A Matter of Context

I've always been a news junkie.

I was an "Extemper" in high school.  Extemporaneous speaking is a competitive event in which the speaker draws a question about current events and 30 minutes later gives a six minute speech to answer the question.  The questions were detailed--at the Nationals in Salt Lake, I drew a question about the effect of Rhodesian independence on Southern African stability--and with only 30 minutes to prepare, you had to know all the issues in advance. I was well informed, but all of my information came from newspapers as well as Time and US News.  

After college, instead of getting my news out of periodicals I began reading history and biography books.  I was shocked at the extent that I misunderstood of events because they lacked context. 

Journalists will tell you that newspapers lack context because of space limitations.  That's partially true--they can't be expected to provide 2,000 words of back story every time something happens.  But much of the lack of context is either intentional scrubbing, or results from the journalist's ignorance of that context.  

Let me give you a couple examples from today's Republic.  First, you will recall that legislative Republicans have been saying for months that there is a train wreck coming because of teacher layoff notices.  State law says that any teacher who might be laid off has to get a letter by mid April.  However, the current budget is in flux because legislators have no idea how much stimulus money they will be getting.  The current law will result in thousands of false alarm notices and Republicans proposed suspending the law until the budget picture was more clear.  Democrats balked (the bill needed a two thirds vote) so the layoff notices went out and thousands of teachers who won't be laid off received notices anyway. 

Incredibly, the Republic story provides no context

An estimated 5,500 employees at 120 school districts in the state were recently handed pink slips warning them they may not have jobs next school year, an Arizona Republic survey has found.

About 4,000 of those employees are teachers.

Most school districts have issued layoff notices because they still do not have a state budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1. They also had to comply with a state law requiring them to tell teachers by April 15 whether their jobs might be cut.

Several factors make the story especially ironic.  First, the story was written by one reporter, but acknowledges 10 contributing reporters--none of whom are from the Republic's capitol team.

 Second.  While the Republic headline was right, the AzCentral headline was flat wrong.  "Ariz schools lay off 5,500" completely misses the point and the article makes that clear.

Finally, since there was no context, the reporters (all 11 of them) couldn't point out the irony that Republicans came to a budget agreement todayand if the notice requirement had been delayed a mere two weeks, this wouldn't have happened.

Without context, the story makes no sense.

It's for the Children.

Here's the second example from today's Republic.  Did you catch the feel good editorial about malaria prevention?

The Nothing But Nets campaign, working with the U.N. Refugee Agency, is aiming to raise enough money by that date to send 275,000 nets to protect Africans living in refugee camps, where the disease threatens an already-weakened population.

I lectured for the World Bank in Tanzania and let me assure you that nets soaked with insecticide are a pretty feeble protection against Malaria.  Mosquitoes are out at night.  Do you go to bed as soon as it's dark?  It only takes one bite to infect you.  Do you get up at night to use the bathroom?

The real solution to Malaria is DDT.  But after Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, western countries overreacted to the widespread agricultural use of DDT and banned it.  Since DDT is still the only effective way to prevent Malaria, sub Saharan Africa was left defenseless and 30 million people died as a result.*

Now, 50 years after an effective remedy was found and 30 years after that remedy was banned, we are treated to feel good editorials about Ashton Kuctcher using twitter to raise money to buy nets.  Folks who get all their information from the newspaper might be fooled into thinking that this is an actual solution and will have no understanding that the real solution was banned...and that 30 million people died as a result of that decision. 

The authors of both of these stories could have fixed them with a few sentences, but they either didn't know the context or they chose to leave it out.  Readers who get their news exclusively from the media will have been misled by both stories. 

*I'm looking forward to the comments on this thread.  I've given up hope that the comments will address journalism, I know that they will address DDT, and I'm sure that most of them will follow the predictable lines: 

1. I've submitted a false choice, we can actually ban DDT and still save kids.

Actually, if that was true, why didn't we do it?  We've been trying to find effective alternatives for 30 year and it's that false hope that led to the resurgence.

2. DDT kills birds.  OK.  That's probably true.  But how many kids is a bird worth? 50 kids to one bird?  1,000?  30 million  people have died because DDT was banned.  How much environmental damage are you going to need in order to justify that number?
 

Comments

[The Klute]

"*I'm looking forward to the comments on this thread. I've given up hope that the comments will address journalism..."

