CJR’s Observatory: Those “dueling” papers on the oil plume
(Philippe Cousteau)
Columbia Journalism Review’s Curtis Brainard has an excellent analysis of the problem, highlighted here yesterday by a Tracker post and at least 17 cogent comments, that faced reporters when Science published, in separate editions, two seemingly contradictory papers about the undersea oil plume.
If you want to know how science journalism works (or doesn’t), add Brainard’s “Observatory” piece to your reading list. In fact, read all of Brainard’s blogs.
And by the way, the NY Times has yet to tell the readers of its paper edition that the plume may be gone. Paul Voosen‘s good piece from Greenwire is, however, on the NYT Web edition. If you’d like a nervous laugh, click here and read the first three heds listed.
Have we achieved some kind of milestone when the green writers are giving us happier environmental news than the ostensibly straight writers?
-Boyce Rensberger
