Many articles written in newspapers and magazines, and that are posted online, are secondary sources, where the information has been supplied by another source – a primary source. A primary source is usually some type of study or research project that has been conducted by professionals in hopes of ascertaining new information about a certain topic. Although the secondary source is based off of the primary source, differences tend to occur.
In this case the secondary source is an article from The Globe and Mail titled “Birds dying from oil sands by product 30 times more than estimated”. The primary source is the study “Annual Bird Mortality in the Bitumen Tailings Ponds in Northeastern Alberta, Canada” by Kevin Timoney and Robert Ronconi, published in The Wilson Journal of Ornithology. Fairly obvious by the titles, both articles suggest that birds are dying in tailing ponds much more than the rates suggested by oil industries and the government.
In this case the secondary source is an article from The Globe and Mail titled “Birds dying from oil sands by product 30 times more than estimated”. The primary source is the study “Annual Bird Mortality in the Bitumen Tailings Ponds in Northeastern Alberta, Canada” by Kevin Timoney and Robert Ronconi, published in The Wilson Journal of Ornithology. Fairly obvious by the titles, both articles suggest that birds are dying in tailing ponds much more than the rates suggested by oil industries and the government.
The newspaper article is very brief and straight to the point, whereas the study explains all of the different details about how they conducted their research. The article used simpler language and terminology, compared to the study that used very technical scientific vocabulary. This does make sense, because most people would not be able to understand the complexity of the scientific study. The average person reading the newspaper, wants to be informed of what is going on, but it is not as important to them of how the data and information was achieved.
Another difference between the two sources is the way in which they were presented. A newspaper article can only be a certain length, and so it can only contain a certain level of detail. In contrast, the primary source was around 7 pages, containing a significantly high amount of detail and data, and also included charts, graphs and maps to help present information.
In terms of differences in the actual information in the article and the study, there were not any errors made, but rather slight differences in impressions given and the strengths given to certain statements. The article puts all of the blame on the industries and government for giving in-proper data about the number of birds dying due to the tailing ponds. However, it does not go into enough detail as to what they are doing wrong and how there is something suspicious occurring within the system.
After reading the study by Timoney, it is obvious that in order to get as accurate information as possible, a lot of investigating and researching is required. He had to look into migratory patterns (in order to know how many birds would be flying over the tailing ponds and how often), look at mortality surveys, average mortality rates, spot censuses, shoreline searches (for carcasses), and estimations of number of bird landings, etc (Timoney et al 2010). Though it is clear that tracking the rate of mortality is very difficult, in his study, Timoney lists multiple sources of estimation error.
It is understandable that industries might not have exact data, because in this case there is no definite way of knowing the exact number of birds that have died, even with immense resources. Also, most oil industries probably do not want to spend lots of money on monitoring the rates of bird deaths. Nevertheless, Timoney found three shortcomings in the industries and government’s data. First, being significantly lower rates of mortality which was mentioned in the article. The second being that “the industry-reported mortalities often did not match the mortalities reported by the government, even though government and industry numbers should be identical” (Timoney et al, 2010). Third, “the bird mortality data released by government lack detail,” (Timoney et al, 2010). “Only company name and total bird mortality for each year and general cause of death are reported: this results in loss of valuable data on location, date and circumstances of specific incidents,” (Timoney et al, 2010).
However, the article gives the impression that the government just made a mistake in their calculations of mortality, and that according to the Sustainable Resources Minister, Mel Knight; “bird deterrence and monitoring could be improved,” (Globe and Mail 2010). In reality it seems as though there is a lot more to it than that. The problem is not just that the rate of bird mortality is very high, or even that their given data is significantly wrong, but that there appears to be many kinks in the system. According to Timoney’s study, it seems as though there is significant miscommunication between the industries and the government, and the government’s reports are not being properly completed. The lack of detail also suggests a lack of concern and effort. It appears as if the government does not really care about this issue, that they are not putting in enough money or effort into trying to prevent the deaths of multiple different species of birds that these oil industries are causing. The article just seems to point out the error in the governments work, whereas Timoney seems to somewhat accuse the government and industries of corruption.
