Abhijit Sen Ph.

The Dirty Little Secret of the Digital Age: e-Waste dumping in the Third World and
it’s coverage by the mainstream media

Introduction
Scientists have pointed out signs of serious problems in the earth’s biosphere and
consequent environmental deterioration of the planet. For sustainable development to
happen, scientists proclaim that there should be less consumption that would lead to less
pollution, waste and depletion of natural resources and less carbon emission. Sustainable
development reveals the limitations of the dominant development paradigm in
guaranteeing the survival of the human species and the natural world. In addition, the
growing unsustainability of the institutions of the development paradigm confounds crisis
as globalization undermines social protections. Environmental issues strongly correlate
with sustainable development and this can only be shaped by an aware and informed
citizenry in a democratic society. The choices the citizens make as consumers in a
capitalist, free market society determines to a large degree the kind of growth and
development a nation and a society is going to have.
The media play a major role in a consumer oriented society in informing the
public and since the media ‘frames’ and ‘balances’ stories to give a particular perspective
on an issue or a problem, environmental issues resonate differently in different countries,
depending on the time period and on broader cultural and economic factors. The problem
of ‘e-waste’ is of major concern to the Third world nations since they are the recipient of
the developed world’s electronic garbage or e-waste as it is commonly called. The
dumping not only causes health problems but also violates environmental rights of the
local and indigenous population. People concerned about the environmental health of the
planet need to look at how the mainstream media are framing the issue of ‘e-waste’
dumping and the export of environmental pollutants from the West to other parts of the
world. The main goal of the media is to inform the public and make them aware of
global environmental issues but the American mainstream media have reported and are
reporting environmental issues based on their agenda and priorities (Boykoff ).
 This paper is based on an exploratory study on environmental reporting
specifically on the issue of ‘e-waste’ dumping in the Third World. The study compared
the mainstream American media websites with alternative and independent ‘green’
websites regarding ‘e-waste’ dumping. This study also analyzed the depth and frequency
of reporting ‘e-waste’ dumping in both types of news sources. In comparing the two
different types of sources of news and information, the researcher hoped to gauge
media’s involvement in raising public’s awareness of ‘e-waste’ dumping and
consequences of such acts on health and environment in the Third World.

Transborder pollution
Environmental hazards show no respect for national boundaries. The Canadian
experience showed that toxic chemicals from waste dumps in the U.S. and nuclear
debris from nuclear accidents in the USSR could cross borders and invade Canada’s
sovereignty. National and accidental disasters have grave implications for neighboring
and distant countries. The eruption of Mt. St. Helena in the state of Washington in 1980
sent volcanic gases and dusts into Western Canada; and the nuclear accident at Chernobyl
in 1986 sent Iodine 131 into Canada which was detected after five days and lasted two
months. The radioactive fall-out from Chernobyl was a global event. The fall-out
contained mostly iodine and cesium and heaviest deposition occurred in Scandinavia.
Since transborder pollution could have a large impact on the environmental health,
Canada called for an international environmental security accord in line with the
international monetary policy following the Bretton Woods accord in post WW2
(Somers, 1991).
Military testing of nuclear weapons could also have a trans-border effect. Nuclear
testings by the former USSR and USA led to measurable contamination of the Canada’s
environment in early 1960s. Gross beta-radiation activity in air samples and
concentration of Cesium 137 and Strontium 90 in milk were detected. Disintegration of
the Soviet satellite Cosmos 954 (1978) also created widespread distribution of radioactive
elements in Canada’s atmosphere (Somers, 1991).
Industrial byproducts and activities contribute to transborder pollutants in the
form of acid rain or more specifically wet and dry acidic deposition of oxidized sulfur
and nitrogen compounds. The Canadian Department of the Environment estimated that
more than 50% of the acid rain which fell in Canada (1980s) came from the U.S. sources
with an adverse effect on lakes, fishes, forests and buildings. Evidence gathered also
showed that acid rain could damage human respiratory functions (Somers, 1991).
Agricultural activities have unintended consequences on health when food and
agricultural products from other countries are imported. Pesticide is commonly used in
agriculture and farming in both developed and developing third World countries and their
usage and regulatory control varies from country to country. Compounds such as endrin,
dieldrin and DDT are banned in Canada but still used in other countries. The use of DES
(diethylstilbestrol), a known human carcinogen but used as a growth hormone for
livestock, was suspended in Canada in 1972 but still used in the U.S. Importation of food
and milk from other nations are a major concern since food products from unregulated
nations could harm and damage health of the people. Waste dumps and landfills
containing toxic waste consisting of chemicals could contaminate a neighboring nation’s
agriculture and food output. In the USA alone some 18,000 dangerous sites have been
identified by the EPA, and many of these dumps of potentially toxic chemicals are close
to Canadian border. Analysis of the water in the Great Lakes system identified some
1000 chemicals in the lake waters at sufficiently high concentration, posing hazardous to
human health through consumption of fishes and fish products from the lakes (Somers,
1991: 6-9).
We can add ‘e-waste’ to the list of environmental pollutants and toxic materials
that are crossing borders and polluting countries. The toxic pollutants are crossing
borders because of global trade and commerce in hazardous materials, and more
dangerously, through the earth’s biosphere. Pollution knows no borders and we know
that the Inuit Eskimos of Greenland have the highest level of toxins in their blood from
‘e-waste’ pollution in the world even though ‘e-waste’ is not even dumped in their
backyard (The Planet, 2006). Dumping ‘e-waste’ in the Third World is certainly a
human-made situation and the hazardous materials, injurious to human health and natural
habitat, dumped in the Third World countries are the type of garbage that even the
developed world do not want in their own backyards.
Regulatory Measures
The scientific community usually achieves a consensus on the estimation of risk based on
the data on toxicity of chemical, physical and biological agent but sometimes it can be
difficult to achieve this consensus. Governments on the other hand make decisions for
their policies based on the social climate and public opinion regardless of the existing
scientific evidence. Democratic governments have to be cautious, prudent and politically
correct and conform to the majority public opinion in the society. Thus democratic
nation states often integrate different cultural and economic values in their risk
assessment, consequently governments frequently formulate various environmental rules
and regulatory policies different from each others’ (Somers, 1991). Even amongst the
developed nations there are differences regarding environmental laws and regulatory
measures whereas it is almost non-existent in the developing world. We know that the
U.S.’s approach to Kyoto Protocol and to the Basel Convention is markedly different
than that of the Europeans’. Regarding ‘e-waste’ dumping, the U.S. has not ratified the
Basel Convention treaty to this date.
The Basel Convention is the most important international treaty to prevent illegal
trafficking in hazardous wastes. The Basel Convention, part of the United Nations
Environmental Program, addresses the issue of hazardous wastes being dumped in
developing countries and in Eastern Europe. The Basel Convention is an international
treaty that sets up controls, enforcement mechanisms, and requirements that signatories
agree to follow, including preventing and monitoring illegal traffic in hazardous waste,
promoting cleaner technologies and production, and focusing specifically on helping
developing nations. The treaty has been ratified by 165 countries; and the U.S. is not one
of them. The U.S. signed the Convention in March of 1990, indicating agreement with
the treaty and the intention of ratifying it, but thus far has not taken the final step of
ratification (Weil, 2005).
Stricter environmental regulations in developed nations that were imposed in the
late 1980s led to the rise in "toxic traders”. Those traders set up businesses to profit from
those who sought cheaper alternatives for getting rid of hazardous wastes after it became
more difficult and costly to deal with such materials under stricter regulations. The BAN
(Basel Action Network) report on dumping in Lagos calls the U.S. "the worst actor"
among developed countries that perpetuate dumping of hazardous waste in developing
nations. "As the only developed country absent at the table of the world's only waste
treaty, the U.S. can be viewed as nothing short of a remarkable example of
irresponsibility," the report said. "The U.S. policy on electronic waste is shamelessly
negligent... Canada, likewise, while nominally a Basel Party, seems intent on ignoring the
Basel waste lists to avoid controlling e-waste exports" (Weil, 2005).

