Sunday, October 5, 2008

Offshore & Off Topic

Offshore Drilling Rig, Minerals and Management Services, US Dpt of Interior.  



With the devastation from Gustav and Ike, newspapers can’t stop talking about fuel and energy. But the media’s conversations aren’t putting the right questions out to the public. The physical extraction of nonrenewable resources require a geological/environmental perspective, but the talk almost always buzzes around politics and prices.  As a result, a majority of Americans support offshore drilling even though geologists say it’s a terribly unsustainable and economically unviable
resource.

In early summer, the media wrote of offshore drilling in terms of John McCain as the maverick pushing to end our dependence on foreign oil.

By September, media outlets (NPR, Huff Post) repeated the political shout, “Drill Baby, DRILL!” accrediting Republican representatives as the issue’s frontrunners.  

Search for “Offshore Drilling” on the NYTIMES.com and a huge list of McCain/Obama articles appear….No articles on the first search frames the issue from a factual, scientific approach.

But some outlets are getting a word in from experts.  Here’s a look at () one a blog post that drills deeper than politics and into the statistics/facts about oil shale (If politicians had a better understanding of oil shale extraction, they probably wouldn’t hunt for it).  Dr. Bill Chameides suggests here that news papers are also producing exaggerated figures for the billions of oil barrels that could potentially lie underneath our shore. 

This oil obsession could shift America’s future economy, environment, and foreign policy.  It’s an issue that needs broader perspectives from experts, but with the way the media reports offshore drilling, we only learn that politicians operate on two speeds: walk and drill.   


1 comment:

M. Dery said...

Some smart thoughts on a woefully undercovered subject---the science, rather than the politics, of drilling. And a rock-'em-back-on-their-heels kicker. Bizarrely, though, you utterly misrepresent several of the stories you link to. Highly problematic. EXAMPLE: "In early summer, the media wrote of offshore drilling in terms of John McCain as the maverick pushing to end our dependence on foreign oil." First, the tangled syntax in this sentence muddies your meaning. But you seem to be suggesting that the media portrayed McCain as a maverick for advocating offshore drilling. In fact, the Times story you link to includes experts tasking him to task for doing just that. EXAMPLE: "By September, media outlets (NPR, Huff Post) repeated the political shout, “Drill Baby, DRILL!” accrediting Republican representatives as the issue’s frontrunners." Not true. The NPR segment is a debate between pro/anti drillers, not a pro-drill piece. And the Huff Post article empties its ammo clip at the pro-drill gang. Bigger question: Wish you had told us WHY the newsmedia consistently gets the science in such stories wrong, or turns a blind eye on it, focusing instead on the political horse race. WHY do they do this? Is there an economic incentive? Is that just what Joe the Plumber wants to read? Is it because most journalists are millimeter-deep generalists, out of their depth when it comes to the geological details? Or is it because they're assuming a level of scientific illiteracy on the part of their readers that would render them (the readers) incapable of wrapping their minds around the hard facts? Next time, take a stab at answering the questions stirred up by your sharp observations.