Notes From the Continuing Decline of the New York Times
In today's New York Times Magazine, a long article on drilling for natural gas in western Pennsylvania using the new techniques involved in fracturing subterranean rock formations, or "fracking."
As you’d expect, the author takes pains to note that the new technique, which is reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy, holding down heating and other energy costs across the nation, and attracting billions of dollars in investments to otherwise poor communities—all this, as you'd expect, the author presents as something like a tragedy. “In Amwell Township, Pa.,” the subhead reads, “the dividing line is between those who are getting rich and those who are paying the price.” Gloom, doom, and woe--you get the idea.
But it wasn’t the usual editorial bias that caught my attention. It was an instance of stark editorial incompetence. As I say, the article appears in the weekly Magazine, the portion of the newspaper in which pieces have the longest lead times and should therefore be subject to the most thoroughoing editorial scrubbing. And yet?
And yet this:
The township sits atop the Marcellus Shale Deposit, one of the largest fields of natural gas in the world, a formation that stretches beneath 575 miles of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York.
Come again?
The author might mean that the northernmost point of the deposit lies 575 miles north of the southernmost point, or that the deposit stretches over an area of 575 square miles, or perhaps that the deposit comprises 575 cubic miles. What the author cannot mean, because it very obviously makes no sense, is what she says; namely, that the formation stretches some 575 miles along a single line.
Now, any writer can tire or make the odd mistake. But at the once august gray lady, why didn't an editor query this? Why didn't someone wielding a blue pencil place a question mark in the margin? Why didn't someone email the author asking her for a simple clarification?
At the once august gray lady, I repeat, stark editorial incompetence. Bad, bad, bad.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Re: Notes From the Continuing Decline of the New York Times
Ah, but the editorial feelings are in the right place and, sadly, that is all that matters in modern discourse.
Re: Notes From the Continuing Decline of the New York Times
No surprise. When you give up thinking and publish pablum, you will also forget how to write.
Oct '11
Re: Notes From the Continuing Decline of the New York Times
Even the Townships are bigger in America ?
Re: Notes From the Continuing Decline of the New York Times
Samuel Amaral
Even the Townships are bigger in America ? · Nov 20 at 4:37pm
Good point, Samuel. And welcome to Ricochet!
Sep '10
Re: Notes From the Continuing Decline of the New York Times
I can't possibly bring myself to read it after this but I doubt the author bothers to explain what an exceptionally long distance below the surface and the water table at which the formation exists.
Oct '11
Re: Notes From the Continuing Decline of the New York Times
One defining characteristic of the Left is an inability, even an aversion, to measure.
That said, this seems a minor offense, well within the bounds one might expect from a knowledgeable and sympathetic readership. (Ok, one out of two ...) (Dang it, what is that word I'm looking for?)
And picking on the township phrase is deliberate obtuseness. My cat sits atop my armchair, but he doesn't span the whole surface.
Jeez, Robinson! How dare you goad me into defending that blue rag?
May '10
Re: Notes From the Continuing Decline of the New York Times
perhaps they take science reporting lessons from the bbc.
Oct '11
Re: Notes From the Continuing Decline of the New York Times
Indulgence - that's the word I was looking for. Sometimes you have to read generously. Ok, maybe this isn't one of those times.
Time to frackin' drill, baby.
Jan '11
Re: Notes From the Continuing Decline of the New York Times
Well, yes, editorial malpractice to be sure, but they got the agenda right, so what's wrong?
Apr '11
Re: Notes From the Continuing Decline of the New York Times
Lighten up, Mr. Robinson. Careless phrasing, but not terribly ambiguous, and not a sign of calamitous degeneration ("Grey Ladies and bankrupt hardest hit"):
"that stretches beneath 575 miles of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York" should be "that stretches for 575 miles beneath West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York".
Just for the record,
here is a map of the formation from Wikipedia. The red line is my attempt to hand draw a center-line for the formation. It is about 650 miles long. The two red circles at the North and South extremities are about 530 miles apart.
Anyone who doesn't like the editing can e-mail the editor: s.glaser-MagGroup@nytimes.com.
May '11
Re: Notes From the Continuing Decline of the New York Times
Holding that precision in writing is a self-evident Good seems to have become a Conservative tell. My occasional defenses of the need for clarity elicit reactions from my Liberal friends ranging from bemused tolerance to sputtering rage. The Liberal condition, or what leads to it, seems to be at odds with the very notion of Standards, which may stem from an aversion to any tenet or tool that might impede the flogging of Notions. The frailty of notions requires that they be held aloft by aggressive and gapless assertion; analysts need not apply. And so I suspect that Liberals, not being stupid, sense the need to avoid staging battles on hazardous ground. Though it's quite a stretch, I suggest that Ambiguity Creep might be not just a component of the Liberal mode, but also an active means of disabling discourse.
Sep '10
Re: Notes From the Continuing Decline of the New York Times
I am with Grendel, Peter, this is a large mole hill out of an ant hill. 575 miles may not be the best way to describe it, but it is genuinely large (in length or in area) compared to other gas field in the US and I think that is the point.
Of course the rest of the article is unfocused crap.
It takes about a month to drill and complete a well. The water impoundments may stay for as much as 6 months if multiple wells are being drilled on one pad, but they are not there for the multi-year life of the gas well.
And fracking is not a new process, over 1 million gas wells have been fracked over the last 50 years with very, very, very few complaints. We would not fly in airplanes if aviation was held to so high a standard.
What few problems with water contamination have occurred are due to well casing design and have nothing to do with the fracking itself. And the well casing designs have improved and are regulated to make this very rare occurence even rarer.
Edited on Nov 21, 2011 at 6:27pmSep '10
Re: Notes From the Continuing Decline of the New York Times
continued:
With respect to well water, the E&P companies are so regularly accused of polluting water by ethically challenged landowners that they have taken to testing all the water wells in an area before drilling. This was not true 2 or 3 years ago, but they have learned their lesson now. So the presence of arsenic or VOC's in wells will generally be known before hand. Of course southwestern PA has been mined and drilled for more than 100 years and it is far more likely that previous mining or drilling is the culprit. Oil and gas wells were regularly left uncased or at least with much poorer casing designs for most of oil and gas history. Most of the damage that could be done has been done. We are a million miles away from that now where there are 3 separate steel pipes each encased in concrete separating the produced fluids from the ground water. And as far as abandoned coal mines go, forget about it.
There really is no comparison with the environment 50 years ago versus today. But somehow those are the good old days.
Sep '10
Re: Notes From the Continuing Decline of the New York Times
One last comment and I'll stop.
Years ago I worked on a landfill gas to energy plant in southern CA. Residents nearly a mile away convinced themselves that the noise of the generators was killing them. When we measured it at night is was about 53 dB which is far less than a home air conditioner. During the day it wasn't a problem because the day to day noise of the trash trucks and tire shredder more than drowned out the generator sets.
And yet these people could get a doctor to write them a letter stating how they were being harmed. The landfill operator eventually purchased their homes and I understand sold them to new people at a profit (this was before the housing bust in CA). I no longer believe these apparently heartfelt stories of pain and suffering that the locals tell the media. The media have a much higher tolerance it appears.