The problem of ‘e-waste’

The PBS Frontline program (PBS, 2009) pointed out that the dumping and dangerous
recycling of thousands of tons of ‘e-waste’ across the developing world is the dirty little
secret of the digital age. ‘E-waste’ is routinely exported by developed countries to
developing ones often in violation of international law. Inspections of 18 European
seaports in 2005 revealed that as much as 47% of waste destined for export was illegal.
In U.K., some 23,000 metric tons of undeclared electronic waste was illegally shipped in
2003 to the Far East, India, Africa and China (Greenpeace, 2009a). Another Greenpeace
report noted that wily electronic goods dealers were buying usable and obsolete
machines in bulk and shipping them off to Africa under the fake label of “second-hand”.
In Accra, Ghana, the obsolete items ended up in dumps, picked apart and then burned,
releasing noxious fumes and chemicals into the atmosphere. Greenpeace scientists noted
that contaminated samples contained high doses of toxic metals including lead hundred
times above the normal level. The chemicals found at the dump sites in Ghana were
similar to those previously documented by Greenpeace or ‘e-waste’ open burning sites in
China and India. The UNEP says that between 20 to 50 million tons of e-waste is now
generated worldwide annually as consumers regularly upgrade and discard old computer
machines (Barclay, 2008).
Computers and other electronics are shipped to the developing nations including
China, Indonesia, Pakistan, Ghana, Nigeria and India for recycling. Lower wages, higher
demand for used products and lower environmental protections mean that turning around
old computers and their materials and metals for sale make a profit. Recycling industry
in the Third World is essentially a double-edged sword – it does provide jobs and
increases availability of computers but on the other hand workers come into direct
contact with potentially dangerous contaminants such as dioxins and lead. Precious
metals are leached from circuit boards using acids and cyanide and some of the toxins are
actually generated during the leaching process. The burning of the plastic casings emit
toxins, including purins and dioxins which are known carcinogens (Williams, 2009).
‘E-waste’ is harmful to people’s health but for the people who are making money
off such wastes, it is worth protecting the business even if that means getting rid of
reporters. People in developing countries, specially those who are unemployed, and in
developed nations, make money from exporting and importing ‘e-waste’ but it comes
with a far steeper price than what we can imagine – more than the $8 per day which the
workers earn by extracting precious metals from the electronic waste. Extraction often
involves burning of plastic parts and the use of caustic chemicals to get the valuable
metals and this releases toxins into the air, ground and water which are usually inhaled
and ingested by the workers. The Chinese attackers who confronted the 60-Minutes
(CBS) reporter were essentially trying to protect a lucrative business of mining ‘e-waste’
junks like computers, TV sets and other electronic products (Heimbuch, 2008).

