Pure Science vs. Bias: Writing for Different Audiences

Abstract: This Discussion Board post evaluates the differences between the intended audience of the scientific report “Impact of the Future Changing Climate on the South African Biomes, and the Importance of Geology” and a New York Times science article. Essentially, the former is intended for an audience that is more knowledgeable about the science behind climate change due to the plethora of scientific jargon and graphs. The latter is geared towards the general public, which includes people who do not have an abundance of prior knowledge about climate change but wish to learn about it through relatively simpler explanations.

Discussion Board Post: Guo, Desmet, and Powdie wrote their article “Impact of the Future Changing Climate on the South African Biomes, and the Importance of Geology” in order to objectively inform people with factual evidence about the impact of climate change. Their intended audience includes any individual who can and should learn more about climate change and absorb knowledge from quantified data. Another target audience can be scientists as well as students who are studying science and this can be assumed based on the use of complex scientific words and diagrams. In general, there is no bias in this report as it is not geared towards people with a certain background or political views but can be open to scientific, and scientific only, interpretation. The writers of the report do not have a particular “narrative” or political motive but instead wrote the report simply to inform and encourage action to combat climate change using scientific data. 

However, the New York Times article is both geared towards the public to inform them about the impacts of climate change and includes a political bias which is intended for people who believe in left-wing ideologies. Although there are several scientifically proven facts and figures throughout the article that are highly informative, the latter half of the article clearly states that U.S. President Donald Trump is at fault for not taking initiative against climate change and how conservative political leaders do not properly fund scientific agencies. This article is much more politicized because of how politicized the issue of climate change has become. People who believe right-wing ideologies would not be particularly fond of this article due to its disapproval of right-wing leaders. 

I personally feel that I am a member of both of these audiences and found both articles interesting. As a biology major, I found the scientific report highly informative and appreciated the scientific evidence and analysis that did not involve any bias. As a liberal and progressive individual, I also found the New York Times article interesting for its inclusion of scientific facts and I also appreciated it for exposing the lack of attention from our leaders towards such a pressing issue that requires immediate action.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.