I think the probability is 100% that more MSM coverage is coming.
Potential "news hooks" are abundant. A few examples:
New articles/papers from "big-name" skepticsI think it's inevitable that details of this debacle will eventually bubble up to some of the biggest sites in the blogosphere (some of those sites see as much traffic in a day as this site gets in six months).
New developments in the Grand Prairie irrigation project halt
Updates (or lack of updates) from the vast Ivory-bill Recovery Team
Coverage of next month's AOU meeting (remember, Cornell's alleged Ivory-bill rediscovery was front-and-center at last year's AOU meeting).
In my opinion, this prediction by John Wall is spot-on, and the resulting "blame game" will receive MSM coverage:
I predict that the Ivorybill "rediscovery" ultimately will become such an embarrassment to those involved that they will deny responsibility and blame each other.
Posts
10 comments:
Tom, thanks for your thoughts on this. I'd like to hear more of SteveV's thinking behind his his comment:
Some of you seem to be taking pleasure in this debacle - its not funny, its pathetic, and its bad for conservation which means its bad for birds. Throwing Fishcrow to right-wing anti-environmentalists does no real good at all.
SteveV, I hear you, I feel your pain, but pretending that there won't be, or should not be a public and full accounting of these events is wrong, also admonishing the skeptics to stop calling for this accounting - is wrong as well.
I don't think this story is either funny or pathetic - those both those threads can be found this story is more rightly termed "tragic".
So why "go after" Fitzcrow?
The reason is linked in part to your assertion that "conservation" and "birds" will suffer - in this much you are right, but lets be clear that damaging the reputaion of a leader of a conservation group is not the same as damaging conservation. Is it?
Aristotle defined the idea of "catharsis" as the feeling the audience gets after watching a tragedy - not because they enjoy the misfortune that befalls the characters, but because they leave with a greater appreciation - in this case of science and rational thinking.
I think the next chapter of the story could begin when and if the rumored multiple pairs in the panhandle are announced. I've heard that the researchers are from a large university near the panhandle but outside of Florida, any other details?
Any word on when this announcement/documentation will appear? The AOU meeting in Veracruz?
I don't think right-wing journalists are the best people to bring anyone to account - they will use this story for their own aims and that will be to build up anti-conservation feeling amongst americans.
Much better if either 1) someone finds some real IBWOs or 2) the conservation/environmental/birding community brings these people to account themselves. That way, the conservation arguement is damaged less. In fact we all know that these habitats should be protected with or without the IBWO.
You're right - tragic is a better word - but I can see in many comments to this blog (not necessarily from the carpinterio) that some people are enjoying it.
[incidentally I meant Fitzcrow not Fishcrow - you can throw Fishcrow to whoever you like !]
Any word on when this announcement/documentation will appear?
If an announcement is made, I hope they have real evidence. More stunning announcements based on crap science won't help conservation at all.
We already have an administration that is hostile to good science. No need to hand them ammo in the form of bad science.
Steve V:
Please give me a break with the right wing journalism stuff.
Any poll of journalists will find that at least 90% vote Democrat in every Presidential/Congressional election. Nobody can be objective because every journalis brings his her own preconceived notions and bias's to a story.
The Harvard Public Health and Age story from yesterday is classic. The Professor went into the study believing that lack of health insurance was the main cause of early death in the USA. It turns out - we do have National Health Insurance but if you eat too much, drink too much, don't exercise, and smoke; you are going to die young with or without insurance.
If you want non object public advocacy just join your local college or university.
Thanks SteveV, it is fair to say that the Carpinterio does and IS enjoying this story and Tom's blog and the whole sorry lot.
I don't see that as a failing. I guess I do see the TB's or the vast majority who say, well look, even if their aren't IBWO's the events are POSITIVE for conservation, and protecting habitat, so lets not push too hard for the truth. (ie leave fitzcrow et al alone) - as failing to do independant critical thinking - but that is just me.
I don't get where this is being fed to "right wing" journalists - I'm mainly wondering why James Gorman of the NYT has been such a patsy on this? Why NPr has basically run ONLY cornell press releases, and why Leslie Newell Peacock can't connect the dots.
It is a great story - I don't think it is a story that will hurt conservation - I think it is a story that will be intersting because of the extreme silliness of powerful and influential people.
I also think that the BRAVEST thing, and perhaps the best thing would be for a reputable conservation group like Audubon, or TNC to publically endorse Sibley - if you care about conservation then it would be in the intererest of conservationists to say, "we weren't all sheep".
Some organizations stood up for science and spoke truth to PIF.
Just because something is pathetic, bad for conservation, and tragic doesn't mean it can't also be funny.
Just because the blog faithful enjoy some of "it", such as the poetry, does not mean we take pleasure in all aspects of this tragicomedy.
There is no need to throw Fishcrow to right-wing anti-environmentalists as he has been with them right from the start. Please recall his press conference with Gale Norton!
Humans! Your Lord God Bird events are hilarious. Of course, we are just Aliens from another planet and know nothing of Human tragedy.
Kneep......kneep.....
Thanks SteveV, it is fair to say that the Carpinterio does and IS enjoying this story and Tom's blog and the whole sorry lot.
Well, I guess there are some funny things going on in this (in particular the moustache!) but it was a comment on a different page (its hard to keep checking between one and the other and carry on a conversation with three different 'anonymous' or are they all the same person?) which got my goat slightly.
'Right-wing' was perhaps not relevant however I should say that I didn't say that all journalists were right-wing (as one person seems to think) and I didn't say that all right-wingers are anti-environmental (as another person seems to think). its amazing how people twist what you say!
- as failing to do independant critical thinking - but that is just me.
I agree - my opinion is that the premature/fraudulent claiming of the IBWO may have had short term benefits to the habitat (for example stopping certain developments) but it will have long term damage to the general conservation cause in the USA unless something like the following happens
I also think that the BRAVEST thing, and perhaps the best thing would be for a reputable conservation group like Audubon, or TNC to publically endorse Sibley - if you care about conservation then it would be in the intererest of conservationists to say, "we weren't all sheep".
which is basically what I said (or at least what I meant when I said
2) the conservation/environmental/birding community brings these people to account themselves.
anyway OK you got me - the moustache was funny and maybe one or two of the poems - but how much anti-conservation feeling this epsode might generate - not funnny.
I hate to say it, but I'm with the Aliens on this one.
This is the most hilarious, downright side-splitting funniest tragedy that I have ever seem, heard, or read.
I hope it goes on and on and on and......
Post a Comment