Woodpecker, insect, benefits and science

This research article, although somewhat simplified, has still been enlightening.

Firstly, Ms. Hu Shuli's abstract already makes clear some of China's significant problems; of course, these are felt everywhere in the world, and not specific to any particular country. Ms. Hu reckons that the media should play the 'woodpeckers', not to collapse the tree, but to help it grow stronger. Regarding woodpeckers, I think she has not thought through the problem of the tree; the tree is the livelihood she depends upon, while the insects are actually what the woodpecker depends upon. Without these parasites to feed off, the woodpeckers would starve, much like in our regions, the woodpecker is a very rare bird.
On the other hand, if through the woodpeckers' hard work, the tree falls, this is not the woodpecker's intention, but the need of sating his hunger.
I think it's okay to compare people in the media to woodpeckers, but their role has been hugely exaggerated, and does not adhere to the reality.
Out woodpeckers only fly over to the area where the insects are, search, but can't eat. Therefore, we need to to make links with industry, in order to solve the problem of global warming, or to raise the standards of living. This issue is present everywhere, and does not need a big deal made out of it. Everywhere there are benefits and incentives, going on in the background of our own country, we need to take a slightly more objective and accurate stance in our reporting; not just reporting, but also careful analysis, thus earning society's respect and a reputation for quality.
Often, in reality the media has little understanding of our country's policies, just following other birds, reporting on topics they do not fully understand. This is something this research article touches upon on the problem of scientific literacy. This is a common failing in our society, probably found in other places, we report simply for reporting's sake.

News is an economic activity in society, and there is a price on it. We do not have the capability to travel everywhere in the world, nor to understand so many concepts or scientific skills, therefore, we need journalists to represent us, to travel across the world, to see things, and talk about what is actually going on with this issue of climate change. The language must be simple, easy to understand, of course, and consistent with the government. At the same time, it must try and give the full facts, leaving the reader or the audience to understand make up their own opinion.
When you do understand, it is difficult to report, as you do not know from which perspective to report, and you do not know which expert represents which benefiting party. Therefore, you must be very clear and precise; not needing to be an expert, but understand the relation between benefits and benefactors, only then can we be objective.