Periodismo ambiental y los “ambientes” posibles
Ângela
Camana.
Universidade Federal
do Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre, Brasil.
Jalcione Almeida.
Universidade Federal
do Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre, Brasil.
Abstract: The
environmental theme, driven by the engagement of social movements and by
specific policies around the world, has been gaining strength in the academic
space. Little by little journalism also adopts the "environment" as
an agenda, even if it is through events such as natural disasters and catastrophes,
when not due to "cold agendas" that address curiosities of fauna and
flora. Considering journalism as a discourse and as a form of knowledge about
the world, this article, with an essay disjointed profile, reflects on the
possibilities of building "Environmental Journalism." To this end, it
presents different approaches to the "environment" from different
theoretical matrices, among them Realism, Constructionism, and Post-constructionist
proposals. It is concluded that it is necessary to define what is meant by environment
when speaking of Environmental Journalism, because the different theoretical
perspectives evoke quite diverse meanings - both of which have implications for
its design and practice.
Keywords: Environmental
Journalism. Journalism. Environment.
Resumen: El tema del medio ambiente, impulsado por el compromiso
de los movimientos sociales y políticas específicas en todo el mundo, ha
ganando fuerza en el espacio académico. Poco a poco también el periodismo
adopta el "medio ambiente" como el orden del día, aunque todavía a
través de eventos tales como catástrofes y desastres naturales, cuando no temas
menos urgentes como curiosidades de la fauna y flora. Considerando el
periodismo como discurso y como una forma de conocimiento del mundo, este
artículo con un perfil de ensayo piensa en las posibilidades de construcción de
un "periodismo ambiental". Para este propósito, se apresentan
distinctos enfoques del “medio ambiente” desde diferentes matrices teóricas,
dentre ellas el Realismo, el Construccionismo y propuestas Pós-construccionistas.
Se concluye que es necesario delimitar lo que se entiende por medio ambiente
cuando se habla de periodismo ambiental, porque las distintas perspectivas
teóricas evocan direcciones bastante diferentes – las cuáles tienen
implicaciones en su concepción y práctica.
Palabras clave: Periodismo Ambiental. Periodismo. Medio ambiente.
The "environment" as an
issue
Although environmental problems have always
occurred, it is at the end of the 20th century that they become a distinguished
object of interest: from the 1960s, the planet seems to have acquired a sort of
"ecological sensitivity." In more general political terms, an environmental issue has arisen, in which the environment is (re)defined by societies
in more ways than one. From a critique of capitalism and the power of techno
science, the movements of counterculture contribute to put the relationships
held between society and nature into question. Thus, it is seen that is the
civil sphere that emerges from the reflections that come to enter the academic
and institutional space l: here we cite the creation of Earth Day in 1970 as a
milestone in the ecological discussions, despite knowing situated especially in
the countries of the global North.
It is in the context of effervescence
that various social spheres have included the ecological dimension in its
patterns, weaving relationships especially between the growth of nations and
the already scarce "natural resources." The publication best known to
throw light on the subject dates from 1972: the Meadows report (The limits to growth). The document,
which is sponsored by the Club of Rome, brings the findings of a study
conducted by researchers at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT), which sought to estimate the time necessary
for the depletion of "resources" on the planet if the growth trends
of production and consumption remained the same (Porto-Gonçalves, 2012). In that
same year, the United Nations convened the conference in Stockholm, Sweden, the
first major international meeting in which the debate focused on the issue of the
environment - even though this was always evoked in its relationship with
development or growth. Also in 1972, in the wake of the discussions in
Stockholm, the UN created the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), an entity
which launched the Brundtland report in 1983, also known as "Our common future":
it is in this document that the concept of "sustainable development" becomes
popular (Redclift, 2002), from the questioning of the unequal ways of life in different
nations and criticizing consumption beyond the bearable for ecosystems.
In the same way that environmental issues are to be
incorporated institutionally, this reflection also moves into the realm of
science, where each area of knowledge is to reflect on the importance of its
prospects and/or objects of research to begin to also include nature, which
until then was relegated only to the field of natural sciences. In the social
sciences, which until then had been concerned with the relations of humans
among themselves, there are quite distinct theoretical and methodological approaches
for the apprehension of natural phenomena and their effects on society.
