Reporter information link: http://www.gmfus.org/brusselsforum/template/bio_detail.cfm?id=140
"The scientific team deployed their instruments in open water"This piece of environmental news was published on 16 March 2010 by Richard Black who is the environment correspondent of BBC News. First of all, when I read the headline of this news, I felt like the news article talks about how fixing the environment may actually be toxic to sea life. Since the author adds the single quote of the fix, I feel that the way of fixing the climate had the bad influence of the sea life. It also helps to set the tone for the piece by making the reader feel that there is a struggle going on. The word “could” express the undetermined nature of this issue.
Personally, I think the structure of the article is well-organized and logical. The news is separated into two main parts with the highlighted words. In the first part, at the beginning of the article, the author summary the main idea of this piece of story, that is, a story has found that “fertilizing the ocean with iron to absorb carbon dioxide could lead to the increase of concentration of a chemical that can kill marine mammals.” I think it is reasonable and clear to point out the theme of the news at the very beginning, which can give the reader general idea of what is the environmental problem of this article in the short time and may help them easier to understand in the following explanation. After that the author indicates the conflict of the news, that is ,some people hold the belief that adding tonners of iron to the oceans can reduce the atmospheric greenhouse gas carbon dioxide to lesson global warming, which has been touted as a “climate fix”. While there is a study found that adding the ocean with iron to absorb carbon dioxide could increase concentrations of toxic chemical that can kill marine mammals.I think the conflict of these two views is clear, but there is no additional information of what the "study"is , which is not that credible.
Then the authors explain the background of the toxin-domic, which first came to noticed in the late 1980s as the cause of amnesica shellfish poisoning, as well as the introduction of how this kind of toxic produced by the algae of the genus pseudonitzschia, which make reader better understand the issue. However, the second part of the news is “Carbon focus”. Personally, I think the sub-headline is not closely related to the main content of the second part. Because in the second part, the report is more likely to focus on the factual information and example about the relationship among iron, pseudonitzschia algae and domic acid to explain how these chemical process have different degrees of influences on the different kinds of sea life animals, like seals, pelicans, harbour porpoises and sea lion, rather than focus on the carbon.
Personally, as a whole, I think this news is objectivity; there are news sources from “National Academy of Sciences”;“experiment result from the studies conducted around Ocean Station Papa”;“Ailsa Hall, deputy director of the Sea Mammal Research Institute at St Andrews University in Scotland”; “Major investigation”;“Spokesman of company-Climos” as well as “Scientist William Cochalan from San Francisco State University”. Almost all the sources are factual without the reporter’s own personal idea and as you can see, the sources are from different groups of people, which make the newspaper more objective and reality. Although in the last third paragraph, the reporter is sought of saying his point of view to call for scientist and regulators to pay attention to the impact on sea life when deciding whether to allow further studies of deployment, it is not over personal. Besides, at the second part of the news, he also reports the voice of the company-Climos that would like to deploy the chemical objectively. I believe the reporter does a good job to maintain the objectivity of the conflict in this environmental news.
In conclusion, I feel like the reporter is slightly weight towards the negative effect of the chemical and kind of representing the scientist-Williom Cochlan’s voice. Because at the end of the story, the author use the quote from the scientist, William Cochlan,, that “If the end goal is to use it to fight climate warming, then we have to understand the consequences for marine life.” Actually, this quote is also used around the beginning paragraphs within the “frame”. Moreover, the reporter put the picture of “the scientific team deployed their instruments in open water” of Willam Cochlan. I feel like the author is tending to agree the view of William, trying to claim that text before take action, as well as, in the future on other project, it is necessary to make sure that no harmful for marine sea life as well.
