The unpleasantness at the Environmental Journalists conference may not be an issue about journalists. I recently attended a conference of environmental funders (i.e. charitable foundations) which had no such contretemps for the simple reason that no one who didn't already agree with the herd was invited to speak. And it's not just environmentalism, not hardly -- I could offer a dozen similar examples from gatherings around issue clusters like social justice, public health, gay rights, abortion rights, you name it.

In other words, perhaps the depressing reality is that progressivism has become a fundamentalist religion. By which I mean it is now based more on faith in holy writ than on reason and fact; views disagreement as heresy; is intolerant of skeptical questioning; and nurses a powerful sense of group victimhood regardless of actual success or failure.

For a committed secular humanist like me this is the most depressing realization imaginable -- were I at the convention you described I'd have wanted to scream. I wish that was a new or unfamiliar reaction nowadays.

Well said, Paul. I should've given props to SEJ for inviting outsiders! On the more general depressing point, I guess I'd say that it's trending that way, and that it's not necessarily a new thing. Some of George Orwell's bloglike newspaper columns from 60 years ago are eerily familiar. And of course many blogs tend to attract somewhat unwelcoming/unanimous communities that don't tolerate a lot of discussion. Those that do stay open-minded require a good deal of shepherding, from what I've seen.

Point of clarification: People can be members of SEJ if their employers lobby or do PR on the environment. Those details can be found at www.sej.org. One other note: SEJ conference are open to the public. Of the several hundred who attend, about half are members; the conferences also draws environmental activists, corporate representatives, scientists, government officials, etc. The conference also has a wide range of speakers. You can also check that out at the sej website. Thanks for letting me comment.

Further point of clarification, from the link I provided: "SEJ bylaws preclude from membership persons who engage in lobbying or public relations work relating to environmental issues and preclude from active membership persons whose employer engages in lobbying or public relations work relating to environmental issues."

In any case, I relied on Coleman's account because she was clearly not a newbie. She identified those acting improperly as her colleagues, not rowdy outsiders. In response to Paul's point, I should have more explicitly credited the organization with including many points of view in its presentations. As Paul observes, the attitude that false opinions don't deserve to be heard is unfortunately rather common among both right-wingers and left-wingers these days. Nothing good can come of it.

Hey Harold I'd like to email you a link that you might find interesting but which isn't really germane to anything posted here. Can't locate an emailto: link here though...?

Paul -- Bring it on: hhenderson@chicagoreader.com

Further clarification, if I might. There are several membership categories in SEJ. "Active" members are the ones who don't lobby or do PR on environmental issues, or work the organizations that do. There's an associate member category for people whose employers lobby or do PR on environmental issues, but they do not themselves. Actives have the dominant representation on the board of directors. Membership policies are found here:
http://www.sej.org/join/index1.htm
Thanks again for letting me comment.

I attended the nuke session, am an SEJ board member and acted as the traffic cop. We design our sessions to provide reporters with as much info as possible to either do stories or get background info aimed at later doing stories. As a result, we generally limit the usual three panelists to 10 minutes each of intro to their subjects during an hour and 15 minute block, to allow as much time for questions as possible. In the nuke panel, the first speaker from an enviro group ran over by five minutes. The second, representing the Nuclear Energy Institute also ran over 5 minutes and continued going, was warned twice that his time was up and refused to sit down, after about 20 minutes. At that point I rose, asked him to sit down so the third panelist could continue. At that point someone from the back, don't know who, demanded equal time for the enviros, and I asked them to be quiet, again, so the third panelist could speak. In the Q and A session, each speaker was provided more time to talk, and each seemed to have enough.
End of story.

Adding to what Mark recalls of the nuke session, it was Patrick Moore, the advocate for vigorous development of nuclear power, who was terribly rude. He kept talking and talking and talking after he went over his allotted time. Even when he was told to finish up, he kept on talking — and had the chutzpah to get loud, snitty and sanctimonious, as if he had been wronged.

As Mark points out, someone in the back — others have identified him as a Greenpeace member, not a journalist — got up and shouted that the Greenpeace speaker on the panel be given more time to speak. But other journalists in the room shushed him, and Mark got up and told him to quiet down. And that was that.

During the plenary session on secrecy, someone who looked like a student and/or activist — I did not recognize him as an SEJ member, and he didn't look like a professional journalist — got up and started shouting something. But before he could get a sentence out of his mouth, journalists around him told him in no uncertain terms to sit down and be quiet. (I know, because I was one of them.) And again, that was that.

I've been going to these conferences for 10 years, and I haven't seen much unprofessional behavior at all. The aforementioned student or activist barely got five words out of his mouth before order was restored. And my impression is that while there is certainly tension and emotion at some sessions on controversial topics, for the most part SEJ meetings are civil and informative.