next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
>> rebuttals). I heard many scientists discussin
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C7D78F.47A96F10
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Chris,
You and I agree on the whole. Journalism as a profession certainly has
flaws, and coverage of science and natural history is particularly lacking.
On the other hand, there are some very good people writing today if you look
for them; I would add Nicholas Wade and Natalie Angier of the N.Y. Times to
your list, for instance. However, except perhaps for a few of the really big
daily papers, you probably have to go outside of daily journalism to find
good science writing. Many of the best science writers are people like
yourself, who are both scientists and good writers.
A few quibbles:
Not all newspapers regard science as inconsequential; the New York Times,
for instance, (which I mention just because it's the paper I read every day)
has separate sections for science, health, and technology, and each of these
seems to get as much coverage as business or sports.
The lack of science education among journalists is probably less a systemic
problem within journalism than a cultural problem in North America as a
whole. Canada may not be as bad as the United States, with which I am much
more familiar, but scientific illiteracy is rampant in the United States.
Whereas daily newspapers are indeed under increasing financial pressure,
this is happening in large part because people are no longer looking to
daily newspapers for news. Daily print journalism is increasingly
irrelevant, representing an ever-smaller piece of where the public is
getting its information. If we're concerned about spreading accurate
scientific information and improving the public's understanding of science,
we should be figuring out other ways to get the message out. Especially
those that use the Internet: blogging, making websites, and monitoring
Internet sources such as the Wikipedia to make sure that they're accurate.
For instance, isn't it about time that you (and several other knowledgeable
people on this list) started blogging? I certainly wish you would.
Why curse the darkness when you could light up the Internet?
Cheers,
WF
From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca]
On Behalf Of c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 2:51 PM
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Subject: [NatureNS] Media coverage of science and natural history
Hi Flora,
I've also made a living off and on for the last 30 years as a journalist and
so I view my profession with (at various times) admiration and chagrin. :->
As you point out there are some careful, knowledgeable journalists working
today. There are, however, a number of systemic problems that effect
journalism, that reflect particularly on science and natural history
coverage.
1) Almost no journalists have any background in the sciences. They almost
all come from backgrounds in writing about business, politics, sports, even
the arts, but virtually never with any background in the sciences. As you go
up the journalistic ladder to the managing and assignment editors, this
becomes even more the case. Some portion of this lacuna is ascribable to
journalism schools that almost never require their students to take science
courses (although they do frequently take political science, English,
business, etc. courses as compulsory or elective classes); some has to do
with historical or institutional biases which value business, politics and
sports stories as "consequential" ergo what will interest general readers,
whereas science stories are relegated to back-corners columns if they appear
at all.
2) Many newspapers these days are being increasingly driven for little more
than their advertising revenue (take a look at Halifax's Daily News for a
good illustration of this trend). Editorial content (following this model of
thinking) is just filler to get people to read advertising (which provides
the revenue stream) and thus content should be generated as quickly and
inexpensively as possible. Such media organizations get an ever increasing
amount of their content from the wireservices (very cheap), employ fewer
journalists, pay them less, and rely increasingly on novice journalists
strait out of journalism school. These writers or broadcasters (and some of
them are sincere and well intentioned) have, however, no background in the
sciences, have to provide content on very short editorial cycles, are
discouraged from doing any in-depth or investigative reporting, and their
focus is usually on the local city desk, crime, sports, politics, and
business beats that publishers think sell copy. They are also inexperienced,
and frequently move on from beat to beat, paper to paper, and city to city
so they seldom get a chance to really know their community, get an in-depth
familiarity with issues, cultivate contacts, or really get to know a lot
about issues. Gone are the days of reporters who covered their patch for
decades and knew their issues better than some of the players.
All of this is very grim news when it comes to science coverage. The above
formula is a recipe for mistakes and shallow coverage. There still are, of
course, some excellent writers in the national media, but few and far
between are the Bob MacDonald's or David Suzuki's. What science and natural
history coverage there is on local and regional levels is mostly done by
stringers or free lancers (like Bob Fournier or Clarence Stevens) who are
brought in to write a specific column or do a commentary, not by any of the
core staff of the media outlets.
