A few weeks ago Interior Secretary Ken Salazar extended a moratorium on new mining claims on federal lands surrounding the Grand Canyon. The effect of this was to temporarily extend the suspension of new claims he imposed two years ago for an additional six months pending (unnecessary) additional scientific review. The ultimate outcome is likely to be the withdrawal of these lands for 20 years (which is the longest they can be removed from availability under current law without additional statutory action). This is a significant event because it will close off most of the threat of uranium and other hard rock mining in that area. There are a few existing, but inactive, mines that might be allowed to reopen (it will depend on whether they are deemed abandoned claims), and a few other new claims that might be perfected, but most of the claims that were filed near the end of the Bush presidency are likely to be worthless. This is because withdrawals of public lands are always made subject to valid existing rights. However, a right is not valid and existing just by being made. The way hard rock mining works in the United States is that a claimant must show that he or she (or it for corporations) has made an actual discovery of some mineral, has taken steps to physically occupy the land, and that the discovery would actually be economically rational to develop. It is not enough to say "it is likely that there is uranium on this claim" or "we believe uranium is on this claim" or "we want to look for uranium here." If there has not been an actual discovery on the date of withdrawal then the claim is not a prior valid right. (This is relevant to closed mines because if they were closed due to economic reasons, whether commodity price or cost of extraction or some combination, and remained closed for a long enough period, the right might have been abandoned. There is currently litigation over whether the current owners of those interests are able to "revive" their mining claims or if they are now subject to the moratorium).
However, what I am more interested in today is not the actual issue (which, while technically complicated, is fairly easy to give a brief overview of) but how it is covered. National media is generally quite bad at environmental reporting. This is particularly true of the New York Times (the Washington Post rarely even bothers so is hardly worth mentioning) which often reports from its DC or New York desks and relies on email statements (though since this was a DC action it is actually appropriate here). It also often does little to provide background or context for its pieces (its Green blog is generally better but rarely gets published in the print edition, unlike many of its other blogs). The Los Angeles Times does a better job of providing context and background, even in short articles, and relies much less on he said/she said and false equivalencies (lazy journalistic practices common in environmental reporting, most notoriously when discussing climate change). It also often sends reporters to the actual vicinity to do articles (and being located in the West tends to cover more issues in more depth since they are more likely to be relevant to the readership).
What makes this issue such a good one for contrast is that both papers covered a similar event that is fairly easy to explain, with a complicated but generalizable backstory, and predictable views on both sides. Given that, it's stunning to see how different the articles (both short) were in their treatment.
The NYT relied on a summary of Secretary Salazar's statement for a full half of the article, provided a single sentence indicating this was part of a continuing issue, then dove right into discussion of the economic impact on uranium prices and demand (with a nod to the Fukushima Daiichi reactor crisis in Japan, irrelevant as the uranium market is only incidental to the issue in the article). It then spends the remaining half of the article presenting the issue as a standard partisan Democrat/Republican and environmentalist/business dispute. Note how it said that environmentalists had been displeased with Secretary Salazar for earlier decisions and implies that this might appease them. It also finds two Representatives (one of whom did not represent Arizona) to give their opposing take. While I agree with Rep. Grijalva, I find it lazy of the reporter to rely on predictable talking points that could have been about any environmental issue. There was no effort to get additional comments or place either of them in a broader context. There is also no mention whatsoever of the General Mining Act of 1872, which is the driving force behind the issue in the first place. For John Broder, a report nominally on an environmental beat (but who often writes on the DC "goings on") it is a particularly disappointing piece, as if he decided to phone it in.
The LAT did a better (but not perfect) job. It also managed to do this in a much shorter article, indicating that good reporting is not necessarily longer reporting. It starts by coming straight out and saying that a long term withdrawal is the final goal and contextualizes it by reporting on the 2000% increase in claims. It also discusses the reasons people (and not just environmentalists) are opposed to mining: watershed protection, contamination, and aesthetics. It also goes to a bit more effort to get comments. While it, too, solicited comments from both sides, it at least sought out members of interest groups (a local conservationist and a mining industry lobbyist) and said that people and politicians were on both sides. Good job for engaging in slightly better and more thorough reporting. More bonus points for reporting that this is just one of many parks under threat from such activities on its borders (unlike the NYT which allows readers to think this is an isolated incident of interest to only those directly invested in the Grand Canyon). The LAT also ends with a reference to the GML and how it is the source of this and other controversies. While it is a bit trite, omits the source of the relevant controversy, and appears to be an afterthought, at least it is there. More context would be nice, as would weaving it into the actual coverage, but beggars can't be choosers.
Unfortunately the LAT apparently decided that it should remove a reference to the actual issue for final publication, it did appear in the earlier online version, rather than expand and clarify it. Read the final two sentences and compare them to my brief introduction at the top of this post. It wouldn't be that hard to flesh out what was written there to make it informative and correct, but rather than do that the paper axed the paragraph. I suppose that's better than leaving in the misleading and incomplete thought, but it made the final product much weaker and less useful than it could have been.
Overall grades for these articles:
NYT: D
LAT: B-