Such considerations also arrive to journalism, which,
in many ways, begins to consider the environment in its journalistic doing.
From the end of the 1990s, journalists from all over the world begin to
organize themselves into association issues, building spaces for debate and
further training: on a global scale, the largest entity is the society of
journalists from the Environment of the United States. In Brazil, in 1998, the
Brazilian Network of Environmental Journalism (RBJA) was founded, which played
a fundamental role in the formation of the communication network environment of
Latin America and the Caribbean (RedCalc) two years later. It
is, furthermore, organizations such as the Asociación de Periodistas de
Información Ambiental de España (APIA) and the portuguese Associação de
Repórteres de Ciência e Ambiente (ARCA) that stand out. Regardless of how the professional practices have been
modified, the debate resounds in the production of knowledge in this field,
because researchers are to reflect on what is and what should be the so-called
"Environmental Journalism." Looking at the various studies that focus
on the Environmental Journalism[2] , it is seen that a large proportion of them
proposes a wide-ranging discussion on Journalism,
that is, how to conceptualize it and discuss it. However, there are few studies
that explain what is Environment.
Understanding that the environment is configured as a
fundamental category for the proposal of an Environmental Journalism, it is
thought to be necessary to define the term. Thus, the objective of this study
is based on the relation between society and nature, discussing the
possibilities about the concept of environment and its relations with
journalism. Therefore, this work is divided into three main axes.
In the first part of this text, in order to present
the recent production on "Environmental Journalism,” we briefly explore the
concept of journalism, namely: a form of knowledge about the world (Meditsch,
1992, 2004; Genro Filho, 1989), which is crossed by discourses that are
combined and confronted (Charaudeau, 2009).
In a second moment, a panorama of the understanding of what is Environment
in the Social Sciences is laid out and its connections with the practice of
journalism are verified. Among the various theoretical matrices, it is Realism (Catton
and Dunlap, 1978), the Constructionist prospects (Beck, 2011; Giddens, 1991;
Hannigan, 2012), and also investments that can be considered Post-Constructionists
(Descola, 2011; Latour, 2000, 2013; among others). In conclusion, it is
suggested that it is possible to conceive "Environmental Journalism"
in as many ways as there are interpretations of the Environment: it is argued,
however, that these are always explicit, since the different perspectives have
implications in the understanding and practice of Environmental Journalism.
With this there we do not intend to take a normative tone or close this debate,
but it is expected to launch clues that will contribute to the construction of
what is the Environmental Journalism and its potential.
“Environmental Journalism”: a concept in
dispute
Even though this article proposes a
revision theory and the literature on "Environmental Journalism,” it is
clear what is meant here by journalism, since there are many ways to understand
it. From the perspective of a craft in the middle of others to those
conceptions that give an account of the specificities of this practice, the
values generated by each glance are different, as if weaving different
relations between journalism and "truth" and the "public
interest" - which sometimes clash with each other.
By not believing in the possibility
of a totalitarian institution, which operates with the idea of a
"truth" only in order to reflect the "reality" as a mirror,
we assume here a perspective of constructionist character and discourse, that
is, journalism is one way among other possible ones to apprehend the world(s)
and, at the same time as it narrates it(them), it also produces it(them). We do
not ignore the practical dimension of this knowing/doing: modern journalism
mobilizes individuals in quite specific, buoyed productive routines - perhaps
more than by an ethical imperative - for a commercial context: situated in a
universe of competition, journalism today is a product to be consumed.
Thus, journalism is seen as a form of knowledge, that is, there is a
production of knowledge, which is distinguished for being transient and
ephemeral, but still essential to companies. This perspective, suggested
originally by Park (2008) from a functionalist matrix, is exploited by Genro
Filho (1989), who points out the singularity as the category in which the
knowledge coming from journalism crystallizes, in opposition to the universal
one, which would be of interest to science and its way of perceiving the world.
