Through a tweet, Sarah slams a Fox News article on "Climate Change: The Musical" as unbalanced. I completely agree with her reasoning. Chiaramonte, the article's author, presents only his one-sided view of the facts. He mentions the goals of the musical, but never speaks to the extent they were accomplished--he only says that they were not achieved. Through the presentation of incomplete facts and half-truths, he paints a construed portrait of a failing and meaningless project. This was not the case. He never concedes that the musical made an impact and only speaks about its failure in quality and timing.
Chiaramonte assumes the play was a failure and claims that it
did not inform its audience of the dangers of climate change

While the musical failed, it presented a message to an audience that may not have been fully aware of climate change. One review by New York Times writer Charles Isherwood, ignored by Chiaramonte, says that the musical presents issues that "plant a black seed of knowledge about our imperiled planet." While the review is negative regarding the performance and writing of the musical, it recognizes the musical's goals and conveys that the presentation of the issues made a difference.

Chiaramonte only took from the negative portions of reviews. While many critiques slam both the company for its performance and the directors for its writing, they praise the musical for its message. In a balanced article, the journalist must respect that fact. Although the musical failed in its deadline and quality, it had an impact. However, Chiaramonte does not concede this. He does not delve into the 5% of the intended audience to whom the musical impacted. To those who created the musical, as long as they taught 5% of their audience about the dangerous effects of climate change and how to help prevent global warming, then they have succeeded.

No comments: