Sit down with Peter Spotts

By Suja Ono

The salmon colored walls covered in awards, pictures and news clippings exuded a warm atmosphere
as the sunlight gently poured in through the windows. Peter Spotts, science and space reporter for the
Christian Science Monitor, leaned back in his chair with his arms folded comfortably behind his head.

He pointed to an ancient radio transmitter that sat by his computer and said, “I still like to have some
fun with that now and then”. Spotts, who has come a long way since his days as a radio DJ playing golden
oldies and all things Elvis for an elevator station admits that he left radio for fear that his pipes might
give out one day and he would be without a job. He corrected himself later on stating he was actually fired
when new management came.

Although his voice would have been perfect for radio, his current job seems to bring plenty of pride and
joy. He has come a long way since his days at the radio station and has worked for the monitor since 1976.

I was amazed the first time I read one of his articles, as I am so far from understanding anything science, at
how easy and understandable his work was. I asked him to tell me whom he had in mind as his audience when
he wrote his articles and with ease he said “my wife”.

As romantic as it sounds, there is also a lot of logic behind his answer. His wife, who never completed college
due to a number of different factors, was still someone interested in understanding scientific and educational
material.

As Spotts called it, he writes for the “intellectual non-specialists”; the people like his wife who are smart, but just
didn’t have the resources available to them to understand the lengthy and complex science lingo.

Talking about whom he wrote for coaxed me into wondering how he got the stories and information for his articles
. Surprisingly, he rarely gets his material from actual scientists making discoveries, but rather Universities and press
releases. As Spotts put it, “Scientists don’t tell you what they’ve found because then they can’t publish it themselves”.
Usually, he gets these leads via email or press release then digs into it himself.

Yet more than anything he advised that in order to be a good journalist one has to spend a lot of time reading. A lot.
Not just about the news, but books and autobiographies and stories about the world.

Speaking with Peter Spotts was so easy an enlightening, much like reading his articles are. Not only did I learn a lot
about him, I also learned a lot about being a reporter.

To end our interview I asked him to tell me the most rewarding thing that has happened to him throughout his career.
He narrowed it down to winning the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Science Journalism Award
in 2002 for articles on which he used very little editing. He called it an honor as a journalist that he had gotten to the
point where he was being recognized not for the super-edited articles but ones he didn’t work too much on revising.

The personality that comes through on paper is also apparent when you meet Peter Spotts. His attitude towards his
audience and his work shines through with his smile and eagerness to answer questions. It was personally an honor
to follow Peter Spotts over the course of the past eight weeks and an even greater honor to be able to interview him.

If you ever feel that you want to know more about science without having to dissect huge words and confusing term-
inologies, check out Peter Spotts at the Christian Science Monitor.

Can the world adapt to climate change ?

By Suja Ono

As the global climate change talks progress in Copenhagen, Denmark, Peter Spotts also
continues with his coverage of the international negotiations.

In Spotts’ latest article he reports on the goals and factors that are most strongly fueling
the delegates from each individual nation and how that affects the decisions being made.

Over the next 48 hours, as Spotts reported, “ministers are expected to move toward an accord
that brings the US and other developing countries to a truly global pact on climate change”.

The countries that committed to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 are also looking to negotiate a second
commitment period that would begin sometime in 2013.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for compromise during his speech during the opening
plenary stating, “I understand that every leader coming to Copenhagen faces domestic pressures
and domestic politics…No one will get everything they want in this negotiation, But if we work
together and get a deal everyone will get what they need”.

A major factor that must be met in this agreement is a solid commitment from the developed
countries of the world to provide the poorer countries of the world with significant amounts of cash
to “help them adopt cleaner and more efficient technologies, and prepare to grapple with the negative
effects of a warmer planet” said Spotts.

Spotts also brought to light the topic that will require long-term financing, known as “adaption”

Essentially, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes figures (IPCC), the roadmap for
negotiations, hold that wealthy counties must reduce their emissions by 25-40 percent bellow 1990
levels by 2020 and by up to 95 percent in 2050 to stand a 50-50 chance of holding global warming
to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

This example of adaption holds true for developed nations of the world, like the United States, that
have already contributed heavily to releasing carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

However, adaption for under-developed or developing nations means adapting to the negative effects
of global climate changes that have put a stint on their growth.

Nations like Guatemala, that sit upon three tectonic plates that lead to active volcanoes and violent
earthquakes but is also prone to the damage of hurricanes from both the Atlantic and Pacific that are all
getting increasingly stronger with global warming. Already “18 centimeters of sea-level rise over the last
45 years has increased the area covered by coastal flooding by about 170 kilometers.
According to the country’s environmental minister, Luis Alberto Ferrate Felice, reasons like these are why
developing countries are insisting that adaption aid be over and above what rich countries already are cont-
ributing to development aid.

With only a few days left of the Global climate talks in Copenhagen, the countries of the world have much to
decide. With money being the leading factor in whether or not many countries can adapt to less fuel-based
development, it seems like the responsibility lies on the shoulders of the world’s richer nations to lend aid to
the less developed.

Spotts on climate change talks.

