Letter to The New York Times, to Clark Hoyt, Public Editor

Dear Mr. Clark Hoyt,
Public Editor
The New York Times

I have been following the coverage of the so-called “oil spill” in the Gulf of Mexico, since the catastrophe began. Today, according to the Times is Day 49. Day 49 is titled “The Latest on the Oil Spill.” This article, like its predecessors, is organized by several headlines; in brief for Wednesday 9 June, 2010, they are:

New Rules on Shallow-Water Drilling; Obama Will Return . . .; Some Oil is Captured. . .Wildlife Fund . . . Planned; Evidence of Underwater Oil.” These synopses are accompanied by two visuals: a map and a diagram. The column is separated from related articles : “ Plumes of Oil Below Surface raise New Concerns,” and “Seeking Clues to Explosion . . .”

Except for a very brief summary on page one of the front page of The New York Times, main section, that promises me “All the News that’s Fit to Print,” the newspaper has relegated information/reporting to page 14. Of course there have been op-ed articles, editorials, and letters to the Times, as well.

Articles concerning the oil in the Gulf of Mexico have been located for the most part about mid-section in the main section. Two pages at best; today, June 9, 2010, Wednesday, only one page.

But you know all this. This is not news to you or to the editors of The New York Times. Why, therefore, am I writing? What do I think the newspaper should do?

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

Maps:
The Maps of the Gulf of Mexico are cropped. The entire gulf is not shown. This is absolutely necessary to get “the big picture”
What is lacking?

1. Currents are printed in light grey
Today: “Loop current eddy”; “Loop current.”
The Loop current is woefully cropped. The map does not show the entire current and indicate currents that are “connected” to it. [and the word “current” is not defined]. Are these the only currents in the Gulf? Are these on the surface? Do currents exist at various depths below the surface? What patterns do they have during the course of the year? How do seasons affect them?
To understand the gravity of the catastrophe, the Times must treat the issue of currents within the entire Gulf and also outside the Gulf.

2. Geology
1. The Times has not explained the geology of the Gulf.
This information is imperative to understand the circumstances of this man-made catastrophe. The entire world’s ocean terrains have been mapped using sonar and these maps can be seen on every flight an airline-passenger takes. These are part of the curricula of schoolchildren and college students. The Times need not reinvent the wheel here; such maps are readily available.

2. The geology of oil deposits.
Underwater deposits must be explained using texts, maps, and diagrams. The Times has not published this information. Thu,s the media for a couple of days spread the suggestion that the use of atomic weapons could “cap” the source of oil; this notion was even discussed, but without any basic knowledge of the geology of oil. Finally, it was laid to rest, but few people understood why.

3. Drilling new wells to draw off oil from the existing Deepwater pool.
a. A cross-sectional diagram was published several days ago showing where these were to be placed. But no comments were or explanations were appended to indicate why these would work. Is the geology different in those areas? Is different technology going to be used?
Could these fail too, releasing even more oil and gas?

b. What is the amount of oil and gas that is projected to be in this well? And whereelse in the Gulf are deposits equal to this one? Is this deposit high end, middling or low end?

c. Map out what the difference is between low, middling, and high oil deposits, that is where are they located.

d. And in this connection, who owns this information? If the resource is within the jurisdiction of the United States, the information is public and should be presented to the public. If the oil is not situated in United Sates waters, who has jurisdiction? What mechanism exists for dealing with such catastrophes when they occur outside United States jurisdiction.

f. Maps should indicate these areas: within United States jurisdictions and outside United States jurisdictions.

4. Maps showing all oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico
a. Maps that indicate what is in the jurisdiction of the United States of America
and what lies outside USA jurisdiction.
b. Which companies are responsible for the various wells? The NY Times indicates that a multiplicity of entities are involved.: searching for oil deposits; testing wells; setting up extraction initially; long-term extraction; and so forth.

5. Gas
No discussion has appeared in the NYTimes as far as I know about the gas[es] being released. This information should be included.
a. What happens to the gas, and what is affected by its dispersal in the water? Does the gas evaporate? If so what happens when it is released in the atmosphere? Short term effects, mid-term effects and tong-term effects? This question concerns flora and fauna, too. What about the impact on other substances, such as fusion with other gases and air of course.

b. When released in water and its presence in water what effects can be predicted or have been observed by such gas[es]?

c. Where is that gas or gases now? Satellite images show all. Why not publish these?

6. Satellite Images for oil
Satellite images will show the dispersal of oil on the surface of the bodies of waters. These have been published spasmodically, but only “small” areas.

b. Does satellite imagery show sub-surface oil. If so, who would have access to these images?

