Undermining Journalism

How the Media's Attempt to Adapt Could Kill it Instead

The heart of the New Haven Register's newsroom remains a place of active collaboration, for now. Photograph by Brandon T. Bisceglia.

CNN laid off approximately 50 editors, librarians and photojournalists in a surprise announcement on Nov. 11 as part of a three-year restructuring effort seeking to bring the company in line with changes in “technology and workflow.”

“Technology investments in our newsrooms now allow more desk-top editing and publishing for broadcast and online,” Jack Womack, the company's SVP of domestic news operations, wrote in a note to staff explaining the layoffs. “This evolution allows more people in more places to edit and publish than ever before.”

Womack continued that CNN management had considered the impact of user-generated content, social media and CNN iReporters (who create content based on prompts that the news agency provides) as part of the assessment.

CNN's layoffs are hardly shocking. They are only the latest in a decade-long series of changes to the American media landscape that have squeezed professional journalists into smaller and smaller corners. The closing of foreign bureaus, the shift to 24-hour online news cycles, and the increased reliance on “citizen journalists”: these are all symptoms of a systemic problem with the structure of news gathering and reporting.

The near-consensus is that under the current business model, the expense of producing news is too high to be sustainable. The solution for many agencies has been to trim - or sometimes gut - the newsroom while filling the gap with content created by nonprofessionals.

In that context, CNN's move to outsource its news function to unpaid users makes a certain sense. Video and audio recording technologies are now prolific and familiar to millions of people. Although the production quality of a video shot on an iPhone may not be polished enough for an advertiser's needs, they are perfectly suited for the two-minute throwaway story that a cable news agency can use to keep itself fresh on a slow day. Moreover, it is cheaper and faster than sending a reporter out into the field to cover an event that may be over by the time she or he arrives.

The layoffs prompted a satirical reaction from “The Colbert Report” host Stephen Colbert, who pointed out that CNN iReporters do not get paid.

“They get something even better: badges. Which I assume are redeemable for food and rent,” he said. He went on to promote his own user-generated video feature, which included footage of a colonoscopy, a goat, and a man waiting for a bus.

Colbert's comedic commentary revealed a darker side to this kind of corner-cutting. Volunteers, as eager as they may be, have different incentives guiding them, some of which may be suspect. Even those who mean well often lack the legal, ethical and technical knowledge of paid professionals. And with fewer trained reporters and editors responsible for curating content that they have not generated themselves, the depth, accuracy, and credibility of news can more easily be undermined.

The danger in cutting corners is that it can undercut the very relevance of journalism altogether.

The Shrinking Newsroom

Al Santangelo, news editor at the New Haven Register, has witnessed first-hand the slow collapse of the traditional newsroom.

Half of the offices of the Register are empty, like miniature ghost towns built out of cubicles. The business department is gone. The former design office is an empty room. The award-winning sports department used to stretch across one end of the newsroom, but now consists of four desks and a television.

Santangelo says that the newspaper makes a profit of millions of dollars each year. Yet it could still face further consolidation. There is talk of ditching the newsroom. Reporters would file stories remotely. Instead of printing the paper in-house, production of the actual paper would be outsourced to another location.

His workplace is being stripped in part because the paper's parent, the Journal Register Company, filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Two years later, the Journal Register Company is trying to rebuild its profitability under what CEO John Paton, who took over after the bankruptcy, calls a “digital first, print last” model.

When the Register was under family ownership, which lasted until the 1980's, the amount of money his paper makes would have seemed profitable. As part of a conglomerate driven by shareholder interests, however, the question shifts from one of absolute profitability to whether those profits are rising or falling. It also matters less how an individual publication is doing; profitability for the company is determined by the sum of its parts. In the The Journal Register Company's case, that's more than 350 multi-platform products in 992 communities.

“Not all of those publications make money,” says Santangelo. “Unfortunately, the ones that do end up subsidizing the others.”

The Journal Register Company released a chart Nov. 28 with its vision for the reorganization of the New Haven Register. It's not all bad news: a dedicated investigative reporting team will be created, and several dedicated beats are being added.

Much of the reorganization, though, is reminiscent of the shift that CNN and other news agencies have taken. It calls for aggregation of statewide content, linking out to other content providers, audience-contributed content, and partnerships with local outlets.

It is not likely that any of these steps will lead to much hiring. The investigative and beat reporting teams will be made up of long-standing employees who used to serve other functions in the newsroom, according to the Journal Register's press release.

For instance, the Register's former Business Editor, Cara Baruzzi, will be shifted to head up a new “breaking news team.” On top of covering the area's news, this team will also have responsibility for delivering “a Connecticut-wide curated breaking news report by linking out to other information sources – including The New Haven Independent, members of The Register’s Community Media Lab and sources traditionally viewed as competitors.”

The idea behind sharing content from competitors, says Santangelo, is to create a one-stop shop for the online reader, who would no longer have to jump around from source to source to find out what is going on in the state.

Santangelo is skeptical about the wisdom of that approach, however. He freely admits that such a sharing scheme allows other organizations to have the exact same breadth of content on their own sites. When asked what would prevent people from going to any of those other sources, he shrugs.

“Nothing. There's no loyalty on the Internet,” he says.

Just around the corner from the bustling newsroom at the New Haven Register, emptied cubicles sit in darkness. Photograph by Brandon T. Bisceglia.

Duplication and Verification

The practice of sharing news stories began long before the Internet. The Associated Press wire service is, in essence, a mechanism to allow papers to share news. It has become a staple of the newspaper industry because individual papers rarely have the resources to send reporters to faraway sites to cover every major breaking story.

The AP saves news agencies costs that might otherwise be prohibitive, and this is the key to its long-term success. However, it and other sharing schemes open news agencies to a potential worry: they cannot independently verify the content that they receive.

This trade-off was not much of a problem for newspapers with a local focus through most of the twentieth century. Many communities had multiple papers competing for the same audience, and they did not share with one another. This competition led to incentives for each paper to protect its reputation by being both fair and accurate. The wire services were mainly reserved for stories outside of the paper's coverage area.

The culture began to shift toward the end of the century. Cable news channels that ran 24 hours a day had more space to fill than they could with the amount of content they could afford to produce. Media mergers turned former competitors into colleagues and changed the profit motive.

Then the Internet put the pace of demand for continuous updates into high gear. For large media conglomerates, it simply made no business sense to send three or four reporters to cover the same story when one could run it across multiple platforms.

What makes business sense, though, is based on a monthly or yearly calculation often made by people who live out of state (or out of the country). The reputations of the old journalistic institutions were built on presumptions that they were integral to the communities in which they existed and would be around for decades to come.

In that old world, the unique observational capacities, background knowledge, and community ties of each reporter were valuable commodities. If a reporter from newspaper A wrote about the same event as a reporter from newspaper B, each paper could tout the different creative angle that its reporter would bring to bear on the story. The reader could compare different versions and learn things from one story that the other might miss.

More importantly, the reader could compare the facts in each story. If there was a contradiction, it would hurt the reputation of the paper that failed to properly vet its product. This created an incentive for both parties to be honest and careful about what they published.

In the brave new world of digital media, these incentives have largely disappeared. The encouragement of sharing to prevent story duplication leads news organizations to cite one another as a stand-in for independent verification, which can exacerbate the spread of misinformation.

This game of “telephone” blew up in the face of media professionals in June, when an unverified tip from police about a mass grave in Liberty County, Texas produced a rash of reporting by major media outlets the world over. The mass grave did not exist.

In an investigation by WNYC’s On the Media, it was discovered that the original story came from KPRC, Houston's Channel 2. Liberty County police called the station about a tip they had received from a psychic. They were planning to check it out. Someone in the newsroom posted to Twitter the following message: “Dozens of bodies have been found in Liberty County. Join us for KPRC at 5 p.m. for the latest information."

The Twitter post did not mention a source. Nor was it vetted; the news team had not yet visited the supposed grave site to verify the information.

From Twitter, Reuters picked up the story, citing KPRC as the source. The New York Times cited Reuters as its source. London’s The Guardian ran the Reuters version as well. SkyNews, the BBC and others also passed it around.

One newspaper that did not rely on the media’s rumor mill was the Houston Chronicle, which never said that the story was anything more than an unconfirmed report.

“I don't know how anyone in their right mind or with an iota of professionalism in their veins could have reported such a thing, absent any confirmation from anybody,” said Chronicle reporter Mike Tolson in an interview with OTM host Bob Garfield.

If the worldwide reporting debacle is any indication, Tolson and his colleagues represent a dying breed. The pressures are strong to get a story out now, without first placing a call to a local source for confirmation or sending someone down to check things out.

Many long-time reporters are all too aware of how the change of pace hampers their ability to vet stories. Hartford Courant reporter Christine Dempsey, who has been in the business for 25 years, said in a recent panel discussion with journalism students at the University of New Haven that she often feels uncomfortable with the quality of her fact-checking these days.

She said she had not made any major blunders she knew of. But, she added, “I’ve felt like I was walking a tightrope sometimes.”

Message Manipulation

Dempsey has a legitimate cause for concern. Time and resources are becoming increasingly scarce for smaller teams of editors and reporters, even as the amount of information they have to contend with is growing at an exponential rate.

At its heart, journalism is about selecting the most relevant information. The flipside is that, by necessity, some information is discarded or ignored.

Journalists have developed a number of ethical standards and rules of thumb to make the selection process easier. The system is not perfect, of course. The “equal time” rule may give people on different sides of a conflict a chance to have their views aired, but it can also create a perception of false balance. By giving the same space to mainstream and fringe views, the audience may come away with the perception that both views have similar factual weight or popular support.

These heuristic issues are troublesome, and journalists spend a lot of time debating about how best to resolve them. All of the possible solutions involve spending more time on stories.

Meanwhile, the newsroom is moving in the opposite direction. It is being facilitated in this process by individuals and groups with their own agendas who submit material designed to fit the mold of news production.

Public relations offices are notorious for writing stories “for” reporters, even though it violates the ethical standards of traditional journalism to reprint a press release verbatim. But overtaxed journalists can easily be lulled into believing that getting a slanted story out is better than not producing anything.

The UK charity Media Standards Trust developed a website called Churnalism.com in 2011 to combat the practice of reprinting press releases. Its “churn engine” allows readers to paste stories and find out how much of them are grafted from press releases.

Independent filmaker Chris Atkins developed some fake news releases of his own and sent them out to the press after speaking with Martin Moore, director of the trust. One story explained a new "chastity garter" that contained a microchip that would send text messages to a woman's partner if she was cheating on him or her. The story became “most read” on the website of the Daily Mail, and made headlines across the US and the UK before the hoax was revealed.

Slanted reporting need not come from outside sources. In the US, FOX News and MSNBC are well-known as mouthpieces for the political right and left, respectively. Though their audiences are smaller than the controversies that surround them, a growing proportion of the population turns to them for news that fits their views. The Internet is also a great boon for the echo chamber, in which people can seek information that confirms their preconceived notions without having their biases challenged.

Media fragmentation has led to a further erosion of an adherence to facts or fairness. The widespread adoption of these ideologically-driven approaches to reporting is relatively new, and determining their influence is a daunting task. Older people still overwhelmingly consume middle-of-the-road media from network television and newspapers. They may not agree with everything printed in their local papers, but they are used to formats that stress accuracy over assertion.

Veteran journalists like Dempsey and Santangelo are also loathe to violate the news gathering values they were taught. For the moment, they act as a bulwark against a tide of editorializing.

New Normal?

What about younger people, many of whom are growing up in a world where selective exposure is the norm? Can they distinguish between objectivity and spin, and do they care?

The relative prosperity of left- and right-leaning blogs and online news sites is one discouraging indication of a trend toward greater polarization. The Huffington Post is unabashedly liberal, while Andrew Breitbart and James O'Keefe have made their marks by promoting a conservative agenda.

Though politically partisan media has always been lurking on the edges of society, its new-found prominence has been accompanied by a remarkable willingness to dispense with standards of objectivity for the sake of rocking the proverbial boat. O'Keefe in 2009 sparked a national debate over what it means to be a journalist when he released a video purporting to show him and college student Hannah Giles getting advice from workers at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now devising ways to hide sex trafficking and and avoid taxes.

The corruption that O'Keefe and Giles uncovered may have been real. However, their methods of “news gathering” were disingenuous, unethical, and broke laws in several states.

Attorneys general in California and Massachusetts, the District Attorney's office in Brooklyn, and the US Government Accountability Office all conducted investigations into ACORN's actions. In the process, they reviewed the unedited versions of O'Keefe's and Giles's videos. In every case, they found the videos to be heavily doctored and thus absolved ACORNof any wrongdoing.

The truth did not matter to O'Keefe or Giles. They were out to attack ACORN for what they perceived to be a left-wing agenda.. They succeeded in devastating the organization, causing it to file for Chapter 7 liquidation in 2010. Most of its offices were closed.

O'Keefe was the mastermind behind the project, and he convinced Giles to pursue it with him to further her own career. When the story became a national sensation, she appeared on FOX News's “The O'Reilly Factor,” where host Bill O'Reilly called her an “undercover reporter.” He characterized ACORN's lawsuit against Giles as a “revenge play,” without ever offering the agency's rationale for its actions.

During the interview, a clearly excited Giles said she had always “wanted to be an investigative journalist.” Now, with the nationally recognized figure of O'Reilly validating her actions, she was surely convinced she had done what every good reporter should in the pursuit of a story.

And perhaps, with the new norm allowing newsmakers to violate every journalistic ethic, she will find a place to thrive. Such a norm would benefit the business owners, who know that sex and scandal pad the profit margins, regardless of how it's created. It would benefit public relations firms, because they can more easily infiltrate a media culture that doesn't concern itself with telling the whole story. It would benefit political ideologues, who prefer propoganda to balance.

The only question, then, will be: who will serve the public once the old guard dies off?

Greenhouse Gases Reach All-Time High

This NASA image shows the nearly ice-free McClure Straight in northern route of the Northwest Passage in August 2010. The famed passage was almost completely clear, with the exception of a band of ice in the straight (far left).
Image: NASA/GSFC/Jeff Schmaltz/MODIS Land Rapid Response Team. Some rights reserved.

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide reached an all-time high of 389 parts per million in 2010 and rose at a faster pace than in previous years, according to a report issued Nov. 21 by the World Meteorological Organization, the U.N.’s weather agency.

The WMO's Greenhouse Gas Bulletin says that global CO2 levels are now 39 percent higher than they were at the start of the industrial revolution in 1750, when levels were at approximately 280 ppm. Those concentrations had remained relatively stable for 10 thousand years previously, according to climate researchers.

Carbon dioxide levels rose at a rate of 2.3 ppm between 2009 and 2010. That was faster than the average rate during the previous decade of about 2.0 ppm per year, and a significant acceleration compared to the average during the 1990s, when concentrations rose about 1.5 ppm per year.

The annual WMO report assessed the burdens and rates of several other greenhouse gases that are released by human activity, including methane and nitrous oxide. Methane is considered the second-most potent contributor to global warming. It increased 158 percent since 1750, from 700 parts per billion to 1808 ppb in 2010. Nitrous oxide increased 20 percent over the same period, from 270 ppb to 323.2 ppb.

“The three primary greenhouse gases are not only closely linked to anthropogenic activities, but they also have strong interactions with the biosphere and the oceans,” the report said.

WMO Deputy Secretary-General Jeremiah Lengoasa said in an interview with the Associated Press that although human emissions of greenhouse gases are directly related to increasing temperatures, there is a time lag between the two.

“With this picture in mind, even if emissions were stopped overnight globally, the atmospheric concentrations would continue for decades because of the long lifetime of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," he said.

At least a small amount of that carbon will not be locked back into the earth for hundreds of thousands of years.

The WMO report comes on the heels of a summary report on risk assessment issued Nov. 18 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which warned that, under the groups “high emissions scenario,” the frequency of hot days will increase by a factor of 10 in most regions of the world.

“Likewise, heavy precipitation will occur more often, and the wind speed of tropical cyclones will increase while their number will likely remain constant or decrease,” said Thomas Stocker, Co-chair of Working Group I in the summary.

Another study released in the Nov. 24 issue of the journal Nature provided the first evidence that the duration and magnitude of the current decline in Arcitic sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years. Previously, the extent of ice loss was only known for last four to five decades, and questions remained about how much loss was due to natural variability. The researchers used land-based core samples to develop climate proxies so they could estimate the extent of the ice over a much longer period. The results suggest that Arctic ice loss is indeed being driven by manmade warming.

It remains to be seen whether the slew of new studies will make a difference in the stalled international negotiations to develop a comprehensive strategy to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires next year. Governments begin meeting for the seventeenth meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on Tuesday in Durban, South Africa.

Countries met in Copenhagen in 2009 and again in 2010 in Cancún, Mexico to hammer out a new agreement, but made little progress toward a comprehensive treaty anything like Kyoto. The U.S., by far the highest per-capita emitter in the world, was the only nation out of 192 members never to ratify the treaty.

The Birds

A humongous flock of birds made a racket in the trees at the edge of Ash Creek in Fairfield on a cloudy afternoon this week.

When my wife and I heard the clamor from our kitchen, we went to the backyard to see what was happening. There we witnessed hundreds of birds perched on practically every branch of three or four trees, chattering with one another.

The chirping lasted for almost half an hour. Then, as suddenly as they had arrived, the flock took flight in near-unison, leaving only silence in their wake.

You can listen to a portion of the chirping and the moment of flight by clicking on the player below.

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Photographs by Valeria Garrido-Bisceglia.

Important Books: The Pilgrim’s Progress

Engraving from The Pilgrim's Progress, published in London, 1778. 

Pilgrim enters the wicket gate, opened by Good-Will. Public domain image.

John Bunyan’s seventeenth-century book is the allegorical tale of Christian, a humble pilgrim, on his journey from the town of Destruction to the Coelestial City, where God resides. In its day, this classic sold more copies than any other book except the Bible. It was particularly popular among the settlers of the colonies in New England, who commonly referred to themselves as "pilgrims."

Bunyan's book was meant to be a defense of his religious beliefs, and was written for the most part while he was in prison for refusing to conform to the mandated Anglican practices of the time. His Calvinist/Lutheran brand of religiosity assumed that it was the privilege of an elect group to enter into God's court - a group primarily composed of the poor and oppressed.

Many of his characters were meant to represent other sects of Christianity. He took frequent jabs at the Quakers and the Catholics. Over and over, The Pilgrim's Progress refutes the values of the elite culture of Bunyan's time, which was swiftly moving towards the naturalistic/materialist worldview that put England in a prime position for the Industrial Revolution.

The first book, which follows Christian exclusively, was so popular that imitations and fake sequels sprang up all over. There were some criticisms, though, concerning Christian's leaving his family behind (there were many women in Bunyan's congregation), as well as the esoteric nature of some of the symbolism used. In response to all these pressures, Bunyan wrote a second part, wherein Christiana and Christian's four children traverse the Way. This volume is typically included along with the first book in modern printings.

The second part attempts to explain the meanings behind Christian's travails while demonstrating the roles that women, children and others could play according to Bunyan’s theology. It suffers from certain faults, particularly in its allegorical style, which becomes strained and even nonsensical at times. Nevertheless, the two tracts are integral to one another. The first is captivating, and the second is necessary.

The Proper Role for Skepticism on Climate Change

Multiple groups of scientists have tracked the rise of temperatures on Earth over time. Working independently, they end up with results that are largely in agreement with one another. Prominent physicist and skeptic Richard Muller has now added his own analysis to the mix, and found that it conforms to the warming trend seen here. Image courtesy of NASA EarthObservatory/Robert Simmon.

Another high-profile skeptic of global warming has changed his mind.

Physicist Richard Muller announced at the end of October that his team at the University of California atBerkeley completed an analysis of climate data reaching back over 200 years. Their conclusion? The Earth has warmed about 1 degree Celsius since 1950. Their findings, which are available online in a draft paper, confirm what the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific groups have been saying for years.

