Re: News coverage, fish and dams

["Leo Ames" <leoames@moscow.com>]

I appreciated Don Coombs' assessment of the media coverage of hearings
(salmon/Snake dams) held at Clarkston yesterday, and, also, his comments at
the hearings. Most who spoke did so from the heart, but presented reasoned
comments. As Coombs indicates, one can draw differing conclusions or none
from the day's (and evening's) activities. I thought the process was handled
well for getting out as many views, opinions and anxieties as possible. A
short time limit (perhaps three minutes) allotted each speaker was rigidly
but courteously enforced. The person facilitating the comments was very good
at setting a peaceful example which permiated the gathering. Everyone who
wanted to make a comment could sign up to be heard, though there wasn't time
enough to hear them all.
    Special interest display rooms were reserved (agriculture, woods,
millworkers, Corps of Engr., etc.) and gatherings outside the convention
center - including a Nez Perce drum circle - showed placards and symbols
ranging from those against breaching the four lower Snake River dams to
those who see breaching as the only answer to saving the salmon.
    As several speakers indicated - everyone who spoke has in common one
interest: saving the salmon. They differed only in process, in what they are
willing to risk, or in expressing fears of potential consequences.

    Leo Ames, Moscow
----------
>From: vision2020-digest-request@moscow.com
>To: vision2020-digest@moscow.com
>Subject: vision2020-digest Digest V00 #42
>Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000, 11:00 AM
>

>Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 09:57:18 -0800 (PST)
>From: Don Coombs <dcoombs@uidaho.edu>
>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: News coverage, fish and dams
>Message-ID: <Pine.GHP.4.21.0002110920580.12249-100000@falcon.csrv.uidaho.edu>
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>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