Appalachian standoff : competing information campaigns in the chip mill controversy of the Tennessee Valley

The media play an important role in how the public perceives issues, especially with controversial issues, by allowing some voices to filter through unscathed, distorting others, and silencing still others.

This study analyzes, through interviews, the accuracy and fairness with which the media, and in particular the print media, filtered the various voices associated with the chip mill controversy that has raged in the Tennessee Valley. The study also examines, through a content analysis, whom journalists ultimately cited most often as sources of information on this particular issue.

Interviewees included environmentalists, ranging from radical groups to more mainstream environmental organizations, and timber industry representatives, ranging from small wood contractors and consultants to major corporations. The newspapers studied were The Chattanooga Times and the Chattanooga Free Press.

As expected, both environmentalists and timber representatives suggested they had not been given a fair hearing by the media and that the media had relied more heavily on the viewpoint portrayed by their opposition. However, the content analysis did not find that the press were inherently unfair or biased toward one side or the other.

Accuracy in news coverage was perceived as low by environmentalists and timber representatives alike, and the timber representatives especially found coverage to be biased in favor of the environmentalists. Both sides felt that instead of basing their stories on incendiary quotes, which served primarily to perpetuate the conflict, the media could have done far more in-depth coverage and analysis on the chip mill issue.