Muller's findings are nothing new to climatologists, and they may not convince the entrenched climate change deniers who are more interested in ideology than observation. For the majority of non-expert fence-sitters, though, Muller's work is extremely important, precisely because it shows the proper role for skepticism in climate research.

Muller is a respected scientist. Although his skepticism about the evidence for climate change has long been used by climate change deniers to bludgeon their opponents, he was more interested in pursuing the facts. He had worried that some weather stations (where the raw data on climate is collected) were more sophisticated or accurate than others. He had worried that the rise of massive cities in the past century could have skewed some of the results.

These were legitimate questions for a scientist to look at. Even though other teams of climatologists claimed they had accounted for such factors, there is nothing wrong with replicating research. That is one of the cornerstones of the scientific method. It's the reason science is more useful than simple belief: no matter who does the experiment, they will get the same result.

Muller was prompted to embark on this study after the 2009 “Climategate” fiasco, in which an international team of climatologists were accused of changing data to fit with their understanding that the world was warming. Investigations into the team's activities by multiple groups, including the British government, revealed that their data was solid. Nevertheless, politicians and average people, especially in the United States, were increasingly convinced that the world might not be warming. Muller's study puts that scandal to rest.

Deniers still have some wiggle room. Muller says that he still isn't sure whether or not the planet's warming is being driven by humans, and his study did not answer that question.

There will still be plenty of people who claim that global warming is entirely natural and that human emissions of carbon dioxide don't matter. It's sad that such a belief persists despite the fact that scientists have known for centuries that greenhouse gases change atmospheric temperatures. It was all the way back in 1896 that Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first pointed out that human emissions of carbon dioxide were warming the Earth.

Mounds of evidence have built on Arrhenius's findings over the last hundred years. The basic mechanism that causes warming has never been contradicted, only refined.

There are still real scientific questions to pursue. Will warming lead to increased clouds that offset some of the heat on the ground? Will reservoirs of methane (an even more potent greenhouse gas) trapped in frozen lakes push warming past some “point of no return” as the lakes thaw? How much carbon dioxide can the oceans absorb, and how will that impact sea life?

These problems are being worked on by scientists now. They may overturn some of our current understanding of the details, but they won't change the fundamental role of human emissions.

In the meantime, the rest of us need to stop fighting about whether or not global warming is real. The whole time that we've been embroiled in an unproductive ideological battle, the planet has been changing. We need to start applying skepticism to the right questions about how we will deal with a reality that does not care if we believe in it.

Though Aristotle Supported Slavery, His Philosophy Would Abolish It

The hands of the marble statue “The Greek Slave,” carved in 1844 by Hiram Powers. Photograph by Zack Lee. Some rights reserved.

Aristotle allows for slavery in his classic account of virtue. Some philosophers criticize Aristotle’s ethics as inconsistent for this reason. However, Michael J. Sandel, the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University, argues that Aristotle’s criteria are strong enough to reject slavery on their own grounds. Sandel is correct: if applied rigorously, slavery would not persist under Aristotle’s specifications.

Aristotle’s position on slavery hinges on two requirements: necessity and suitability to nature. Slavery is necessary in that society needs a division of labor to function. It is suitable to some peoples’ natures in that they are “capable of becoming…the property of another, and if he participates in reason to the extent of apprehending it in another, though destitute of it himself (1).”

The function of society does demand a division of labor, but it can be accomplished without the institution of slavery. Many countries operate without slaves today under democratic regimes. Men share child-rearing responsibilities with their spouses. Labor-saving technologies have reduced the time it takes to perform many household activities. Low-wage jobs offer compensation for even the bottom tiers of workers (though other inequalities persist in this system).

Aristotle could not have known of the societal institutions and technologies that have eroded slavery. They had not yet been developed in his time. Examples of advanced slave-less cultures were hard to find. As Sandel notes, “It’s worth recalling that these injustices persisted for more than two thousand years after Aristotle wrote (2).”

Aristotle’s second requirement is teleological; it posits that at least some people are naturally suited to slavery. But it also acknowledges that not all enslaved people are suited for that kind of a life. “Not all those who are actually slaves, or actually freemen, are natural slaves or natural freemen,” he writes (3).

To sort the natural from the unnatural slaves, Aristotle proposes a practical test. Sandel describes this as seeing “who chafes in the role or tries to flee (4).”

Few groups throughout history have actually offered slaves the ability to choose their position. Part of the perceived “suitability” to slavery was instilled via a systematic oppression by the ruling classes that went beyond mere physical abuse. In post-Civil War America, “freed” slaves faced a lack of education, a lack of money, and a forced segregation that blocked access to opportunities – what sociologist W.E.B. Du Bois called “the problem of the color line” in 1903 (5).

Du Bois found many freed slaves to be more destitute in their new condition. He also pointed out, however, that a small proportion of African Americans were already excelling. He expected the number of blacks who succeeded to rise as American institutions and attitudes continued to reform (6).

Today, enough former slaves have demonstrated abilities to reason and participate in the polis to convincingly suggest that no human is naturally suited to slavery. If any twenty-first century American was placed in slavery, he or she would no doubt “chafe in the role.” Coercion, which Aristotle says is a sign of injustice, would have to be applied to create a new slave class. It would fail the test of justice under his own rubric.

Sandel points out that teleological reasoning like Aristotle’s might in fact lead to a more powerful indictment of slavery than that of the modern liberal ethic in that it would also claim some freely chosen jobs to be unjust, because they are “so dangerous, repetitive, and deadening as to be unfit for human beings (7).”

Sandel’s example shows why teleology, at least when applied to certain aspects of human life, remains a powerful tool for moral philosophy. Its emphasis on purposes are open to being revised based upon the introduction of new empirical evidence, which can shape our understanding of what the inherent natures are of peoples and institutions.

Aristotle’s philosophical shortcomings are less the result of Aristotelian inconsistency and more the result of limits to the perspectives available in ancient Greece. Only now that societies have tried living without slavery is the evidence available that it is neither necessary nor natural.

References:

1. Aristotle. The Politics. Translated by David Ross. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1925) Book I, chap. v, 1254b
2. Sandel, Michael J. Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009) 200
3. Aristotle. The Politics. Translated by David Ross. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1925) Book I, chap. vi, 1255b
4. Sandel, Michael J. Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009) 202
5. Du Bois, William Edward Burghardt. The Souls of Black Folk. (Chicago: A.C. McClurg & Co.; [Cambridge]: University Press John Wilson and Son, Cambridge, U.S.A., 1903) XXXI
6. Du Bois, William Edward Burghardt. The Souls of Black Folk. (Chicago: A.C. McClurg & Co.; [Cambridge]: University Press John Wilson and Son, Cambridge, U.S.A., 1903) 101-102
7. Sandel, Michael J. Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009) 203

Occupy New Haven: an Operation in Progress

The main Occupy New Haven encampment consists of several dozen tents nestled in a corner of the Hew Haven Green. Hundreds of protesters have shown up for some of the group’s events, and many come and go throughout the day. Only a minority have made the space their temporary home.

