Local or National Interest?

This project is about Iowa: Iowa Child Institute officials have emphasized the rainforest's linkage to the state: "While a rainforest seems exotic, Iowa has always had a strong agrarian tradition that recognizes the ultimate interdependence of people and the land," the panel report explained. "The [project] pays homage to that interdependence and the role that education in Iowa has played in supporting an economy based on natural resources." It has earned the rave reviews of environmentalists, public officials, media, and glass contractors across the Hawkeye State. Their enthusiastic support has, in turn, spurred a major public-private partnership funded with federal, state, county, and township grants.

The Positive Side...
Adam Weeks of North Liberty wrote: "if one wishes to garner any sort of support, this oxymoron should be put to rest. However, it is my belief that opponents of this magnificent project use this negative hype much to their advantage. This project is a visionary icon located in what is supposed to be an educational center. It's not just a rain forest, but an aquarium, amphitheater, prairie restoration project and, most important, an educational masterpiece that will bring unimaginable amounts of dollars and many jobs to our community.

A couple years ago, ABC's "Good Morning America" produced a story in which its reporter stood affront a cornfield supposable in Iowa and did his best to belittle the project. Not only was the location inaccurate, with no mention of the brown field cleanup, but it was biased and irresponsible. I can only speculate that if this project were slated for New York City that it would be considered the greatest environmental spectacle of all time.

Some members of the Coralville City Council have suggested that other projects with similar draw could be located in the landing. I for one don't see this as having a chance unless Midwest Disney is coming to our beloved metro. Finally, Sen. Charles Grassley should not feel embarrassed about supporting projects in his state ("Sen. Grassley 'embarrassed' but committed," Oct. 28). If Iowa doesn't utilize this earmarked money, another project in another state will."

More...

THE OTHER SIDE...
According to IowaHawk's blogsite, the the other side consists of "a shadowy group of agenda-driven internet extremists has emerged who now have placed this vital project squarely in their crosshairs. Their mission: deprive the hardworking families of Iowa jobs, trees, as well as the trees' life-giving oxygen. Shamelessly using Hurricane Katrina relief as a clever subterfuge, these well-funded extremists have bombarded voters with a barrage of disinformation, distortions, and outright data to sabotage Iowa's tropical "Field of Dreams" at Exit 235." Anti-rainforest activists are claiming negative outcomes not just on a local level, but nationally... specifically the federal budget. This project is part of a year-end spending bill in Congress, a $373 billion package that critics say is packed with pork-barrel projects at a time Congress should be worried about soaring budget deficits.

SO THEN, WHO IS RIGHT?
Much of the rainforest debate is discussed via blogsites, who are these people then? According to an article by Tim Dunlop, a "blogger is somebody who writes a weblog. A weblog is a website where a person logs, often on a daily basis, his or her thoughts on a range of topics." These sites are attractive because the majority of them are available free to the user. As Dunlop stated, a blogger logs his or her thoughts (opnions) based on reactions to the news of the day as published by major outlets. They lack the resources of a media agency. So then, can these sites be considered an effective means of displaying the truth or informing the public? Few bloggers try to be journalistically objective, which to some is a good thing while to others bad. Although this site attempts to present both sides of the argument truthfully, each of us has in our minds a decision or feeling about this project that, although not consciouscly, unconsciously directs our posting. Does objectivity really exist? Are journalistic reports more objective than weblogs? It is difficult to discuss a topic without feeling or emotion, and although I have tried numerous times, I still cannot do it. Many would argue that it is the journalist's job to evaluate all claims made and decipher its accuracy: this is where the line between objectivity and journalistic bias becomes unclear. In order to report the truth, a journalist may be required to take a side, whether intentional or unintentional. Does this make the story less credible? In some circumstances, a good weblog is one that evaluates the story and attempts to convey the truth, obviously taking one side or another. Does this affect credibility? How does one identify what is true and what is opinion both journalistically or by weblog? What is the difference?