Dr. Paul W. Adams

After the 1998 defeat of Ballot Measure 64 (M64), which could have greatly restricted clearcutting, chemical use and harvest of large trees in Oregon, I came across a striking statistic. In Multnomah County, Oregon's most urban and densely populated area, voter support for M64 was 68 percent higher than the statewide average. Granted, Multnomah County voters still opposed M64 by a 2-to-1 margin overall, but what might explain their much higher support for M64 relative to the rest of the state?

Several reasons are likely, but I have a strong suspicion the key factor is the "window" through which urban residents most often see forests: News reports and commentary about forest issues. As an avid consumer of printed and television news, I regularly scrutinize the words and images found in the news media about forest issues, and I'd like to share some related observations and ideas.

Even before M64, some of my ideas about news reports on forest issues crystallized after seeing two separate stories within a few days of each other in The Oregonian in 1996. The first was a very brief (3 column inches) article buried deep within the paper about how some spotted owls had returned to nest in a logging site that had been very carefully planned to retain some habitat. The other was an elaborate (32 column inches plus 2 photos, 1 in color), front-page story about the planning and expansion of major logging protests in Oregon.

What seemed obvious was how "good news" about contemporary forest management was virtually "no news" whereas conflict and controversy received spotlighted and detailed attention. It also was ironic that the logged area where the owls had nested had itself been the site of earlier logging protests. This made me wonder whether there might be fewer protests if the public had greater exposure to the positive changes in forest practices and management that have occurred over the years.

Another incident about a year later provided a similar observation. After attending a Board of Forestry meeting on the topic of forestry and landslides, I saw that news reports about the session focused almost exclusively on the most controversial issues and on the emotional quotes of panelists affiliated with an interest group. Virtually ignored in these news stories were the insightful comments from a panel of scientists and technical specialists that actually formed the largest portion of the program. This made me wonder whether news stories provide what's needed for citizens to develop informed opinions (e.g., key technical facts) or whether they simply offer the most engaging "sound (and sight) bites" on the issues.

Of course, as consumers of news, we all share some responsibility in encouraging such reporting by our natural attraction to controversy, conflict and strong (often negative) visual images. How many of us can resist the temptation to look as we drive by an accident scene? But I think valid concerns are raised when conscious decisions by news reporters and editors result in real distortions of public perceptions. A recent non-forestry incident involving a Corvallis high school teacher accused of serious wrongdoing reinforces such concerns. A student at the school interviewed by a TV reporter later said that when interviewed he'd made both positive and negative comments about the teacher, but in the final story on the evening news all the positive comments were edited out and only the negative ones were broadcast.

Members of the public also can encourage or reinforce negativity, controversy and conflict about forest issues when they write guest editorials or letters to the editor, or call into talk shows or "instant" TV polls. It shouldn't surprise us that those who are most motivated to speak up publicly are those who perceive a problem and are very concerned about it. And recognizing the power to reach countless citizens (or even a few key policy and decision makers) via mass media, people with direct or indirect ties to interest groups probably represent a disproportionate number of those that speak up and are seen and heard by the broader public.

So, how do woodland owners relate to this sometimes discouraging picture? Given their relatively small number and rural orientation, I believe that woodland owners need to think very seriously about actively raising their own voices and visibility among an increasingly urban and suburban public. And, in addition to helping provide this public with a balanced view of forest issues and challenges affecting family forest owners, they also can help balance perceptions by highlighting the many positive aspects of current woodland management.

Finally, keep in mind that the news media is not the only path for influencing public perceptions and understanding. Even if you're reluctant to write a letter to the editor or call a reporter, you can still help by hosting a woodland field tour for a school group or civic club, working at a booth at the county or state fair, or simply by taking any reasonable opportunity to "tell your story" to friends, relatives and acquaintances from urban and suburban areas.

Paul Adams is a professor and Extension specialist in the Forest Engineering Department at Oregon State University (OSU). These comments are his own and do not represent a position of OSU or any of its administrative units. He can be reached at Paul.Adams@orst.edu.

This article appeared in the Northwest Woodlands Magazine, Summer 2000- Published quarterly by the World Forestry Center as a benefit of membership in the Oregon Small Woodlands Association, Washington Farm Forestry Association, Idaho Forest Owners Association and Montana Forest Owners Association.