A village of tents has arisen on the New Haven Green. Its inhabitants each has a slightly different reason for being there. They all share one thing in common, though: dissatisfaction with growing social disparity.

This is Occupy New Haven, a local offshoot of the global Occupy Wall Street protest movement that began Sept. 17 in Zuccotti Park, New York City. It has its own local flavor to it.

It's Personal

“Moose” declines to give his real name. He, like several others in his community, is wary of the media.

He wears a sign draped around his neck that reads, “Department of Hornland Security. When asked why he wears it, he pulls out a makeshift horn and blows into it like a megaphone.

Moose says he moved to New Haven from New Hampshire nine years ago. He graduated from UNH in 2006, but is currently unemployed. So is his fiance, who attained a master's degree in psychology. They're saddled in over a hundred thousand dollars in student loans.

“I have a hard time identifying the difference between that and indentured servitude,” he says.

Not too long ago, he points out, finishing an undergraduate degree was considered a major accomplishment. “Now a bachelors degree is the equivalent of a high school diploma,” he says.

Moose and his community plan to occupy downtown New Haven indefinitely. To do that, they have had to make a concerted effort to prepare and sustain themselves. They've developed more than ten committees to handle various tasks, from legal issues to safety to music.

The New Haven group has benefited from its later start compared to the first Occupy Wall Street encampment, says Moose. They have a permit from the city to be there. They began planning their supply needs before they moved to the green. They have an amicable relationship with the police.

They also have a much more expansive space. Zuccotti Park is a mere 33,000 square feet, or .076 of an acre. The New Haven Green is 16 acres. The camp only covers an out-of-the-way corner of the green. The area, surrounded by old New England-style churches and apartments, is idyllic for an occupation.

A sign decries the differing rules that govern student loan debts and bailouts for large businesses.

A Community Vision

Hundreds of people have shown up at some of Occupy New Haven's rallies. Some come and go freely throughout the day. Only a relative few stay overnight in several dozen tents strewn across the grass.

Ninety-nine percent of the time, the 99 percent are not protesting; they're searching out supplies, having individual conversations, eating and sleeping. On a Friday afternoon, a meeting of 25 or so convenes near the Information tent. They sit in a circle on the ground or in lawn chairs.

One wonders if there should be more regular meetings. A debate ensues over whether to move some meetings to earlier times or keep them later to allow for people getting out of work to come. Someone asks if smaller meetings could take place throughout the day.

A woman at the outskirts of the circle notices that a car in the street is being towed. She stands up and calls, “Mic check!”

“Mic check!” the others around her call out in unison, using the group amplification tactic called the “human megaphone.”

“Someone’s car is getting towed,” she says. The group repeats the sentence. Everyone looks out to the street, but no one moves to claim the car. The meeting continues.

The occupiers have a number of makeshift public institutions, such as this “library.”

Afterward, Amanda Taylor returns to the Comfort tent to sort clothes and blankets. As a member of the Comfort Committee, it's her job to manage the inventory.

She takes her task seriously. The days are getting colder, and there are incoming donations to sort and distribute.

Taylor grew up in North Stonington, and this is the first time she's been to New Haven. She has felt the sting of economic inequality. Her family had little money when she was growing up. She didn't go to college because she couldn't afford it.

In New Haven, though, she learned just how wide the economic gap can get.

“I'd never seen a homeless person before,” she says. “It's really sad. People aren't homeless in North Stonington.”

Some of the clothing donated to the Occupy New Haven group, she says, now go to the local homeless community, many of whom spend most of their time at the New Haven Green.

Taylor is glad to be helping others in a tangible way, even as she struggles with her fellow protesters to spur action from the most powerful in society.

Comfort committee member Amanda Taylor takes stock of some of the demonstrators’ supplies.

Organizational Networking

Win Heimer is trying to coordinate Occupy New Haven with its correlate in Connecticut's capital, Occupy Hartford. He is not a member of either, but he wants to support both with supplies and services.

Heimer is a union representative with the Alliance for Retired Americans, and part of the Greater Hartford Central Labor Council.

Several unions across the country have joined in demonstrations. The worldwide phenomenon that began near Wall Street is combating economic injustices that Heimer says he's been fighting against for a long time.

Heimer and his associates at a local union have arranged buses between New York, New Haven and Hartford. He says he is hoping to find a biodiesel generator for the encampment on the green.

Heimer is careful not to try to push the groups in a particular direction, however. Everyone prefaces their statements by saying they do not speak for the group, including him.

“This movement has just started. We have to see where it goes,” he says, adding, “hopefully it will bring changes that benefit our children and grandchildren.”

A message of peace decorates the medical tent.

Martina Crouch, a New Haven resident, is also hoping that the movement brings changes. She says she joined because she found people who thought like she did there. Then she realized that the protests could become a launching pad for something greater – a community conversation.

A number of the Occupy New Haven demonstrators note that they view their role in movement as an opportunity for local change. Crouch agrees with that sentiment. In this sense, one of the main themes of the their protest sounds like twenty-first century version of a distinctly New England tradition: the town hall meeting.

She says that the media cannot possibly portray the culture of the occupiers as well as experiencing it firsthand.

“Whatever preconceptions you may have,” she says, “you should come down and see what it really is.”

Occupy New Haven has become a microcosm, a society within a society. For Crouch and her tent community, that in itself is a great success.

“These protests brought people together,” she says.

Signs are carefully arranged on the ground in one corner of the encampment when they’re not being used.

All photographs by Brandon T. Bisceglia.

Community Colleges Benefit Everyone: Letter

A painting in the HCC cafeteria celebrating the college's diversity. Photograph by Brandon T. Bisceglia.

I wrote this letter to the editor in response to an opinion piece by Housatonic Community College President Anita Gliniecki arguing that cutting funding for community colleges is a proposition that is "penny wise and pound foolish." My letter appeared in the Oct. 26 edition of the Connecticut Post:

Housatonic Community College President Anita Gliniecki should be applauded for her defense of community college funding.

I worked my way through HCC, paying for classes out of pocket with the money I earned at a full-time job. It was only because of HCC's low cost that I was able to afford to go back to school.

This spring I graduated with highest honors, a 4.0 GPA and a broad range of new skills. My efforts paid off in the form of scholarships and awards that allowed me to afford to transfer to the University of New Haven.

My experiences at HCC also instilled in me a strong connectedness with the wider community. Community colleges may be better equipped for this than private colleges, because nearly everyone enrolled comes from surrounding municipalities. They share a common stake in the region.

HCC has grown by thousands of students in the past five years. During every year in that same period, state block grant funding has stayed flat or been cut.

An economic impact study completed in 2008 showed that the college contributes $283.9 million each year to the economies of Fairfield and New Haven counties, far more than it receives in state funds.

