Environmental News Analysis

This article, titled Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts, was a prominent feature for the New York Times in 2007. It ran as part of its series The Big Melt, which discussed “the effects of warming on the environment and on the four million people who live in the Arctic, and scientists' assessments of the inevitability of Arctic melting.” On the newspaper’s digital manifestation, the coverage includes a broad scope of multimedia content. A brief video documentary, an interactive map of the chronology of Arctic ice levels, and several scenic images of the Arctic Ocean accompany the text. Even more, the text runs for 28 paragraphs. The wealth of media content attached to the topic of ice melting seems to indicate that the NY Times valued informing the public about this story.

Although this story fits precariously with the factors that shape the news, the issue is presented in an illuminating way. Contrary to eight factor scheme proposed by Galtung & Ruge, the disappearance of Arctic ice is distant from daily life, highly ambiguous, somewhat expected, slowly developing, and involves few characters (Anderson, 1997, pg 118-119). However, the New York Times coverage counters these problems with imagery. Visual representation of the diminishing ice caps is especially important, because “global warming is very difficult [to cover] because you can’t actually see global warming” (Anderson, 1997, pg 122). The time-lapse graphic is essential for its dramatization of the story.

Structurally, the article first presents data suggesting that the ice cap has shrunk to an unprecedented extent and then presents various scientific interpretations of this information. The opening hook, which explains that ice has disappeared so much that new shipping lanes are now open through the Arctic Ocean, catches attention immediately by providing this surprising fact. Considering that “all facts contain an evaluative dimension” and that “interpretations of facts may be influenced by conflicting ideological positions,” it seems fitting that there are so many explanations follow the rather straightforward factual section (Anderson, 1997, pg 51-53).

The article gives voice to eight experts in the field of Arctic studies, although it implies the consultation of many more. These experts are either faculty at universities in the northern region or geographical researchers. In order to increase credibility of these experts, NY Times utilizes hyperlinks so that the reader can simply click on a name to see further information. This nifty feature does much to aid transparency. Another common criticism associated with expert sources—that privileged experts are positioned to give a primary definition of the issue—is minimized in the article. All eight sources are organized with immediacy to each other, often in a way that highlights areas of disagreement and conflict. The journalist presents this structure impartially, allowing the experts to critique and elaborate on each other’s conclusions.

The ultimate effect of this article creates some confusion by attempting to dissect the complex factors associated with melting ice caps. The only concrete conclusion it draws is that somehow the climate is changing, and moreover, most scientists attribute some of that change to global greenhouse gasses. Climate change deniers would likely see this assumption as biased. Through a rational analysis, however, it provides equal weight to the advocates of other scientific explanations, such as wind patterns and increased sunlight. Therefore, I am impressed by the article, which I admire for reporting such a difficult story.