The “Climate Stewardship Act” authored by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) is expected to face a vote in the Senate as soon as this week, showing a growing bi-partisan interest in our global well being. So why do noted scientists, Nobel Prize winners and experts in rapid global climate change have to piggyback on the summer blockbuster movie, The Day After Tomorrow, to get media attention on an issue that 70% of Americans feel is a serious problem?

Does the Bush Administration’s purported disregard for the scientific community extend to the loosening of environmental regulations placed on industry including lead and mercury emissions? Has the environment been pigeonholed as a “liberal” concern to the extent that media criticism of environmental policy is seen as “Bush bashing?”

• 84% of Americans polled by Yale University said the environment would be a factor in their vote in November 35% said it would be a “major factor.”



• More than half of those polled want to hear more from presidential candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry about their positions on environmental issues.

In the case of the last chance to save the remaining 31% of National Forests protected by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, it’s not only scientists but the will of the American people being trampled underfoot. By allowing mining and lumber interests onto the pristine lands set aside as the result of input from 7 federal agencies, more than 180 Native American groups and over a million public comments, is the Administration undermining democracy to support business interests? Where is the media coverage of the gradual erosion of public supported land protection?

• Drilling, Mining and logging is already allowed on over half of National Forests and Public lands.



• 67% of voters favor legislation setting aside the last of the protected forest lands.

When it comes to the news, media consolidation by “big business ownership” is as much a threat to liberal watchdogs as “liberal journalists” are to conservative critics. A growing number of journalists note a steady decline in coverage and accuracy. The New York Times acknowledged that it had erred in its coverage of events leading up to war in Iraq printing the spoon-fed and un-validated information from the Administration. How does consolidation affect coverage?

• Over 75% of journalists who have experienced staff cuts at their workplace say bottom line pressures are seriously hurting the quality of news coverage. In the national media, the percent of journalists that believe news reports are full of factual errors rose from 30% in 1995 to 45% in 2004.

Is the job of media to be a “stenographer” of politicians or to act as government “watchdogs”? What are some examples of news coverage changing policy? When media organizations are owned by businesses with economic interest in world events, how is coverage affected? When government and scientists disagree how is it played in the media? How do staffing cuts affect newsroom and the ability to cover events? When studies of epidemics like heart disease and asthma point to rises in pollution, why haven’t the press sounded the alarm and pointed to these consequences of recent industry deregulation? How can we balance business and public interests? What are some critical environmental issues that are not being discussed in the media that people need to know about now? Are reporters more driven by the need for entertainment or accurate coverage? Are dependencies on oil and big business ties jeopardizing our ability to protect the environment? Faced with consolidation and challenging times how can the media make use of each others’ resources to broaden coverage not reduce it?