by: Ian Wratschko
It became very clear while analyzing the difference between a primary and secondary source that a secondary source is very dumbed down most of the time. This fact alone can cause misinterpretation of the facts from the original primary source. It is also seen that the original data can be altered and removed to make it easier for the general public, reducing the validity of the original data.
In my Comparison of the BBC news article Chernobyl plant life endures radioactivity (BBC News September 20, 2010) with the journal article Proteomics Analysis of Flax Grown in Chernobyl Area Suggests Limited Effect of Contaminated Environment on Seed Proteome (Katarna Klubicov et al. 2010) the first thing I recognized is the differences in how the titles were presented. The news article had a flashy title that most people would be able to understand. Many individuals will recognize what Chernobyl is, and recognize that nuclear radiation is bad for any living thing, so if plants are living there it should be seen as odd. The journal articles title is meant to be informative, and give the reader an idea of what they are about to read and help them understand that this article looks at one part of why plants are growing in Chernobyl, while the newspaper article does not. Instead the news article reduced the understanding of the argument by changing the title to make it catchier. The main issue with the title change is that the BBC title makes it sound like plants are thriving in a radioactive environment, while the actual experiment was looking at only the seeds, and it had nothing to do with the actual survivability of pants in such a hostile environment.
The next thing I looked at was the actual information present in the article the news article removes information from the article that is at times crucial for the argument to better accommodate the readers of the article. This is different from the journal article that focuses on the experiment, giving high levels of detail about the experiment, and the results all coming together to show outcome of the research. The BBC article used a much more simplified version of the information that anyone would be able to comprehend, much of the article avoids details that would cause the public to become bogged down and make them give up. It also just so happens that some of the more complex pieces of information are crucial in the understanding the researchers were trying to make. The other thing the news article does that is specifically for it, is an interview with one of the researchers, asking him questions and getting opinionated answers about the research. The other thing that is lacking is any significant details about the actual procedure, which is very apparent in the primary article. This procedure would help clear up some of the misconceptions. Now looking at the actual journal article, you would find a high level of detail in the writing. There are extensive sections in this article detailing parts of the experiment, and showing off procedures that were taken, and how the experiment was set up. Then another large chunk of text, pictures, and graphs detailing the results, and the analysis. With all this extra information present in the primary article, it reduces the ability to have misunderstanding, and misconception in the audience.
How the information is displayed is another factor that changes immensely from primary to secondary. In the primary source all the information is laid out in a report style format, clearly stating which sections relate to which part of the research, from introduction, to experimental details, to data and analysis. It reminded me of a lab report that we might hand in to a professor (with a much higher level of detail of course). The journal article also has a large reference section showing that these researchers borrowed information from others to complete their work; none of this is mentioned in the news article. This strengthens the arguments in a way the news article cannot; for these researchers can back up there results using other already accredited research. The news article was set up to read like a story, from beginning to end, it was supposed to teach the general public while keeping them entertained, and keeping them reading. One of the main things that show this story format and the pull away from a science article is the addition of a background section on Chernobyl that is not just a reference to another text.
Finally looking at the language used in the two different sources was a less important but still relevant point. The style of language used in the primary source read with a lot of large words, and complex descriptions. A lot of the words an individual would have to require a background in science to understand, making it difficult for the general public to understand. The language used in secondary news source read with short fast words, that kept the pace flowing, and the feel of the article relaxed, while making the individual feel like they would be able to fully understand what was going on in the experiment.
In conclusion, it is clear that both of these sources are designed to teach a group about a new discovery. The primary source is designed to teach the professionals of a certain field about new discoveries, or new outlooks on old discoveries. This is paralleled by the secondary sources that focuses on the general public and teaches them. It is unfortunate though that the secondary source normally removes large portions of information that are deemed to intricate for the common individual to understand. This is also unfortunate, due to the fact that with the removal of some crucial yet complicated facts, some of the meaning of the primary source is lost, and left open to interpretation. This allowance of interpretation leaves large gaps for misunderstanding, and general confusion for the public.
BBC news sept 20 2010 Chernobyl plant life endures radioactivity
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11345935
KlubicovaÃÅ K, Danchenko M, Skultety L, Miernyk JA, Rashydov NM, Berezhna VV, et al. 2010. Proteomics Analysis of Flax Grown in Chernobyl Area Suggests Limited Effect of Contaminated Environment on Seed Proteome.
Environmental Science & Technology 44(18): 6940-6946.
No comments:
Post a Comment