Digital Dumping Grounds

India
Countries like India and China have long been a destination for ‘e-waste’ dumping by
unscrupulous traders. It has been established that the U.S. alone exports 80% of it’s
‘e-waste’ to China, India and Pakistan. The amount of ‘e-waste’ generated by these
countries is also growing – in India only 11% of e-waste is collected for authorized
recycling (Greenpeace, 2009c). Currently, India generates $1.5 billion worth of ‘e-
waste’ per year and by 2012, India is expected to generate about 1.6 million tons of ‘e-
waste’ per year. In India, ‘e-waste’ dismantling is a lucrative industry but a serious threat
to human health and the environment. The Indian Supreme Court banned the import of
hazardous e-waste in 1997 but still thousands of tons of e-waste keep entering the country
duty-free under the guise of charitable or re-usable materials. The hazardous e-wastes are
typically dismantled and recycled by hand in unorganized junkyard settings that lack
safeguards and government guidelines. The Central Pollution Board continues to deny
that e-waste is coming into the country (Mok, 2007).
Greenpeace (India) spokesman Ramapati Kumar says up to 5 million people work
in this clandestine backyard trade. The recycling procedure is dangerous and still very
primitive - people are recycling with their bare hands with no protection at all. Computer
motherboards are literally cooked, which releases gold and copper, but also arsenic,
mercury, lead, and other toxins. Greenpeace estimates that some 50,000 tons of ‘e-waste’
are produced in India, but a much larger amount, harder to pin down because it's illegal,
is imported from rich countries where recycling is much costlier. It can cost $20 to $30 to
dispose off one computer in a legal and proper manner. But, if the e-waste is exported to
a poor, developing country in Africa, China or India, one can actually make money off
that waste. Consequently, 53 percent of children under 12 in India's cities are lead-
poisoned, that is, permanently brain damaged destroying up to 20 percent of a child's I.Q.
(Lazaro, 2007).
Large e-waste centers exist around major cosmopolitan cities like Delhi, Chennai,
Bangalore and Mumbai. Some 25,000 workers perform dismantling job in Delhi alone
where 10 – 20, 000 tons of e-waste is handled each year of which 25% of the waste are
computer materials. Other ‘e-waste’ centers in India are in Meerut, Ferozabad, Chennai,
Bangalore and Mumbai (Greenpeace, 2009a). The dismantlers of hazardous waste work
in poorly ventilated areas without masks and technical expertise, exposing themselves to
dangerous fumes and chemicals from the e-waste products (pc monitors, PCBs, toner
cartridges, motherboards etc.) releasing lead, cadmium and mercury toxins in the air.
The broken pieces are often incinerated to extract gold, copper and titanium. Managing
‘e-waste’ recycling vary from state-to-state and some have written guidelines like the one
in the state of Karnataka. But some corporations bypass the state management guidelines
by passing off ‘e-waste’ materials as donations to the charities and poor segment of the
society (Mok, 2007). Activists say there is no awareness of ‘e-waste’ problem and the
issue is not getting enough attention in India. Smugglers make a huge profit by
smuggling the discards through Dubai and Singapore and brought in as donations for
charity (Carney, 2007).
China
China has in recent years become the ‘defacto repository’ for developed countries’
discarded electronics and electrical gadgets. ‘E-waste’ poses serious health risks for the
Chinese workers who extract precious metals like gold, silver, iron, nickel, copper and
platinum. Researchers at the Hong Kong Baptist University showed that the soil at these
recycling centers possessed highest concentration of dioxins and polybromiated diphenyl
ether - a commonly used flame retardant linked to abnormal thyroid metabolism and
brain development (Jacquot, 2007). In China, potable drinking water has to be trucked
into the town of Guiyu, center of ‘e-waste’ dumping sites in China. Scientists have also
discovered that the city has the highest level of cancer-causing dioxins in the world and
70% of the children have excessive lead in their blood (Heimbuch, 2008).
China also has a growing problem of ‘e-waste’ of it’s own. China produces more
than million tons of e-waste per year including 5 million TV sets and 10 million mobile
phones. China has ratified the Basel Convention but imports still slip in. The ‘e-waste’
industry in Guiyu employs about 150,00 migrants who are poor and illiterate and too
desperate and ill-informed to care about health risks. Chemicals including mercury,
fluorine, barium, chromium and cobalt leached from ‘e-waste’ have been blamed for skin
rashes, respiratory ailments, kidney failure, damage to the nervous system and cancer
(Bodeen, 2007).

Africa
Across Western Africa informal recycling yards have sprung up where low paid migrants
use primitive methods to extract valuable metals and create environmental pollution
causing damage to their own health and of the residents living in the area. In Ghana,
many traders report that shipping containers coming into the port contain broken and
junked TV and computers along with a few good working ones (Greenpeace, 2009c).
It is estimated that some 2500 tons of ‘e-waste’ products are dumped in Nigeria every
year (The Planet, 2006). Greenpeace did a 3 year undercover investigation to show that
‘e-waste’ materials are still not recycled as they are supposed to be, instead ‘e-waste’ is
being disguised as second-hand goods and shipped off to Nigeria where it is scrapped,
sold and illegally dumped. The Greenpeace investigation used a hidden tracking device
inside a broken TV set which provided location updates via GPS. Nigeria, like Ghana,
India, Pakistan, and China, is one of many destinations that Europe, the. U.S., Japan and
S. Korea and other developed nations are using as ‘e-waste’ dumping grounds at the
expense of the people and the environment (Greenpeace, 2009b). A small village in
Ghana has become one of the world’s largest e-waste dumping grounds. Agbogbloshie,
Ghana.along the banks of Korle Lagoon, one of the most polluted bodies of water on
earth is an example of improper ‘e-waste’ disposal. The locals call the area “Sodom and
Gomorrah,” as it has become an ‘e-waste’ graveyard of electronics dumped from the
U.S., the U.K. and other countries (Wills, 2009; PBS, 2009).