Having HCC in downtown Bridgeport has made a huge difference in revitalization. Recall what it was like in 1997, the year that HCC relocated to Lafayette Boulevard.

We should all be grateful for the opportunities offered by community colleges. Short-term cuts will only lead to long-term losses for everyone.

More: Read Anita Gliniecki's letter.

Reporters talk tech changes in news at UNH

 

Professional journalists speak to students in the Vlock Center for Convergent Media Wednesday about the ways that their work has been changed by the Internet and mobile technologies. From left to right: Hartford Courant reporter Christine Dempsey, Connecticut Post columnist MariAn Gail Brown, Madison, CT Patch.com editor Patricia McNerney. Photograph by Brandon T. Bisceglia.

Three veteran journalists from around Connecticut visited UNH Wednesday evening for a panel discussion with students about the challenges and opportunities that new technologies have brought to their field.

Hartford Courant reporter Christine Dempsey, Connecticut Post columnist MariAn Gail Brown, and Madison, CT Patch.com editor Patricia McNerney shared their experiences and fielded questions from a packed audience in the Laurel Vlock Center for Convergent Media in Maxcy Hall.

The two-hour discussion was titled “News Writing and Editing for Traditional and Social Media,” and was hosted by Adjunct Professor of Communication Michael Bazinet as part of the copy editing course he is teaching this semester. Students from other journalism courses also attended.

Dempsey described how the process of reporting had changed dramatically in the 25 years she has been doing it. She said that when she used to arrive on the scene of a breaking story, she would have to look around for a pay phone to call her editor.

“Now they have these smart phones that can do anything but slice bread,” she said.

McNerney, whose publication exists entirely online, agreed that mobile devices had altered her reporting practices. She said she had “the most amazing experience in journalism” during Hurricane Irene this summer, because she was able to report on what was happening in her hometown of Madison while staying at a friend’s house in Wallingford by using information other residents posted or sent her.

Volunteers are key information sources for McNerney. “The readers start to tell you what to report,” she said.

Brown pointed out that the Internet had “invigorated” print newspapers, too, by helping them to keep up with television and radio.

“Because of the Internet and our websites,” she said, “we’re constantly updating our stories, which is rejuvenating our papers.”

The panelists warned, however, that not all of the changes brought about by new technologies have been positive. Brown noticed a disturbing pattern while covering the trial of Steven Hayes, who was given the death penalty in 2010 for a brutal home invasion and murder in Cheshire. Whenever reporters heard something they thought was newsworthy, they would tweet it, often in unison. She said the furious tweeting of reporters could send a visual signal to jury members to pay more attention to certain parts of the trial, possibly affecting the way they thought about the case.

For Dempsey, the increasing pressure to get news out as quickly as possible sometimes makes her uncomfortable that she might not have checked her facts thoroughly enough first. She said she had not made any major blunders she knew of. But, she added, “I’ve felt like I was walking a tightrope sometimes.”

McNerney said that, in the face of a faster news cycle, reporters need to continually remind themselves that they have a mission beyond entertainment as society’s watchdogs.

“Are we fulfilling our traditional role as the fourth estate?” she asked.

Despite all of the changes, the panelists agreed that many of the fundamental aspects of their profession remain the same. Dempsey said that strong writing skills were still absolutely essential. McNerney concurred, noting that Patch.com requires prospective reporters to take a writing test, just like traditional newspapers.

She recommended that journalism students avoid focusing only on print, broadcast or web content.

“Don’t think of yourself as a one-dimensional reporter,” she said.

Tips on Arguing: Vet Your Facts

Vetting your facts simply means looking into them. It may sound like this should go without saying, but failing to double-check a source is one of the most common ways that misinformation spreads.

Internet databases and search engines have given people access to more information than ever. But not all information is created equal. Public relations departments disguise their self-advertising to look like news stories. Poltical groups shape the presentation of facts to fit their agendas. Groups peddling pseudo-science publish their own journals, and conspiracy theorists sometimes make stories up out of whole-cloth.

Even if you are using a well-respected source, there is always a chance that human error will creep in. If you read New York Times articles that are more than a few days old, you may see corrections posted at the bottom of the page. It’s not because they weren’t careful the first time around – it’s because new information has overturned a previous statement, or new sources have provided further details.

There are several ways to get your facts straight, though none is foolproof. Whenever you can, you should always use a primary source over a secondary one. Primary sources tend to be more accurate and deliver more nuances.

Cross-checking is a simple way to make sure your facts are legitimate. If one source says A is true, find a different source – one that is independent of your first source - and see if it says the same thing. If your second source says that B is true, you’ll have to do more research to figure out which is closer to the truth.

If you’re drawing facts from scholarly journals or books, go through their references. Did the “fact” about Thomas Jefferson’s beliefs come from a document he wrote or from Wikipedia? If it came from Wikipedia, it might be correct – but the chances for error are higher.

Another tool often used by researchers to determine whether a given scholarly article is widely accepted by the academic community is to find out how many times it’s been cited by other papers. The more citations, the more likely it is to be useful information.

Unfortunately, there is no perfect way to vet your facts. Eyewitnesses remember things inaccurately. Typing, writing, and speaking mistakes are common. Personal biases can cloud even the most intelligent person’s assessment of a situation.

Vetting your facts is, however, the best way to minimize your own errors. It doesn’t mean that you’ll get everything right, but it will prevent you from getting a whole lot of things wrong.

Occupying Wall Street After Dark

The Occupy Wall Street protest in Zuccotti Park does not end when the sun goes down. Hundreds of people, from curious onlookers to news crews, mill in and around the sliver of green space near Manhattan’s World Trade Center.

An infrastructure has evolved around the site to compensate for various needs. It’s a little like a tiny island nation in an ocean of concrete and glass.

All around the rim of the park are signs. Some are specifically related to protest events. Others carry some of the social messages that members want to express.

Those who stay in Zuccotti Park as the winter closes in face numerous challenges. They must eat, sleep, clean up after themselves and keep warm, all while maintaining the momentum of the movement many are hoping to spark.

All photographs by Brandon T. Bisceglia.

Read more about past protest movements.

Around UNH: Parrot Carving

This carved wooden parrot is from the Upper Sepick river region of Papua New Guinea. The 12-inch bird, painted with red, white and black pigments, is on display in Dodd's Hall at the University of New Haven in Connecticut. Photograph by Brandon T. Bisceglia.

Video: Jazz for Peace Plays World Artist Network Benefit

 Jazz for Peace front man Rick DellaRatta. Photograph by Brandon T. Bisceglia.

The nonprofit Jazz for Peace Foundation played a benefit concert for the World Artist Network on Sept. 17 at the Acoustic Cafe in Bridgeport. In this clip, the band pays tribute to Thelonious Monk’s rendering of the 1929 song, “Just You, Just Me.”

