Two papers were chosen for the present analysis, and both are primary source articles. The difference between them is not only the time of publication — there is a 24-year difference between the two pieces — but also the method of publication: a print piece from 1995 and an online article from 2019. Notably, both pieces offer the reader interviews with people thought to be the founders of the Earth Day holiday, but the respondents are not repeated in the interviews. It is worth emphasizing that the agendas published in pieces are similar, but the authors differ in the background and environment within which they produced the material. In his work, Waxman adheres to the idea of denouncing the real founder of this holiday and showing that officials, including Nelson, are not the true organizers but rather use environmental security as part of political promotion. This is perfectly readable among such quotes as “the truth is much more straightforward,” “a real organizer of the first Earth Day,” and “he tells the true story” (Waxman, 2019, para. 2-3). Hence, it can be concluded that the journalist’s bias lies in his desire to publish unique material and show the reader some real truth that they were not previously aware of. Commitment to this idea may well have blinded the critical eye of the real journalist and created barriers to a more open dialogue. The respondent’s bias, the primary source of primary data in this piece, is also worth noting. Denis Hayes is biased because he is not a journalist and recounts the founding events of Earth Day from the perspective of his experience and memory. This is underscored by his emotional assessment of one of the figures involved in the celebration; in particular, Hayes speaks of him as “a marginal character in one Earth Day in one city. There’s no way you could think of him as the founder… If you asked me to name 50 people really crucial to that organizing of that first Earth Day, he certainly wouldn’t be on that list” (Waxman, 2019, para. 11). Waxman’s work, however, has plenty of references to other sources and reinforcements for the historical data she offers outside of the respondent’s answers.
Ruben’s bias is also not difficult to see, as the author does not use a single reference to data throughout the journal article. In addition, Ruben places individual quotes from her respondents on the side to draw attention to them-the motivation for choosing these quotes is unknown, and it can be assumed that they are used as main thoughts from specific paragraphs. In other words, Ruben is biased as to which material to give more attention to. Ruben, however, reduces the level of bias by inviting different respondents for interviews. This decision reduces the subjectivity of the material and offers the reader multiple, albeit overlapping, perspectives.
Comparing the two materials, it is easy to conclude that the authors differ in the perspectives they offer. Whereas Waxman tries to tell the real story and devotes the entire piece to an interview with the event’s founder, Ruben touches on Denis Hayes only once when he offers a quote from him at the beginning. So, Waxman and Ruben differ in their choice of respondents and coverage of Earth Day’s founding events, so it is correct to conclude that they are telling different stories. Although each piece deals with the same holiday, Ruben focuses more on environmental forecasting and opinions about the future, while Waxman tells more about the history of the founding of Earth Day and the details surrounding it.
In addition to the two primary sources previously collected, two additional secondary sources have been selected in this section. First, a descriptive article by Maler (2012) on the UN Foundation portal, in which Maler provides a brief history of Earth Day and offers a sociopolitical agenda for a holiday; in addition, Maler calls for action, inviting readers to join Earth Day. Another secondary source offers a somewhat alternative perspective on coverage of the holiday-Jones (2022) uses Earth Day to maintain a politically relevant image of Britain’s Prince Charles. It is not difficult to see that the narratives for all four sources are different because the final goal is different. Ruben (1995) tells the stories and opinions of officials, Waxman (2019) describes the real history of the founding of the holiday through a respondent, Maler (2012) uses a brief history of Earth Day to encourage readers to join the event, and Jones (2022) manipulates the topic for the political purposes of the monarchy. Notably, in doing so, all sources refer to the same event, and each of them — except Jones — names Senator Nelson.
There is no fundamental difference between past and present narratives, since the exceptional authors, including Waxman, are interested in telling the real story. Ruben and Maler tell similar stories of the official past, where politicians, not environmentalists, were the main actors. Jones, for his part, does not address history but illuminates the need for environmental awareness in the present. The secondary sources are narrated on behalf of the author, using quotes from Senator Nelson or Prince Charles. Unlike Maler, Jones provides several cross-references in his work, but they are not used to reinforce historical data but rather to jump to sections within the portal conveniently. Finally, except for Jones, each article addresses the complex environmental and sociopolitical agenda that gave rise to Earth Day. By contrast, Jones’ piece offers a vision into the future, shaping environmental thinking now. In doing so, each of the sources was timed to coincide with the anniversary of the holiday.
Of all the works, Waxman’s work deserves the most attention: not only because it is the most voluminous material but also because the author strives to be as critical and unbiased as possible. It is from this narrative that one can learn unpopular historical references and get information from the first man who founded Earth Day. Waxman’s proposed history offers an alternative paradigm and extends the knowledge gained from other sources. The article forms a new, more profound understanding of the real history of the founding of Earth Day and then sets the stage for questioning other publicly popular topics related to climate change as well. It is for this reason that Waxman’s article seems most valuable and informative in terms of quality, material, and academic credibility.
The research question sought to explore the results of the creation of Earth Day in light of increasing environmental awareness and public awareness of climate change issues. The connection between the details is transparent: a retrospective study of the history of Earth Day forms an understanding of the need for such a holiday and offers the reader an understanding of the public need for concern for the environment. In view of this, the chosen narrative provides a critical look at the research question created and expands its scope. Waxman offers a new, previously unpopular story about the founding of Earth Day. Regarding the research project, this supports critical and unbiased analysis because it creates the conditions for questioning the publicly accepted agenda. For this reason, the choice of Waxman’s article was motivated by a desire to provide the most reliable and nonjudgmental research devoted to the issue. Meanwhile, Waxman’s examination of the real story Waxman tells creates an understanding of the ambiguous history of environmental initiatives that can be extrapolated to today’s agenda as well. In particular, Waxman unknowingly urges readers to be careful with the information they publish and to be skeptical of government assessments since history shows that they may not be entirely correct.
References
Jones, T. (2022). Charles sets children an environmental challenge to mark Earth Day. Evening Standard.
LinkedIn. (2022a). Barbara Ruben. LinkedIn.
LinkedIn. (2022b). Experience. LinkedIn.
Maler, J. (2012). History of earth day. UN Foundation.
Ruben, B. (1995). Speaking for the Earth. Environmental Action, 27(1), 11-13.
Waxman, O. B. (2019). Meet ‘Mr. Earth Day,’ the man who helped organize the annual observance. Time.