Setting the environmental agenda

The media and the press have been very influential in telling people ‘what to think about’
than telling them ‘what to think’ as political scientists Bernard Cohen noted. The
coverage of issues helps to focus the public on what to discuss on a given day.
According to the agenda setting theory, public opinion on specific issues is heavily
influenced by the topics and news stories that appear in the news pages and TV programs
(McCombs in Williams, 2003: 181).
The basic idea of media prioritizing the agenda of the day has been supported by
numerous studies conducted by mass communications scholars. McCombs and Shaw
(1972) developed the hypothesis in researchable form in their examination of the news
coverage of the 1968 presidential election campaign. They found that there was a
convergence of public agenda and media agenda and public opinion corresponded to the
media issues after analyzing newspapers, news magazines and TV network news
programs. Iyengar and Kinder (1987) attempted to overcome some of the limitations of
previous research through a series of experiments. They tested the prominence of issues
in national news that were considered very important by the TV viewing public. They
found that people exposed to one of the three different presentations (on pollution,
national security & inflation) of news over a four day period led to expressions of greater
concern about the issue featured in the news of the day by the experimental group (Spark,
2006: 176).
Funkhouser (1973) looked at three sources of data: public opinion polls,
media coverage and statistical indicators and confirmed earlier findings that showed
substantial correlation between public opinion and media coverage (Croteau & Hoynes,
2000: 240). In a study of international news, Paik found that there was considerable
evidence that media set the public’s agenda and the policy agenda. Findings of his study
on news in the Wall Street Journal coverage of different regions and countries of the
world showed that there was an imbalance in global information which could be
attributed to the control of global communication by a few Western news agencies and
media multinationals giving minimum news of Third World Countries. News about
Third World nations were invariably ‘framed’ in a western ideological and cultural
perspective leading to a highly stereotyped account of only a few type of events such as
coups, catastrophes, famines and natural disasters (Paik, 1999).
Can the newscast actually influence people what to think? Apparently yes,
through a concept known as ‘framing.’ Tankard defines framing as the “ central
organizing idea for the news content that supplies a context and suggests what the issue is
through the use of selection, emphasis, exclusion and elaboration” (Spark, 2006: 177).
The way a story is framed by the media can have a great impact on the interpretations
that people take away from the message. People do look to the print and broadcast news
for guidance on which issues are really important. The language the media uses to
describe the importance of an issue, the manner in which the issue is ‘framed’ and the
role of credible and authoritative people in promoting the issue are often critical in setting
the agenda (Severin & Tankard, 1988). Iyengar and Kinder also introduced the concept
of ‘priming’ to describe how the media could go beyond telling people what to think
about and shape the criteria used by individuals to judge the political leaders and political
issues (Williams, 2003: 182).
A large body of agenda-setting literature showed the importance of multi-source
influences on the news media. In recent years researchers have acknowledged that the
media’s agenda is often shaped by others: interest groups, government officials, citizens
and politicians who try to influence what the media reports as the most important story of
the day. The researchers suggested a strong interplay between public opinion, political
priorities and news priorities of the media (McQuail, 1994: 276). Herman & Chomsky’s
(1988) ‘propaganda’ model suggested that the media’s agenda is set by a combination of
government and corporate forces intent on protecting the interests of the rich and the
powerful. The corporate owners of the media and various ‘gatekeepers’ of media
channels and agencies (public-relations and advertising) make sure that profitability
remains the top priority (Croteau & Hoynes, 2000: 240).
Research suggests that the degree to which social issues command attention
cannot be equated with the seriousness of risk they pose (Hansen, 1990). How certain
social problems come to be defined as risks and the selection of risks is influenced by
social values and the way in which different cultures operate. The competing public
perception of risks are equally biased because they reflect different cultural perspectives,
meanings and systems (Anderson, 1997: 109). Thus, environmental issues gain public
attention differently in different countries, depending on broader cultural and economic
factors and on the historical era. Thus the European response to environmental issues
and problems has been far more pro-active and effective than say in the USA. In Europe,
various environmental crises have forced specific industries to take an aggressive stance
in marketing and communications. For example, in response to the growing
environmental awareness and various information crises, the nuclear industry was forced
to take a more proactive approach to marketing and public-relations. In 1995, Germans
boycotted Shell gas stations for their disregard of the environment which led Shell to
cancel its plans to sink the Brent Spar oil rig in the Atlantic. Video news releases of two
Greenpeace vessels sprayed with high-pressure water canons with protesters standing
aboard the ship made for a dramatic news footage and sparked off a major controversy
(Anderson, 1997: 111).

