On Thursday, The New York Times will launch a new, crack environmental reporting unit that will pull in eight specialized reporters from the Science, National, Metro, Foreign, and Business desks in a bid for richer, more prominent coverage.
CJR received a copy of an e-mail that the Times’s executive editor, Bill Keller, sent to staff in mid-December announcing the newsroom reorganization, in which he describes the paper’s rationale:
The Times has a long and distinguished record of covering the complex of issues loosely described as “the environment:” climate change, pollution, endangered land and species, the husbanding of the earth’s resources and all the related questions of business, politics, lifestyle and health. For some time we’ve been plotting a way to pull together the various reporters who work on aspects of the subject, under an editor who will wake up every day thinking of ways to push the story forward, to give it greater energy and focus.
That editor is Erica Goode, a former behavior and psychology reporter turned Health editor who has been at the Times since 1998 and spent her last year in Baghdad covering the Iraq War. Her impressive team comprises Andrew Revkin and Cornelia Dean from Science, Felicity Barringer and Leslie Kaufman from National, Elisabeth Rosenthal from Foreign, Mia Navarro from Metro, and the Washington bureau’s Matthew Wald, who writes for the paper’s Energy Challenge series (another multi-department project).
“I’m going to have a group of seven reporters who are totally focused on this and they each bring their own area expertise to the table,” Goode said in an interview. “And we have the advantage of being small enough that we can develop a really collaborative team.” In addition, she will work with liaisons at every desk, first and foremost being the “energy cluster” in Business Day, which, along with the recently launched Green Inc. blog, is overseen by editor Justin Gillis.
One of the primary goals is to get more interesting, “big-thought” environment articles onto the front page, according to assistant managing editor Glenn Kramon, to whom Goode will report. That means more investigative work, he added, and sifting through reporting and storytelling approaches that resonate with readers. “My goal is to make ‘em angry enough to do something,” Kramon said.
The approach is well adapted to the current necessities of covering the environment, which has grown and unfolded into a broader and more complicated story than many would have expected even a few years ago. Much of that is thanks to the intense coverage of global warming—and to the journalists who have slowly but surely revealed its threads in science, technology, business, politics, health, travel, fashion, and more.
As gas prices soared last summer and the cost of powering homes and cars became a central issue in the presidential campaign, journalists seemed to clue into the fact that the climate story is really an energy story at heart. What most do not realize—and what makes the Times’s arrangement so progressive—is that behind energy lies human behavior and whether or not we efficiently manage all our natural resources, from power, to food, to habitat, and beyond. Times reporter Andrew Revkin, a member of the environment team, has written about this extensively on his blog, Dot Earth. In a recent interview, Revkin explained to CJR why he thinks it’s not climate that is the “story of our time,” but rather sustainability in a world moving toward nine billion inhabitants.
Along those lines, Goode hopes that the Times’s more strategic, coordinated approach will capture the variety of ways in which a single environmental issue can touch people’s daily lives. As an example of the type of coverage she hopes to do more of, she pointed to a December article by team member Elisabeth Rosenthal about the “passive house,” a new class of cheap and ultra-efficient home being pioneered in Germany.

Thanks for this coverage! Very interesting. This initiative does sound like a great move in the right direction for the paper overall. Esp. since when I sit down with their Sunday edition, seeing all that paper at once, I am dismayed every weekend anew by the overall superficiality and business-of-consumption-as-usual which dominates the pages, while real environmental stories - especially, environmental angles within other stories - go too often utterly unremarked.
Most news sources in Europe already have Environment as a top level category - not so the Times, which still buries it under Science as a sub-specialty.
Our emerging environmental condition calls for a full-out societal mobilization in response, and journalism is one of the places it needs to start. Apologizing later for missing "the story" (of our generation-plus) won't be good enough!
From this perspective, I've been running a bit cold on Andrew Revkin's contributions over recent months. He seems far too concerned about guarding his right flank, at the cost of some degree of "balance over accuracy" and belaboring a rather limited "realism" (i.e. pessimism). The economic dimension often gets better actual balance (relative to facts, that is) many days in the new Green, Inc. output.
Is Revkin simply blogging his own viewpoint (and if so, how can we get him out more often?). Or could it be that he's blogging under a bit of direction?
Thanks again,
Kevin Matthews
Editor in Chief
ArchitectureWeek
#1 Posted by Kevin Matthews, CJR on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 01:45 PM
I have been a life-long reader of the paper New York Times. Today, the day after the Goiden Globes, I find a reefer in the paper to the full list of winners on line. The paper did not choose to run the list.
Which reminds me of Brian Till's recent column in the San Francisco Chronicle, "I am the murderer of the news."
That article may be found at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/24/EDUB14Q72Q.DTL&hw=Till&sn=006&sc=292
I have paid for on-line feeds from the Wall Street Journal, but quit because they are too difficult to use. Paper is still trumps.
And it would have been easier to scan the agate type of the Golden Globe winners today, too.
