It's vs. Its

|

Never knew how brussel sprouts grew

|

Global Warming rigged?

Here's a good take on the global warming email scandal that broke last week. It's written by George Monbiot, a well-known environmental advocate, so it's fair to say this isn't ideological posturing:

It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email that confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn't have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.

Good points. The emails are certainly a blow for those who worship at the altar of science.

|

Difference between a reporter and a columnist explained!

My students often ask me about the difference between a reporter and a columnist. Well, here's a the NY Times Op/Ed editor answering the question:

Andrew Rosenthal: The license and responsibilities of an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times are similar in some fundamental ways to those of a news reporter but profoundly different in other ways.

First, the similarities. A columnist is subject to the same standards of factual accuracy as any writer in The Times, on any page. If a columnist writes that something happened on a certain date, or that the government spent a certain amount of money on something, or that a specific number of people have died in the war in Iraq, to pick a few examples, it is his or her responsibility to make certain that information is correct. Columnists must make sure that when they describe an event they are being accurate in their description. When they quote someone, they are required to do so accurately. Errors that are made must be corrected openly and quickly.

Columnists are required to follow basic New York Times style — on the use of profanity and vulgarity, for example. But they do have more freedom to express themselves than news reporters, in big and small ways. When it comes to Times style rules, for example, we do not require them to use the honorific, Mr., Ms. and so on, if they choose not to. (The Public Editor has that right too.) One of our columnists hates to use “whom,” when it feels awkward, so we bend that rule. Maureen Dowd frequently uses humorous nicknames for public officials (Donald Rumsfeld was often Rummy in her columns), and that is O.K. too.

Most of all, columnists are not only free to express their personal opinions, that is the primary part of their job. We pay them to have strong opinions and to express them sharply and with great style. They can choose any subject they want to write about, within the bounds of decency and appropriate journalistic inquiry (although we do ask them, with varying degrees of lack of success, to avoid directly endorsing a candidate for office). All of our columnists have areas of interest and expertise that they will return to frequently, but the subject matter of any given column is up to them. They do not have to clear them in advance with me, nor do I exercise any control over the positions they take. The columnists have a very personal relationship with their readers, and the readers deserve to hear directly from the columnists.

While columnists must adhere to The Times’s high standards of factual accuracy, they are allowed great latitude in characterizing events, people or issues in a way that expresses an opinion. They are free, for example, to say that they believe that the Catholic Church’s hierarchy treats nuns unfairly, even if the members of that hierarchy deny it. They are not even required to include that denial in their columns. Columns are not required, or intended, to be fair and dispassionate accounts of events. They are by nature one-sided. Columnists may find it useful to give the opposing views on any position they take, or they may not, and it’s entirely up to them.

A columnist can be tough, acerbic, playful, joyful, angry, chagrined, outraged or anything else — within the general bounds of decency that are embodied in the values of The Times.

Straight from the horse's mouth.

Upon refelction -- "often" may be too strong. A few students, over the years.

|

A good education

Normally, I don't like to side with the man, but for this case I digress:

Stevenson High School administrators said Friday that school staff halted publication of the campus newspaper because the latest edition would have included anonymous allegations of students breaking the law. 

“The Statesman's publication, originally scheduled for Friday, November 20, was delayed because its faculty advisors determined that an article featuring anonymous sources discussing alleged illegal activity was not fit for print,” according to a  written statement from school administrators that Jim Conrey, Stevenson's director of public information, e-mailed in response to Pioneer Press questions.

The school administration disputed a news report in which student editors said publication was stopped because the newspaper included articles about teen smoking, drinking, pregnancy and shoplifting.

I'd call that good journalism pedagogy. Students should learn to avoid unnamed sourcing -- especially in high school.

Oh, and that's perfectly constitutional, by the way, because of the precedent set by Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.

|

About the new Gap ad

Here's a great column from Cathleen Falsani on what's wrong with the new Gap ad, which suggest that we should "86 the rules" and just do whatever-we-wanna:

Unless we're meant to be concelebrating Bacchanalia or -- and this is even a stretch -- Mardi Gras, nothing in the Christian, Jewish and pagan traditions or the African-American cultural ideals that Kwanzaa celebrates would encourage the faithful to throw all rules out the window and do whatever feels good, man.

If that were true, the Gap ad would have done well to end with an Ayn Rand look-alike in a Santa hat and white beard driving a sled pulled by 12 tiny flying armadillos.

Christmas is about selflessness and transformative love, the improbable gift of a divine baby born into straw poverty in order to reconcile the world back to God. We do celebrate Christ's birth by giving something to each other to commemorate that epic, divine gift. But it's not supposed to pivot around the exchange of material goods, and it's definitely not about sweaters and turtlenecks.

Hannukah is about power of perseverance, faith and righteousness to overcome tyranny. It's about a small miracle that changes everything. The seven principles of Kwanzaa are: unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity and faith. Those principles are pretty much the direct opposite of the idea of "do whatever you want." And Solstice is, first and foremost, a natural, communal, Earth-centered event. Nothing about ushering in the death of the old year and the birth of the new says "fleece hoodies" to me.

The "Dowhateveryouwannukah" spots have made me think twice about where I'll purchase any last-minute stocking stuffers this year. But not for the same reason as that of the perennial saber-rattling "pro-family" organization the American Family Association, which, it brags, has been for 32 years "on the frontlines of the American culture war."

Well said. Read the whole column, especially if you'd like to read the word "twee" in the sentence. (She's got the commercial posted there too.)

|

The best journalism class I never taught

Remember that Atlanta Magazine story, "The Last Heavy Footfalls of Doc Hullender," that I raved about a few months ago? Today, the author of that article, Thomas Lake, came to my Media Writing class. He gave my students a great introduction to the art of journalism. Where does it begin? With a commitment to honesty and a gentle spirit that appreciates the humanity in all of us.

Here's Lake and one of my students, Ivy Bailey. He asked the class to jot down a few sentences about a memory we have that made us feel electric. Bailey shared her memory -- being a soldier in California and standing in formation as the morning bugle played and the sunlight rose above the mountains. She got chills as she recalled it. So did I. Lake's point? Convey to your readers the same jolt of electricity.

If you haven't read "Doc Hullender," please do. It definitely conveys that jolt. I also recommend you read some of Lake's other work, particularly 2 on 5, a tale about basketball and life.

|

Videos from Egypt

Here are some videos I took in Egypt:


My wife and I crossing a street in Cairo.


Walking around Alexandria.


Driving in Alexandria.


A street scene on the Mediterranean.

|

Defending free speech

While in Cairo, the Georgia State University newspaper published my op/ed column about the fundamentalist Christian protests on campus last month. I responded to the managing editor of the school paper who called for free speech zones on campus to be moved to locations where they'd be less intrusive:

Most agree that free speech and the marketplace of ideas are concepts that help create a healthy democracy. Even the hateful speech heard on campus earlier this month had some benefits. Sarkesian said the counter-protests “did help to unify our very diverse campus against an insignificant, yet potentially dangerous, contingent.” I see value in that unification.

It’s pretty clear that the protesters weren’t winning over many converts. Perhaps the cool reception helped some students – maybe those who harbor some disdain for homosexuality – see that their views are out of alignment with the mainstream. Again, there is value in this open market of ideas.

If we agree that a marketplace of ideas is a good thing, then we must also agree on the makeup of the market. If the market is so far away that no one can shop there, then the market can’t really flourish or provide any service.

Please read the whole thing -- and feel free to comment on the paper's Web site.

|