Nephtali Garcia

Writing 2
9 April 2014
The Olinguitos Discovery through Scientific Journalism
Scientific journalism is an important bridge between the public and the scientists.
Scientific journalism allows the findings of scientists to be conveyed to the public in an efficient
and clear manner. Without it, many findings would go largely unknown. One such example of
the use of scientific journalism is when the Olinguito species was discovered in 2013. Elizabeth
Landau of CNN, Jane OBrien of BBC, and Seth Borenstein of the Huffington Post all wrote
articles on this topic. All three authors used scientific journalism as the genre to express their
reports. The public and the authors should equally be aware of the use of genres, such as
scientific journalism, to convey information. It can affect expression of such topics and as a
result affect the publics reception to the authors writing. Overall, the CNN and Huffingtion
Post articles were the most effective in conveying the discovery of the Olinguito to the general
public because of the authors use of casual tone, common language, and general organization in
the article.
An important element of scientific journalism is the use of colloquialism. The writer uses
laypersons terms because the audience may not be an expert in this particular scientific field,
and therefore may have trouble understanding advanced terminology used by professionals. In
CNNs article, for example, it introduces the Olinguito as a member of the raccoon family tree.
This wording is obviously not laden with scientific jargon, and isnt too specific or hard to
understand. Huffington Post and CNN even provided the phonetic spelling of Olinguito, oh-lin-

GHEE-toe. The writers are thus taking into account that their audience may be unfamiliar with
the new species name, and providing the phonetic spelling will allow the reader to have the
correct pronunciation instead of just guessing. It is important that the writers know when
common language is preferred in scientific journalism. According to Janet Boyd, author of
Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking), jargon -when used in the wrong genre - can exclude those
outside of the community who do not understand the meanings of the words (89).The writers
know that scientific jargon would be inappropriate here; the audience in fact might lose interest
in the article if it was used. CNN did include the scientific name, although the author used a
nonchalant tone stating that if the reader was a fan of long technical names, this one is
Bassaricyon neblina. By phrasing it this way, the author introduces the name casually without
throwing the reader off. The CNN article appealed to the public by using this playful tone to
introduce the scientific name.
In fact, the overall tone of Elizabeth Landau is casual rather than formal. The starting line
of the CNN article describes the Olinguito as having an adorable rounded face. The use of
adorable is obviously not of importance, but simply meant to intrigue and charm the reader.
Washington Post used a similar technique, describing the species as a mini raccoon with a teddy
bear face that is so cute its hard to resist, let alone overlook. The tone here allows the reader to
feel comfortable reading the article, using terms that the general public would use to describe a
cute animal. The authors are talking to the readers as their friends would. The Washington Post
continues the description with the hook, but somehow science did until now. The use of the
hyphen creates an almost dramatic pause, emphasizing the importance of the discovery. This
certainly is used to draw the readers in and coax them into reading the rest of the article to find
out why they overlooked the new species. The author is certainly thinking of their audience (and

genre) in order to appeal to their curiosity. In contrast, the BBC article introduces the Olinguito
as the first new species of carnivore to be identified in the Western hemisphere. Although this
is more informational, using it as the first sentence is less effective than the hook used in the
Washington Post, because it does not command a lot of attention.
Furthermore all three articles give credit to the Smithsonian researchers for the discovery
of the new species. Part of the purpose of these articles is to give factual information, after all.
More than that, the reader will likely be persuaded by his/her [the authors] ethos or credible
character, as stated by Boyd. Although a scientific journal article is not necessarily persuasive
the authors still need to establish credibility in order to be accepted by the reader as a reporter of
information. Consequently, all three articles include quotes from researchers and professionals in
the field. All articles quote Kristofer Helgen, curator of mammals at the Smithsonians National
Museum of Natural History. Quoting Kristofer Helgen gives credibility to all the articles and
their authors because she worked directly with the Olinguito. Mentioning her gives substance
and scientific accuracy to the information the authors are reporting to the public.
The BBC further quotes other professionals, although the style of the CNN quotes is
more effective in keeping the audience interested. In addition to quoting Helgen, the BBC article
also includes an interview with Dr. Norris, who is from Yale Peabody Museum of Natural
History in Connecticut and president of the Society for the Preservation of Natural History
Collections. The addition of this interview only adds standing to the article. However, the CNN
article utilized quotes that add excitement to the piece such as quoting that Helgen felt sheer
elation, just incredible excitement when he discovered the Olinguito. This is effective when
appealing to the general audience because it gives personality to Helgen, while still reporting the
findings.

The articles share several similarities, but differences in tone notable. Overall, the BBC
article seems to have the most proper tone out of all three. Although the tone is not as official as
say a research journal, it does seem to stick more to the factual side of the discovery. For
example drawing upon an earlier point, the introduction of the scientific name is different. The
CNN article addresses the reader directly with you and then asks if the reader was a fan of
technical names and then introduces the scientific name. This is much more conversational.
This is not the case in the BBC article, where the article simply states the scientific name is
Bassaricyon neblina. The article is straightforward and does not directly refer to the reader. In
contrast, the Huffington post makes no mention of the scientific name. The author also includes a
bit more detail in the description of the Olinguito. Rather than describing it as a cute animal it
gives factual information such as its length in centimeters. The author also explains how the
bones were preserved by having them picked clean by specially bred beetles. The article is
overall more detailed and academic in its descriptions than the other two articles. Despite this
however, the article is still straightforward enough to be easily understood by a large range of
people. This use of logos can appeal to an audience who looking for a more detailed description
of the Olinguito instead of the cutesy comments on its appearance. Jane OBriens approach to
the article was more formal in order to petition to this type of audience. Even so, generally the
public enjoys reading articles with a lighter and more interesting tone, which the CNN article
accomplishes without sacrificing any of the factual information.
All three articles have headlines in bold letters, a short phrase introducing the topic of the
Olinguitos discovery. In addition, all articles also contain pictures of some sort of the Olinguito.
The BBC article furthermore included a distribution map of the Olinguitos, which further
contributes to its more proper and academic tone. Another notable feature of the BBC article is

that it is the only one to mention the economy and lack of funding for museums (where the dried
skins of the Olinguito were kept). In Everything is an Argument it is mentioned that those
missing or unknown facts allowed them to fill in the blanks as they could, thus leading them to
different conclusions. This could be applied here, as Jane Obrien included this quote, filling in
information and edging towards the argument for lack of funding in museums. The author in this
case might be exhibiting bias, wanting to promote the idea of increased funding for museums.
Including this in the conclusion of the article may not appeal to an audience that does not share
this particular opinion. In contrast, the CNN article concluded with a light-hearted sentence
stating that with the olinguito research announcement, the oddball animals aloofness has been
vindicated. It is typical of a scientific journal article to have some humor, since the genre is not
too professional. This concluding sentence is much more attractive to the general audience
because the use of words like oddball and aloofness add certain comicalness to the article.
If other scientists are looking for information of the Olinguito, they would not turn to a
news journal entry such as these three sources. It is not because the facts arent accurate, but
because the ways they are communicated are far less detailed than a scientist or researcher would
need. If a person wanted to learn about the topic, however, they might start with a scientific
journal because it would give them a starting point and overview. Many people read CNN,
Huffington Post, and BBC, but not many people dig deep into research journals. Therefore it is
important to realize that these scientific journals are a fast and effect way to communicate
information to the general public. Without it, many discoveries such as the Olinguitos would be
lost in translation. .The authors must be aware of rhetorical features which appeal to the general
audience in order to be able draw them in. The CNN and Washington Post article used a casual
tone, common language, and even humor to most effectively appeal to the general public.