To Encourage Scientific Literacy, Reward Citizen Scientists

Citizen scientists have been making contributions for centuries. This 1843 microscope was used by amateur naturalist Caroline Bucknall Escourt while her husband, a British military officer, was stationed in the Canadian colonies. Photograph courtesy of the Canadian Science and Technology Museum. Some rights reserved.

Two new planets outside our solar system were discovered using data from NASA's Kepler telescope. But not by scientists.

The discoverers were citizen scientists participating in an online project called Planet Hunters, which was set up specifically to allow members of the public to sift through Kepler's information. Six of these volunteers were listed as authors in the Sept. 22 paper about the planets, published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

The Planet Hunters are only the latest in a series of non-scientists who've made important contributions to science. A team of video-gamers playing a competitive protein-folding simulation game called Foldit also in September worked out the structure of a protein belonging to the Mason-Pfizer monkey virus, an HIV-like virus that causes AIDS in monkeys. It took them three weeks to do what professional scientists had been working on for years.

The value of harnessing public participation through games and projects is not lost on the scientific community. Hundreds of project websites can now be found with a simple Google search. Scientific American recently added an entire section to its website devoted to citizen science.

Yet science literacy remains low among non-scientists. The National Science Foundation concluded in a 2006 report that “most citizens do not have a firm grasp of basic scientific facts and concepts, nor do they have an understanding of the scientific process. In addition, belief in pseudoscience seems to be widespread, not only in the United States but in other countries as well.”

A low level of literacy matters. Take this year's Republican candidates. Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann was roundly repudiated by scientists and pundits after she claimed to have met a woman who said her son's mental retardation was caused by the HPV vaccine. Texas Gov. Rick Perry made his illiteracy known on several occasions, with dubious comments about both evolution and climate change.

These people want to be president. They already command high offices, where they no doubt deal with science-related subjects on a daily basis.

Speaking about Congress on WNPR's “Where We Live,” Princeton Physicist and New Jersey Rep. Rush Holt recently noted, “There are 435 people in the House and 420 don’t know much about science and choose not to.”

Ultimately, though, it is the voters who elect leaders. They can't possibly hold politicians to account about science without first understanding it themselves.

Citizen science may be a way to close the knowledge gap, if incentives are put in place to raise its profile and spur interest. That's why an award, given once a year at an ostentatious ceremony, should be established for an individual or group who contributes significantly to the advancement of science.

No such award currently exists. Groups that organize citizen science have prizes, but the citizens themselves have no reward other than fulfiling their passions for discovery.

Rewarding citizen science would break down one more perceived barrier between the “elite” researchers and everyone else. Recognition is known to be a driving force among professional scientists. Their careers are built on getting their names published and receiving awards from their colleagues. We expect scientists to want these rewards. Why wouldn't anyone else want the same thing?

Introducing competition could have added benefits for scientic literacy. Science works because its core dynamics—not its methods or techniques per se—are rooted in pitting intellects against one another,” said Thomas W. Martin, an Honors Faculty Fellow at Barrett Honors College at Arizona State University in Tempe, Ariz. in an essay (that, incidentally, won an award) for Seed magazine in 2007. “Science eventually yields impressive answers because it compels smart people to incessantly try to disprove the ideas generated by other smart people.”

The MNARS paper took a small step toward rewarding the volunteers from Planet Hunters by giving them the status of co-authors. It's a small, but rarely taken, step.

Most importantly, perhaps, is the fact that citizen scientists may end up making huge contributions in the coming years. As Astronomer Phil Plait wondered on his “Bad Astronomy” blog: “Will the first exoEarth be found by a professional astronomer, or instead by some science enthusiast who decided one day to check out this Planet Hunters thing?”

It's a question we should all be seriously considering.

Ranking UNH

U.S. News & World Report placed the university on its list of “tier one” colleges for the second year in a row. But are the numbers all they’re cracked up to be?

If you believe the hype, UNH may have entered a new era of prestige.

U.S. News & World Reports has ranked the university 110 among regional colleges in its 2012 listing of “Best Colleges,” landing it a spot for the second year among the “top tier” in the “Regional Colleges – North” category.

The category includes colleges that offer a full range of undergraduate programs, but few doctoral programs. Colleges with doctoral programs are listed in a separate national category.

Just what do the rankings say about the quality of the institution, though?

In a press release for UNH Today, President Stephen H. Kaplan reasoned that UNH's rise in the U.S. News rankings was due to “substantial investments toward expanding academic programs, enhancing student life and creating state-of-the-art campus facilities,” which have “helped us attract more high-achieving students and world-class faculty.”

Alice Aleksandrovich, a senior who is double majoring in English literature and political science, has noticed some major improvements during her tenure at UNH. “It’s more technologically advanced than when I started,” she says. “The bookstore, health services, tutoring and other student services are also much better.”

Aleksandrovich still thinks there’s room for improvement, though. She says she would like to see more housing built, especially for sororities and fraternities. She also says that too much of the material in the library is outdated.

UNH’s sustained presence on the “Best Colleges” list is certainly beneficial for the university. U.S. News is the most popular resource in the nation for comparing colleges. Being in the top tier means greater exposure among students and parents researching prospective colleges.

Perhaps more importantly, it means greater exposure within the community of academic institutions. There’s an irony to making the list: since 25 percent of a regional college’s ranking is determined by the assessment of other college presidents, simply being on the list makes it more likely that a president who has never actually seen the campus will have a favorable view of UNH.

U.S. News has come under increasing criticism in recent years for the ways in which it judges schools. In February, New Yorker Staff Writer Malcolm Gladwell slammed U.S. News for using prejudicial criteria. He called the reputation factor a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”

“When U.S. News asks a university president to perform the impossible task of assessing the relative merits of dozens of institutions he knows nothing about,” wrote Gladwell, “he relies on the only source of detailed information at his disposal that assesses the relative merits of dozens of institutions he knows nothing about: U.S. News.”

Gladwell pointed out that other proxies for quality U.S. News uses to measure the success of a college - such as professor salaries or admissions selectivity - have little to do with student engagement, the single most important predictor of a student’s success at college.

Gladwell also noted that U.S. News omits some criteria, such as cost, in its rankings. He writes: “at a time when American higher education is facing a crisis of accessibility and affordability, we have adopted a de facto standard of college quality that is uninterested in both of those factors.”

The U.S. News rankings have led people astray in the past. “Most students and parents think the rankings are important,” says Victor Rios, a double major in English and journalism in his second semester at Quinnipiac University in Hamden. “For me, I fell into that spell when I applied.”

Quinnipiac has ranked well in U.S. News. It took the number 11 slot this year. Rios says, however, that some professors allow too much leniency with assignments and due dates. He feels that the college hasn't done as much to foster his intellectual abilities as he had expected.

