The current results of a poll from The Pollution Engineer show that PE readers are split on their presidential pick this year.

Dear reader,

Welcome to my blog.

First, allow me a short introduction to this little corner of the Internet.

This new space gives us, the editorial and production staff, the opportunity to communicate directly with the readers. Its content is unfiltered. The views expressed herein are entirely those of the author at the moment said author hit "publish." More importantly, understand that we work hard -- and we have a strong review system to back this up -- to make sure our personal views do not influence our coverage.

This leads me to a topic very close to my heart: the bias of expectation.

Certainly, we all can probably name at least one instance in which we read something and said "wow, that's biased." Sometimes our own biases make us see a slant in others' work that isn't there.

In my own experience, I've discovered that if I'm looking for bias, I can always find it, but if I'm not expecting any, I seldom come across it.

With political fevers running high over the next few weeks leading up to this election, I think it's important the we remember to remain skeptics without becoming cynics.

In case you're wondering, yes, we have received reader comments questioning whether our own biases interfered with our coverage. We take these very seriously (except one guy, who's like -- whoa), and carefully review each others' work to make sure we're providing good information that doesn't skew by addition or omission. This standard is upheld even in our opinion pieces, something, I've been told, which was not always the case before my time.

But I don't want this to be taken to say that we will be afraid of politics altogether. To do so, given the industry we're in, I think would be a disservice to our readers. And neither do I think a dualist (he said, he said) approach can be used to serve every issue. On many topics, there are multiple, opposing views with relatively equal merit. I'd love to always tell you that course X is better than courses Y and Z. The problem is, without the benefit of hindsight, figuring out which course is the most right can be an impossibility. So going forward, you may see a variety of formats used in PE to foment an editorial discussion on the topics that will shape our industry, be they climate change, controlling new substances in water, or the effectiveness and purpose of environmental control in the United States and beyond.

We work in a highly politicized field, our fortunes rising and falling with the decisions of politicians, be they the local municipal board or the EPA Administrator. So naturally, you might expect that PE readers might end up being some of the most ardent partisans.

This, however, has not borne out. Of those of you I've met and communicated with over the years, an overwhelming majority -- even when supporting one political view or another -- have shown an absolutely uncanny level of perspective. People ask me how often I meet folks with their 'hair on fire.' The answer: the nearest thing to never.

The reason for this, I believe, is that the average PE reader is far more educated as to the realities of these issues. In a recent e-newsletter poll, we found that more that 75 percent of readers thought the average voter was "Very Little" informed on environmental issues, or "Not at all." If we're comparing the "average voter" to the "average PE reader," I'd have to agree.

As for that (not-so) average PE reader, we did another survey this month asking how you plan to vote this year. The results were close, with the edge to McCain. The vote was almost a complete tie when the question was opened up to which candidate best exemplifies your environmental position.

So much for pleasing y'all by picking a party and pandering. I guess we'll just have to go back to doing what we've always strived to accomplish since I came onboard: do our best to make sure our editorial keeps PE readers the most informed and educated environmental professionals they can be.

And for you reading this, never fear to write us (unless you're That Guy*) and let us know how well we're serving you, and what we can do to be better.


Humbly yours,

Seth Fisher
seth@pollutionengineering.com


* I'm kidding, That Guy, you can keep writing too.