In a similar way, Meditsch (1992, 1994) points to the specificity of the
knowledge produced by journalism, which - on the basis of professional values
that guide and the actual conditions of production - produces differentiated
forms of narratives, which allows even aspects of a given fact or context to be
revealed that other forms of knowledge ignore. Consequently, a prospect of a
knowing/doing subject to misunderstanding and aware of the transitoriness of the
certainties it produces, because journalism is always situated knowledge[3].
In dialog with this perspective, we
defend the conception of journalism as a discursive
field, inserted in a larger discursive universe. Even though we speak of
journalism in the singular, this is not assumed as homogenous or static, but,
on the contrary, it is taken as a field (always in dispute and asymmetric) in which
different discourses are confronted, are combined and - even - renewed
(Charaudeau, 2009). This discursive character corroborates to the understanding
already mentioned of journalism as a mechanism of social construction because
this develops a public space by itself. Once more, the partiality of knowledge
produced by journalism is evident:
All social knowledge, and Journalism
is a social knowledge, involves a particular point of view on history, society,
and humanity. And since Humanity and History are processes that are under
construction, naturally there is no purely objective Journalism, that is,
absolutely neutral Journalism. (Meditsch, 1992: 31).
This brief review is performed in
order to emphasize that, although accompanied by an adjective, Environmental
Journalism is, first of all, Journalism. How we understand Journalism, then,
impacts the constitution of this concept: Environmental Journalism does not
cease to be a knowing about the world, nor a product and practice permeated by
different discourses, which hinder alliances and conflicts.
However, it is observed that there
are few studies on this topic, reflecting what the concept of Environmental
Journalism are mobilizing: between 1987 and 2010, only 11 dissertations and
theses defended in Brazil, in a universe of 101, have this concern (Girardi,
Loose, and Camana, 2015). Thus, the very definition of Environmental Journalism
is a construction to come and in dispute. In order to synthesize this issue, a
distinction has been suggested between what they call "Journalism of/about
the Environment" and Environmental Journalism (Girardi et al., 2013; Girardi, Loose, and
Camana, 2015): while the first lies in the field of conventional journalism,
having the characteristic of only thematic clipping, that is, it discusses
"environmental” guidelines, the second should go beyond mere
specialization by subject. For these authors,
Environmental journalism, starting
from a specific theme (but cross-sectional), aims to be transforming,
mobilizing, and a promoter of debate by means of qualified information and in
favor of full sustainability. For its implementation, it is necessary to seek
support in more comprehensive views, allowing to see the connections, overcome
the reiterated fragmentation. In this way, the nature of the specialized
journalism merges with the socioenvironmental demands that ultimately compose
the horizon of reflection of emerging paradigms (Girardi, Schwaab, Massierer,
and Loose, 2012: 148).
Similarly, other authors argue that
Environmental Journalism should be more than a thematic specialization, a
specific form of approach: “Cualquier información puede tener un enfoque
ambiental. Nuestra obligación
como periodistas ambientales es encontrarlo.” (Larena, 2010: 17). Under these proposals, a particular conception of
journalism is clear, through a duty being anchored in practice and ethical
values inherent to the profession. However, the concept of environment that
concerns this form of journalism is not explored, only some clues are released,
especially through the idea of complexity and non-fragmentation. It is argued
here that, if the way to understand journalism has impacts on the creation of a
concept of "Environmental Journalism,” the different ways of apprehending
the environment also have them. How to conceive an environmental journalistic
doing then?
On the Possible Environments
If the unrest of the discussions on the
environment was mainly in the 1970s, the initial discussions about the environment category in the Social
Sciences from this period are also tributary. The American sociologists Catton
and Dunlap (1978: 44) were the first to ventilate the need for incorporation of
ecological issues in research objects that were not necessarily environmental: “This
involves studying the effects of the environment on society (e.g., resource
abundance or scarcity on stratification) and the effects of society on the
environmental (e.g., the contributions of differing economic systems to
environmental degradation)”.
