Comments on: Response to NYT Article

By: bottled up

bottled up — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:50:51 +0000

Daniel you should keep the original post, lots of errors in addition the crazy complex term gyre

By: Daniel Stolte

Daniel Stolte — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:27:47 +0000

While I agree that the NYTimes article did not add much new information to the garbage patch issue, I would like to defend the author’s choice to refer to the gyres as “currents.” To a scientist, the use of this term in the context might be inaccurate, but try explaining to a lay person who has never heard about the existence of gyres that they are moving water masses that are there because of a lack of currents. Way too complicated. To a layperson with no background in oceanography, a mass of moving water is a current. As a science writer, I spend the better part of many of my days explaining to scientists that they can’t have it all. You have to choose between being 100% accurate – and being ignored because you have to revert to scientific terms, which will keep your story from being told – or you can accept minor inaccuracies for the sake of being heard. I think especially with regard to environmental issues, the latter is a far better choice. Only through stories like this one, inaccurate as they may be, is there even a chance to get the public to listen.

By: Thoughts on the “Talking Trash” section at Science Online « The Oyster’s Garter

Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:38:22 +0000

[...] were our disagreements? Here’s a few examples off the top of my head: I did not agree with much of Lindsey’s NYT article; Annie had a tough time getting stressed-out scientists [...]

By: Miriam Goldstein

Miriam Goldstein — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:50:55 +0000

Hi Camille, See our FAQ for more on what the trash looks like, why research is important, and why it's extremely difficult to clean up.

By: Camille Rogers

Camille Rogers — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 04:19:24 +0000

Hi
I don’t have a bio or any science background at all. So I don’t understand why it’s necessary to test the garbage. Does it not look like garbage? Understanding where it all comes from doesn’t require a Phd. Hello!! how about the crap that washes from rivers, streams, down drains and just plane ole BAD/too much consumerism. It just seems that all this chemical testing is unnecessary. why not just send a fleet of some of the ships that carry the largest loads. for the next ten years. Will the problem even be completely solved … maybe not. People HAVE to have heir bottled water…BS and unhealthy soda crap…
I wish I could clean it up….

By: ScienceOnline2010 – introducing the participants « Science in the Triangle

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:21:41 +0000

[...] watchers and journalists, some by scientists. See the reactions, for example, by Megan Garber, Miriam Goldstein, John Zhu, Martin Robbins, Mathew Ingram and Sheril Kirshenbaum (and Sheril again – read the [...]

By: About That Garbage Patch… | The Intersection | U Reader | Your daily news stop station ...

Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:16:05 +0000

[...] Goldstein–chief scientist of SEAPLEX–is heading the excursion to assimilate the the island of garbage in the North Pacific Gyre to try to assimilate the goods it might have on sea life. She has a brand [...]

By: ScienceOnline2010 – introducing the participants [A Blog Around The Clock] « Technology Blogs

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:17:10 +0000

By: Bradley J. Fikes

Bradley J. Fikes — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:10:19 +0000

Thank you, Lindsey, and good to see you here. Welcome aboard!

After reading about your blog, it seems that what you wrote there would have been a much more compelling area for the NYT to focus on. So I apologize for judging your work only on what was left after it went to the NYT’s Procrustean bed of template journalism. What readers what to know and what editors think readers want to know often differ.

It’s sad and rather startling that the NYT would impose space constraints on your article, even on the Web edition. Why not give you a few thousand words, or even let you post a synopsis, with hyperlinks to chapters that give the real detail for those interested? (And the NYT should drop its silly automated links, but that’s another issue.)

I know you are grateful to NYT for the opportunity to write there, but the Grey Lady could have done so much more with your material.

By: Eric Wolff

Eric Wolff — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:01:19 +0000

But you didn’t focus on what we know now! You made up things that are inherently unknowable – like the quantity of plastic in the gyre – and you said things that are actually incorrect – like the heavy currents.

Saying “if you look closely you’ll see that we’re not so far apart on the material that really matters.” is using weasel words. What really matters is providing the correct facts for readers.