Solid data can fuel great journalism. But the data must come from somewhere. For environmental reporters, one critical source is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Access to its data, however, is not always as free as journalists would like. So a new WatchDog takes an (admittedly geeky) look at the agency’s open data plan to clarify its efforts to promote access.

A recent climate change disinformation kerfuffle involving House Republicans and White House climate czar Gina McCarthy (pictured, left) is an excellent reminder of how journalists can get caught up in the decades-long campaign to deny climate change, argues the latest WatchDog Opinion column. A warning about the effort to weaponize the idea of transparency when it comes to climate change.

The Freedom of Information Act offers critical access to journalists — that is, when it’s working well. The latest WatchDog Opinion digs into the latest reports from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to see how well it lives up to its FOIA requirements and finds that despite progress, the agency continues to fall short on important measures. Plus, insight into how to work the system.

A growing number of U.S. dams are in poor condition — with potentially lethal results. But the latest WatchDog Opinion argues that equally troubling is that that information is kept secret from the public and journalists in a national database.

The public’s right to know about toxic and hazardous chemicals is currently limited by trade secret rules that no longer serve any true purpose, argues the new WatchDog Opinion column. And a pending federal rulemaking is an opportunity for journalists to make the case to draw back the curtain, for the sake of their reporting and so that they can better cover their communities’ risks.

The Biden administration’s “whole-of-government” attack on climate change has increasingly focused on the financial arena, with the most recent move a vote by the Securities and Exchange Commission to draft rules requiring publicly traded corporations to disclose climate risks. Industry and GOP opponents are preparing for the fight over the complex regulations, and WatchDog Opinion argues environmental journalists have a big stake.

A coalition of open-government and journalism groups is pressing the Justice Department for a clear statement of federal policy favoring openness. The new WatchDog opinion column explains why such a move is needed, and now, not just to signal a change from the Trump-era approach, but also for smoother functioning of the all-important Freedom of Information Act.

Transparency and scientific integrity are good for public health and the environment, not to mention PR and politics. Yet WatchDog Opinion argues they’ve not been fully embraced by the Biden EPA. There are reasons for hope, however, in the form of a cataloging of violations and in an EPA-specific policy. Why it all matters for how environmental journalists do their jobs.

When disinformation pollutes the debate over the environment and climate change, it’s on journalists to recognize industry PR spin and push back against misleading narratives and false narratives, argues the latest WatchDog Opinion column. A look at the industry “playbook” to delay government action, at deceptive language on energy and news media’s obligation to approach the endless pledges skeptically.

Freedom of access to government scientists is just one narrow facet in a worsening crisis in scientific integrity at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The new WatchDog Opinion argues that whether it’s about self-interested industry lobbying over climate change or the regulation of chemicals, there’s an assault on science itself  — and the news media has a role to play.