News coverage, fish and dams

[Don Coombs <dcoombs@uidaho.edu>]

Two different hearings took place in Clarkston Thursday, judging from the
coverage given the event in the Spokesman Review and the Lewiston Morning
Tribune.

The Trib headline and lead was: "Salmon outscore dams, Those testifying in
favor of breaching outnumber the other side at hearing -- It was anything
but a slam dunk for those opposed to breaching the four lower Snake River
Dams. Despite an aggressive advertising campaign against breaching, most
who testified Thursday at a public meeting on salmon and steelhead
recovery said they supported removing the dams to save the fish."

In the Spokesman, the event WAS a slam dunk for opponents of breaching:

"Breaching foes turn out in force, Lewiston-Clarkston residents line up to
testify against plan to save salmon--Thursday was D-Day in two communities
that consider themselves in a fight for the future. The towns, split only
by the Snake River and a state line, left no doubt to visitors that they
are united on the most contentious environmental issue in the region."

In the Spokesman, you had to get to paragraph 19 to find out that any
people showed up to support breaching (though there was sort of a hint in
paragraph 7).

Some might argue that the news from a hearing is only what people say
inside the hearing room, on camera and on mike. I wouldn't argue that way,
because the banners outside and the reader board at Taco Time and the
yellow ribbons all are news (and were reported in the Trib). But there
were obvious pro-breaching signs and buttons outside the Convention
Center, and it's hard to understand why the Spokesman story spaced out on
that and on what went on inside the hearing room.

The Trib was absolutely correct that "Those testifying in favor of
breaching outnumbered the other side."

And many people from Idaho, including people from Lewiston, testified in
favor of breaching. That deserved to be reported, even though some may not
have expected it. ESPECIALLY because some may not have expected it!

KRFA-KWSU, in one of its infrequent forays into news, came up with several
minutes of balanced coverage. There wasn't a box score of who testified
for what, or a count of signs and banners, or consideration of what was 
expected vs. what actually happened --  but listeners got a general
idea of what went on.

In the interest of full disclosure: I do favor one side in the dams/fish
debate, but this posting has not been an attempt to discuss the merits of
any of the many alternatives -- this posting has addressed only news
coverage.

Don H. Coombs