magical natural ecosystems around them.
I've gotten to ask as many questions as I want of so many incredibly interesting people, and I've gotten to translate and piece together what I learn into stories that, I hope, have helped readers and listeners become better stewards of the places they love.
These past two years writing for Climate Monitor, watching our audience grow exponentially, have been an unexpected joy at the tail end of this phase of my career. I've muddled through my own home energy transition with all of you, building off last year's heating oil series (we're weatherized and getting our own heat pumps put in in a couple of weeks!); I've gotten nerdy parsing the state's progress on its climate goals and digging into emissions, weather and disaster data; I've ruminated on climate education, climate fiction and the opportunities at the intersection of climate migration and Maine's housing crisis.
You're in eminently capable hands with The Monitor editor Kate Cough and environmental reporter Emmett Gartner, and you can reach me at aropeik@gmail.com if you need me. I can't thank you enough for reading and for caring — it's half the battle. I'm looking forward to tackling the other half in my next chapter. I hope you'll stay in touch.
|