As a consequence, in my experience, coverage of such stories in the local
media tends to range from mediocre to abysmal - on those relatively rare
occasions when it even finds a space amongst the welter of sport stories,
political scandals, coverage of the Conrad Black's trial, and never-end news
about Paris Hilton's recent escapades ... ;->
Best wishes,
Chris
On 5-Aug-07, at 12:16 PM, Wild Flora wrote:
Journalists are no more careless by nature than members of other professions
are, and we have a fine tradition accurate reporting. Many are the
journalists who lovingly quote a famous Chicago newspaper saying: "If your
mother says she loves you, check it out."
On the other hand, journalism also has a long tradition of expecting its
practitioners to write quickly and often, and to be able to write on a wide
range of topics without necessarily being knowledgeable about any of them.
This tradition is at odds with the other one, and unfortunately, quality and
accuracy are often sacrificed to speed and versatility. This tends to be
particularly true at daily papers, and perhaps even more so at the smaller
ones.
Nevertheless, there are a lot of careful, knowledgeable journalists working
today. You just have to look for them. In journalism as in all things,
caveat emptor.
WF (who made her living as a journalist and editor for 30 years)
-----Original Message-----
From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca]
On Behalf Of David & Alison Webster
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 11:01 AM
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] "Foreign Plant Invading Little Albro Lake" in
Dartmouth...
Hi All, Aug 4, 2007
We all make mistakes but Journalists seem to make a career out doing
so. I expect the unrealistic deadlines of the profession is a major
reason; just not time to check. But being relatively uninformed no doubt
helps.
A favourite passage that suggests almost no traction is "...a
snowfall of 30 centimeters (or at least 12 feet in Celsius)..." [Joel
Jacobson, Mar 11, 1993].
Yt, DW
Andy Moir/Chris Callaghan wrote:
Interesting comments about the media, Chris.
"Is it any wonder that there is often so much confusion in relation
to science or natural history stories on the part of the general
public when the level of reportage and fact-checking by the media is
so lamentable (or perhaps this level of accuracy is simply typical of
the media reporting on stories in general ... :->)."
I recently sat through two weeks of public hearings on the proposed
quarry for Digby Neck. (Before the hearings, I also read all of the
6000+ pages of the Environmental Impact Statement and the
rebuttals). I heard many scientists discussing things such as water
tables, geology, impacts on rare plant species, and a host of other
topics. Some of these scientists worked for the proponent. Others
worked for government. Still others did "independent reviews" of the
many, many issues. Most of these scientists didn't agree on much of
anything. Even scientists from various government departments
couldn't agree. I don't have a problem with that. But I wish if they
didn't know something, they would just say so, rather than claiming
with certainty that their particular conclusions are, in fact,
definitive. I make no excuses for the media making mistakes, but I
don't have a lot of time for blaming the media for a lack of
understanding of scientific issues, when scientists themselves are
often as not muddying the waters as much as anybody else.
One could say that if the level of some of the scientific expertise
demonstrated throughout the quarry assessment is any indication of the
level of science in general, it's no wonder the public has so little
faith in what scientists claim to be true.
Andy Moir
Freeport
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.
Christopher Majka Email: <c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca>
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada chebucto.ca/~aa051/Profile.html
"I have discovered the art of deceiving diplomats. I speak
the truth and they never believe me." - Camillo di Cavour
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.
------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C7D78F.47A96F10
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple style=3D'word-wrap: =
break-word;
-khtml-nbsp-mode: space;-khtml-line-break: after-white-space'>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Hi Chris,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>You and I agree on the whole. Journalism as a profession
certainly has flaws, and coverage of science and natural history is
particularly lacking. On the other hand, there are some very good people
writing today if you look for them; I would add Nicholas Wade and =
Natalie
Angier of the N.Y. Times to your list, for instance. However, except =
perhaps
for a few of the really big daily papers, you probably have to go =
outside of
daily journalism to find good science writing. Many of the best science =
writers
are people like yourself, who are both scientists and good =
writers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>A few quibbles:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Not all newspapers regard science as inconsequential; the =
New
York Times, for instance, (which I mention just because it’s the =
paper I read
every day) has separate sections for science, health, and technology, =
and each
of these seems to get as much coverage as business or =
sports.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>The lack of science education among journalists is =
probably less
a systemic problem within journalism than a cultural problem in North =
America
as a whole. Canada may not be as bad as the United States, with which I =
am much
more familiar, but scientific illiteracy is rampant in the United =
States.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Whereas daily newspapers are indeed under increasing =
financial
pressure, this is happening in large part because people are no longer =
looking
to daily newspapers for news. Daily print journalism is increasingly
irrelevant, representing an ever-smaller piece of where the public is =
getting
its information. If we’re concerned about spreading accurate =
scientific
information and improving the public’s understanding of science, =
we should
be figuring out other ways to get the message out. Especially those that =
use
the Internet: blogging, making websites, and monitoring Internet sources =
such
as the Wikipedia to make sure that they’re accurate. For instance, =
isn’t
it about time that you (and several other knowledgeable people on this =
list) started
blogging? I certainly wish you would.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Why curse the darkness when you could light up the =
Internet?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Cheers,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>WF<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt =
0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span>=
