The lost opportunity of Whooping Crane 217

The following was sent to the writer of this online article:

Crane once part of Operation Migration shot

I prompt you the reader to be aware of the general tone of the writing and to ask yourself what the writer's style engenders in her audience.

Lastly, if the tone of a writer engenders cynicism in his / her audience, is this responsible reporting?

Amanda,

I teach wildlife biology in an affluent suburban high school in New York State (Bethlehem CSD) and (my opinion) I believe that the tone of the article (choice of words, context, subject / facts / trivia reported) will lead supporters of your view to become cynical about "people today" and non-supporters (hunters & those who generally don't value biodiversity) to become even more acutely entrenched in their ignorance.

In both cases (supporters and not) I don't think your purpose was to dis-engender compassion for the cranes, but this may be the result.

Rather than pointing supporters to develop ill feelings toward other people, engendering even greater compassion toward cranes by educating your readers about the ecological value, aesthetic value, and additional qualities of the species would clearly impact the supportive demographic more positively, but it would also impact the more pragmatic / neutral readers as well.

The story of Crane 217 had an opportunity to resonate with an audience that here to for had no knowledge of its existence and that, perhaps, upon learning of its fate, and its importance (as you did note) would inspire a sense of greater advocacy and activism.

When people become cynical (in this case, supporters who develop deeper negative feelings about "people in general") they may not lose their compassion for their cause, but they lose the positive affect they have on others who they might have turned to their cause.

A general writing structure that focused on this as a possible mistake, and that demonstrated the positive qualities of the species, those who have led this effort, and the dispositions of advocacy and activism would engender a far more positive impact. Generally, the tone of the article I suggest would be a good deal more positive. The rebuttals to being positive are certainly many. They all are valid but they all fail to realize that negativity engenders a greater "digging in" by those whose actions are being assailed. It puts those individuals on the defensive and it casts the writer, and those who the article resonates with as "radical environmentalists" rather than sane, and informed supporters of what is right (namely, the preservation of biodiversity).

I appreciate that my response may engender anger on your part and I apologize if it does. This is not my intent.

In my experience, the most difficult charge that I accept is influencing 17 and 18 year-olds to lose their apathy to things that they either feel are outside their control, or that simply do not matter. This same experience has convinced me that being judgmental or pejorative alienates those who might otherwise listen and resonate.

I would also be remiss if I didn't thank you for at least calling attention to this.

My regards.

Mike Klugman
Wildlife Biology Teacher
K-12 Science & Technology Supervisor
Bethlehem Central School District