The article does not even mention the repercussions that the industries’ and government’s lack of data could cause. If the industries do not present the proper data, then it will not be known to the public and policy makers how big and significant of a problem this is and nothing will change to help the birds.
Work Cited
"Birds dying from oil sands by product 30 times more than estimated: study." Globe and Mail 07 sep 2010: n. pag. Web. 19 Sep 2010.
Timoney, Kevin, and Robert Ronconi. "Annual Bird Mortality in the Bitumen Tailings Ponds in Northeastern Alberta, Canada." Wilson Journal of Ornithology (2010): 569-575. Web. 19 Sep 2010..
Another difference between the two sources is the way in which they were presented. A newspaper article can only be a certain length, and so it can only contain a certain level of detail. In contrast, the primary source was around 7 pages, containing a significantly high amount of detail and data, and also included charts, graphs and maps to help present information.
In terms of differences in the actual information in the article and the study, there were not any errors made, but rather slight differences in impressions given and the strengths given to certain statements. The article puts all of the blame on the industries and government for giving in-proper data about the number of birds dying due to the tailing ponds. However, it does not go into enough detail as to what they are doing wrong and how there is something suspicious occurring within the system.
After reading the study by Timoney, it is obvious that in order to get as accurate information as possible, a lot of investigating and researching is required. He had to look into migratory patterns (in order to know how many birds would be flying over the tailing ponds and how often), look at mortality surveys, average mortality rates, spot censuses, shoreline searches (for carcasses), and estimations of number of bird landings, etc (Timoney et al 2010). Though it is clear that tracking the rate of mortality is very difficult, in his study, Timoney lists multiple sources of estimation error.
It is understandable that industries might not have exact data, because in this case there is no definite way of knowing the exact number of birds that have died, even with immense resources. Also, most oil industries probably do not want to spend lots of money on monitoring the rates of bird deaths. Nevertheless, Timoney found three shortcomings in the industries and government’s data. First, being significantly lower rates of mortality which was mentioned in the article. The second being that “the industry-reported mortalities often did not match the mortalities reported by the government, even though government and industry numbers should be identical” (Timoney et al, 2010). Third, “the bird mortality data released by government lack detail,” (Timoney et al, 2010). “Only company name and total bird mortality for each year and general cause of death are reported: this results in loss of valuable data on location, date and circumstances of specific incidents,” (Timoney et al, 2010).
However, the article gives the impression that the government just made a mistake in their calculations of mortality, and that according to the Sustainable Resources Minister, Mel Knight; “bird deterrence and monitoring could be improved,” (Globe and Mail 2010). In reality it seems as though there is a lot more to it than that. The problem is not just that the rate of bird mortality is very high, or even that their given data is significantly wrong, but that there appears to be many kinks in the system. According to Timoney’s study, it seems as though there is significant miscommunication between the industries and the government, and the government’s reports are not being properly completed. The lack of detail also suggests a lack of concern and effort. It appears as if the government does not really care about this issue, that they are not putting in enough money or effort into trying to prevent the deaths of multiple different species of birds that these oil industries are causing. The article just seems to point out the error in the governments work, whereas Timoney seems to somewhat accuse the government and industries of corruption.
The article does not even mention the repercussions that the industries’ and government’s lack of data could cause. If the industries do not present the proper data, then it will not be known to the public and policy makers how big and significant of a problem this is and nothing will change to help the birds.
Work Cited
"Birds dying from oil sands by product 30 times more than estimated: study." Globe and Mail 07 sep 2010: n. pag. Web. 19 Sep 2010.
Timoney, Kevin, and Robert Ronconi. "Annual Bird Mortality in the Bitumen Tailings Ponds in Northeastern Alberta, Canada." Wilson Journal of Ornithology (2010): 569-575. Web. 19 Sep 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment