About the Story: WCVB's David Ropeik turned up serious problems when he first investigated the air quality at Boston area ice rinks. He found unhealthy levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide. He found ice skaters and hockey players complaining of headaches, nausea, fatigue, and light-headedness. The reason? Those ice-grooming machines called ZambonisÒ, which some rinks run as often as fourteen times a day. The pollutants they emit hang in the air. Some ice rinks have inadequate ventilation systems, or none at all, to clear the air. Some that do have ventilation may limit its use as a cost-cutting measure. An industry spokesman says ice rinks can easily pay $200-$400 a day for utilities.

Behind the Story: David Ropeik brought passion to his environmental reporting. He developed a wealth of contacts, including a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health who specializes in indoor air quality. It was he who suggested that Ropeik take a look at unhealthy air at Boston ice rinks, based on research he had read from Canada. Ropeik first did some homework. "I wanted an understanding of what measurably dangerous indoor air meant," he says. When did dirty air, or less than perfect air, become dangerous air? "I wanted to be responsible," says Ropeik. So he studied air quality and pollutants, to be able to put things like "parts per million of carbon monoxide," into perspective. He found a company that would go to ice rinks and accurately--and for a reasonable fee--conduct real-time testing of the air. He took a regional air quality expert from the Environmental Protection Agency along to the rinks. The on-site test results were serious enough that the EPA staffer sent alerts about ice rink air quality to other states in the Northeast. Ropeik's investigation became a three-part news series. It generated response from several states in the region, resulting in new regulations and guidelines for clean air in rinks. The Massachusetts Department of Health began monitoring the rinks. The association of ice rink operators published information for its members on maintaining healthy indoor air. Yet, when Ropeik revisited the rinks two years after his initial investigation, he found buildings that still failed to meet state air quality standards.

Beyond the Story: The New York Times ran a short item on WCVB's investigation. As often happens, other stations around the country picked up on Ropeik's success and produced variations of the series in their markets. The skating rink inquiries led WCVB's environmental reporter to another air quality investigation, this time in Boston area schools. Once again he again discovered unhealthful air. Ropeik cites the causes: "School buildings are sealed up tight for energy conservation, the occupancy is four times that of an office building, and there is a mix of materials inside, from paints to solvents to chalk dust to bacteria." His reports made parents and school officials more vigilant about ventilation. What drives this kind of serious, high-impact reporting?

• Beat reporting breaks news. Ropeik believes he was able to nail down his skating rink investigation for one key reason: the beat system. He had developed sources who trusted him and pointed him to strong stories. "He has tremendous contacts," says Ropeik's news director Candy Altman, who prefers the concept of "specialties" rather than strict beats. Ropeik says reporters can only build trust with their contacts by developing and demonstrating their expertise. These reporters do their homework. When talking with contacts, "they know their language, words and buzz phrases," says Ropeik.
  
  
• Quality journalism takes time. Time is a precious commodity to enterprising reporters. They crave time to develop powerful stories, to find depth and perspective. They then need sufficient airtime in the newscast to tell them effectively. This story was two years in the making-that's how much time had passed between the original investigation and this follow-up. And this story, like many in this special newscast, runs longer than the average television news story, allowing Ropeik to explain both the causes and consequences of the problem.
  
  
• Persistence pays off. Ropeik encourages reporters to stick with the strong stories they develop, even when some voices in their newsroom say, "We've covered that already." He says, "We need to be committed to good journalism to do the follow-up." From 1978 to 1999, Ropeik brought that commitment to WCVB. His new career is closely related to his reporting passion. He is Director of Risk Communication at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.