4 ms·

Worth a read https://www.npr.org/2024/10/10/nx-s1-5145776/spacex-texas-wetlands https://www.npr.org/2024/10/10/nx-s1-5145776/spacex-texas-we... Title: SpaceX w

Worth a read https://www.npr.org/2024/10/10/nx-s1-5145776/spacex-texas-wetlands https://www.npr.org/2024/10/10/nx-s1-5145776/spacex-texas-we... Title: SpaceX wants to go to Mars. To get there, environmentalists say it’s trashing Texas

concordDance 2y ago
Doesn't seem like a very good article... a good journalist puts statements in the appropriate context and that seems to be lacking here. For instance, it mentions "high levels of potentially toxic chemicals like Zinc and hexavalent Chromium", but doesn't say what that means. What is "high"? E.g. the quoted Prof says he "wouldn't recommend drinking it", but would he recommend drinking regular rainwater discharge from this (industrial) area (or even regular city rainwater?) and would he say its worse than that? How many grams/tons of these materials are in the discharge? What is the likely concentration by the time it gets to any animals, how much would actually get inside them and how does that compare with the known levels that would be damaging to health? How does it compare with the concentrations from rain runoff? A good journalist should find an appropriate expert and ask these sorts of questions so they can include them in the article and give the reader context, otherwise the reader will often come away feeling informed when in fact they know nothing of substance because there is nothing to anchor these unquantified facts to.
- threeseed 2y ago
  You seem to have a poor grasp for what makes a good journalist. The whole point of the story would get lost if at every step the author is embedding irrelevant minutiae e.g. how many parts per million of Zinc versus the baseline, what constitutes normal etc. Information that an ordinary reader would not be able to make use of. You need to make the story engaging, interesting and succinct whilst being factual.
  - teddyh 2y ago
    > You need to make the story engaging, interesting and succinct Yes, that is the job of a journalist. I.e. it’s why they get paid. > whilst being factual. IIUC, there is no such requirement. Approximately nobody cares if what is written is strictly true or not. There are no negative consequences if something untrue is written. (Except for libel and other special cases.)
IshKebab 2y ago
I read it. Wasn't worth a read. This was a particularly funny quote: > Musk “seems to care a lot more about 100,000 years from now than now here on Earth.” I mean.. I think Musk is an arsehole and his plan to colonise Mars is insane, but this does not feel like a criticism! This environmentalist seems to care a lot more about short term issues than the long term viability of life on Earth. > “At least one egg in every nest was either damaged or not there,” LeClaire says. Ok let's assume that they are keeping count of the number of eggs in every nest... One egg? If these birds are going to die out because one egg in each nest breaks they aren't going to survive anyway. I'm not saying the environment is unimportant, but I think you have to weight it against the importance of the thing you're stopping in the name of the environment. It's like all the solar farm projects that get stopped in the UK because people think sticking some poles in a field is going to kill all the newts. Like, what do you think is going to happen to the newts when it's 40C in the summer?
- concordDance 2y ago
  > “At least one egg in every nest was either damaged or not there,” LeClaire says. I think this is another good example of the lack of context I complain about above. These are the closest nests, how far away is the average nest and what's the damage there? What is the normal rate of egg damage or disappearance? How many eggs do these birds lay?

concordDance 2y ago

Doesn't seem like a very good article... a good journalist puts statements in the appropriate context and that seems to be lacking here. For instance, it mentions "high levels of potentially toxic chemicals like Zinc and hexavalent Chromium", but doesn't say what that means. What is "high"? E.g. the quoted Prof says he "wouldn't recommend drinking it", but would he recommend drinking regular rainwater discharge from this (industrial) area (or even regular city rainwater?) and would he say its worse than that? How many grams/tons of these materials are in the discharge? What is the likely concentration by the time it gets to any animals, how much would actually get inside them and how does that compare with the known levels that would be damaging to health? How does it compare with the concentrations from rain runoff? A good journalist should find an appropriate expert and ask these sorts of questions so they can include them in the article and give the reader context, otherwise the reader will often come away feeling informed when in fact they know nothing of substance because there is nothing to anchor these unquantified facts to.

threeseed 2y ago
You seem to have a poor grasp for what makes a good journalist. The whole point of the story would get lost if at every step the author is embedding irrelevant minutiae e.g. how many parts per million of Zinc versus the baseline, what constitutes normal etc. Information that an ordinary reader would not be able to make use of. You need to make the story engaging, interesting and succinct whilst being factual.
- teddyh 2y ago
  > You need to make the story engaging, interesting and succinct Yes, that is the job of a journalist. I.e. it’s why they get paid. > whilst being factual. IIUC, there is no such requirement. Approximately nobody cares if what is written is strictly true or not. There are no negative consequences if something untrue is written. (Except for libel and other special cases.)

IshKebab 2y ago

I read it. Wasn't worth a read. This was a particularly funny quote: > Musk “seems to care a lot more about 100,000 years from now than now here on Earth.” I mean.. I think Musk is an arsehole and his plan to colonise Mars is insane, but this does not feel like a criticism! This environmentalist seems to care a lot more about short term issues than the long term viability of life on Earth. > “At least one egg in every nest was either damaged or not there,” LeClaire says. Ok let's assume that they are keeping count of the number of eggs in every nest... One egg? If these birds are going to die out because one egg in each nest breaks they aren't going to survive anyway. I'm not saying the environment is unimportant, but I think you have to weight it against the importance of the thing you're stopping in the name of the environment. It's like all the solar farm projects that get stopped in the UK because people think sticking some poles in a field is going to kill all the newts. Like, what do you think is going to happen to the newts when it's 40C in the summer?

concordDance 2y ago
> “At least one egg in every nest was either damaged or not there,” LeClaire says. I think this is another good example of the lack of context I complain about above. These are the closest nests, how far away is the average nest and what's the damage there? What is the normal rate of egg damage or disappearance? How many eggs do these birds lay?