Dioxin has been covered by the mass media for many years, through Love Canal, the chemical accident at Seveso, Italy, the Agent Orange controversy and many local debates over incinerators and chemical wastes.
This paper traces three periods of media coverage: the early period from 1964 through the 1980s; the period of 1991-1994, when the toxicity of dioxin was questioned and journalistic debates occurred about how to cover it; and from 1994-1995, focusing on the release of EPA's draft dioxin reassessment report. In the latter two periods, it examines how well scientific uncertainty was detailed and explained in the coverage.
Early coverage was heavy and appears to have contributed to the public's fear of toxic chemicals. The middle period of coverage, with its scientific uncertainty about dioxin and disagreements over how to cover environmental issues in general, may have contributed to making the environmental beat more vulnerable to criticism and possible downsizing. During this period, this paper looks specifically at environmental backlash, controversial dioxin coverage by the New York Times and the journalistic debates that ensued.
A preliminary content analysis of newspaper coverage of the release of EPA's draft reassessment report in 1994 found four areas of media coverage that showed improvement over those reported in studies of other environmental risk issues, perhaps due to the journalistic debates or to several other factors. Among these areas was general information about scientific uncertainty. However, this favorable outcome was not followed up. In 1995, there was no coverage in the mass media about the scientific review of this important draft report, although it was detailed in the technical press. Yet, this review has the potential of changing major EPA findings that the media reported on in 1994.
Maintaining credibility with the public is important for journalists, scientists, governmental agencies, industries and environmental organizations. All must work together to help the public and media leaders understand that environmental issues such as dioxin evolve as science advances, and that this evolution often leads to better public policy decisions. However, science will probably always be uncertain, especially even when health risks are involved.
Presented at the annual mmeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Symposium on "Uncertainty, Science and the Media," Baltimore, Md., February 10, 1996.