Thus, when they see that the work of the sociological
time departed from anthropocentric assumptions, the authors above have been
involved in the delineation of two major axes for the Social Sciences, defined
from the position occupied by the Environment
category in analysis: the HEP (Human
Exemptionality Paradigm) and the NEP (New
Ecological Paradigm). The HEP represents a continuity of the already
exercised sociology, because it captures humanity from the specificity of its
cultural characteristics that, in some way, are superior to the biological ones.
The second model, in accordance with Fleury, Almeida, and Premebida (2014),
sees humanity as just another species sharing the planet. There is, in the NEP,
then, a prerogative hypertension, because it points to an idea of dependence
among the human beings.
Catton and Dunlap (1978), as well as
a large part of the theoretical tradition that they inspired, suggest, roughly, treating the environmental
problems as real problems. From this
perspective, a cause and effect relationship is assumed between human activity
on the planet and the degradation of nature, which would be the scene of the
current global “environmental crisis” scenario.
This is, in this conception the
environmental problems exist and should be apprehended since their materiality:
although they have been caused by a given society, the perception of social
actors involved to some extent in that specific situation (or the meanings they
attribute to the environment) is not configured as a matter for these authors.
Even though it may seem paradoxical, for this theoretical realistic tradition,
the overcoming of this crisis conjuncture would also be given by human
intervention in nature: by assuming an objective and clear reality of
environmental issues, the authors focus identification and reaction abilities
in the expert systems, that is, it is almost solely up to Science to solve the problems
produced. The realistic approach of Catton and Dunlap (1978), although
innovative in its meaning of environmental issues, was not concerned with
breaking with the dichotomy that exists between society and nature. Moreover,
even if it has designed a dialog between these poles until then unknown,
realism, to some extent, reinforces the idea of nature and society in
ontologically distinct places: even though one may act on the other, there is
no room in this theoretical perspective to develop contact zones.
Journalism in general, it is argued
here, is quite linked to this way of apprehending the world: its news-values,
in fact, are characterized by what is real,
by the event. In other words, we
can say that journalism is interested in narrating what it sees, even if this
point of view is always partial and incomplete. In this sense, Environmental
Journalism emerges based on covering environmental disasters or catastrophes,
as is the case of landslides or extreme events (death of species, tsunamis
etc.). In these cases, journalism - from a strictly realistic view - recounts
the fact itself, giving priority to official sources and scientists, in search
of explanations and predictions of the future. With this, the lack of more
contextualized and systematic coverage of less local - or, alternatively, less concrete - issues is justified, as is
the case of global environmental changes or techno scientific controversies
(such as the case of genetically modified organisms, for example).
While the realistic investments presuppose the
concreteness of the world (that is, the environment exists and is real), the constructionist
theories are buoyed by the opposite extreme: everything is a social construction. Thus, there is nothing real or
true only in itself, because things (and the environment) only constitute if
they are under construction: as a result, this theoretical matrix ends up
removing the hegemony of the knowledge of science, which is to be perceived
from their uncertainties and its situated character, which leads to legitimizing
other actors silenced until then. Hannigan (2012) brings this dimension to
punctuate the dynamics of environmental problems, because these are perceived
and constructed collectively, involving multiple publics and arguments.
Central to the social construction of
issues and environmental problems is the idea that they do not rely on a series
of fixed non-social and obvious criteria. On the contrary, their progress will
vary directly according to the result of the success of the actors involved,
such as scientists, industrialists, politicians, civil servants, journalists,
and environmental activists (Hannigan, 2012: 99).
From this perspective, the environment is no longer
static and homogeneous, but it covers a plurality of actors that make equally
multiple meanings, which hinder alliances and conflicts. Thinking environmental
issues in a constructionist perspective, thus, involves abandoning the idea
that there is something real in itself. It opens space to observe
representations and discourses in different spheres, ranging from the
production of scientific certainty to its communication through journalism,
without forgetting the asymmetries between the public affected by problems and
the interests of hegemonic agents.
