Newspapers and the articles within them are catered to a population, that only have a selected amount of time to read up on what is going on in their community, country or the world. They are written in a way which is not as time consuming as reading a whole study or report but still shares the final conclusions and results. Although there is nothing wrong with this, it can sometimes be misleading. An article that is based on a study is considered a secondary source. It is merely just a shorter, summarized version of a persons research and observations. Its purpose is to get across the final conclusion in a timely manner, so anyone who is reading it can do so while, for example, having their morning coffee. It is condensed and brief and seldom contains all the results from the actual study which would be the primary source.
For example, the article, B.C. wildlife needs more protection, study says by Gerry Bellett found in the Vancouver Sun on September 22, 2010, is based on the study titled, On the Edge: British Columbia's Unprotected Transboundary Species, released by the David Suzuki Foundation. In the newspaper article, the author, probably unintentionally, misinterprets some of the study’s findings which is misleading to anyone who reads the article and not the study.
First, in the third paragraph, the article states that, “...96 per cent of the threatened species are transboundary...” This literally means that out of all the threatened species, the species that have an uncertain chance of continued survival (in that particular area), 96% of them are transboundary, meaning that they are also part of other jurisdictions. When comparing this statement from the article to the study one may notice that the study makes a slightly different claim.
The study says, “The ‘range’ of most of B.C.’s species (i.e. the area in which those species occur) is not restricted to the province. These species are known as transboundary species. They make up 96 per cent of B.C.’s total biodiversity...” This quote is saying that British Columbia’s biodiversity is made up of 96 per cent of transboundary species which are species that are not just found in the province.
As one can see these statements could be easily confused but do not have the same meaning. Although this is just one little difference in an article versus study and will probably not affect anyone in a harmful manner, it is all the same, misleading and providing incorrect information about this topic.
Also on page 10 of the study it claims that, “Forty-two per cent of transboundary species in B.C. are at risk.” Although claiming that “96% of threatened species are transboundary” is very different from saying that “42% of transboundary species are at risk”, these two points have more of a relatable connection and by just changing the wording the author could have avoided the miscommunication altogether.
While comparing the article to the study one might notice that the article does not contain very much data. The study on the other hand is full of specific data, the results of their findings. For example the study includes the levels of legal protection for transboundary species at risk in B.C and the number of transboundary and non-transboundary species in major wildlife groups in B.C. It can be counteractive to bombard a newspaper article with a ton of data as the reader could find it overwhelming and end up disregarding the whole article. But it is important to put in some numbers to give the reader a statistical view of whats going on. Unfortunately, this article contains very few numbers and fails to represent the study’s research in an accurate manner.
The article did, in fact, include quotations made by the report’s authors. Although the quotations are not included in the study per se, it gives the article a little bit more credit having direct quotations about the topic made by the authors of the report. For example, in the article Bellett quotes Michelle Connolly one of the report's authors, saying, “If a grizzly bear ambles from Alberta or Montana across the border into B.C., it goes from being protected by law to staring down the barrel of a gun.” This is a good quote as it on the same topic as the study, it is made by one of the authors of the study and very clearly explains the problem of the protection laws in British Columbia.
It is obvious that secondary sources are not always great representations of their primary source, especially if it is a newspaper article. Primary sources contain much more detail and have legitimate research and observations behind every piece of data. As secondary sources are using the primary source as the main resource, the author probably has not studied or researched the topic, thus making a less in depth article. Also in secondary sources it is possible for the author to either misunderstand or miscommunicate certain information and this could lead to sharing incorrect data which is never good. In conclusion, when using a secondary source as a resource it is always important to read the primary source as well to ensure full understanding.
References:
Bellett, G. (2010, September 22). B.c. wildlife needs more protection, study says. Vancouver Sun, Retrieved from http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/wildlife+needs+more+protection+study+says/3559853/story.html
Connolly, M., Ferguson, K., Pinkus, S., & Moola, F,. (2010). On the edge: British Columbia's unprotected transboundary species. Retrieved from http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/downloads/2010/On-the-Edge-Sept-2010.pdf
Photograph taken by Norbert Rosing for National Geographic.
Post made by Tara Mathur 725528
ReplyDelete