On March 6th, 2010, Bill Marsh published a piece of environmental news on the New York Times. The news publishes the declining number of tigers existing on the world. By providing data from experts, Marsh tried to convey the risk that tigers are disappearing on our world. According to him, reasons that lead to the dwindling range of tiger include: the need of tiger-based medicines; illegal hunters’ activities in wildlife sanctuaries; governments’ indifference on the tiger killing issue; and the competition among tiger organizations. In the article, Marsh criticizes the wrongness of Chinese government’s allowing some of its tiger farms to meet with the need of medicinal tiger products. And he also raises his concern about the lack of areas for wild tigers to live in.
Through the word “fretting” and “last” in the headline, Marsh expresses his concern about the issue. And the tone of the headline creates a sense of risk, which asks for readers’ attention.
Then, in the leading paragraph, Marsh connects the topic with the Chinese Year of the Tiger. Such an opening can not only attract readers’ interest, but also drive people to think about the future of human being and wildlife.
In order to prove the risk, experts’ data and opinion are displayed in the news to support the author’s point of view. Below are sources used in the news:
“Experts believe the global wild tiger population has fallen to below 3,000 — less than 3 percent of what it was just 100 years ago.”
“Alan Rabinowitz, who heads Panthera, a group devoted to big cat preservation, says that ever-more-numerous tiger organizations are mostly competing for donors when they should be concentrating on protecting the most promising populations and fighting poachers, the cats’ foremost threat.”
“The possibility that China could lift the ban “is without a doubt the most polarized issue in tiger conservation,” said Ronald Tilson, a director at the Minnesota Zoo and an authority on tigers.”
In the first source listed, Marsh doesn’t explain who the “experts” refer to and which organization or office they are from. Considering these, the accuracy and the liability of the data should be doubted. And this is where my first question comes: Who are those “experts”? Are they professional enough? However, generally speaking, the use of the above sources helps to explain things in detail, and helps readers to understand the author’s opinion better.
Besides verbal information, graphic information also serves in delivering emotional appeal. By using a picture of a healthy tiger in the wild with graphic instructions surrounding it, the graphic information tries to let people know how those tiger killers are using each part of the tiger. In those literal instructions, countries that are using the part of tigers as well as the benefits people can get from the part of tigers are listed. And below the graphic instruction, there are two more photos showing the confiscated tiger skins and areas that tigers exist. Through showing the tiger yelling in a defensive way, tiger skins lying on the ground, and the map showing the decrease number of tigers worldwide, such photos ask for human’s sympathy to tigers, and are reminding people how cruel it is to kill those wild lives, and how serious the problem is for the extinction of tigers.
However, in my opinion, there are not enough effective sources presented in the news.
For the sources about the type of tiger Mr. Putin is interested in, I don’t think it has much relation with other parts of the news. So, my second question is about the use of celebrities in this news. Is the author using the name of Mr. Putin just for attracting readers’ attention?
Besides, for Chinese government’s lifting the ban, Marsh only quoted one people’s opinion in the news, and that is criticizing what Chinese government did. But isn’t there any other opinions? Even though there is no other opinion, how about the opinion from Chinese government, and the reason that it left the ban? At this point, the author provides limited source.
Different from the author’s point of view, for me, Chinese government is lifting the ban in order to protect the sustainable development of tiger. As we have learnt, risk has different definition to people with various cultural, social and economical backgrounds. For some Chinese who are in need of tiger-based medicines, compared with the extinction of tiger, the risk in front of them might be diseases and death. And in their eyes, any medicine in other kinds of medication can not provide them the potency offered by tiger-based medicines. So, to safe their lives, no matter how expensive the medicines are, no matter how hard the government works, they would still find out the way to kill tigers in order to deal with their risk. In that case, government would lose the control of the number of tigers. And even more tigers would be killed because of people’s different needs. However, as government allows “some of its tiger farms to provide parts to meet domestic demand for medicinal tiger products”, people don’t need to use illegal ways to safe themselves. And government can have more control on the number of existing tigers, since they could use scientific ways to decide when and which tiger should be killed. So that pregnant tigers or mother tigers would not be killed, baby tigers would also not be killed until they grow up.
And still, there are other problems that are threatening tigers’ lives but not being shown through sources in this news. According the map showed by the author, Middle East is another area where historic range of tigers exists. But now, tigers there are totally disappeared. The reason behind that might be social development, economical development, industrialized, war, and the exploration of petrol… These might explain the concern Marsh leave to his readers at the end of the news -- the future of wild tigers. As “development” being encouraged by developed counties and local governments, tigers are losing their natural areas to live in, which also lead to their extinction.
In conclusion, the news “Fretting About the Last of the World’s Biggest Cats” convinces the risk of tigers’ extinction and asks for audiences’ attention on this issue. However, sources provided by the author are limited and slant.
Link to the news:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/weekinreview/07marsh.html?ref=earth
Link to the graphic information of this news:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/03/07/weekinreview/07marsh-grfk.html?ref=weekinreview
Through the word “fretting” and “last” in the headline, Marsh expresses his concern about the issue. And the tone of the headline creates a sense of risk, which asks for readers’ attention.
Then, in the leading paragraph, Marsh connects the topic with the Chinese Year of the Tiger. Such an opening can not only attract readers’ interest, but also drive people to think about the future of human being and wildlife.
In order to prove the risk, experts’ data and opinion are displayed in the news to support the author’s point of view. Below are sources used in the news:
“Experts believe the global wild tiger population has fallen to below 3,000 — less than 3 percent of what it was just 100 years ago.”
“Alan Rabinowitz, who heads Panthera, a group devoted to big cat preservation, says that ever-more-numerous tiger organizations are mostly competing for donors when they should be concentrating on protecting the most promising populations and fighting poachers, the cats’ foremost threat.”
“The possibility that China could lift the ban “is without a doubt the most polarized issue in tiger conservation,” said Ronald Tilson, a director at the Minnesota Zoo and an authority on tigers.”
In the first source listed, Marsh doesn’t explain who the “experts” refer to and which organization or office they are from. Considering these, the accuracy and the liability of the data should be doubted. And this is where my first question comes: Who are those “experts”? Are they professional enough? However, generally speaking, the use of the above sources helps to explain things in detail, and helps readers to understand the author’s opinion better.
Besides verbal information, graphic information also serves in delivering emotional appeal. By using a picture of a healthy tiger in the wild with graphic instructions surrounding it, the graphic information tries to let people know how those tiger killers are using each part of the tiger. In those literal instructions, countries that are using the part of tigers as well as the benefits people can get from the part of tigers are listed. And below the graphic instruction, there are two more photos showing the confiscated tiger skins and areas that tigers exist. Through showing the tiger yelling in a defensive way, tiger skins lying on the ground, and the map showing the decrease number of tigers worldwide, such photos ask for human’s sympathy to tigers, and are reminding people how cruel it is to kill those wild lives, and how serious the problem is for the extinction of tigers.
However, in my opinion, there are not enough effective sources presented in the news.
For the sources about the type of tiger Mr. Putin is interested in, I don’t think it has much relation with other parts of the news. So, my second question is about the use of celebrities in this news. Is the author using the name of Mr. Putin just for attracting readers’ attention?
Besides, for Chinese government’s lifting the ban, Marsh only quoted one people’s opinion in the news, and that is criticizing what Chinese government did. But isn’t there any other opinions? Even though there is no other opinion, how about the opinion from Chinese government, and the reason that it left the ban? At this point, the author provides limited source.
Different from the author’s point of view, for me, Chinese government is lifting the ban in order to protect the sustainable development of tiger. As we have learnt, risk has different definition to people with various cultural, social and economical backgrounds. For some Chinese who are in need of tiger-based medicines, compared with the extinction of tiger, the risk in front of them might be diseases and death. And in their eyes, any medicine in other kinds of medication can not provide them the potency offered by tiger-based medicines. So, to safe their lives, no matter how expensive the medicines are, no matter how hard the government works, they would still find out the way to kill tigers in order to deal with their risk. In that case, government would lose the control of the number of tigers. And even more tigers would be killed because of people’s different needs. However, as government allows “some of its tiger farms to provide parts to meet domestic demand for medicinal tiger products”, people don’t need to use illegal ways to safe themselves. And government can have more control on the number of existing tigers, since they could use scientific ways to decide when and which tiger should be killed. So that pregnant tigers or mother tigers would not be killed, baby tigers would also not be killed until they grow up.
And still, there are other problems that are threatening tigers’ lives but not being shown through sources in this news. According the map showed by the author, Middle East is another area where historic range of tigers exists. But now, tigers there are totally disappeared. The reason behind that might be social development, economical development, industrialized, war, and the exploration of petrol… These might explain the concern Marsh leave to his readers at the end of the news -- the future of wild tigers. As “development” being encouraged by developed counties and local governments, tigers are losing their natural areas to live in, which also lead to their extinction.
In conclusion, the news “Fretting About the Last of the World’s Biggest Cats” convinces the risk of tigers’ extinction and asks for audiences’ attention on this issue. However, sources provided by the author are limited and slant.
Link to the news:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/weekinreview/07marsh.html?ref=earth
Link to the graphic information of this news:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/03/07/weekinreview/07marsh-grfk.html?ref=weekinreview
No comments:
Post a Comment