EDITORIAL: Why Did MIN's Coverage Look Different Than State and National Coverage
The lens one looks through makes a difference
When I read Wednesday morning’s Billings Gazette, I saw their coverage of the Court decision regarding the Greater Red Lodge Area Vegetation and Habitat Management Project differed from mine, which didn’t surprise me. Different reporters approach subjects from different angles and that’s a great thing. Their article accurately reported facts and accurately reported opinion. When Carbon County News had a headline that also referred to a “logging” project instead of the management project I read about in the Court Order, I again was not surprised. But when news outlets across the nation all had the same general narrative from the same point of view (massive logging project versus lynx), it was the first time while reporting the news that I watched first hand how a single perspective takes hold.
After the August 23 ruling in the case known as Alliance For The Wild Rockies (AWR) and Native Ecosystems Council (Plaintiffs) vs. United States Forest Service et al. (Defendants), the Executive Director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies issued a statement focusing on the one aspect of the case on which they prevailed (the disqualification of the parts of the EIS that relied on new lynx habitat mapping) and the fact that the project cannot move forward without addressing the shortcomings in those portions. That is the issue (one out of three) that the plaintiffs won. There is nothing wrong with focusing on one’s wins. Government entities do not comment on ongoing litigation.
When a news outlet gets wind of a story, especially when it is out of their immediate geographic area, they need an angle on it that will appeal to their readers. Saving animals is an angle that always appeals. Reducing this to a story about logging versus animals makes for a convenient good fights evil story. I find this to be a much more complex issue with animal habitat being just one piece of the puzzle. As my goal is to provide coverage of governance and public safety in Carbon County, my focus was on the designation of Red Lodge as in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). This is a designation that states and the Feds use to make decisions, but they do not always define in the same way. I do not fully understand the ramifications of WUI designation, but will be following up with an article on the subject when I do.
The Forest Service (a government entity responsible to the citizens) is tasked with balancing many (often competing) goals and responsibilities. Animals, plants, clean water, recreation, resource management, changing regulations and laws and more are all factors they must work with when developing and executing their plans. It is the responsibility of citizens to make sure proper weight is given to all of these factors in the course of their duties. When USFS doesn’t or are suspected of not fulfilling this duty and no other recourse is available to resolve the issue, the Courts become the final arbiter.
The Forest service is doing their job in this case. AWR and Native Ecosystem Council are also doing their part as citizens to make sure the issues they are most concerned with receive proper consideration. The Court is doing its job as arbiter when needed. News outlets are reporting the story in a way that appeals to their readers. I have seen no “fake news” on this issue, just different reporting on the same subject that reminds me that we all have our own lenses we view situations through. I’ll continue to report the news through a Carbon County lens that focuses on public safety and governance.