When reading my paper on Sept. 28, shock, then questions, came to mind.
Why did the Herald devote only 141 words (and a one-eighth-inch high headline) for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's scientific study and its recommendations about world climate change, which affects every living person? It says climate is changing, and we are making it happen faster.
Who chose the evaluative phrases, "likely to get worse," "how hot it is likely to get," "while skeptics scoffed" and only quoted the opinion of someone who, the article pointed out, was not involved in the report? The tables and charts of even the summarized version of the IPCC study are amazing, informing and scary.
What motivates careless attention to a 1,000-page, seven-year study of climate change, by 800 noted, world climate scientists? That's kind of like the ostrich putting his head in a hole to hide.
How many were informed about climate change, that so affects everyone, when it was buried in a 5-inch brief in the middle of the A section? The revisionist writing was appropriate there, however.
Have newspapers stopped being impartial tellers of news by controlling which ideas get exposure?
SHIRLEY LUCAS, Richland
w Editor's note: The article referred to in this letter was written by by Karl Ritter and Seth Borenstein of The Associated Press.