It is interesting to observe the participation of
journalism in the construction of environmental issues, a perspective which, to
a certain extent, dialogs with the idea that the journalistic doing
simultaneously recounts and produces it worldwide. From a constructionist
approach, it would be up to Environmental Journalism to recognize that events
taken as environmental are not isolated events, but part of an extensive
network of relationships and meanings. This is an event like the death of fish,
for example, it would be necessary for journalism to investigate the multiple
causes, listening to different subjects and institutions without regarding them
as more or less authorized to say. This involves the broadening of the variety
of sources used: in the example given, it would be necessary to listen to
scientific and official sources (such as government agencies), as well as the
fishermen in the region, surrounding residents, industries, and environmental
activists, in short, all those who think they have (and often do have) something
to say about the situation. It is up to Environmental Journalism, therefore, to
realize that the meanings that an event generates are plural and no necessarily
in agreement: this is not about denying the materiality/reality of that fact – the
main indictment of the constructionist bias. The main differences between the
theoretical constructionist and realistic frameworks are summarized by Guivant
(2002: 74) as follows:
The realists question the
constructivists for having emptied the reality of environmental problems,
falling into a relativism which would lead to inaction. The constructivists
have responded that the realists lose sight of a central aspect: how and why
certain topics are at certain moments to be considered as relevant and "real”.
Even though here, for the purpose of reviewing, they have
been presented in a more simplified way, without their internal nuances,
realism and constructionism are not necessarily irreconcilable approaches:
between one pole and the other there are other more flexible views than combine
and rethink them. The theoretical syntheses presented so far, despite holding
distancing, have a type of belonging to the field of "Environmental
Sociology” in common, whether it is adopting or weaving criticisms of the
framework of Modernity. Another possibility of reflection about the
environmental theme are the theoretical propositions of Giddens (1991), and
Beck (1997, 2011), whose ideas have echoed in several studies in recent years,
including in the field of journalism. His works, departing from a
constructionist bias, share "Modernity"[4] as the context of central reading for the
different relations established in contemporary times, including the
relationship between companies and nature. Although these authors arrive at
separate theories and conclusions, Giddens and Beck have the critical attitude
to the idea of post-modernity in common, linking their analysis to the modern
framework: it is not their intention, therefore, to break ties with the such
project, nor to seek alternatives to it.
The framework designed by Giddens enables the examination
(or even prediction) of the passage of a context of "low modernity"
(also known as simple modernity) to "high modernity" (or reflexive
modernity). This transformation would bring with it numerous consequences,
restructuring societies; social practices would reform constantly from the
knowledge they developed - which would generate the so-called reflexivity. This
questioning of established knowledge gives rise to the idea of risks, a concept
that allows pointing out the instability of the social world. That is, the
process of globalization will lead the people to high modernity, in which
agents operate in a permanently reflexive way. There is, therefore, an attempt
of rapprochement between the structure and the agency, even though the analysis
tilts to the side of the individual: this structuralist framework, however,
does not appear to be sufficient (nor does it intend to) to eliminate the
duality between nature and society, so that the thought keeps the two
spheres/fields separated.
The proposal of Beck (2011), in turn, has its central
category as a risk. These, however, are understood differently than what Giddens
points: the risks arise from modernity itself and are internalized by companies
of high reflectivity, because they have a global reach. In other words, risks
and reflexivity are linked categories. Modern society is moved by the desire of
technical and economic progress and, according to the author (Beck, 1997:,
p. 12), "this new stage, in which progress may turn into
self-destruction, in which one kind of modernization destroys another and
modifies it, is what I call the stage of reflective modernization.”
The Risk Society is then a process and a product of
modernity. In this logic, Science takes a vital role in investigations and in
the production of risks. These, for Beck, are produced on an industrial scale
and are inherent to economic growth: in this way, risk spreads across the
planet almost homogeneously. Although the author considers that the potential
of reaction to the risks is not identical around the globe, there is little
emphasis on social inequalities.
Still in a constructionist framework, but from a view
of the Society of Risks, Environmental Journalism broadens its scope of action
for broader processes, without necessarily a fact or event as a trigger. It is
interesting to think that this approach suggests a reassessment of the news-values
of journalism, which is a product of modernity.
