Feel. And think.

Holiday tears

If you want to read a little Christmas tear jerker, check out Rick Reilly's column "There are some games where cheering for the other side feels better than winning" on ESPN.com.

Even if you're not a high school football fan, this story will leave you a little choked up.

It's not great writing, to be honest. Reilly begins his headline with the word "There," a real no-no.

But even if you're as nitpicky as I, you'll quickly stop noticing the flaws because of the compelling story. It IS a compelling story, and Reilly tells it well. That's more important than mechanics.


Critical reading

A Metropolis reader took me to task for an editorial on global warming. He writes: "(L)et me see if I've got your thinking straight: the world is only about 4,000 years old, the planet earth is flat, and global warming really isn't. Oh yes, and we're not in hell and it ain't hot."

The editorial in question was itself taking an AP writer to task for editorializing in a scientific article. I pointed out that the consensus Al Gore and Barack Obama insist exists among scientists — that global warming is caused by human activity — is eroding and a growing number of scientists are publicly questioning the flawed models. But you wouldn't know that from reporting in the major media, where journalists have taken up the cause.

The Metropolis reader sent a series of articles on the subject from The Southern Illinoisan as a means of enlightening me. In the articles a couple of SIU profs insist the debate is over, even while a couple of their colleagues, in the same series, question the popular view. The debate is not even settled at SIU, much less in the scientific community worldwide.

But this blog is about writing, not science or politics. I bring this up because the reader employs a technique debaters use when they've already lost the argument: erecting a straw man. The straw man was accusing me of believing that "global warming really isn't." I didn't assert that global temperatures haven't risen. I merely questioned the anthropogenic causes of climate change — or more precisely, pointed out the shrinking scientific consensus on the matter.

The articles the reader sent confirmed that point. But he missed it. I suspect most readers of the package missed it.

Interestingly, the headline over the series was "America's energy savvy backsliding?" — a classic example of editorializing (injecting opinion into a news article). The first story in the news package, headlined "Activists strive to re-educate public about climate change," begins: "When a passion exists for a cause, those who fight for it don't view any hurdles encountered along the way as being too much of a challenge." Passion? Cause? Fight? Weren't these articles supposed to be about science?

I guess we shouldn't be surprised that readers like the guy in Metropolis have lost the ability to think critically when so many reporters have lost the ability to write objectively.

At one time universities and news agencies were filled with iconoclasts who took pride in questioning conventional wisdom. Those days are gone in both arenas, which are now mired in group-think. Indoctrination has replaced rigorous debate. That's not healthy for a free society.