If you were going to include it without providing any additional context my answer would be yes, you were right to leave it out. It might provoke an emotional response by some readers without understanding the broader ecosystem risks. But if you included additional text about the disproportionate deaths of birds BY cats and how that has disrupted the ecosystem, then no, you shouldn’t have left it out.
To be fair, you might not have had access to much data on bird deaths by cats to provide that context in 1997. We know a lot more now.
It's incumbent on all journalists, but particularly the environmental sort to report all aspects of the story. Should Bald Eagles return in numbers that significantly shortens the life expectancy of family pets weighing under five pounds, your readers will be braced for this horror. I ran into a similar problem when writing about using Galerucella to curb invasive purple loosestrife. The scientists leading the program didn't really appreciate being asked what happens if these beetles develop an appetite for sweet corn, a regional source of agricultural pride in season at that particular moment, if memory servers. I made sure that detail was included, even though nobody seemed to care as much as I did. Now, a symbol of national pride polishing off furry family members. That's a story.
Coyotes here in Southern California eat outside cats quite efficiently. Or they get hit by cars. Not yet self driving cars. That happens in San Francisco Outside cats otherwise eat birds and lizards. The chances of a cat being snatched by an eagle are low. I’d mention it if necessary for the story.
Thanks for sharing this. Lovely prose. My thoughts on this:
Like scientists, journalists writing news and analyses can’t ignore an important observation just because it disagrees with the case they’re trying to make.
My first reaction, before reading the original article, was that the request to self-censor was itself newsworthy and so should have been mentioned (though perhaps you have now finally met that obligation).
After reading the article though, I decided that the omission was reasonable as the story was primarily about whether the eagles were picking up PCBs from the river and the catch residues discovered on that day didn't include any cat collars.
However, after reading your comment below about Nye's motive for requesting suppression, I have changed my mind again - especially since the comment *in the article* about the Eagle being "blown away" by a couple of teenagers makes their action seem one of callous disregard rather than perhaps motivated by a genuine concern that the eagles were a threat.
If you were going to allude in any way to threats to the eagles other than from their diet then you should have given some fair explanation of why humans might choose to target them.
Well, what I hoped I would have done if working on the story is talk through the biologists' concerns. Some times, at least, in my reporting days, I was able to persuade them their fears wouldn't materialize. And also, hopefully, impress on them the importance of getting the truth out there no matter how uncomfortable. The story deals with dietary threats to eagles; if cats could be a source of a dietary threat, it's relevant and important. If not, it's probably not going to be in the story at all. We're also human and sometimes empathy for a source plays a role and to me it's OK to plead humanity if we do something that isn't quite idealistically pure.
Frankly, to me, the main question afterward is whether you talked through the ethical issue with the source and your editor. The decision could go either way.
Of course, if you put the details about cat collars in the story, perhaps cat owners would take better care of their pets and spare some songbirds an untimely death. And that could justify putting it in the story!
This actually reduces my agreement with your decision - especially since the comment about the Eagle being "blown away" by a couple of teenagers makes their action seem one o callous disregard rather than perhaps motivated by a genuine concern that the eagles were a threat.
We had indoor-outdoor cats for 30+ years. We’ve been cat free for a decade. I miss them, but if we got cats again, they would be indoor only. Because outdoor cats do too much damage and leaving in the part about the collars might influence people’s decisions.
If you were going to include it without providing any additional context my answer would be yes, you were right to leave it out. It might provoke an emotional response by some readers without understanding the broader ecosystem risks. But if you included additional text about the disproportionate deaths of birds BY cats and how that has disrupted the ecosystem, then no, you shouldn’t have left it out.
To be fair, you might not have had access to much data on bird deaths by cats to provide that context in 1997. We know a lot more now.
I would’ve done a second story about the cat collars. It’s a dodge but it’s news people ought to know.
It's incumbent on all journalists, but particularly the environmental sort to report all aspects of the story. Should Bald Eagles return in numbers that significantly shortens the life expectancy of family pets weighing under five pounds, your readers will be braced for this horror. I ran into a similar problem when writing about using Galerucella to curb invasive purple loosestrife. The scientists leading the program didn't really appreciate being asked what happens if these beetles develop an appetite for sweet corn, a regional source of agricultural pride in season at that particular moment, if memory servers. I made sure that detail was included, even though nobody seemed to care as much as I did. Now, a symbol of national pride polishing off furry family members. That's a story.
Coyotes here in Southern California eat outside cats quite efficiently. Or they get hit by cars. Not yet self driving cars. That happens in San Francisco Outside cats otherwise eat birds and lizards. The chances of a cat being snatched by an eagle are low. I’d mention it if necessary for the story.
This is a very good story about the return of eagles, not an analysis of their life history. I think you were justified in leaving that detail out.
Thanks for sharing this. Lovely prose. My thoughts on this:
Like scientists, journalists writing news and analyses can’t ignore an important observation just because it disagrees with the case they’re trying to make.
My first reaction, before reading the original article, was that the request to self-censor was itself newsworthy and so should have been mentioned (though perhaps you have now finally met that obligation).
After reading the article though, I decided that the omission was reasonable as the story was primarily about whether the eagles were picking up PCBs from the river and the catch residues discovered on that day didn't include any cat collars.
However, after reading your comment below about Nye's motive for requesting suppression, I have changed my mind again - especially since the comment *in the article* about the Eagle being "blown away" by a couple of teenagers makes their action seem one of callous disregard rather than perhaps motivated by a genuine concern that the eagles were a threat.
If you were going to allude in any way to threats to the eagles other than from their diet then you should have given some fair explanation of why humans might choose to target them.
Well, what I hoped I would have done if working on the story is talk through the biologists' concerns. Some times, at least, in my reporting days, I was able to persuade them their fears wouldn't materialize. And also, hopefully, impress on them the importance of getting the truth out there no matter how uncomfortable. The story deals with dietary threats to eagles; if cats could be a source of a dietary threat, it's relevant and important. If not, it's probably not going to be in the story at all. We're also human and sometimes empathy for a source plays a role and to me it's OK to plead humanity if we do something that isn't quite idealistically pure.
Frankly, to me, the main question afterward is whether you talked through the ethical issue with the source and your editor. The decision could go either way.
Of course, if you put the details about cat collars in the story, perhaps cat owners would take better care of their pets and spare some songbirds an untimely death. And that could justify putting it in the story!
Nye’s concern (rural region) was about people deciding to shoot or otherwise endanger the eagles.
This actually reduces my agreement with your decision - especially since the comment about the Eagle being "blown away" by a couple of teenagers makes their action seem one o callous disregard rather than perhaps motivated by a genuine concern that the eagles were a threat.
We had indoor-outdoor cats for 30+ years. We’ve been cat free for a decade. I miss them, but if we got cats again, they would be indoor only. Because outdoor cats do too much damage and leaving in the part about the collars might influence people’s decisions.