To the editor: Reply confuses newsprint with media
Links
- More information: Publisher Index Page (via DOI)
- Download citation as: RIS | Dublin Core
Abstract
“Is Science in Danger of Sanctifying the Wolf” (Mech, 2012), contends that some scientists have claimed that wolf (Canis lupus) restoration has led to many ecological benefits lower in the food chain but that other scientists have questioned the evidence for those claims. Furthermore, my article claims that “the media become complicit [in promoting positive studies about wolves] by immediately publicizing such studies (Table 1)….” Dr. Bruskotter’s letter (Bruskotter, 2012) contends that Houston et al. (2010) refute that statement.
However, Houston et al. (2010) covered only newsprint, including many local newspapers dating back to 1999 before most of the scientific articles I mentioned were published. My article said nothing about newsprint or news media. It stated “media” which of course includes radio, TV, blogs, websites, magazines, social media, etc. These types of media reach a wider and often different audience than newsprint. The Houston et al. (2010)analysis included none of these latter types of media so does not refute my statements.
| Publication type | Article |
|---|---|
| Publication Subtype | Journal Article |
| Title | To the editor: Reply confuses newsprint with media |
| Series title | Biological Conservation |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.11.006 |
| Volume | 158 |
| Year Published | 2013 |
| Language | English |
| Publisher | Elsevier |
| Contributing office(s) | Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center |
| Description | 1 p. |
| First page | 421 |
| Last page | 421 |
| Google Analytic Metrics | Metrics page |