In response to an article in Monday’s Emerald (“A global farce?” Nov. 17) about a large number of scientists, researchers and academics who claim global warming is not human-induced and say their views and research are suppressed by politics and mainstream media, we have received several letters and dozens of comments on our Web site.
Some of the feedback has, as we anticipated, expressed frustration and anger at our decision to run a story that gives voice to the dissenting opinions on the global warming debate. The first reader who wrote to us even suggested that Ashley Chase, our editor-in-chief, and Hannah Hoffman, the reporter who wrote the article, will have trouble finding work in the journalism field after graduation because of the article. The reader’s letter was discouraging not because he criticized our coverage – we welcome criticism in all forms – but because he seemed to think this particular news story also reflects the opinions of Emerald editors.
First and foremost, “A global farce?” was a news story. It was reported thoroughly and objectively, and our decision to publish the story had absolutely nothing to do with our staff’s personal opinions about global warming. News content belongs in the news section, and opinion content belongs in the opinion section. That may sound self-explanatory, but we were surprised at the number of readers who were infuriated at the Emerald because they believe Hoffman and Emerald editors are uneducated about climate change and reported the story blindly and subjectively.
All news stories must have a news peg, and this one happened to be about a group of people who share an opinion that is wildly unpopular among the public. To criticize the Emerald for lacking objectivity in highlighting these opinions is inaccurate. Not only did Hoffman indicate right off the bat that these opinions are in the minority, she dedicated an entire section of the story to contrasting the minority opinions with those at the University of Oregon – which, unsuprisingly, disagreed strongly with the minority.
If Hoffman had provided in-depth coverage of the majority opinions, the story would have turned into a research paper that compared and contrasted conflicting perceptions of climate change. That was not the point of the story. Emerald editors ran this article to offer a different perspective, with the intent of provoking conversation and debate.
Objective journalists do not let their personal opinions get in the way of fair reporting, which is largely why we decided to run the story. Several readers who criticize Hoffman’s article say it was not objective, but in many cases they are simply angry that the Emerald ran a story from this angle.
Newspapers are platforms for discussion, not censorship, and not every article will please everybody. The Emerald editorial board only hopes that you walk away from the newspaper with more knowledge about a different side of the issue instead of feeling outraged because this article did not reflect your personal opinions.
We believe a college campus is the perfect place to open these issues to conversation. College is where we are supposed to broaden our perspectives, not narrow them. Discussion is healthy – bickering is not. Attacking each other for expressing varying opinions will not help us find a solution to global warming. Instead, it will set us back even further.
The Emerald editorial board does believe that human activity contributes a great deal to global warming, and that it is essential for humans to change their ways and live more sustainably. But the Board also believes that these conversations, though sometimes uncomfortable, should be held to promote a wider understanding throughout all communities and help others develop their own opinions. It is our job as journalists to facilitate those conversations, and it is your responsibility as informed citizens to keep an open mind and take part in them.
[email protected]