Media coverage of urban pollution - unfair?

Along the lines of our discussion of CO2 emitted per square mile versus CO2 emitted per capita: What is the role of the media in influencing people's perspectives on pollution, climate change, and, most importantly, their relationship to cities?

I came across this article today, which I found to be typical of the media's inflammatory treatment of environmental issues (on of the standard "Most polluted/depressing/corrupt... cities" articles):

http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/americas-most-toxic-cities-2011.html

Aside from their analytical integrity, such pieces merely perpetuate American's negative perceptions of cities. (This piece, for example: of course cities contain high levels of pollution, being the site of most industry for the past 150+ years. Also, the issue of course isn't how much pollution / polluted space is contained within an MSA, but rather its proximity to residential areas.)

Does such media coverage illustrate American's negative/skewed attitudes towards cities, or are they key in influencing such attitudes? Could the power of the media be harnessed in new or better ways to influence behavior towards more environmentally friendly practices, beyond the usual "recycle more" or "litter less" campaigns?