Well, then, I suppose you should have put them in two seperate threads.

But to address this:

"Finally, since there was no context, the reporters (all 11 of them) couldn't point out the irony that Republicans came to a budget agreement today and if the notice requirement had been delayed a mere two weeks, this wouldn't have happened."

You're asking the reports to evolve some sense of precognition?

[James L.]

I agree completely with you on the DDT issue. Certainly by now we can come up with more efficient delivery methods than we had 50 years ago to minimize its impact on wildlife. But the bottom line is that given the human cost its use greatly outweighs the negative. On the layoff issue I'm still abit unclear on what the Republic did wrong. I would imagine the effects of a law could always be changed if the Legislature had the votes to do it but in this case they didn't. That's the story-not that the Democrats played politics and weren't called out for it. That's simply the nature of the game in legislative bodies.

[The Klute]

As to DDT, DDT kills everything - it gets into the food chain, magnifies in apex predators, kills beneficial insects, and so on. And there's the increased amount of breast and pancreatic cancer.

Plus there's the whole "evolution" thing where mosquitoes have evolved a resistance to DDT, reducing it's effectiveness.

One could bring up that these 30 million wouldn't have died if they weren't also suffering malnutrition, lack of medical resources, overpopulation, unreliable and filty water supplies, so on, but it's easier and less provoking of guilt to blame Rachel Carson's book and promote the indicriminate use of DDT (because DDT is still used for disease vector control).

You-ess-ayy. You-ess-ayy.

[John H.]

The story on the layoffs clearly outlines a problem Arizona is facing without using rumors of a "budget deal" coming from just a few members of the legislature. Sure the leaders would love rumors to grab hold in the media right now to begin pressuring non-comforming Republican caucus members to sign-on sighting public pressure to finish a budget.

Besides, the plan forwarded by the Republican leaders says no tax increases or securatization plan. This means pretty clearly that there will be massive cuts to public education and other vital services. If that's the case, then yes, teachers and other employees will lose their jobs. All brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Republican.

Now is the time to eliminate wasteful tax loopholes and giveaways that only benefit the wealthy and corporations.

[Jack the Griper]

It surely is comical that people look at the situation at the Capitol, realize there is a far-right cabal in control, understand that they want to decapitate public services, people plan accordingly, and you have an issue with that?????
Is there a ssecret message you received that you're not sharing?

[Commander in Chief]

False and outdated information. DDT was "banned" in the United States in 1972 and in many European countries but NOT in the rest of the world. It remained in widespread use throughout most of the third world long after the "ban" and continues to be used today. It was not really even "banned" in the United States, but rather restricted in its use. Its use is still permitted in this country as vector control. The United States Agency for International Development continues to actually FUND THE USE of DDT in other countries. Some "ban."

The use of DDT as the primary weapon to prevent malaria has FAILED repeatedly. DDT is not an effective prevention for malaria, let alone the "only" effective prevention. This is an outdated idea that has been thoroughly disproven. If you'd like to read further you could start with the World Health Organization's website. You could also just google the terms "DDT" and "resistance" and see how much factual information you come up with.
Try this report, for instance: http://www.afronets.org/files/malaria.pdf.

This is a detailed report on how a DDT based malaria eradication program in Vietnam failed miserably, and how malaria deaths dropped 97 percent when a program of using medication, mosquito netting, and public health interventions replaced the failed DDT strategy. Mr. Patterson states that "DDT is still the only effective way to prevent malaria." This is simply wrong. DDT eradication is not effective.

DDT became largely ineffective for malaria eradication back in the 1980's due to RESISTANCE. LIke those nasty little germs that learned how to survive penicillin, mosquitoes learned how to survive DDT. The use of DDT dropped drastically in many parts of the world in the 1990's, particularly the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia, not because of any "ban" but because DDT didn't kill much of anything there. Other insecticides have replaced it, and malaria controlled by the above mentioned strategies of medicine, netting, and other public health measures.

So we have this statement from Mr. Patterson: "Sub-Saharan Africa was left defenseless and 30 million people have died as a result." Wrong. DDT continues to be used in Africa decades after its use was restricted in western countries. People died because DDT is ineffective. They died because they did not have access to the medications that could cure and control the disease. They died because no vaccine has been developed and made available to them. They died because effective strategies like mosquito netting and access to medication were not used. They did not die because of a "ban" that wasn't even a ban. They did not die because of a "ban" in countries thousands of miles away from their homes.