By Suja Ono
As the Climate change talks began in Copenhagen, it came as no surprise that
Peter Spotts’ latest article on the Christian Science Monitor online discussed the
international convention.

Using a question-and-answer type set up, Spotts addressed many of the key questions
that the public has concerning the possible outcomes in Copenhagen.

Although there is such a hype surrounding the talks, Spotts stated, “a binding inter-
national agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions is likely to be pushed off
until next December, when another round of climate talks are scheduled for Mexico
City”. With that being said, the goal of the climate change talks were geared more
towards yielding insights into the global effort than reshaping the way the world
handles the environmental crisis.

The first question Spotts asked was “What might the success in Copenhagen look
like?” The question, answered in three parts, brought to light that emissions reduction,
immediate action, and money would be the prime focus of the convention.

And they were; although money seemed to be the most deciding factor in the global
reduction of fuel emissions, most, if not all, developing countries seemed to come to
have the similar consensus that they would reduce their emissions as long as the
proper funding or international aid was provided.

South Africa, India, Mexico and Brazil were all such coutnries.

Spotts also addressed the possible “sticking” points of the talks.

There included the fact that hte countries of the developing world think that he rich
coutnries are not being ambitious enough in their efforts, as the populations of the
developing nations will suffer due to the effects of the climate change talks.

“And much needs to be done on the financial front for both short-term aid and long-term
aid. THe aid would be used for adaption efforts, the purchase of green technologies and
efforts to help developing countries build in-house technical expertise. In the short term,
countries are talking about $10 billion a year over the next three years. Beyond that, the
number rises to $100 billion a year through 2020″.

Overall, this article lay out the climate change talks in Copenhagen for those that Spotts calls
the “intellectual non-specialists”. For those unsure of how to translate the financial and environ-
mental terms that heavily layer this topic, Spotts’ article thoroughly yet understandably outlines
all the major points.

Smart Airplanes

Peter Spotts’ latest article for the Christian Science Monitor online, Airline safety: The next generation of smart planes, gives
an outline for what the future of airline safety technology will look like.

Essentially, airlines are working to improve the safety of airplanes through a program called NextGen. As reported by Spotts,
“Federal transportation officials are working with researchers and air carriers across the country to find new high-tech ways of
handling air traffic, from takeoff to landing, that are expected to reduce delays, save fuel (thereby cutting greenhouse-gas emissions),
and improve safety.

NextGen will reply heavily on the improvement of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) for “much of the decision making on altitude,
route, and speed”. Instead of air traffic control on the ground relaying information to the pilots in the air, there will be new technology
displayed on screens in the cockpit.

After I initially read this article, I was somewhat overwhelmed by the information and had to go back to reread the material. I was use
to having Spotts really clarify scientific news in a clear and concise manner, but it was not quite as simple to understand this time. }

Although the beginning of the article drew me in very well with a  relatable scenario, I was lost in all the data that was presented later
on in the article.

I was able to understand the overall jest of what Spotts was trying to say but I think that he was less understandable than past articles.

Boston Globe big timers visit Emerson College

By Suja Ono

On November 19, 2009 the editor of the Boston Globe, Marty Baron and its and publisher, Steve Ainsley, visited
Emerson College in Boston Massachusetts. At approximately four o’clock, the students and faculty of the college fell
silent in the Semel Theater of the Tufte Building as the forum regarding the paper’s Year in Crisis began.

The Chair of Emerson College’s Journalism Department Ted Gup sat between Baron and Ainsley, and started off by
calling them “romance and reality coming together”. Gup addressed both men with questions, which each answered
in terms of his own participation and role at the Globe and amplified the responses of one another.

In early August of 2009, the New York Times confirmed for the first time that it was seeking a possible sale of The
Boston Globe. For Marty, it was the most difficult decision he had to make in terms of working with Steve. As both men
mad clear, there is a certain tension that exists between an editor and a publisher, as the paper needs money in order to
deliver the stories it wants. “It took determination and conviction to get through that time” as Baron said, the most
important thing was “that the newsroom remained intact”.

Not only as employees, but also as ardent Globe fans, Baron and Ainsley were adamant in their passion for the news
and the business they are in. When Gup posted the question, “How do you respond to the critics who believe that he
$80 million loss was a play?” they refuted it. There was a certain sense of resentment towards the question, but more
importantly, the mere suggestion that the paper would lie. As Ainsley explained, they even had third party accounting
groups come in and check their books to confirm the losses in finance.

When asked about having to withdraw their foreign bureaus as well as the frustration with their losses in finance, Marty
responded, “I can rant about them, I can pound on a table or I can work with what I have… reality is reality”. Then Steve
Ainsley, in suggesting future economic models, added, “This is a K through 12 process and we are in the third or fourth
grade”. It was with an optimism and calm demeanor that the men portrayed the future of the Globe.

Gup’s final question for the guests concerned the future of journalism, and what he believed would make the “bionic
journalist”. Baron simply stated, “they wouldn’t be bionic, they would be human”. He saw the new generation of journalists
as people who need to embrace change and take on an entrepreneur mentality for as the game changes so does its players.

