Miriam Goldstein–chief scientist of SEAPLEX–is leading the voyage to understand the the island of garbage in the North Pacific Gyre to attempt to understand the effects it may have on marine life. She has a new blog post up entitled ‘“Millions, billions, trillions”…of scientific errors in the NYT‘. Yikes! Here’s how it begins:
On Tuesday, the New York Times published an article on the North Pacific Gyre called “Afloat in the Ocean, Expanding Islands of Trash.” Written by Lindsay Hoshaw, it was the culmination of a $10,000 freelance journalism project* in which she visited the gyre with the Algalita Marine Research Foundation. Unfortunately, this NYT article was far below their usual standards. Not only did it not add anything new to the discussion, but it significantly misrepresented the state of the science, presenting broad estimates & conjecture as facts.
I sent a list of corrections to the New York Times, and I am republishing them here as well. They are in the order they appear in the article. Because there are so many, I have kept each explanation brief, but please ask in the comments if you would like elaboration. Thanks to my SIO colleagues Kristen Marhaver and Mike Navarro for their suggestions!
In this remote patch of the Pacific Ocean, hundreds of miles from any national boundary, the detritus of human life is collecting in a swirling current so large that it defies precise measurement.
The gyre is not a current, but a lack of currents. Please see Pete’s explanation of convergence zones for more detail.
And that’s only the beginning… Go take a look.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Its too bad about the errors, but I am glad the story is getting some press attention.
For me, the garbage patch triggers angry reaction, like what I felt about the Exxon Valdez spill.
(How dare they spoil such a pristine paradise). But in this case, its not an evil corporate boogeyman doing it.
This time, the target is us – ourselves – consumers of bottled water and plastic-wrapped and eaters of sushi.
There’s a lot of lifestyle momentum to change and the collective consciousness needs to raised before that can even start, so thats why I’m happy to see any kind of press attention on this.
November 15th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Agree 100%!
November 16th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Thanks for the shout-out, Sheril! But I would love to see you or Chris tackle this question – is media coverage where the science is inaccurate better than no media coverage? I fear that inflated claims like the ones in the NYT article may cause the public to discount the whole issue, once they find out that some of the facts are exaggerated or false.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:27 am
[...] Goldstein recently brought up a very important question in comments: I would love to see you or Chris tackle this question – is media coverage where the science is [...]
November 19th, 2009 at 11:17 am
[...] for example, by Megan Garber, Miriam Goldstein, John Zhu, Martin Robbins, Mathew Ingram and Sheril Kirshenbaum (and Sheril again – read the comment [...]