To answer a couple of the more idiotic questions posed here: Mosquitoes are out at night. Do you go to bed as soon as it's dark? It only takes one bite to infect you. Do you get up at night to use the bathroom?

Malaria kills people in rural areas of the poorest parts of the world. Most of these people live in places where there is no electricity. Yes, they very often do go to bed shortly after it gets dark. It's hard to stay up and watch Jay Leno when you don't have electricity. They also do this because they get up at the crack of dawn in order to start working during the coolest part of the day. Do they get up and go to the bathroom? What bathroom? There isn't one. People who live in malaria infested areas have known for centuries that the mosquitoes that carry the disease feed at night. They generally don't go outside to what Mr. Patterson would call the "bathroom" after dark. They stay inside their huts and use a chamber pot. In lot of places the contents of the chamber pot are used as fertilizer--I believe the polite term for it in the western world is "night soil." If you've ever actually been to rural farming areas in Southeast Asia, there isn't a polite term to express it. It smells like shit there.

There's actual research evidence on the effectiveness of mosquito netting in malaria control. A couple of bad anecdotal questions that reveal how little Mr. Patterson understands about the problem don't render them ineffective.

30 million people did not die because DDT was "banned."

[Tim S]

There was actually a Republican led effort to postpone the dates by which those letters would have to go out and a great many educators supported the effort. But because it was an emergency measure, it needed two-thirds of each body and the unions and Democrats killed it because they preferred scaring folks and scoring political points. The Republic article makes no mention of that either. No big surprise.

[Mr. T]

You do realize that the "there's a budget deal" story you linked to expressly says that there's not a budget deal, right? Because it took me 3 paragraphs to realize that. Leaders are still meeting with members and trying to round up votes.

No to mention the fact that today, Burns said the Approps meeting on thursday isn't going to happen. Should Mary Jo have known that and reported it in the story in todya's paper, too? I mean, that's the standard you are holding the writer of the original teacher article to.

[John H.]

On the April 15 deadline that was not extended: Teachers and support professionals across the state are concerned their jobs will be eliminated leaving them jobless and at the end of the unemployment line. Giving folks notice in April, as opposed to June (Republican proposal), gives teachers and others loosing their jobs an opportunity to plan for their next move, to find work, and take care of their families.

School districts are acting responsibly by planning for the massive cuts being promoted by the legislature. If there's a better plan--one that doesn't cut school budgets by 20%--the legislature ought to get to work on delivering it to our state's governing boards.

The legislature is holding all the cards now, teacher layoffs are the bidding of legislatures of the past and their massive tax cuts for corporate interests and wealthy Arizonans. This legislature has an opportunity to select and alternative path that leads our state in the right direction.

[Paul]

CinC, I'll see your weblink, and raise you: here's one from the Malaria Foundation International - which, incidentally, was one of the sites linked to from the site you listed - which says exactly the opposite of what you claim:

http://www.malaria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=42

Specifically, the section on the page titled, "New EU Pesticide Regulations and the Implications for Vector-Borne Disease Control" expressly states, "Some malarial countries have halted the use of DDT (a highly effective disease control insecticide banned in the EU) out of fears that residues on export produce due to leakage of product into agriculture would result in rejection of entire export shipments. Such actions have harmed malaria control forcing poor people to pay a high price for existing EU regulations. The proposed new regulations could result in a similar situation with the remaining classes of insecticides. These regulations will act as a new non-tariff trade barrier, paralyzing some of Africa’s most highly effective malaria control programs based on fears that even the smallest residues will harm agricultural exports. As a result the costs and complexity of malaria control by insecticide spraying will rise significantly, limiting the scope and malaria control programs and thereby endangering lives from a preventable disease."

I'd guess that an organization dedicated exclusively to dealing with malaria - and particularly in Africa - might have some insight into the thing, no?

[todd]

Since DDT was not banned in these malarial countries it seems hard to understand how a non-existent ban could contribute to 30 million deaths. Therefore the claim the journalism is bad because it doesn't include a non-existent context doesn't really carry much weight. Likewise, as nets do in fact help in the effort to prevent the spread of malaria the criticism makes no sense.

In much the same way, criticism of reporter who did not include the fact that there is a budget agreement that no one but republican leadership has seen also strikes me a as odd since no one knew what was in this agreement.