Fear and the devil in natural history

  Reportage of natural history is sometimes fraught with miscommunication.  Maybe the writer doesn't understand the subject or doesn't express themselves properly.  At other times, the devil is in the headline and the detail contains the light.

For all their effort to produce items of interest in natural history, The Guardian [Weekly] has something of a tract record for purveying conceptual misunderstandings.  I remember a recent example where the writer perpetuated a common mis-phrasing of natural selection to suggest the organism (a tree) intentionally evolved in a particular direction, rather than being the surviving mutation of those subjected to the environmental pressures.  A subtle but important distinction.

In the GW of 18th March 2016, an article by Sarah Kaplan was headed Why nature needs a landscape of fear, with a subtitle: Dread of a predator can often have a beneficial impact on the environment.  Hold it right there.  Some natural environments may change radically with the sudden introduction of an apex predator.  Other environments, with the removal of a key predator, may be thrown out of balance.  But the ipso facto presence of a significant predator is not a necessity for balance in a natural environment.

The New Zealand environment, for example, was the product of millions of years of absence of significant predators.  Under such conditions, avian flight proved an evolutionary burden, and in the absence of predator pressure, a significant number of bird lineage gradually lost the capacity of flight.

The Guardian article is based on a study by Justin Suraci (University of Victoria, in Canada) into the changing behaviour of fauna with the introduction of predatorial noises to environments which once had predators - before the heavy hand of humans intervened.

We have reformed the planet in our image, moulded it for human needs.  We only suffer domesticated flora and fauna, and reduce Earth's original environment to islands - prisons - of wilderness.

A notable example given of the reversal of this process was the reintroduction of grey wolves to Yellowstone National Park - one of those island prisons.  The effects - not just from direct predation - cascaded down the food chain, restoring past balances both faunal and floral.

But nature does not need a landscape of fear.

The article was sourced from the Washington Post.  I tracked down that original: it's headed Dread is vanishing from the animal world.  Here's why it's a bad thing.  A far more accurate account of the contents of the article.

And so the answer is that the devil has been guiding the hand of the Guardian Weekly's subeditor.  While not the exclusive domain of the devil, this is one in which he often lurks close by.

Poor journalism on executive pay

A minor quibble? Rather, an exemplary tale of how sloppy journalism can completely skew information, and thus understanding.

Edward Liddy is the new CEO of American International Group, an insurer that was just recently bailed out by the US government. A Herald report, a wire story from Associated Press, headlined the fact that Liddy was being remunerated just $1 per year for the next two years. (The only rider mentioned on this was "he may be eligible for a special bonus for 'extraordinary performance' payable in 2010".) All this accords with the general narrative run through the media that fat cat executives have been wallowing in luxury while the world is in turmoil and pain (a fair blow, if you read the spa story here, 'standard industry practice' with impeccably bad timing) - and that their deeds are only just catching up with them.

But. Don't expect executives to work for no pay, plus maybe performance-based extras. Altruism has its place, but it's not to be found working as chief executive for capitalists.

A little ferreting around uncovered a Bloomfield story explaining the situation. It reveals Liddy will also receive "an unspecified number of equity grants". That's where the actual money is hiding.

In fact, that AP wire story has been published elsewhere (examples here and here) with an additional sentence: "In addition to his $1 a year salary, Liddy will be getting an unspecified amount of stock." (The missing sentence can be found in other places, too, for example .)

It is clear that the Herald sub-edited out that sentence - for dramatic effect? To harmonise with the heading? The effect is, however, dissonant, as the end result - depending on how it is received by the reader - either conveys the wrong impression or just doesn't make sense.

One could say Not very bright. Unprofessional, even. But the impact is more than just a reflection of poor work. Such an omission of detail may leave people with a very different take on an issue. Ideological impact aside, such egregious misinformation can have as bad a nett effect as disinformation.