Abstract

Introductory paper: Ethicists and political scientists are increasingly convinced that the moral legitimacy of political decisions is rooted in the quality of the social dialogue that precedes those decisions. A broad-based social consideration and discussion creates the form to examine and to refine options and visions and assures a general respect for commonly arrived decisions. In order to enable such consideration and discussion, it would seem essential that as many people and interest groups as possible be provided adequate information so that they can proceed in a nuanced fashion in their discussions.Information on environment issues is often a complex of issues: genetic manipulation, atmospheric warming, and rising sea levels, for instance, often appear in highly technical and occasionally contradictory scientific reports. One cannot presume that the average citizen can make scientifically responsible judgements about these questions. It is not, however, just the complexity of issues that keeps the public debate about environmental questions in the shadow. There is a basic lack of interest among the general public about becoming technically informed about environmental issues. The popular media which as carefully as possible finesses its presentation about the issue, makes more room in its reporting for politicians fighting among themselves, crimes, scandals, and spectacular events.Issues based on well thought out argumentation are rarely reported. That does not mean that more people are growing concerned about the environment. In the insecurity that characterizes our post-modern existence, anxiety about the worsening environment is an important factor; but the result of this concern is not that there is more attentive reporting during news presentations but rather that startling conclusions are regularly announced or that spectacular protest actions are reported upon in every detail. What one often sees happening is that pressure groups, by arousing public emotion, try to influence the political agenda. Such emotional reactions are not the immediate result of a correct interpretation of the facts but are based rather on the fantastic images of one-liners or single events.What is the policy of Greenpeace in this regard, and especially in its campaigns about genetic manipulation? How do representatives of the agro-industry react to communications from Greenpeace? What do they propose as alternatives? How can one better communicate, in view of the breadth of public opinion, about environmental issues? How can a journalist, in the competitive world of the media, deliver objective information to the greatest number of people? How can the classic special interest groups, such as agricultural organizations, unions, cultural groups, and political parties truly contribute to quality dialogue about these questions?