Environmental reporting
Research has shown that the general public learns about science and policy from the mass
media (Nelkin, 1987; Wilson, 1995) and for the public, TV is the primary source of
information (Pew, 2003). A 2005 U.S. public opinion survey found TV news to be one
of the most trusted information sources on environmental issues including climate change
(Yale, 2005). However, TV news coverage on network TV of environmental issues has
declined since late 1980s (Tyndall Report in Boykoff, 2007). The news media are
powerful sources of information on environmental issues like climate change. The
information could be delivered effectively to the audience or could be distorted, biased or
misrepresented without the public being aware of it’s veracity. The professional
journalistic standards like objectivity, fairness and balance have shaped what is news and
how news is portrayed (Boykoff, 2004; Boykoff, 2007: 3). Television news reporting has
struggled to communicate accurately the causes of global warming, and there remains a
significant gap between the science of climate change and TV press reports (Boykoff,
2007: 9).
Environmental reporting could also be skewed because of the reporter’s over-
eagerness to ‘balance’ the news and give both sides of the issue. Boykoff’s study
examined the journalistic norm of ‘balanced reporting’ of climate change issues on U.S.
network TV. The study examined whether the so called ‘balanced reporting’ helped or
hindered accurate dissemination of scientific information on climate change. The author
hypothesized that such reports merely perpetuated an information bias by significantly
diverging from the scientific consensus on climate change. The findings of Boykoff’s
study showed that by utilizing “…the journalistic norms of ‘balance’, U.S. TV news
coverage has been deficient in climate science reporting. The institutionalized and
professional journalistic practice of balanced reporting has served to amplify a minority
view that human’s role in climate change is debated or negligent…” (Boykoff, 2007: 8).
Applied to the climate change issue, balanced coverage greatly amplified the views of
skeptics, many of whom are funded by Exxon-Mobil, the Competitive Enterprise Institute
and others with questionable agenda. ‘Balanced reporting’ as such has turned to be a red-
herring because it is used in lieu of “validity checks” and used as a substitute for
‘objective’ reporting by providing both sides of a controversial issue an equal weightage
(Boykoff, 2007; Entmann, 1989).
Lichtenberg (2000) observed that reporters have to make important choices about
whether a statement is controversial enough to warrant ‘balancing’ it with an opposing
view. This becomes a credibility issue, therefore, the less credible the source, the more
likely it is to be ‘balanced’ with an alternative perspective. Ericson (1989) indicated that
reporters in general have become aware of the problem of delivering news in this format,
ie. presenting news with an air of objectivity and grounded in the standard interpretive
frames of two opposing forces (Anderson, 1997: 69). But as the Boykoff study showed,
this is an ongoing problem in reporting environmental issues.
The values of the individual reporters play a significant role in environmental
news construction and dissemination. Many reporters and correspondents of
environmental issues claim to be highly interested in environmental matters but they are
almost never members of environmental action groups since it would compromise their
role as reporters and their notion of independence, neutrality and objectivity. But in fact
most national news organizations in UK forbid environmental reporters from belonging
to environmental action organizations even though they maybe interested (Anderson,
1997: 61).
Studies on news media and reporting segmented journalists into three categories:
neutral observers, participants or as advocates (Kielbowicz & Scherer, 1986). Majority
of reporters portrayed themselves as neutral or participants and less as advocates
distancing themselves from morally partisan approach (Gans, 1980; Anderson, 1993).
Most correspondents had concerns about major environmental issues and development in
the Third World but at the same time many took great pains to distance themselves from
what they considered as morally partisan views. There was a lot of pressure on
journalists to stress objectivity and neutrality in order to promote their authoritative
status. In many situations journalists were pulled off the beat because they were judged
to be ‘too close’ to the subject. But there were some journalists who saw it as their duty
to inform the public by taking an advocacy stance contrary to the established rules
(Anderson, 1997: 61-65).
Environmental matters are generally covered by specialists who think they have a
large degree of editorial freedom which is a myth deeply ingrained in journalists’
mythology (Tunstall, 1971). The correspondents interviewed claimed to have a large
amount of freedom in reporting environmental issues, but Tunstall showed that reporters
were actually constrained by a number of factors including organizational, editorial and
advertising pressures. Journalists in the past have claimed that they had experienced
editorial pressures not to cover nuclear power issues (Anderson, 1997: 66). The amount
of freedom enjoyed by environmental reporters are to some degree dependent on news
organization practices and political ideology and reporters have little control over final
length, headlines etc. (Burgess & Harrison, 1993).
Pressures on reporters also come from the relationship between the sources and
news media, between the media and the elites and the government and bureaucracies.
Powerful sources such as government agencies and the courts enjoy easy access to the
media (Hall et al, 1978 ). Hall suggested that powerful sources sometimes become
primary definers of key issues including environmental issues. News sources have vested
interests in the issues they are normally promoting and can exert tremendous pressure on
the media and the wider policy-making machinery.
In the mid-80s what made the term ‘environment’ distinctive compared to other
categories of news was the absence of any broad consensus on the definition of the term
(Lowe & Morrison, 1984: 79). Reporting on environment drew upon potent cultural
symbols related to nature and countryside. Moreover the objective reporting of
environmental stories could potentially subvert the whole idea of industrialism and
progress which made it very difficult to accommodate the concept within the established
news categories. Later, the term ‘green’ was frequently used as a code for reporting all
kinds of issues from health to women’s issues (Anderson, 1993). Although the
environment has become more established as a ‘news beat’ (Hannigan, 1995; Lacey &
Longman, 1993), there is a strong cyclical element to the reporting of environmental
issues and closely tied to the political agenda (Anderson, 1997: 55). Over time,
environmentalism has become increasingly institutionalized and transformed into a
political ideology competing with liberalism, socialism and conservatism (Eder, 1996).
The media in general are more interested in promoting consumption of goods and
services in the society. Of the different stages in the materials economy, the only
segment which is frequently emphasized by the media is ‘consumption.’ We hardly hear
about the extraction process which depletes our natural resources and neither do we hear
much about the disposal process, that is disposal of ‘garbage’-things and stuff- that
people throw away and discard. Annie Leonard pointed out in her brief but informative
animated video called The Story of Stuff (Leonard, 2009) that the media show only one
part of the process of making stuff, that of shopping and consumption in which
advertising, marketing, PR and the media play a huge role. The problems (climate
changing and global warming) created by the disposal of discarded and unwanted stuff
are paid scant attention by the giant media corporations.
In a streaming LOHAS (Lifestyle of Health & Sustainability) video titled Green
Media, ‘green’ journalist Simran Sethi (2008) pointed out that the mainstream media
gave out environmental information in sound-bites devoid of any context. ‘Green’
journalists feel that a deeper and more meaningful discussion on environmental issues is
needed on TV networks and channels. The Internet on the other hand remains accessible,
easy-to-use and easy to navigate providing a forum for successfully engaging people on
environmental and social justice conversation, communicating and shedding light on
various issues, leading people from ignorance to one of awareness.
Websites like Tree Hugger, Planet Green and Sundance Channel’s The Good
Fight series on environmental and economic revitalization in smaller communities in the
USA, have created virtual space for intelligent conversation on environmental issues,
blogging and even for social networking. The main concern voiced on various ‘green’
websites is how the West, especially the USA, is exporting it’s environmental problems
to the developing nations, including India and China, who are eager to receive whatever
monetary benefits they can get by allowing ‘e-waste’ and other toxic materials to be
dumped on their soil.

