So, while it would be useful to have the kind of detailed data that would allow critics to tease out nuanced trends in climate coverage (for instance, it seems like the decline at The New York Times has occurred almost exclusively in its news pages, and not at all on its blogs, according to Factiva), any attempt to gather such details is going to be subject to a fair amount of uncertainty.
What’s seems indisputable is that, when it comes to the amount climate coverage overall, all signs point down. “I should note that I completely agree that, in general, there’s been a major decrease in climate policy coverage in the MSM,” Braun wrote in one of his e-mails. “In 2007, I certainly would not have guessed this!”
Indeed, few would have, and the fact that the decrease is evident even at E&E, where it can’t be chalked up to editors and reporters who don’t know or don’t care much about the story, is worrisome. There’s still a lot of really good climate change journalism out there, of course—and quantity does not equal quality—but it’s spread more thinly, and journalists are having tougher time finding solid pegs on which to hang it.
Not directly a comment but very relevant. People reading this probably know (or know of) Cosmos, the terrific Aussie popular science mag. This piece http://tinyurl.com/7eeaphd is their analysis of the climate change debate there as led by The Australian (in many ways a great paper, eg their universities coverage) seemingly under all sorts of baleful climate-change-denier influence. Well worth a read.
#1 Posted by Martin Ince, CJR on Tue 10 Jan 2012 at 12:56 PM
I thought that news outlets were supposed to report the news. Which is apparently what they are doing. If there are less stories, maybe it is because there is less news?
Of course, they could go the journalist-advocate route and just make up stuff to report.
#2 Posted by Kip Hansen, CJR on Sun 29 Jan 2012 at 06:52 PM
Not only is Congress ignoring climate change, so is President Obama. There ought to be policy debates on how to respond to global warming rather than the silly arguments over whether is exists. Fortunately, scientitists and engineers around the world continue to monitor the situation and formulate possible responses, even if governments aren't paying attention.
#3 Posted by John Randall, CJR on Thu 2 Feb 2012 at 12:05 PM
Shouldn't we focus on quality? Much of E&E's coverage is superficial, quick hits about a Congressional hearing or report. It should hardly qualify as "coverage" of the complex issue of climate change. I realize their readers are a focused group concerned with such minutiae. But the enterprise stories they do choose to cover would not make it into a major news source, hence the NY Times' decision to drop them. We should be looking for better coverage; not more.
#4 Posted by Brendan Jakobs, CJR on Thu 23 Feb 2012 at 10:13 AM