New York Times Reporter Speaks On Science and New Media

By Michael Kelly

In a visit to Stony Brook University on Oct. 25, New York Times science writer Andrew Revkin spoke to journalism students about changes in his reporting due to the internet, and later to a larger group in the SAC auditorium about “scientific integrity in a political climate.”

In his session with journalism students, Revkin spoke about the difficulties in writing science pieces for a newspaper, citing controversial topics such as climate change. He said to write such a piece he usually needs more space than he is given for the multiple opinions on such a subject, and to show the uncertainty that goes along with the science of climate change.

He gave the example of the wildfire currently raging in California. He said that some people point to such an event and say it is caused by climate change influenced by people, while others believe the climate system there isfollowing a natural path. He pointed out that California, for the past 100 years or so, has been much wetter than it had been in its past. Now, he said, it appears it is starting to become drier again, which might cause more extreme fires.

“It could just be the area is getting back to normal,” Revkin said.

The increased use of the internet by the news media helps Revkin to better explain his stories, he said. The internet has “infinite space,” he said, and allows him to communicate with his readers through e-mail and to write more thorough stories. The ability to write a longer story allows him to underscore the uncertainty of the science that is used in his pieces.

One internet tool that allows him to do this is his recently created blog through the New York Times website entitled “Dot Earth.” The blog, he said, allows him to provide links, videos, podcasts, and more to his readers.

“This is a way to give these things more space,” he said.

He went on to add that the blog makes interaction with his readers even greater. He called the blog a “two-way street,” where he could not only provide information for readers, but also allow readers to communicate with each other and Revkin about the topics. He said that his blog is his way of saying to his readers, “Let’s have a conversation” about these issues.

His willingness to acknowledge the uncertainties within his field, and his desire to reach out to his readers was not lost on the audience.

“I liked his way of communicating,” said Micheline Maroni, a journalism student in attendance. However, Revkin’s extensive use of the internet tool of e-mailing sources for stories worried one student. Revkin said that he used e-mail as a way of communicating with sources almost 80 percent of the time, and admitted that many of his sources were people he only knew through e-mail exchanges.

“How do you know it’s actually the person?” asked Anjelica D’Esposito.

Later, at the ninth annual George Goodman Memorial Symposium about scientific integrity in a political climate in the SAC auditorium, Revkin again spoke to the uncertainties within science, and how that creates problems in the political arena.

He argued that partisanship makes science irrelevant in a way because there are so many different scientific opinions out there, politicians can pick and choose what science they want to believe in.

“You can find whatever science you want to fit your agenda,” he said. He went on to say that politics had become more about winning, and less about the information.

He remembered one time being with Sen. John McCain, (R-Ariz.), and when talks turned to the environment and the science regarding it, both agreed that all of the competing views make governing hard to do.

“You know, democracy doesn’t work well with these kind of issues,” Revkin remembered McCain saying. Richard Porter, a retired Stony Brook professor of theoretical chemical physics, agreed with the statement, but argued that issues involving science needed people who possess elite knowledge of the sciences making decisions regarding them.

Porter noted democracy is a system of government which ensures “we have no better government than we deserve.” He argued that smart government officials who possess the “elite knowledge of science” must make decisions about how to deal with climate change, and that the opinion of the public is not of equal weight, because they are not as informed on the topic.

“If you leave decisions on funding and legislation to the general public, you’re not necessarily going to have the input or the weight (of the elite knowledge), as heavily as it should be,” he said.