I see no reason why a rebuttal needs to show up in the same paper... either the NYT or WaPo would be perfectly acceptable alternates for instance. Perhaps with the WaPo as a slight preference in that there was an "inside the beltway" framing to the original piece.
I agree that it is probably unlikely that you would get equivalent positioning if it were in the WSJ. Though it is pure supposition on my part, I imagine that the hand of our dear friend Mr. Murdoch may be showing here... there have been some interesting pieces recently on the numerous small and not so small changes that have occurred since the transition. I have definitely gained a new appreciation for the strength of the investigative reporting and other facets of the old WSJ organization under the Bancrofts, slanted though it was. D On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Alan Robock <[email protected]>wrote: > Dear Dan, > > In the past, the Wall Street Journal has refused to publish op-eds that do > not agree with their editorial policy, so I think it would be a waste of > time. On the other hand, the news portion of the Wall Street Journal has > published an article which is more or less reasonable about geoengineering, > and they even posted an interview with myself and Dale Jamieson, although > not very long. You can see these at: > > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204771304574181522575503150.html#articleTabs=article > > > http://online.wsj.com/video/geoengineering-a-controversial-solution-to-global-warming/1FE4AFFE-8BD2-4964-AA16-46C5440B0387.html > > There are really two different parts of the WSJ. When I asked the > reporter, Bob Hotz, why the WSJ would publish these articles that propose a > solution to a problem that they claims does not exist, he told me that the > news part of the wSJ believes in using evidence to support what they write. > The editorial part just believes. > > Alan > > Alan Robock, Professor II > Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program > Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction > Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 > Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 > 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected] > New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA > http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock<http://envsci.rutgers.edu/%7Erobock> > > > > On Sun, 28 Jun 2009, DW wrote: > > >> I would say this is a fitting moment for an op-ed rebuttal from >> someone with the altitude to properly counter-- important not to let >> these missives go unanswered. The speedier the better. >> >> One of the centerpieces of this article is a recent book "Heaven and >> Earth", by a prominent Australian geologist. The book has drawn a >> pointed critique from a fellow countryman, Barry Brook, also at the >> University of Adelaide. >> >> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25372986-30417,00.html >> >> Ian Entling from the Univ. of Melbourne has a 35pg pdf of point by >> point analysis >> http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer1a8.pdf >> >> Another point by point critique >> http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php >> >> Another response >> http://novakeo.com/?p=3931 >> >> >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
