Animal Hunting -- Yea or Nay?

While glancing through the New York Times this past week, two articles: one about a bill to ban the hunting of sharks, the other about a bill to allow the hunting of cranes, caught my interest.

Photo via Flickr via istolethetv

I was very surprised to see the differences in the way these two stories were framed. Elisabeth Rosenthal's, New York May Ban Shark Fin Sales, Following Other States, published Feb. 21, did not seem like an unbiased, reporting story.  The text contained many quotes from those in favor of the ban, and also several from those who could care less, but none from any opposing party.  The topic of shark hunting has been very controversial for years, so it is hard to believe that everyone would be accepting of such a ban. The lack of this input leads to a very biased-sounding story.

Sandhill cranes-- Mike Siegel/The Seattle Times, via New York Times Article

To contrast, Monica Davey's, Wisconsin Bill Would Allow Hunting of a Once-Rare Crane, published on Feb. 23, took a slightly different approach. Davey's summary lead, while stating what the upcoming story was about, also described the cranes in a very kind and relatable way.  "In Wisconsin, a place where word of dwindling numbers of sandhill cranes set off elaborate conservation efforts decades ago, the birds — elegant, prehistoric-looking creatures that bugle hauntingly — are once more at the center of discussion among state leaders." Davey went on to quote those both in favor and against the bill, only to end with a quote from Mark Berres, an assistant professor of avian biology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Berres is against the bill, and simply stated that more information needed to be gathered about the Sandhill cranes before it could be decided whether open hunting would hurt the species. 


Davey's format -- opening with a summary lead that described the Sandhill cranes as very majestic and lovely creatures, getting quotes from those on both sides of the bill, and ending with a quote from Berres -- is much smarter than that of Rosenthal, who focused solely on how much better the world would be without the hunting of sharks.


The opinions of both writers is fairly clear: they do not want the hunting of these animals to be allowed. The ways that the two went about portraying their opinions however, is very different. By showing both sides of the argument, only to end with a quote from a scientist who disagrees with the bill, Davey did a better job of concealing her bias than Rosenthal, who's entire story points at the fact that she disapproves of shark hunting.

The article can be found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/us/wisconsin-consider-hunting-of-sandhill-crane.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=cranes&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/nyregion/bill-in-albany-would-ban-sale-of-shark-fins.html?ref=animals

Moving Forward

An artists interpretation of Global Warming.
Taken from Cookie Jars page on Tumblr.

This week it seems as if the United States is finally making significant progress in the fight against climate change. The New York Times aired a story this past week about a new program to reduce common pollutants that lead to global climate change.

The program, which was announced to the State Department on February 16th by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, targets three pollutants specifically: soot, methane, and hydrofluorocarbons. Scientists say that drastically reducing these pollutants will not only reduce the global temperature by 0.5 degrees Celsius by 2050, but also prevent millions of cases of heart and lung disease.

While many critics argue that the program completely ignores the threat of CO2 emissions, it seems to be a fairly good first step. At the last United Nations climate summit meeting in South Africa, negotiators agreed to "try" to come up with a climate change treaty by 2015, which would not take effect until after 2020. This however, is far too late, considering how many scientists predict irreversible global damage to the atmosphere long before then.

This program, while not appealing to all, is at least doing something about this worldwide problem right now. It plans to implement many of the new strategies researchers have found to control the amounts of soot and methane being released into the atmosphere.  

It may not be a solution, but I think the program seems like a definite start.  With the 12$ million and 3$ million contributions from the US and Canada, the program can get underway and start to reduce these emissions. Hopefully many more countries will soon show interest, and this can actually have a significant impact on climate change.

Worldwide agreement is important, but waiting around for a treaty that everyone in the United Nations can agree upon is not what needs to happen here.  Climate change is happening now, and this is a program that can start tackling the threat sooner rather than later.

You can find find the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/science/earth/us-pushes-to-cut-emissions-that-speed-climate-change.html?ref=opinion

The Infamous First Post

For the next several weeks, I will be using this blog as a means to analyze and discuss the environmental beat of the New York Times.  It is acting as my Jour200 honors project, and also forcing me to learn how to use modern technology.  Anyway, I hope everyone enjoys it.