</b><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] =
<b>On
Behalf Of </b>c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, August 05, 2007 2:51 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> naturens@chebucto.ns.ca<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [NatureNS] Media coverage of science and natural =
history<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Hi Flora,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>I've also made a living off and on for the last 30 =
years as
a journalist and so I view my profession with (at various times) =
admiration and
chagrin. :-> As you point out there are some careful, knowledgeable
journalists working today. There are, however, a number of =
systemic
problems that effect journalism, that reflect particularly on science =
and
natural history coverage. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>1) Almost no journalists have any background in the
sciences. They almost all come from backgrounds in writing about =
business,
politics, sports, even the arts, but virtually never with any background =
in the
sciences. As you go up the journalistic ladder to the managing =
and assignment
editors, this becomes even more the case. Some portion of this lacuna is
ascribable to journalism schools that almost never require their =
students to
take science courses (although they do frequently take political =
science,
English, business, etc. courses as compulsory or elective classes); =
some
has to do with historical or institutional biases which value business,
politics and sports stories as "consequential" ergo what will
interest general readers, whereas science stories are relegated to =
back-corners
columns if they appear at all.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>2) Many newspapers these days are =
being increasingly
driven for little more than their advertising revenue (take a look at =
Halifax's
Daily News for a good illustration of this trend). Editorial content =
(following
this model of thinking) is just filler to get people to read advertising =
(which
provides the revenue stream) and thus content should be generated =
as
quickly and inexpensively as possible. Such media organizations get an =
ever
increasing amount of their content from the wireservices (very cheap), =
employ
fewer journalists, pay them less, and rely increasingly on novice =
journalists
strait out of journalism school. These writers or broadcasters (and some =
of
them are sincere and well intentioned) have, however, no background in =
the
sciences, have to provide content on very short editorial cycles, are
discouraged from doing any in-depth or investigative reporting, and =
their focus
is usually on the local city desk, crime, sports, politics, and business =
beats
that publishers think sell copy. They are also inexperienced, and =
frequently
move on from beat to beat, paper to paper, and city to city so they =
seldom get
a chance to really know their community, get an in-depth familiarity =
with
issues, cultivate contacts, or really get to know a lot about issues. =
Gone are
the days of reporters who covered their patch for decades and knew their =
issues
better than some of the players.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>All of this is very grim news when it comes to =
science
coverage. The above formula is a recipe for mistakes and =
shallow
coverage. There still are, of course, some excellent writers in the =
national
media, but few and far between are the Bob MacDonald's or David =
Suzuki's. What
science and natural history coverage there is on local and regional =
levels
is mostly done by stringers or free lancers (like Bob Fournier or =
Clarence
Stevens) who are brought in to write a specific column or do a =
commentary, not
by any of the core staff of the media outlets. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>As a consequence, in my experience, coverage of
such stories in the local media tends to range from mediocre =
to
abysmal - on those relatively rare occasions when it even finds a space =
amongst
the welter of sport stories, political scandals, coverage of the Conrad =
Black's
trial, and never-end news about Paris Hilton's recent escapades ... =
;-><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Best wishes,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Chris<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>On 5-Aug-07, at 12:16 PM, Wild Flora =
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Journalists are no more careless by nature than =
members of
other professions<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>are, and we have a fine tradition accurate =
reporting. Many
are the<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>journalists who lovingly quote a famous Chicago =
newspaper
saying: "If your<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>mother says she loves you, check it =
out."<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>On the other hand, journalism also has a long =
tradition of
expecting its<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>practitioners to write quickly and often, and to be =
able to
write on a wide<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>range of topics without necessarily being =
knowledgeable
about any of them.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>This tradition is at odds with the other one, and
unfortunately, quality and<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>accuracy are often sacrificed to speed and =
versatility. This
tends to be<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>particularly true at daily papers, and perhaps even =
more so
at the smaller<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>ones.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Nevertheless, there are a lot of careful, =
knowledgeable
journalists working<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>today. You just have to look for them. In =
journalism as in
all things,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>caveat emptor.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>WF (who made her living as a journalist and editor =
for 30
years)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>-----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [<a
href=3D"mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca">mailto:naturens-owner@chebu=
cto.ns.ca</a>]<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>On Behalf Of David & Alison =
Webster<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 11:01 =
AM<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>To: <a =
href=3D"mailto:naturens@chebucto.ns.ca">naturens@chebucto.ns.ca</a><o:p><=
/o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Subject: Re: [NatureNS] "Foreign Plant =
Invading Little
Albro Lake" in<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Dartmouth...<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Hi All,<span class=3Dapple-converted-space> =