The question of the generalized risks (and the
consequent fallibility of science) assumes a central character to this
journalism: events such as the contamination of water, for example, can be
addressed from the idea that the very system of distribution and treatment of
water brings with it ambiguities. That is, it is a system that, assuming risks,
mobilizes distinct rationalities - from the public manager (which should ensure
continuous supply) to the engineer (which aims to ensure the drinkability), as
well as the company that provides the service (which wants to do this by minimizing
the costs), among others. This framework suggests Environmental Journalism
engaged in a systematic coverage of cases taken as invisible (because they were
located in a single time and space), such as the global environmental changes,
for example.
The theories revisited until now, despite observing
great differences between them (which entail even on objects and various
methods), are part of the same ontology. The basic design of society and nature
undertaken is the common axis to these approaches: they are different domains
and sections, even though they dialogue to some extent. In this sense, the
contributions of "post-constructionist" authors open a path
interesting - and rupture - to think about the environment, proposing more than
one dialog, the existence of points of contact and even a hybridity, between
society and nature. That is, while realistic strands advocate the existence of
two poles (society and nature), being the first determined by the reality that derives
from the second, and constructionist prospects that reverse this logic,
postulating that facts only exist from the meanings constructed by agents,
post-constructionism draws from both spheres to, by itself, clarify the world –
that is, neither the social nor the natural would have the explanatory
capacity. So, for this reason, nature(s) and society(ies) are not pure
categories, so the supposed boundaries between them cannot be respected:
neither one nor the other can be taken as definitive, because in fact they are
highly unstable creations.
It is on this production and separation that authors
linked to the "ontological turn" in the area of social sciences have
been approached, even if it was thinking more about the production of science
and technology: to observe the privilege given to the human agency, while
beings other than humans do not have their agency recognized, Latour and colleagues
(2000, 2013) weave a critique of the binary order of the world, reaching to the
questioning of the dualism between nature and society. Starting from a concept
originally stipulated by David Bloor since Social Studies in Science and
Technology, one comes to the premise of generalized symmetry, which is:
"(...) the concept of symmetry implies, for us, something more than that
for Bloor: it fulfils not only dealing with winners and losers in the history
of science in the same terms, but also treating nature and society equally and
in the same terms." (Latour and Woolgar, 1997:, p. 24). This
extrapolation is an ontological change: no more primacy of social or natural,
but both categories are emptied. In a similar meaning Descola discusses this
separation between nature and culture in modernity, pointing out that even from
the point of view of language these categories are located and limited: “es
necesario constatar que los equivalentes terminológicos del par naturaleza y
cultura son prácticamente imposibles de encontrar fuera de las lenguas
europeas” (Descola, 2011: 88).
Thus, a research post-constructionist program suggests
not accepting the overall division tensioned by Modern design, but just
highlight the contact points between what was desired to keep apart:
Latour build on the concept of sociotechnical networks, with
the goal of making the connections that cause both "natural” objects, such
as the hole in the ozone layer, and "social” objects, such as experts or
governments visible, may be seen associated as network-actors, heterogeneous
members who cross the constitutional separation between society and nature
(Fleury, Almeida, and Premebida, 2014: 47).
In this sense, by adopt a targeted post-constructionist, it is up to
Environmental Journalism to unveil the connections and overlaps between what
wants nature, on the one hand, and societies, on the other. This doing could
break coverage guided solely by wild fauna and flora once and for all, because,
in this context, it would not be up to journalism to talk about nature.
More than that, post-constructionism reminds us that the very idea of
nature is not natural, but rather a construction shaped by Modernity. Taking
this into account, great stories that tell of extravagant and untouched nature do
not correspond to what is expected of Environmental Journalism. Even if such
guidelines may serve the modern project, because they try to reinforce the
separation between what is in the domain of nature and what comes to humanity,
there are flaws and gaps. How, for example, do we explain exotic species
distant from their original biome? What is "natural" about a
"forest" of eucalyptus trees in the Pampa biome? By silencing the
areas of association between the two poles, journalism may just collaborate to
their multiplication.
