Re: News coverage, fish and dams

["Wolfgang Schwartzenweintraub" <wolfman@turbonet.com>]

Thank you very much for your appraisal Don i could not attend due to prior
commitments. With all due respect;

Wolfgang Schwartzenweintraub

*********************************************************
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Coombs" <dcoombs@uidaho.edu>
To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 9:57 AM
Subject: News coverage, fish and dams


> 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
>
>