Recent research done in the Mediterranean region has shown that out of the 165 dragonfly species found there 19% are threatened (in accordance with the International Union for Conservation index). While there are many reasons that these species are at risk, most of them are related to freshwater scarcity. Dragonfly eggs are laid in freshwater and the larvae can spend several weeks and in some cases years developing there. When they are fully developed adults they still require freshwater for reproduction and for nutrition as many of the organisms that they feed on live in water. Recent water pollution, drought and habitat degradation as well as global warming and natural disasters are all contributing to the destruction of their freshwater habitat.
The article Dragonflies Go Thirsty in Mediterranean published by www.newsblaze.com reports the results of recent surveying done in the Mediterranean. The actual study published by the International Union for Conservation (IUCN) takes an in depth look at many of the dragonfly species inhabiting the Mediterranean, or an area they define as river catchments that flow into the Mediterranean and some Atlantic waters (IUCN, 2009). After surveying this broad area, they classified the 165 species into categories according to their current risk such as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered and suggested plans of action for the five most affected areas. News Blaze reported this information, but there was a definite difference in the amount of information they conveyed. The News Blaze account of this research was greatly simplified which is necessary for an audience that may not understand all aspects of a complex study. Though it was greatly simplified it still managed to convey the most important aspects of the study; such as the regions that were studied, the new dragonfly statistics as well as their new IUCN Red List listing and the plan of action that the study put forth and even provided links to the IUCN so that the reader could learn more about this organization.
The New Blaze article focuses more on the causes of dragonfly population reduction especially those related to climate change, and freshwater pollution and scarcity. It also spouts statistics stating the names of different dragonfly species and their new IUCN Red List classification. It is as if the article is attempting to lay blame for the reduction in dragonfly diversity, citing their usefulness in indicating water quality. On the other hand, the journal article states the data that has been collected, including a list of all the species in this region, regional dispersal, an atlas of all the countries where data was collected from and a slew of other charts and data. The manner it is presented in is much more neutral than the New Blaze article, as they are merely showing their research and making suggestions for what can be done to mitigate the dragonfly population problem.
There are many differences between a newspaper article and a scientific journal article. One of the main differences is depth- a scientific journal article is much more in depth than a regular newspaper article. Their aim is to share their findings with the rest of the scientific community, and not to make any ambiguous claims. The goal of a newspaper article is to share new research with the general public. This means that the author must sacrifice much of the depth that one would find in a scientific journal article. The audiences that these authors are writing for are completely different. A journalist must take into account the fact that their audience might not have the education to understand all of the exact details of an experiment. They must simplify these findings so as not to alienate any of their readership.
Overall, I think it is necessary for newspapers to report abridged versions of scientific findings. It is not at all feasible for them to report entire articles; they are much too lengthy and complex for their general readership. This is why newspapers and scientific journals both exist, they report current events and findings to different audiences. It is unfortunate that the general public rarely gets the scope of an entire scientific study, as many generalizations can be made and they lose many of the nuances of the research. Fortunately, good articles are able to convey the key and important information that readers require, and if they need more information, it is relatively simple to find full journal articles online.
-Elisabeth Shapiro
Sources:
News Blaze, 2009. Dragonflies Go Thirsty in The Mediterranean, News Blaze September 29, 2009.
http://newsblaze.com/story/20090929092227zzzz.nb/topstory.html
Riservato Elisa, Boudot Jean-Pierre, Ferreira Sonia, Jovic Milos, Kalkman Vincent J, Schneider Wolfgang, Samraioui Boudjema, Cuttelod Annabelle (2009). The Status and Distribution of Dragonflies of the Mediterranean Basin. IUCN 2009.
http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2009-030.pdf
First of all, I am impressed that you were able to find a secondary article that actually reported the primary article accurately. It is so difficult to condense a full primary source down to a few hundred words. And, like you said, the data must also be presented in a format that the general public can easily understand. This all makes it challenging to portray truly accurate information. And of course, to keep readers attention it helps to report the most startling statistics. Laying blame also would keep the readers attention because it gives them something to mark as the problem.
ReplyDeleteAlso interesting is how climate change always becomes the main contributing factor to all environmental problems. You mentioned how the newspaper focused on climate change as the dragonfly killer, when actually the journal article stated that water pollution, lack of rain, natural disaster and habitat loss are also key contributing factors. I have found this same trend in many other articles. The many faces of climate change are not analysed, making it a huge issue that seems impossible to control.
- Amy Adair
I liked your insight on newspaper articles vs journal articles. It is true that it is important to make newspaper articles understandable for the general public, and that journal articles contain much more detailed information. If more people read the primary articles, I think there would be less confusion related to certain issues (such as climate change, as Amy mentionned in her comment). Your blog was well written and it is clear that you understand the reasons behind a primary source and a secondary source.
ReplyDelete