Rios and Gladwell aren't the only ones who have problems with the U.S. News algorithm, and a few organizations have even attempted to assess college quality on their own terms. In 2009, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a nonprofit education group, launched its “What Will They Learn?” survey. It measures whether colleges require students to take courses in seven “key subjects:” composition, literature, foreign language, U.S. government or history, economics, mathematics, and natural or physical science. A grade from A to F is assigned to the institution.

If Rios had used ACTA's rankings instead of U.S. News's, he would have gotten an entirely different impression. There, UNH gets a grade of B and Quinnipiac gets a grade of C.

In addition to his academic dismay, Rios, who was born in Mexico, says that he has been uncomfortable with some of the unintentional prejudices he's encountered.

“People I’ve talked to who work there say that the school understands the problem, and is trying to mitigate it,” he says. Nevertheless, he felt unwelcome when he first came to the campus.

Diversity is often an important piece of college life, especially if you happen to be in a minority group. Only 1 percent of Quinnipiac's population consisted of international students last year. At UNH, on the other hand, these students comprised 7 percent of the student body. U.S. News lists this information, but does not weigh it as part of a college's rank.

Professor Karen Isaacs, who teaches journalism and English at UNH and Housatonic Community College in Bridgeport, warns against placing too much emphasis on rankings.

“In any school, you're going to have exceptional departments and weaker departments. And you can get outstanding students anywhere,” she says.

She says that students need to find what they're comfortable with.

Regardless of whether U.S. News is an accurate guide or not, UNH seems poised to continue its ascent. According to UNH Today, the class of 2015 has higher SAT scores and GPA's than previous years. “The average GPA has continued to increase over the last six years,” says the press release.

Isaacs has been teaching at UNH off and on for about 20 years, and she agrees that the university is on a positive track. “I've seen enormous increases in the quality of the students,” she says.

This article originally appeared in The Charger Bulletin.

Tips on Arguing: The Moving Goalpost

Imagine that you’re playing a game of football, and you make a field goal from the 10-yard line. Now imagine that the referee decides not to count your kick. Instead, he orders the goalpost to be moved back an additional ten yards. You make the goal again. He decides it’s still not good enough, and has it moved back another ten yards.

Would you think this was fair?

In argumentation, “moving the goalpost” refers to a similar tactic. Your opponent gives a certain criteria for you to meet, or asks for certain evidence. Then, once you provide it, he or she changes the criteria. It’s an extremely common fallacy, and one that can perpetuate a false controversy for years.

Perhaps the most famous modern example of moving the goalpost exists in the anti-vaccination movement. Concerns over whether vaccines cause autism actually began in the late 1990’s, in Great Britain. According to Michael Fitzpatrick, a British physician and author of several books and articles on the subject, the controversy began with a research paper published by a gastroenterologist named Andrew Wakefield and twelve co-authors (ten of whom later issued a partial retraction) in the journal The Lancet (which formally retracted the entire article last year).

The study looked at twelve children, nine of whom were autistic, who had experienced a form of intestinal inflammation that Wakefield speculated during a press conference was caused by the MMR vaccine. The media seized on it. Many subsequent studies thoroughly debunked his claims, but by then it was too late – the seeds had been planted in popular culture.

As the aftershocks of Wakefield's claims rippled through the U.K., he brought his concerns to the U.S. Only this time, the blame wasn’t laid on MMR; it was placed instead on a preservative called thimerosal, which contained a small amount of mercury. The argument was that because mercury is a known neurotoxin, it could be causing damage to a child’s normal development. This neglected the fact that the dose of mercury was well below dangerous thresholds. It also ignored the fact that there was no causal evidence to suggest a connection.

But that didn’t matter. The goalpost had effectively been moved.

Despite further research that found no link between thimerosal and autism, the U.S. government finally conceded to have the preservative removed from most vaccines in the early 2000’s. Autism rates, as one would expect, were not affected.

Eventually, critics of vaccines had to drop this second line of argument. That hasn’t made them any more reasonable, however. Over the past few years, they’ve built a whole new campaign around the idea that vaccines contain a debilitating cocktail of “toxins.” Antivaccinationists now target this brew as the cause of autism.

In a 2008 article for the blog Science-Based Medicine, surgical oncologist David Gorski unpacked, piece-by-piece, the emptiness of that approach: “for example, they either ignorantly or willfully confuse ethylene glycol (antifreeze, which is not in vaccines) with polyethylene glycol (a polymer of ethylene glycol, a chemically different compound which is in some vaccines and is also in a number of skin creams, tooth paste, and medications, including laxatives)…they’ll also rant on and on about formaldehyde, neglecting the fact that most people are exposed in a single day to more formaldehyde…than babies are exposed to from their entire vaccine schedule.”

Although Gorski and others have the facts on their side, they’re unlikely to convince the opponents of vaccines, no matter how much proof is provided. As long as the goalpost keeps being moved, it remains impossible to score.

Toxic Runoff Creates "Rainbow Street" in Fairfield

When Hurricane Irene slammed into Connecticut on Aug. 28, the widespread flooding it brought along shorelines and rivers was hard not to notice.

What may have been less apparent to some people were the contaminates it dragged off the land with receding flood waters.

The pollution was obvious on Kenard Street in Fairfield, though.

At approximately 11 a.m., the tiny road that abuts the construction zone of the new Metro North railroad station was inundated with several feet of water from Ash Creek, which runs through the area.

As the water drained, it left brightly-colored stains across huge swaths of the pavement. A fluorescent sheen of yellows, blues, and pinks marked where the creek had crept across the road (see video above).

As anyone who has owned an old car knows, those stains are caused by motor oils and similar waste products. They are known as nonpoint source pollution.

According to the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, nonpoint source pollution is the leading cause of water quality problems. Billions of dollars are spent every year to test and treat water to make sure that the fish that swim in it, the plants that grow in it, and the humans who drink it all stay healthy.

Nonpoint source pollution becomes worse as urbanization occurs, because soils that once absorbed and neutralized contaminants are replaced by blacktop and other non-porous surfaces. The pollutants sit there, building up until it rains or snows, at which point they're deposited in rivers, lakes – or Long Island Sound.

The Fairfield Metro North complex is a prime example of urbanization. Last summer, the hillside near Kenard Street was occupied by a grove of trees. All of them were removed as part of the development project.

The view now consists of giant piles of contaminated soil dug up by construction equipment. The mounds became a point of consternation for the town after officials realized that the millions of dollars it would cost to remove the soil was not accounted for in the project's budget.

In the meantime, the exposed mounds (and the machines moving them around) contribute their own pollutants to the mix of runoff every time it rains or floods.

Although $7.5 million in additional funds approved by the town on Aug. 31 will pay for cleanup of the soil, Hurricane Irene has already siphoned her fair share of toxic material back into Fairfield's waters. That cost is much more difficult to quantify.