"The Great Barrier Reef of Australia passed away in 2016 after a long illness," writes Rowan Jacobsen, in a recent "obituary" article for the eco-news website Outside Online. "It was 25 million years old."
With over one million shares in under a week, Jacobsen's article sure seems like it struck a nerve. Presented as an eulogy for one of our world's greatest natural wonders, it's inspired thousands of comments, shares, and reactions which range from outrage to sadness and shame.
There's just one little problem: the Great Barrier Reef isn't dead.
Bleaching (a.k.a. coral death caused by a spike in water temperature) is a dire problem. The Great Barrier Reef's in trouble: several sections have undergone severe bleaching and, unless ocean temps fall, these sections may not recover. As a whole, though, the Reef certainly isn't dead. Bleached coral can bounce back under the right conditions.
Contrary to Jacobsen's article, this situation is far from a done deal. It's a big jump from "sick" to "six feet under"--you wouldn't throw your relative in the ICU a funeral. If this article inspired anger or sadness in you, guess what? The fight isn't over, because the Reef isn't dead.
“This is a fatalistic, doomsday approach to climate change that isn’t going to engage anyone and misinforms the public,” said Kim Cobb, a coral reef expert at Georgia Tech,“There will be reefs in 2050, including portions of the Great Barrier Reef, I’m pretty confident of that. I’m put off by pieces that say we are doomed.”
The problem with Jacobsen's article is its irresponsible hyperbole. "No one knows if a serious effort could have saved the reef," Jacobsen writes, "but it is clear that no such effort was made."
Correction: not enough effort was made. Implying that no effort was made is directly insulting the biologists, conservationists, and journalists who have fought--and are fighting--to put this issue on the map. In addition, this "doomsday approach" stops people from taking action. It's sad, sure, but if the Reef is dead then there's nothing we can do, right? Wrong. Had Jacobsen really wanted to help, perhaps an article on reversing rise in ocean temperature would've been a good place to start.
Engineering headlines for max views is just how journalism works. You want your story to get traction. You want to turn heads. Look at the facts, and you'll soon learn that this article is just plain wrong--more interested in views and emotion than in education and the truth.
Jacobsen fudged the facts for a strong headline--and it scored him a viral article. Please, check the facts before you share. Judging by the success of the article, people care about this very real, very present issue. It's not too late, but if we give up, if we buy into doomsday articles like these--it certainly will be.