Methodology
For this exploratory study, the sources for information on ‘e-waste’ dumping in the Third
world were categorized into two groups: a) mainstream commercial media sources on the
Internet; b) alternative, non-commercial and independent ‘green’ media sources on the
Internet. The information and news sources were restricted to the organizations’
websites. The search of the mainstream news and ‘green’ organizations’ website was
done using the keyword ‘e-waste’ and the keyword was used to search for articles, audio
and video clips, photo-essays and still images. In general, all items mentioning ‘e-waste’
and any Third World countries, specifically China, India, Nigeria, Ghana, Pakistan etc.,
were counted as valid and reliable representation of the issue. Items with ambiguous
description in the title and introduction were downloaded and viewed, scanned and read
in full to check the validity of the articles, audio clips, video clips, transcripts, images and
photos. The count was restricted to first 200 items from the entire search list if the
keyword search yielded more than 200 items. Lack of resources prevented the researcher
from including stories from the entire list in the count.
A selected few of the mainstream media and news websites were identified for
this study based on the popularity and ubiquity of the news channel. The mainstream
news organizations selected were: CNN, CBS, MSNBC, ABC, and Fox News. The
alternative and independent news sites were chosen because of their professed allegiance
to environmental issues and non-commercial and independent nature of their operation
and organization. The alternative news sources selected were: Tree Hugger, Sundance
Channel: The Green, Planet Green, Greenpeace, Vertatique and Green-Talk. The
websites were viewed between August 1st and September 15th, 2009.

Mainstream online media

CNN (cnn.com): CNN, a major global news organization owned by Time-Warner, has a
significant news and information presence globally. The keyword site search resulted in
a total of 9 items of which only 2 articles/videos (22%) were directly related to dumping
of e-waste in the Third World. The 2 items were posted on the CNN website in April and
August 2009. The items indicated that CNN had conducted it’s own investigation in
2009, on the issue of e-waste dumping especially in Nigeria.

MSNBC (msnbc.com): A joint venture with Microsoft and NBC network (GE owned).
Search with the keyword ‘e-waste’ resulted in a total of 83 items of which only 3 articles
(4%) were directed related to dumping of e-waste in the Third world. The three articles
were posted between 2006-2009. The remainder of the stories were related to recycling
of e-waste and other state and local recycling projects None of the items indicated that
MSNBC had initiated it’s own investigations on this matter.

FOXNews (FoxNews.com): A NewsCorp Inc. subsidiary. Search with the keyword ‘e-
waste’ resulted in a total of 100 (total yield: 29,176) items on the first 10 pages of which
only 3 articles (3%) were directly related to stories on dumping of e-waste in the Third
World countries (2006-2007). The articles were posted in the Science/Tech section of the
website and none of these articles indicated that Fox News originated the investigation on
the matter of e-waste dumping.

CBS (CBS.com): A Viacom company. The search with the keyword yielded a total of
23 items on the Internet, of which 5 video clips and 2 articles (30%) were directly related
to the dumping issue. CBS’s 60-Minutes program did a major investigative reporting on
dumping of e-waste in China in 2008 and aired the clip in November, 2008 and posted a
follow-up article titled ‘Following the trail of toxic e-waste’ on the web(updated Aug.
2009). The 60 Minutes segment titled ‘The Wasteland’ received a George Polk Award for
TV Reporting by reporter Scott Pelley. The 5 video clips are the only videos related to
dumping of e-waste in the Third World on the CBS news website. CBS’s 60 Minutes
story and video clip on e-waste dumping in China has been posted on other websites
dealing with the same issue.

ABC (ABCnews.com): A Disney owned company. The search with the keyword
yielded a total of 56 items. Out of those items 3 video clips, 8 articles and 3 images
(25%) were on dumping of e-waste in Ghana and China. ABC also did some of it’s own
investigative reporting on e-waste dumping in the Third World in 2009 and aired the clip
on ABC World News Tonight in July 2009 (reporter Ron Claiborne) and shown again on
GMA the next morning. The same video segment was titled variously as ‘American “e-
waste” shipped abroad’; ‘U.S. electronic waste gets sent to Africa’; and ‘Toxic U.S. e-
waste: Third World problem.’ The articles were reprinted mostly from USA Today or
PC World.

‘Green’ online media

Tree Hugger (Treehugger.com, a Discovery website): Keyword search of the website
yielded a total of 200 items on the list’s first 10 pages (total yield: 676 items) of which 26
items (13%) mainly articles were directly related to the issue of dumping of e-waste in
the Third World. Treehugger.com is a Discovery owned website which has done
extensive reporting on this matter and given broad coverage to the issue of e-waste
dumping in the Third World, especially in China, India, Mexico and more recently in
Ghana which has become the most favored dumping site for damaged and aged electronic
products (monitors, hard-drives, cell phones, TV sets, printers etc.) from UK,
Nederlands, Germany and South Korea. Majority of the items are based on Greenpeace
and BAN reports and videos.

Sundance Channel – The Green (sundancechannel.com/thegreen/): The Green, a division

of the Sundance Channel is an entertainment, primetime source for informative and
inspirational programs about the planet. Each night The Green features a documentary
and original series, combined with interstitial elements. Keyword search yielded a total of
100 items – a mix of Blogs, films and videos. From the total, only 1 item (a blog) was
directly related to the issue of dumping e-wastes in the Third World.

Planet Green (planetgreen.com, a Discovery affiliated website): Planet Green is also a

Discovery website dedicated to sustainable living and lifestyle, and energy conservation.
Keyword search of the word ‘e-waste’ yielded a total of 184 items of which about 2 items
(1%) were directly related to the issue of e-waste dumping. One of them had a title: ‘It’s
time to say goodbye to e-waste: Why our gadgets are toxic to developing nations’ (Aug.
2009).

Greenpeace International (greenpeace.org/international): Internationally reknowned

environmental organization based in Nederlands and one of the primary investigator of
the e-waste issue. Keyword search yielded a total of 100 items (first 10 pages) and from
that 58 items (58%), mostly still images, reports and a few videos, were directly related to
the issue being discussed here. A major portion of investigation on the issue of dumping
has been done by Greenpeace and by the Basel Action Network (BAN) based in Seattle.

