With Gusto

Doom and Gloom

In response to the (reformed ): Does [enviromental reporting] have to be Doom and Gloom

Yes, it does have to be about doom and gloom. We need to analyze the impact that our current actions pose on tomorrow. It just so happens that the rate at which we're changing the earth is more than ever, so by scale, more than ever should we be analyzing the impact.
For instance, is it important to not report that Farm Fertilizer is often recycled industrial waste? Or should there be an analysis of only those who are making the effort to push organically grown fertilizer?
Of course a balance is needed, and to me reporting "doom and gloom" is assuming responsibility of those actions. I know that most enviromental reporting is centered on what's wrong, but the articles in themselves usually send strong messages of individual action. There's an element of advocacy there but many enviromental journalists tease away outright advocacy from their articles, letting the research and characters talk.
Doom and Gloom is often seen as too depressing or futile, but that's when people stop losing focus and stare into the abstractions, instead of keeping an eye on how doom and gloom affects them, or their community