Case Studies in Earth & Environmental Science Journalism

Zebra Mussel Invasion.

______________________________________________________________________________

Jump down to Reading List
Jump down to Zebra Mussels
- Scientific Articles
- Popular Articles

Questions to Ponder and Discuss

A BIG GENERAL THEME: Keep in mind this and the shark study. What are the positive and negative effects of 'scare tactics' employed by journalists/environmentalists/industry etc? What might be more effective? How can we responsibly depict issues in which data is often absent, scarce, anecdotal, or in flux, without feeding distrust of the scientific community? Also, in this study, do you think any of the authors play on what might be the general xenophobia of the public? What about the general fascination with apocalyptic events? How might these effect actions?

IN THE END: Who is more convincing, the apocalypse prophesiers, or those who consider the issue to be overstated? Sit back for a second. In what priority level would you rank zebra mussel control compared to, say, gathering shark attack data? ANWR? Exploring Europa? Funding public schools?..etc. etc. How can we work to make readers able to categorize a problem appropriately? Why was that attempt often failed at with regard to sharks? In the end, where is the zebra mussel problem in your mind, and what facts, stories, quotes most influenced your image of the issue?

I included the Sports Illustrated Table of Contents and the advertisements that were in the SI article. How does this article fit in?
The Associated Press articles in the SF Chronicle are years apart but seem to focus on containment rather than damage done. Why could this be? Why would this be published preferentially in San Francisco?
What are the pros and cons of using the economic argument versus the danger to biological diversity argument in pointing out the seriousness of zebra mussel invasion?
Note Oct. 1990 S.F. Chronicle. Just continue to keep containment issues in mind for the interview.
(1990 NY Times) People reproduce by the millions too. The previous article said that each mussel can lay 40,000 eggs. Of course enough 40,000's added up will be millions, but so will enough 1's or 2's. What is the author trying to do here?
Consider the JAWS illusion in the above article. Why would "Stephen King love this thing"?
Note Dec. 1990 New York Times. How can we use the reporting of honest mistakes made by scientists to give the public a better sense of the scientific process rather than to create distrust of the often aloof scientific community?
The Nov./Dec. 1990 EPA Journal article starts much further back in terms of scientific background. This might be a valuable chance to give readership a much more full view of the situation. Does it work?
In May 1992 Christian Science Monitor, what do you think about the approach of telling the story through one interesting person?
At the end of NY Times Dec 1992, whose consent may add great credibility to the chlorine argument in the eyes of most readers?
1994 High Country News only makes a passing mention of mussels, but the article as a whole tries to make an argument that is very difficult to make convincingly to a general readership, but also very critical at times. Sometimes the "ecosystem-messenger" and "aesthetic" arguments may be the only left to us in some situations. What can be done to make those arguments work? (Kristen and David maybe consider the Bentham/Pieta article from Env. Reporting. Matt, I'm sure there are plenty of conservation articles that you could bring to the table.)
In NY Times July 1993, do you like the strategy of calming the reader by noting that zebra mussels can't spread to salt-water, but then immediately turning around and challenging that?
In many articles, take April 1994 Trailer Boats for example, a reader can begin to get lost amidst a flurry of numbers. Perhaps, even the sight of many numbers in an article can lead to skimming. What can a writer do to make numbers less frightening?
In April 1994 Trailer Boats, there are relatively few quotes in the article and none near the beginning. How does this affect the article?
How does the above article appeal to its particular readership in its background section?
Later in the same article, the author sometimes says what the quote will say right before putting the quote in. What do you think about this strategy?
The lede in 1994 Field and Stream uses the form of a well-known joke opening. Is this strategy effective? Or just distracting?
In the same article, is the quote that is a paragraph all to itself awkward?
Which is more effective, the Field and Stream or Trailer Boats article?
Also in that article, how do you feel about the random sentence "they cannot live in saltwater"? This is an extremely important point, but is totally glanced over here.
The above article talks about control measures. This is Dr. Molloy's specialty, but it seems he is more a proponent of biological rather than chemical control. Think about the important issues involved, and what you would want to investigate in presenting them to a reader.
Peruse May 1995 Popular Science, what do you think about the alien/apocalypse technique? There may be a very fine line between effectiveness, and overboard. What might contribute to each? Think back to the excerpt from T. Rex and the Crater of Doom.
In Omni 1995, why, on the second page, is that particular quote enlarged? Also, could the "chicken feed" idea be a tip for an interesting story? Would you like to see it explored more? How effective is mentioning a brand new idea in the kicker?
Keeping the same article in mind, when it is helpful or harmful to use first-person narrative? (Kristen and David maybe think about the <emti> vs. <ekti> comparison that Rivlin gave for anthropological writing. Matt, maybe think about what works related to biology have influenced you most. Have they often been personal accounts of experience? When has that been/not been effective in your experience?)
There are no quotes in this article, but I personally liked it very much. The idea that clearing the water gave too great an advantage to a particular predator may be a really interesting point on many levels for readers not accustomed to considering biological systems. What, in the absence of quotes, makes this article work? Or does it work at all for you?
Does the brief mention of the tugboat operator add to the story?
What's the biggest difference between the Outdoor Life articles and the Feb. 1994 Field and Stream article? Why might this be?
The Dec. 1993 USA Today article may raise some interesting points for the interview with Dr. Molloy. What do you think about controlling an invasive species with another nonnative species? Chemicals? Does the article do a good job in getting across the complexities that need be considered in such an issue? Why or why not? Also, if we could see the picture, what kind of impact do you think it might have?
What is something the 1996 Outdoor Life article tries to do that none of the previous articles did? Do you like the kicker in this article?
June 1995 Field and Stream is an example of personal narrative. Does it work here? Why or why not?
Isn't the 1998 Univ. of Illinois article really boring?.
What do you think about the pictures in the Island Press article from earthscape.org?
The Oct. 1999 Sci. American online article has a totally different form. How do you feel about it in terms of simply laying all the information out versus the writer attempting to tell the story without subsections?
Is the magnitude analogy at the start of Earth Focus 1994 effective? What might you have used?
Compare the 1996/1997 Earth Island Journal article to others that claim the zebra mussel problem is overstated?

______________________________________________________________________________

Readings

Scientific articles.

Ludyanskiy, Michael L., Derek McDonald and David MacNeill, 1993. Impact of the Zebra Mussel, a Bivalve Invader: Dreissena polymorpha is rapidly colonizing hard surfaces throughout waterways of the United States and Canada. Bioscience, 43(8): 533-544.

Berkman, Paul Arthur et. al. 1998. Zebra Mussels invade Lake Erie muds. Nature, 393: 27-28.

Molloy, Daniel P. 1998. The Potential for Using Biological Control Technologies in the Management of Dreissena SPP. J. Shellfish Research, 17(1): 177-183..

______________________________________________________________________________

Zebra Mussel Invasion.

Questions to Ponder and Discuss

Readings

Scientific articles.

Popular Articles.