I don't mean to pick on Richard Black, who
writes an important story on an important topic,
and who is merely following the convention of
mainstream journalism -- albeit a convention that
is both unfortunate and *inaccurate* (or perhaps
it is not Mr. Black but someone else who does the pictures and captions to stories on BBC?)

The image: A smiling protester holds a sign
saying, "wake up USA"

BBC's caption?

"Anti-US sentiment was evident in protests"!

What on earth is remotely "anti" the US
in a sign that asks us in the US to wake
up and take action that is for the
survival of our OWN planet, not just for
the benefit of others?

Yes, yes, yes, I know, you're following
convention. But let me put it as starkly as I
can: this convention is, as I just mentioned,
inaccurate, or at the very least, it
is one in which you are making the claim
that to ask the US to wake up and climate
change (read: take action so far not taking)
is "anti" or "against" the US, and/or our intersets. By suggesting this, you
are making it less likely that people
will listen to that message, which
would be a tragedy by itself
were it not compounded by the
fact that it's an unnecessary one
since all that is required it that your
captions not make the assumptions/declaration
that any calls for change are, de facto,
calls "against" the US or its interests.

Sincerely,

Harel Barzilai
CC: My blog on Postcarbon.org
Re:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4519702.stm