Thus, in a post-constructionist perspective, the Environmental
Journalism that would be set as a practice marked by systematic and complex
coverage, that would be independent from specific events. Since journalism is
founded from Modernity, we recognize that demanding an insertion in the
"ontological turn" to it is perhaps a provocation in the long term:
although it is set up as a challenge, this approach can be fruitful, coming to
contribute to the transformation of the field itself. In this way, it can be
suggested that perhaps the very values of craft requiring revisiting in face of
the scenario that arises. More than the urgency and facts, by praising
qualified interconnected information and the coverage of long process,
Environmental Journalism could contribute to the construction of interpretation
and coping frames with major contemporary environmental issues.
Parallel to this, when question the techno scientific knowledge, the
monopoly of rationality and of the power of comprehension of the world
(something that the constructionist approaches in some way already do), new
arenas of knowledge can be forged, always dynamic, taking into account the
historicity of the processes. Given the above, Environmental Journalism could -
to some extent - be the driving force of a transformation in the understanding
of the field itself, which would be recognized as such in a network, such as a
product and a producer, in changing positions. With this, even though we do not
suggest a relativist practice, we vent the idea that for journalism - as for
post-constructionism - the search of the only and unchangeable "Truth"
or "Real" is (or should be) at stake, but the possibility that
reflects the ontological plurality.
Final Considerations
In this article, we sought to draw a theoretical-bibliographical
review of the idea of Environment,
bringing the different conceptions of journalistic practice. It is possible to
practice journalism that addresses environmental issues from different
premises: roughly speaking, it is
feasible to point out the problems (Realism), listen to multiple actors (Social
Constructionism), unravel the techno scientific risks (Structure and Society of
Risks) and pay attention to their notion of separation between environmental
processes and social (Post-constructionism). Each one of these perspectives
leads to different "environments,” which leads to various solutions,
narratives, and protagonists. That is, as many Environmental Journalisms as
there are understandings of Environment can be assumed: what seems to be in
question is to specify where the starting point is when addressing this issue.
Although if you do not wish to take a normative
position, it is possible - and perhaps necessary – to consider the potential of
each proposal. The practices commonly used by conventional journalism suggest a
strong relationship with the realistic prospect of environmental issues: the
"environment,” in this context, is almost synonymous with "nature,”
which explains specific coverage on individual issues - and here, issues are
read as problems. This justifies the
current catastrophic journalism, which assumes to be an agent of modernity by
distancing societies and nature, highlighting the impacts of the first on the second, as if nature was something
given and inert or reactive. On the other hand, some journalism that is
positioned as "counter-hegemonic" suggests the need to "give
voice" the various types of knowledge, seeking the different possible representations
when of an environmental event.
We must, therefore, question whether these approaches
are sufficiently adequate to follow in course or, in other words, whether they
have already exhausted their potential to offer several reading frames on the
world. In this sense, and highlighting that the theoretical syntheses presented
here are not steps of a research
program or thought, we suggest that journalism - in particular its
environmental aims - realizes and assumes the emergence of new narratives,
which go beyond concrete and closed issues, but that are also more than
representations about the world: what needs to be faced, perhaps, is the
radical possibility that other worlds are possible.
References
Beck, U. (1997). A reinvenção da política: rumo a
uma teoria da modernização reflexiva. In:
Beck, U.; Giddens A.; Lash, S. (Org.). Modernização
Reflexiva. São Paulo: Editora da Unesp, p. 73-133.
Beck, U. (2011). Sociedade
de risco: rumo a uma outra modernidade. São
Paulo: Editora 34.
Bueno, W. C. (2007). Jornalismo Ambiental:
explorando além do conceito. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, 15, jan./jun., p. 33-44.
Catton,
W. R. Jr; Dunlap, R. (1978). Environmental Sociology: a new paradigm. The American Sociologist, 13, feb., p. 41-49.
Charaudeau, P. (2009). Discurso das mídias. São Paulo: Contexto.
Descola, P. (2011). Más allá de
la naturaleza y de la cultura. In: Martínez,
L. M. (Ed.). Cultura y naturaleza. Bogotá: Jardin Botánico de Bogotá, p. 75-98.
Fleury, L. C.; Almeida, J.; Premebida, A. (2014). O ambiente como questão sociológica:
conflitos ambientais em perspectiva. Sociologias,
16(35), p. 34-82.