Vertatique (vertatique.com): The website Vertatique is dedicated to “sustainable

computing, media and e-devices.” Keyword search yielded a total of 40 items of that 4
were articles and 3 were photo-essays (18%) directly relate to the issue. The original
photo-essays by professional photographers like Jane Hahn, Edward Burtynsky and from
National Geographic depicted graphic effects of e-waste materials in Ghana and China.
Green Talk (green-talk.com): The website’s motto is: ‘Turning planet green, one
conversation at a time.’ A keyword search led to about 76 items mostly articles and
videos. Only 2 video clips (3%) were directly related to the issue of dumping e-waste.
The video clips were taken from other media channels and organizations like BAN, CBS
and PBS. CBS’s 60 Minutes story and PBS’s Frontline program on e-waste dumping in
China were posted on the website.

Comparing news websites

Comparing the mainstream media with alternative news sources did not reveal a huge
disparity in the percentage of items posted on the website over an unrestricted period of
time. The findings show that the percentage of items in the two categories varied with
each website having different priorities From the mainstream media, CBS and ABC
networks had a higher percentage of items on their website related to the issue of e-waste
dumping and perhaps because the networks had conducted their own investigation on this
issue unlike the other two networks: MSNBC and FOX News. CNN had earlier this year
posted a report from Nigeria.
As for the alternative websites, Tree Hugger, Vertatique and Greenpeace had a
high percentage of items related to the issue of e-waste dumping but original
investigations were conducted by Greenpeace alone. The other ‘green’ websites – Planet
Green, Sundance:The Green & Green Talk - had extremely low percentage of items
related to the issue. Majority of the websites had posted reports and videos originated by
BAN (Basel Action Network), Greenpeace, CBS or PBS (Frontline) while some of the
articles posted were written by independent reporters using materials from the originating
organizations. In comparing the mainstream media with dedicated ‘green’ websites it
was found that the mainstream media had caught up (as of 2009) with ‘green’
information sites and were not too far behind in informing the public about the hazards of
e-wastes and how they were being shipped across the seas to poorer, developing countries
of the Third World. Surprisingly, not all ‘green’ sites were as active in disseminating
information and raising awareness about this serious issue.
Conclusion
For a just, fair, equitable and sustainable planet, the developed world of the West should
be fully aware of the consequences of using developing countries as their trash bins and
landfills for their own waste and garbage. The developed world need to take
responsibility for their own waste. Tony Roberts, CEO of Computer Aid International
says: “It is clear that companies have a moral obligation to treat Africa in exactly the
same way that they do, say, Germany” (Ford, 2009). In democracies of the developed
world the people need to be aware of high risk trade and commercial practices carried out
in secret that are detrimental to the health and environment of the developing nations and
of the planet at large. As long as the ordinary citizens of the developed world are kept in
the dark about ‘e-waste’ exports to the developing world there would be no change in
domestic policies. This is where the media play a key role in creating and raising
awareness amongst the citizens about the negative consequences of ‘e-waste’ dumping in
the Third World.

International treaties prohibit the export of obsolete computer hardware from

developed to developing countries. But there are loopholes and ‘e-waste’ is shipped to
intermediate points where shipping labels are changed to hide the real point of origin.
Other shipments are disguised as charitable contributions. Dr. Thuppil Venkatesh, a
professor of biochemistry and biophysics at St. John's Medical Center in Bangalore, who
heads a campaign against lead pollution says: “My sincere request to people from the
developed world, like U.S., please do not donate any electronic goods to developing
world... No, no charity. By this kind of charity, you are killing the children” (Lazaro,
2007).

From this exploratory study, it was concluded that a few mainstream news outlets
have made substantial efforts to conduct their own investigation and disseminate facts on
this issue, but there are other news channels who have done practically nothing to raise
awareness amongst their audience. Some media organizations find environmental
reporting to be non-lucrative or ideologically incompatible with their priorities and
policies and that includes some ‘green’ sites which have not actively posted and
promoted news and views about the issue. Greenpeace and BAN organizations have
been the primary investigators of this problem but in the last two years CBS, ABC and
PBS have conducted their own investigations, and almost all other websites reviewed in
this study incorporated information, images and video clips provided by the preceding
news organizations and environmental activists groups. Further study with a larger
sample and statistical analysis needs to be done to get a comprehensive picture of the
problem.

References

ABC News (Jul. 2009) ‘Toxic U.S. E-Waste: Third World Problem’,
www.abcnews.go.com (accessed 8 Aug. 2009).

Anderson, A. (1997) Media, Culture and the Environment. New Brunswick, N.J.:
Rutger University Press.

Anderson, A. (1993) Source-media relations: The Production of Environmental Agenda

in A. Hansen (ed.) The Mass Media and Environmental Issues. Leicester: Leicester Univ.
Press.

Barclay, E. (2008) ‘European E-Waste, labeled “secondhand”, is unloaded in Ghana’,

www.treehugger.com (accessed 7 Aug. 2009).

Bodeen, C. (Nov. 2007) ‘In ‘e-waste’ heartland, a toxic China’, www.nytimes.com

(accessed 2 Sept. 2009).

Boykoff, J. & Boykoff, M. (Nov/Dec 2004) Journalistic Balance as Global Warming Bias:
Creating controversy where science finds consensus, http://www.fair.org/index.php?
page=1978 (accessed 12 August 2009).

Boykoff, M. (July 2007) Lost in Translation ? United States television news coverage of
anthropogenic climate change, 1995-2004.
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/boykoff08-losttranslatn.pdf (accessed
12 August 2009).

Burgess, J. & C. Harrison (1993) ‘The Circulation of Claims in the Cultural Politics of
Environmental Change. See A. Hansen, (1993).

CBS – 60 Minutes. (Aug. 2009) ‘The Wasteland’ www.cbsnews.com (accessed 7 Sept.

2009).

Carney, S. (2007) ‘E-Trash industry poses hazards to workers’, www.npr.org (accessed 7

Sept. 2009).
Croteau, D. & W. Hoynes (2000) Media Society: Industries, Images and Audiences. 2ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA.: Pine Forge.

