image retrived from rainwater-harvesting-4-homes.com
A recent article by Irene Klotz from Discovery News does very little to allay fears of using treated wastewater to replenish drinking water supplies. Instead, she seems to exploit the public’s unease about this idea to cheaply grab attention, only to fail to supply her readers with any pertinent information. In this way, it serves as an example of inadequate reporting on a scientific subject.
Consider her headline, “Texas Town to Recycle Urine.” It conjures up vivid and unpleasant images that makes one want to read more. But it is misleading because it implies that this town is only treating the urine and not the other water in the plumbing. Also, it neglects the fact that wastewater, through numerous treatment processes (such as these employed in Boulder, Colorado), ending up in drinking water reservoirs is not entirely uncommon. This New York Times article, by Randal Archibold, notes that treated wastewater has been discharged for years into bodies of water like the Mississippi and Colorado rivers—sources of drinking water for millions of Americans.
image retrieved from discovery.com
The use of images in this article continues the pandering to the fears of the average reader. Has a toilet ever looked this ominous? The caption under it downplays the notion that we are drinking toilet water, but the message the article sends is easily lost. At worst, people won’t even read the caption and therefore might assume this article is against adding treated wastewater to potable water supplies. At best, the reader does read the caption and is confused by the contradiction between image and text, and comes away no clearer on the article’s message.
If it was the intent of Klotz to genuinely cast doubt on the benefits of blending treated wastewater with drinking water, why not bring up more credible concerns such as the increased exposure to potentially harmful byproducts of chlorination (which are succinctly explained by the Minnesota Department of Health website)?
Also take notice of how there is hardly any scientific support on the treatment practices Big Spring, Texas intends to employ. Klotz cites John Grant, a district manager, as saying, “We're taking treated effluent (wastewater), normally discharged into a creek, and blending it with (traditionally supplied potable) water.” This is supplemented by another vague comment, “In essence, the system speeds up what would naturally occur with the flow of discharged water through wetlands, with more pristine results.” How does eliminating a whole level of filtration provide more “pristine” results? This could be a glaring question for the readers, who are probably comprised of people ignorant to the science of wastewater treatment. Again, the article seems to shroud the topic in confusion when it should be clarifying it.
image retrieved from bouldercolorado.gov
In lieu of elaboration, Klotz just jumps to different topics. She includes as much attention to Texas drought statistics as she does to the science involved in wastewater treatment. Also, she curiously mentions a NASA program where a toilet on the International Space Station filters urine to recover water which can be used for drinking, cooking, and other uses. What purpose does this factoid serve? It doesn’t seem to have any relevant bearing on what is going on in Big Spring, Texas. Klotz continues to evoke sensational anecdotes without providing any relevant context to link it to the topic at hand.
In this article we can sense the detriments to sacrificing in-depth, relevant reporting for attention grabbing. The readers come away with little to no knowledge of the science behind wastewater treatment then they possessed before. The message becomes unclear—is treated wastewater a good or bad thing to add to drinking water? The words vaguely seem to support what this Texas town is doing, but the images and headline play to common trepidations. It is another example of media pressing buttons to get our attention and then failing to report anything substantial that could enlighten us.
I really liked the out rightness of this post. You concisely covered an article that did a poor job of providing empirical evidence for its bold claims. Too many times writers will come up with a witty or eye-catching title simple to get people to pick up their story. But the lack of information and scatter brained organization once within the article only devalues their credibility. You are right, there is nothing assuring or positive even about this article. Jumping all around from theory to fact back to theory does nothing but confuse and worry the reader. I wonder if there are any other stories with a more concise flow of information, because this could have actually been an interesting piece.
ReplyDeleteGood job of picking a story and sticking to how it was covered.
Abbey Meyers
I agree with your analysis of this story. The reporter does an awful job of staying on topic and providing readers with any sort of useful information. Texas is in severe drought and this process is something that could save them, or at least help them hang on for a little longer. Rather than promoting this process as something that could potentially alleviate many of the problems and buy some extra time to figure out a more permanent solution. I also noticed that the reporter did not even explain the process of wastewater treatment. It leads me to believe that she simply did not understand the topic she was reporting on. It appears that she did not have a firm grasp on the issue at hand, so filled her story with meaningless facts about unrelated topics in an attempt to sound educated on the topic of wastewater treatment. What this comes down to is reporters writing about stories which they are unqualified to comment on. Klotz clearly did not do her research to provide her audience with an accurate view of this problem.
ReplyDeleteHello-
ReplyDeleteFirst things first...A possible topic you could cover for another blog post, or read about if interested...
Recently in South Africa, they are using industrial waste to create eco friendly homes. Very interesting. I came across this in my research on clean water for my blog, but the topic didn't quite fit into the parameters of what I have been writing about.
Here is a link to a CNN article about this-->
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/23/world/africa/coal-mine-gypsum-bricks-south-africa/index.html?iref=allsearch
I agree with your post here. The reporter is very unsuccessful in reporting the news in a way that is accessible to readers. I actually have noticed these trends in recycling articles I have read in the past. I wonder if the issue is similar to what we talked about with weathercasters- that these reporters are just not educated enough on what is actually going on, and are just trying to get the news out there.
It seems like Klotz and the Discovery news article is a great example of the pressures of news reporting influencing the quality of reporting.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your critique of the headline of this article and I think that it poses as a perfect example of the media making flashy headlines to draw in reader’s attention. One can immediately tell how the article will be framed from the first words that they read. However, because the issue of contaminated drinking water is personally useful readers are probably much more likely to pay attention to the article which is beneficial for the journalist but potentially harmful for the average reader.
You are very correct with the idea that a reader comes out confused as to whether treated wastewater is a good or a bad thing because even I myself was confused with how to feel after reading this article.
Something else that I was a bit confused about was the lack of in depth discussion as to an alternative to treating wastewater in a time of drought like this. I looked in to this to see if there were any reports on an alternative and found very little. An article by CBSDFW. Com talks about the issue of the draining water tanks in North Texas and brings up the idea of an alternative but rather than conjuring up ideas it simply asks the reader if they believe that an alternative plan to prevent water being wasted should be developed.
This makes me believe that with water issues like you talked about there are not many alternatives and further that if this is the case the media needs to talk about a lack of alternatives as a problem rather then making people believe that the existing alternatives, like wastewater, are not sanitary and should not be practices.
-Zoe