Hard Numbers on Usage of EPA website, other source

[Sue.Darcey, Pesticide <sdarcey@erols.com>]

Here are some very tangible numbers on the usefulness of EPA's website to environmental reporters.

I did a quick review of the sources of information I used for Pesticide Report articles for the last 6 months, or last 12 issues of the publication (from March 15 to Sept. 15, 2000).  During this period, Pesticide Report averaged 9 articles per issue (not counting short news briefs and calendar items), for a total of 108 articles over the 6 month period.  Articles generally focus on EPA pesticide regulations, state pesticide rules/enforcement actions, pesticide adverse effects, pesticide policies, reports, etc.

To my best recall (I do keep paper backups of sources I use for articles, including my notes from interviews, policy documents, etc.), here were 175 sources I relied upon in the 108 stories written in past 6 months:

Pesticide Report News Sources -- April - October 2000

-- 35 times (19.8%) -- stories based in part on Office of Pesticide website documents (all of which were also concurrently available in paper versions in the OPP pesticide docket room).
-- 21 times (11.9%) -- stories based in part on Environmental/Consumer group reports/press briefings/interviews.
-- 20 times (11.3%) -- stories based in part on interviews with EPA staff, by phone, Email, or at meetings.
-- 16 times (9%) -- stories were based in part on industry-sponsored meetings, or interviews with pesticide industry representatives.
-- 15 times (8.5%) -- stories were summaries of state pesticide lead agency/EPA meetings [which could include quotes from industry reps attending these meetings.  Environmentalists almost never attend these meetings, even though they are a valuable source of information, they are open to general public, and announced in the Federal Register.]
-- 13 times (7.3%) -- stories were based on interviews with pesticide insiders who are not EPA staff, pesticide industry or consumer groups.  These are people I chatted with by phone, via various pesticide Listserves, etc.
-- 10 times (5.7%) -- stories were based on state agency reports/press releases.
-- 9 times (5.6%) -- stories were summaries of EPA-sponsored pesticide meetings.
-- 9 times (5.6%) -- stories were based on legal or other internal EPA documents posted by a private attorney on his "Pestlaw" website.
-- 7 times (3.9%) -- stories were based on EPA regional office enforcement press releases (which I retrieved through private "Pestlaw" website, because it saves me steps to get it there rather than from EPA website).
-- 7 times (3.9%) -- stories were based on other federal agency (USDA, fish and wildlife service, GAO report) documents
-- 4 times (2.2%) -- stories were partially based on local newspaper/other media accounts, with follow-up phone calls.
-- 4 times (2.2%) -- stories were based partially on faxes from EPA's press office
-- 2 times (1.1%) -- stories were based in part on information collected through Freedom of Information Act (would like to use this more, but process to get the information, and time you have to wait, makes it too tedious).
-- 2 times (1.1%) -- stories were based on info collected in EPA Pesticide Docket room (probably public comments -- they are about the only thing available from the docket room that isn't also available from the OPP website).
-- 1 time (.5%) -- stories were based on information collected through my own "legwork" (i.e., I went to 4 local hardware/grocery stories, bought up cans of pesticides, read all the labels, then used the information in an 
"investigative reporting" type article).


Sue Darcey, Pesticide Report