Eder, K. (1996) ‘The institutionalization of environmentalism: Ecological discourse and

second transformation of the public sphere’ in S. Lash et al. (eds.) Risk, Environment and
Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. London: Sage.

Entman, R. (1989) Democracy without citizens: media and the decay of American
politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ericson, R. V. et al. (eds.) (1989) Negotiating control: A study of news organization

sources. Milton Keyenes, UK.: Open University Press.

Ford, M. (Aug. 2009) ‘Sifting through the mounting problem of e-waste’, www.cnn.com
(accessed 18 Sept. 2009).

Funkhouser, G. R. (1973) ‘The issues of the sixties: an exploratory study in the dynamics
of public opinion’, Public Opinion Quarterly 37(1) 26-75.

Gans, H. (1980) Deciding What’s News: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly
News, Newsweek & TIME. London: Constable.

Greenpeace Report (2009a) ‘Where does e-waste end-up ?’,

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/where-does-e-
waste-end-up (accessed 28 April 2009).

Greenpeace Report (2009b) ‘Undercover operation exposes illegal dumping of e-waste in

Nigeria’, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/e-waste-nigeria180209
(accessed 28 April 2009).

Greenpeace Report (2009c) ‘Toxic tech: not in our backyard’,

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/reports4/toxic-tech-not-in-our-backyard
(accessed 28 April 2009).

Hall, S. et al. (1978) Policing the crisis: mugging, the state and law and order. London:
MacMilllan.

Hannigan, J. A. (1995) Environmental sociology: a social constructionist perspective.

London: Routledge.

Hansen, A. (1993) The Mass Media and Environmental Issues. Leicester: Leicester
Univ. Press.

Hansen, A. (1990) ‘Socio-political views underlying media-coverage of the

environment’, Media Development 37, 3-6.
Heimbuch, J. (2008) ’60 Minutes reporter attacked in Chinese e-waste pit’,
www.treehugger.com (accessed 7 March 2009).

Heimbuch, J, (2009) ‘E-waste in India growing by 10% a year’, www.treehugger.com

(accessed 7 March 2009).

Herman, E. & N. Chomsky (1988) The Political Economy of the News Media. N.Y.:
Pantheon.

Iyengar, S. & D. Kinder (1987) News that matters. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Jacquot, J. (2007) ‘E-waste recycling is serious health threat in China’,

www.treehugger.com (accessed 7 Nov. 2008).

Kielbowicz, R. B. & C. Scherer (1986) ‘The role of the press in the dynamics of social
movements’ in G. Lang & K. Lang (eds.) Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and
Change. Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press.

Lacey, C & D. Longman (1993) ‘The press and public access to the environment and
development debate’, Sociological Review 41(2) 207-43.

Lazaro, F. (Correspondent, Twin Cities Public TV). Electronic wastes adds pollution in
India. Feb.19, 2007. PBS – the Online News-Hour:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/ewaste_02-19.html

Leonard, A. (2007) ‘The story of stuff’, www.youtube.com (accessed 10 June 2009).

Lichtenberg, J. (2000) ‘In Defense of Objectivity’ in J. Curran & M. Gurevitch (eds)

Mass Media & Society. London: E. Arnold.

Lowe, P. & D. Morrison (1984) ‘Bad or Good News: Environmental politics and the
mass media’, Sociological Review 32, 75-90
.
McCombs, M. (1981) ‘The agenda-setting approach’ in D. Nimmo & K. Sanders (eds)
Handbook of Political Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

McCombs, M. & D. L. Shaw (1972) ‘The Agenda Setting Function of the Press.’ Public
Opinion Quarterly 36: 176-187.

McQuail, D. (1994) Mass Communications Theory 3ed. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Mok, K. (2007) ‘E-waste in India: A growing industry and environmental threat’,

www.treehugger.com (accessed 7 Dec. 2009).
Nelkin, D. (1987) Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. N.Y.:
Freeman.

PBS (June, 2009) ‘Digital Dumping Ground’,

www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/ghana804 (accessed 3 Sept. 2009).

Paik, H. (Sp. 1999) ‘International News Coverage in the Wall Street Journal’,
International Communication Bulletin 34/1-2, 9.

PEW Research Center for the People & the Press (2003) Summary Report. Available at:
www.people-press.org (accessed 12 Aug. 2009).

Planet, The (2006) Documentary. Director: Johan Soderberg, Michael Stenberg & Linus
Torrell. Released: 2006.

Sethi, S. (June, 2008) LOHAS - Green Media Pt. 1 www.lohas.com (accessed 19 April
2009).

Severin, W. & J. Tankard (1988) Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses
2ed. London: Longmans.

Somers, E. (1991) ‘Transboundary pollution and environmental health’, Global Issues

91/92, Guilford, CT.: Dushkin Publishing.

Spark, G. G. (2006) Media Effects Research: A Basic Overview. Belmont, CA.:

Wadsworth.

Tunstall, J. (1971) Journalists at work. London: Constable.

Yale University (2005) School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. Available at:
www.yale.edu/environcenter (accessed 12 Aug. 2009).

Weil, N. (Oct. 2005) ‘E-waste dumping victimizes developing nations study says’, IDG
News Services. http://pcworld.about.com/news/Oct312005id123285.htm (accessed 15
March 2009).

Wilkins, L. & P. Patterson (1987) ‘Risk analysis and the construction of news’, Journal
of Communication 37, 80-92.

Williams, E (2009). ‘Don’t recycle your computer’,

http://dsc.discovery.com/technology/my-take/computer-recycle-bad.html (accessed 16
Mar. 2009).

Williams, K. (2003) Understanding Media Theory. London: Arnold.

Wills, A. (July, 2009) ‘Ghana a literal “digital dumping ground”, www.earth911.com

(accessed 4 Sept. 2009).

Wilson, K. M. (1995) ‘Mass media as sources of global warming knowledge’, Mass

Communication Review 22, 75-89.