Genro Filho, A. (1989). O segredo da pirâmide: para uma teoria marxista do jornalismo.
Porto Alegre: Editora Ortiz.
Giddens, A. (1991). As consequências da modernidade. São Paulo: Editora da Unesp.
Girardi, I. M. T.; Schwaab,
R. T.; Massierer C.; Loose, E. B. (2012). Caminhos
e descaminhos do jornalismo ambiental.
Comunicação e Sociedade, 34(1), p. 131-152.
Girardi, I. M. T.; Moraes, C. H.; Loose, E. B;
Neuls, G.; Massierer, C.; Camana, A.; Gertz, L. (2013). O olhar do jornalismo
sobre a Economia Verde: estudo a partir da cobertura da Rio+20 pelos portais
G1, UOL e Terra. Líbero (FACASPER),16,
p. 71-80.
Girardi, I. M.T.; Loose, E. B.; Camana, A.
(2015). Panorama da pesquisa em Jornalismo Ambiental no Brasil: o estado da
arte nas dissertações e teses entre 1987 e 2010. Intexto, 34, p. 362-384.
Guivant, J. (2002). Contribuições da Sociologia
Ambiental para os debates sobre desenvolvimento rural sustentável e
participativo. Estudos Sociedade e
Agricultura, 19, p. 72-88.
Hannigan, J. (2012). Sociologia ambiental. Porto Alegre: Vozes.
Larena, A.
(2010). Periodismo Ambiental, piensa globalmente e informa localmente. In: Trotti,
R; González S. (Coords.). Periodismo ambiental. Riesgos y oportunidades en la cobertura
informativa. Miami: Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa. p. 6-19.
Latour, B. (2010). Ciência em Ação: como seguir cientistas e engenheiros sociedade
afora. São Paulo: Editora da Unesp.
Latour, B. (2013). Jamais fomos modernos. São Paulo: Editora 34.
Latour, B.; Woolgar, S. (1997). A vida de laboratório: a produção dos
fatos científicos. Rio de Janeiro: Relume e Dumará.
Meditsch, E. (1992). O conhecimento do jornalismo. Florianópolis: Editora da UFSC.
Meditsch, E. (2004). O jornalismo é uma forma de conhecimento? In:
Hohlfeldt, A.; Gobbi, M. C. Teoria da
comunicação: antologia de pesquisadores brasileiros. Porto Alegre: Sulina.
p. 363-378.
Park, R. (2008). A notícia como forma de conhecimento: um
capítulo dentro da sociologia do conhecimento. In: Berger, C.; Marocco, B. A era glacial do
jornalismo: teorias sociais da imprensa.
Porto Alegre: Editora Sulina. p. 51-70.
Porto-Gonçalves, C. W. (2012). A Globalização da Natureza e a natureza da
globalização. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira.
Redclift, M. R. (2002). Pós-sustentabilidade e
os novos discursos de sustentabilidade. Raízes, 21(1), 124-136.
[1] The
reflection that gave rise to this text was presented at the III National
Meeting of Researchers in Environmental Journalism, held
in São Paulo (SP) between October 22 and 25, 2015.
[2] This observation is a
result of the study "O Estado da Arte da pesquisa
em Jornalismo e Meio Ambiente e Jornalismo Ambiental no Brasil”, conducted by the Research Group in Environmental
Journalism CNPq-UFRGS between 2011 and 2014. The study mapped 101 studies on Environmental
Journalism developed in Brazil between 1987 and 2010. Some of the results can
be found at Girardi, Loose, and Camana (2015).
[3] It should be noted that
this perspective is opposed to those who are in "objectivity" and in
"neutrality" to the
specificity of journalism, which for a long time guided professional practice and the
theory of Journalism - and still today resonate in these spheres. It should be
noted that this conception is not to ignore the commitment to "truth,” but
suggests that there may be as many truths as there are the actors involved.
[4] Here is not the place to dwell on the category of Modernity. To this end, we
suggest the readings of Giddens (1991) and Beck (2011).
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario