editoria I
Depending on your point of view Environmental field needs open discussion and resolution of opposing points of view, just as it needs hard facts
TT v ice President Agnew’s recent, well publicized attack on the news media for alleged lack of objectivity in news reporting did not generally strike any raw nerves on the staffs of technical publications, but, nevertheless, we took note of Mr. Agnew’s complaints. For, although ES&T was not one of the particular objects of the vice president’s displeasure, there have been occasions when it has been accused of being less than totally objective about events in the world of environmental control. Occasionally, it has been suggested that ES&T has an inbuilt bias against industry, manifested in news stories that, in some people’s eyes, carry a strong vein of criticism of “industrial polluters.” On the other side of the coin-generally, the nonindustrial side-we have been told that certain stories concerning new technological processes were little more than pieces of free advertising for the companies involved. The reader might care to go over the content of this and other issues of ES&T and decide for himself whether such criticism are justified. What must be said immediately is that these criticisms are still rather few and far between, but, despite that fact, the central question of objectivity remains an important one. We tend to agree with news commentator David Brinkley’s observation that it is not possible for intelligent human beings to be truly objective; what is possible-and necessary-is that they be fair. In staff written reporting for the Environmental Currents and Outlook departments, ES&T makes every effort to be fair and to present documented or documentable facts. But to scrupulously avoid including any comment which might be construed as biased would inevitably lead to such blandness as to make total unreadability a quite likely result. However, a legitimate desire to provide the reader with readable prose in no way absolves writers
and reporters from the responsibility of seeking out and presenting plain facts. Having said this, we should make it clear that, as far as humanly possible, opinion will be kept out of the news portions of ES&T. Opinion will continue to appear on this page, and we hope that readers will continue to read our editorials and agree or disagree as they think fit. It should also be explained that opinions on the editorial page are those of the one person who signs them and not necessarily the view of the American Chemical Society or even of other ES&T staff members. Of course, editors certainly have no monopoly on opinion, either in the field of environmental science and technology and its management or any other subject. In fact, diversity of ideas and freedom to express them are hallmarks of a free society. Presentation, discussion, and reconciliation of differing points of view about our environment are going to be absolutely necessary if we are ever to extricate ourselves from the mess which people, unrestrained technology, and urbanization have wrought. Recognizing the need for discussion of varying opinions, ES&T is inaugurating a new, one page department (see page 7 ) . Entitled “VIEWPOINT,”the monthly page will carry the views of people who have responsibility or deep interest in how the environment can or should be controlled. It is most unlikely that you will agree with all the views to be presented over the months on the VIEWPOINT page-the contributors vary considerably in background and philosophy. If their ideas conflict with yours, you are invited to let us know your opinions, too.
Volume 4, Number 1, January 1970 5
.... - ._ ._
.