</span>Aug 4, 2007<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span class=3Dapple-converted-space> =
</span>We
all make mistakes but Journalists seem to make a career out doing<span
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>so. I expect the unrealistic deadlines of the =
profession is
a major<span class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>reason; just not time to check. But being =
relatively
uninformed no doubt<span =
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>helps.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span class=3Dapple-converted-space> =
</span>A
favourite passage that suggests almost no traction is "...a<span
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>snowfall of 30 centimeters (or at least 12 feet in
Celsius)..." [Joel<span =
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Jacobson, Mar 11, 1993].<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Yt, DW<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Andy Moir/Chris Callaghan wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style=3D'margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Interesting comments about the media, =
Chris.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span>"Is it
any wonder that there is often so much confusion in relation<span
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>to science or natural history stories on the part =
of the
general<span class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>public when the level of reportage and =
fact-checking by the
media is<span class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>so lamentable (or perhaps this level of accuracy is =
simply
typical of<span =
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>the media reporting on stories in general ... =
:->)."<span
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>I recently sat through two weeks of public hearings =
on the
proposed<span class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>quarry for Digby Neck. (Before the hearings, I also =
read all
of the<span class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>6000+ pages of the Environmental Impact Statement =
and the<span
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>rebuttals). I heard many scientists discussing =
things such
as water<span class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>tables, geology, impacts on rare plant species, and =
a host
of other<span class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>topics. Some of these scientists worked for the =
proponent.<span
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span>Others<span
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>worked for government.<span =
class=3Dapple-converted-space>
</span>Still others did "independent reviews" of the<span
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>many, many issues. Most of these scientists didn't =
agree on
much of<span class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>anything.<span class=3Dapple-converted-space> =
</span>Even
scientists from various government departments<span
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>couldn't agree. I don't have a problem with =
that.<span
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span>But I wish if they<span
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>didn't know something, they would just say so, =
rather than
claiming<span class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>with certainty that their particular conclusions =
are, in
fact,<span class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>definitive.<span =
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span>I
make no excuses for the media making mistakes, but I<span
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>don't have a lot of time for blaming the media for =
a lack of<span
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>understanding of scientific issues, when scientists
themselves are<span =
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>often as not muddying the waters as much as anybody =
else.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>One could say that if the level of some of the =
scientific
expertise<span =
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>demonstrated throughout the quarry assessment is =
any
indication of the<span =
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>level of science in general, it's no wonder the =
public has
so little<span =
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>faith in what scientists claim to be true.<span
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Andy Moir<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Freeport<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p style=3D'margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span =
style=3D'font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Times","serif"'>_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.=
_._._._._._._._._._._._.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style=3D'margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span =
style=3D'font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Times","serif"'>Christopher Majka<span
class=3Dapple-converted-space> =
</span>Email:
<<a =
href=3D"mailto:c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca">c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca</a>></=
span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style=3D'margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span =
style=3D'font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Times","serif"'>Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada <span
class=3Dapple-converted-space> =
</span>chebucto.ca/~aa051/Profile.html</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style=3D'margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;min-height: 14.0px'><span
style=3D'font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Times","serif"'><o:p> </o:p></=
span></p>
<p style=3D'margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span =
style=3D'font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Times","serif"'>"I have discovered the art of =
deceiving
diplomats. I speak</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style=3D'margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span =
style=3D'font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Times","serif"'>the truth and they never believe me." =
<span
class=3Dapple-converted-space> </span>- Camillo di =
Cavour</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style=3D'margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><span =
style=3D'font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Times","serif"'>_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.=
_._._._._._._._._._._._.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C7D78F.47A96F10--
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects