The average person looks to the news, be it the newspaper, TV, or a website, for important information and unbiased stories. Although there are sources known for their outspoken bias, some find comfort from a source with agreeing ideas and values. Personally, I find it hard to trust most TV news shows and websites for many issues, as many do not include both sides to the story nor do not dig deep enough into the issue itself to be credible. The New York Times is a credible enough source for news, read and consumed by many of us average citizens- I myself have looked to nytimes.com for articles related to issues in my classes.
As I do a general google search for the phrase "global warming", nytimes.com comes up on the first page, along with the wikipedia page and globalwarming.org. It seems to be a pretty neutral, yet credible site compared to the others before and after it. And as I browse the site, there is an entire set of articles under Global Warming, 3032 articles related in fact. That is quite a few. Some of these are opinionated articles, some are scholarly, and some are written for the general public. There are articles skeptical about the climate shift, articles confident that our actions are harming the environment and the temperature of the earth, and some articles function to merely relay information. What I enjoy most about this site is that although there are 3032 articles on the controversial topic of global warming, it is not overwhelming. Many credible articles are too scientific or go over my head, but this site contains the everyman's article on important topics, easy to read, yet very informative. Perfect for someone like me.
Global warming and climate change is an important issue, no matter what side you are on, but the details can be pretty complicated. A few of the articles break things down, while others are over my head. Overall, I like the accessibility of articles that this website has to offer, the depth, and the variety of the articles.
This reminds me of Latour's talk about how scientists actually 'martial' sources to their side -- and reminds me of how the people promoting cleaner energy policies, etc. have gone wrong on a basic level. Articles here should not be over anyone's head.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I was reminded of when the AP decided to stop reporting on Paris Hilton for a week and ALMOST went unnoticed, except...
"...The reaction was to the idea of the ban, not the effects of it. There was some internal hand-wringing. Some felt we were tinkering dangerously with the news. Whom, they asked, would we ban next? Others loved the idea. “I vote we do the same for North Korea,” one AP writer said facetiously."
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/17406452/ns/today-entertainment/
What we determine is "newsworthy" can be a big deal, indeed!