Drilling Globally in Water

To understand the circumstances in the Gulf of Mexico, the NYTimes should present information on drilling in ocean and sea water in other areas of the world. Among the questions that should be addressed are: hen were these wells drilled and are they still functioning; which companies are involved and what relationships do they have with the government (this question is pertinent as NYTimes Gulf coverage on June 10, 2010 [today] indicates in an article. BP and the US government has restricted access to news organizations, preventing photographers from recording visual data and also refusing to respond to questions posed by bona fide news organizations or other parties).


How many wells have leaked worldwide? Reporting on the Gulf spill, the qualification “in the United States,” is always used; this suggests that drilling of a comparable kind takes place elsewhere in the world. Clarification and information should be provided to your readers about these other wells.

Is “deep water” defined. If so, how many wells have been drilled in areas so defined? What are the results? (By the way, there is/was no uniformity with “top kill.” Sometimes it/was written without double quotation marks, other times with them. There should be agreement throughout on this [awful] phrase.

Comparisons with Oil Tanker Spills

The Gulf catastrophe cannot be compared to tanker spills. The quantity of oil in a tanker is known; the oil gushing from a well is unknown. Moreover, the gas that accompanies the oil is not on tankers.

Computing Oil and Gas
Unless a standard measure–be it gallons, barrels [with a known quantity contained in them] or some other measure that is universal is stated by news media, the public will be confused and uninformed. The NYTimes should state which measure is being employed.

Ecological Disaster
Here’s a suggestion about ecological destruction.

Print pictures of all fauna and flora affected by the spill. It is known that micro--organisms and whales, egrets, pelicans, and oysters are being subjected to deadly substances; oil, gas and the despersant Corexit is a killer for these animals, no matter what the level used is. Would you drink a glass of water withese substances in it? Many creatures will not survive short-term and long-term exposure. And of course the impact on plant life is deadly as well. Why not print a supplement or use the Sunday Magazine section for this purpose? Thumbnails will allow the newspaper to show just how vast the impact of this spill is. Having an occasional picture of some poor creature covered with oil is not enough. Yes a picture may be worth 1,000 words, but in this case why not combine text and picture.
Since so many birds and other creatures use the wetlands along the coast during migration or over--wintering, why not demonstrate that, showing the paths that these creatures take. From the pragmatic point of view of self-interest, birds do eat all sorts of things that if allowed to proliferate can damage man, other animals, crops and so forth.

Why not have graphics and text to illustrate how the animal is affected physiologically by the deadly substances. You could have a clinical, dispassionate account, and also one that would have emotional impact. Together these texts would make a case for ending all off-shore drilling and redirecting us towards creating alternate energy sources. Drilling off-shore is a temporary fix; it is not sustainable.

Paying for such a supplement?

Yes, of course this is a problem. Encourage advertising from conservancy groups and energy industries as well.

Reporters and their New Sources
The New York Times has used a plethora of reporters to cover this story. Who are these reporters and from where do they get their information? In some cases, the reporter or reporters –if an article is co-authored—may indicate their sources. In other cases not, if I recall correctly. How many of the reporters are permanent, whatever that means these days, and how many are hired to cover the story? How do I know whether the reporter is merely parroting a text that has been prepared by BP, by Halliburton, by the Coast Guard, and so forth. In other words am I reading independent research or just warmed over words?
And who are the editors? A business editor, a science editor, an editor involved in reporting on military matters? Again, your readers would like to have this information presented.

One article that had a major piece of news in it, but the news was placed about mid-way in the article concerned 250 million dollars that BP was distributing to Florida for ads encouraging tourism in Florida. That should have been a headline.

Placement of News about the Spill.
If a lead article is not on the front page of the Main section, I turn to the middle of that section and there are the pages with stories. Today, 10 June, 2010, only one page had articles.
Is this catastrophe no longer newsworthy? [This point was noted above, but it bears repeating. Now with accelerating speed the catastrophe is disappearing from public awareness, thanks to media consigning it to increasingly less “in your face” space.]

Economy and the Oil Spill
Desultory coverage. Almost no hard facts and figures. Largely, impressions and anecdotal stories. We need to know more. Where are the wonderful economic reporters in the Business Section. Give them an opportunity to win Pulitzers on this huge story.

Day 50
Surely in this lengthy period, at least one of the Science Times sections should have been devoted to this catastrophe. I could answer my own question “why,” but I leave it to the NYTimes to respond.
[I began my letter on the 49th day, but was unable to finish it then; mention therefore is to day 50]

Obviously this letter is not intended for publication. But I do hope that it is read and that some of the suggestions are taken seriously enough to emend the Times’ coverage.
Of course the Times receives revenue from BP and Shell, but ultimately it is the consumer, the humble reader, who keeps the Times in business.
I would like to think that the newspaper of today still adheres to its past principles, and that it will furnish its readership with the information it needs to insure that our democracy can function effectively.