Although the Globe suffered its losses this year with trying to create a new financial model and facing the possibility of being
sold to another owner, Marty baron said the Globe’s “morale has bounced back, and they feel fulfilled by the work they do”.

 

 

This is not your father’s moon!

By Suja Ono

In Peter Spott’s latest report Water on the moon: Eureka! They’ve found it!, NASA’s latest discovery
of water on the Moon is the topic of discussion. On October 9, scientists on NASA’s LCROSS mission sent an impactor hurtling
into Cabeus Crater which kicked up a significant amount of water in the plume of in material the crash
which was nearly six miles wide.

Although it can not be said for certain how much water is present on or beneath the Moon’s surface,
an estimated 27 gallons was detected in the plume, either as water vapor or ice grains.

Spotts covered this story using lots of researched information and quotes from scientist very close to
or a part of the NASA project.

As usual, Spotts gives a lot of background information on the topic he is reporting, helping readers like
myself who are unfamiliar with the jargon and vocabulary of those in the field of science understand
what has happened.With this article for example, Spotts identifies the reasons why the discovery of
water is significant and how it applies to scientists and the rest of us. As Spotts reported, The excitement
over finding potentially significant amounts of water centers on water’s value as a resource for explorers
– either to drink or to split in to oxygen and hydrogen for rocket fuel. It’s also revolutionizing humanity’s under-
standing of its familiar neighbor – shifting the picture from a geophysically dead object to one that
is “very complicated, very dynamic, and very fun to study,” says Dr. Colaprete. “It’s not just about water
anymore.”" In addition,the scientists on the mission found traces of carbon based compounds like “carbon
dioxide, methane, ethanol, and other organics”.

Suddenly, finding water on the moon does not just mean a scientific discovery, but a discovery that
could benefit society in the future. All of this “is giving us a surprising new picture of the moon,” adds
Greg Delory, a planetary scientist at the University of California at Berkeley. “This is not your father’s moon!”

The discovery of water on the moon poses further questions like, “where did the water come from?” and “how
long as it been there?” Spotts described them as “ the moon’s version of a water cycle, where the solar wind helps
build the inventory of hydroxyls, which freeze out at night and then thaw during the lunar day to migrate toward
the poles, where it once again is trapped. A comet could have delivered some of the material. Or some of the water
could have originated on the moon itself from processes taking place in its interior.”

Through further looking at these process, understanding the moon and its history, as well as how it ties to Earth’s
can come to light.

Peter Spotts yet again was successful in reporting a scientific topic and making it understandable to those who
don’t speak science or space. His reporting is thorough as well as informative.

Peter Spotts reports on NASA’s Messenger: Mercury has volcanic activity

By Suja Ono

In Peter Spotts’ latest article NASA’s Messenger prove reveals new clues about Mercury, Spotts describes
the recent discoveries that NASA’s spacecraft Messenger “has found minerals on the planet’s surface that
current models say shouldn’t be there in such abundance. And it appears that the planet was volcanically
active – explosively so – for far longer than current ideas about its geological history suggest.”

In order to help his readers understand the importance of such a discovery, Spotts fluidly describes the
history of the planets existence and the kinds of expected materials that are to be found on its surface.
Spotts additionally quotes experts like Sean Solomon, the mission’s lead scientist and a researcher at
the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Department of Terrestrial Magnetism.

Spotts provides the readers with background so that the material they are being presented with does
not throw them off. Instead, they are able to learn something new, and are able to really understand
the topic that is being reported.

For a long time, scientists thought that Mercury was a dead planet, the oldest planet of the eight in
the solar system. However, after Messenger’s discoveries, when it found “a 180-mile-wide basin with
two concentric rims… the floor below the lowest rim cradles “some of the youngest volcanic floes,” according
to Brett Denevi, an Arizona State University researcher and member of the Messenger science team”, it is
being argued that in fact Mercury may be very active.

The report is tied off very well, leaving the reader informed yet ready for more information to come on the
topic by ending with another quote from Dr. Solomon, “”We still have a long way to go to understand the
full story line” on Mercury”.

Spotts style of reporting is one that targets a specific audience yet is understandable by any reader who may
stumble upon his work. I am not very much into the sciences but reading his material was easy and even
educational.

Introduction to Peter Spotts & my blog

Over the course of the next several weeks I will be following and analyzing the work of Peter Spotts, a space and science journalist
for the Christian Science Monitor. I wanted to follow a reporter who did stories that were interesting and different from what I was
use to reading in my daily news diet. Essentially, I wanted to learn more about different styles of journalism and how to report on
an array of topics.

Peter Spotts fills that description to a T. According to the Christian Science Monitor’s discoveries blog, Peter Spotts has reported
on science for The Christian Science Monitor since 1987 and won the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Science
Journalism Award. His stories range in topics from joint lunar space missions to North America’s tiniest dinosaur. He posts articles
frequently, even a few times a week. I will be commenting on these articles and give weekly insights on his work.

As I blog on Peter Spotts I hope to learn more about science and space reporting as well as exciting news stories concerning science
and space. In addition, I am excited to learn more about the process of following a reporter and developing my own skills as a journalist.