#2 Posted by Stephen G. Esrati, CJR on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 05:26 PM
I interviewed Revkin a week ago for a story I'm writing, and posted an 'open notebook' item on our Center for Environmental Journalism blog. In the interview, Revkin talks about the future of the global warming story, as well as the new environmental pod. If you're interested, you can find it here: http://www.cejournal.net/?p=543
#3 Posted by Tom Yulsman, CJR on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 08:53 PM
This is excellent news. keep it up nyt.
#4 Posted by Tom Kenneally, CJR on Wed 14 Jan 2009 at 01:22 PM
*Yawn...imagine that. Another leftist flake eager to spew more unproven wishful thinking from the fruity left and commie wannabes.
I yearn for a civil war to rid America of the leftist fruitcakes who care nothing about this trumped up Global Warming..oh wait, havent you changed the name to something else now, and care more about whatever damage they can cause to a country they see as evil and wrong.
You are whats wrong with this country. Any moonbat that reads the times everyday should be sterilized then chased to the border. Dont Tread on Me indeed!
Please commit mass suicide as a way to protest how evil America is!
#5 Posted by MuckFexico, CJR on Wed 14 Jan 2009 at 07:12 PM
A great and brave move by the Times in a tough climate. Revkin's comment on sustainability is interesting. If we solve the sustainability issues facing a 9bn population do we solve climate change? I'm not sure.
Again though this is great overall and shows all media that we have to start removing the abstract from all areas of reporting, particularly the financial sphere, and start showing the the effect everything we do has on the planet.
#6 Posted by Cian O'Donovan, CJR on Thu 15 Jan 2009 at 07:24 AM
I'm delighted to see this effort, great work. Looking forward to more comprehensive and prominent reporting on this important issue and its many connections to modern life. Hopefully we can all learn to work together to fit ourselves on our finite planet.
#7 Posted by Susan Anderson, CJR on Sat 17 Jan 2009 at 03:19 AM
I was overjoyed to see that Andrew Revkin will be a member of the team and that he recognizes "that it is not climate which is the story of our time but rather sustainability in a world headed toward nine billion inhabitants." These nine billion will all want clean abundant fresh water, to be not too warm, not too cold, to eat fish, to go places. Any crack environmental team which doesn't take into account human numbers in a substantive way will not be doing justice to the inextricable link between the environment and population. A good case can be made that with 6.7 billion people now, sustainability is a myth.
#8 Posted by Jane Roberts, CJR on Mon 19 Jan 2009 at 12:33 PM
Why did the Times reach _outside_ this "crack reporting unit", for someone to write the soothing piece downplaying the US Global Change Research Program's "Global Climate Change Impacts in United States" analysis?
See Romm on this - bit.ly/zAOrG - "Based on media coverage and my conversations with people, I can safely say that it is news to 99.9% of Americans that if we don’t do anything to restrict greenhouse gas emissions we’ll see scorching 9 to 11°F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90°F some 120 days a year. " (yet to the NYT, the report has nothing new)
Who's running the show over there, with Bill Keller stashed away in Iran? What is author John M. Broder's environmental science background?
#9 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Tue 16 Jun 2009 at 01:39 PM
> "Why did the Times reach outside..."
Likewise today, for yet another bark beetle story that makes no mention of climate change as a factor (link) - I've emailed SWAT team editor Erica Goode and team member Revkin asking about current membership, but perhaps someone at CJR could join me in enquiring?
(Using the public "send a message" form to Ms Goode, I got the old "Because of the volume of mail received, we cannot guarantee a personal reply"...if you asked too, that'd be close to a guarantee.)
#10 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Sun 28 Jun 2009 at 11:31 PM
An update - I did get a response from Environment pod editor Erica Goode; she said John M. Broder _is_ part of the Environment team. However, those who've been writing about the bark beetles - Jim Robbins of Montana on July 2 and July 7, and Kirk Johnson of the NYTimes National desk on June 27 ("Tiny Beetle Adds New Element to Forest Fire Control in the West" ) - are not.
At last, the most recent bark beetle story (by Robbins ) _does_ attribute the devastation to climate change; yet it doesn't do so until about the 15th paragraph, and moreover, readers who don't get that far will come away with an opposite impression, since the article is misleadingly titled "Some See Beetle Attacks on Western Forests as a Natural Event".
I've emailed Robbins to ask about this story, twice, but have not heard from him. I understand the responsible editor is Dean E. Murphy, at the National desk; I'll try to contact him for more information.
Perhaps CJR could do a story on the hijacking of the environment beat by non-environmental reporters at the Times?
#11 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Tue 14 Jul 2009 at 04:07 PM
An update and a request -
Update re my attempts to contact author Jim Robbins and editor Dean Murphy of the NYTimes National Desk, re the National Desk's bark beetle stories that softpedal and/or mislead readers about the influence of climate change - I did not receive a response from Mr. Murphy, and, as I said, not from Mr. Robbins either.
Request -
Could CJR Observatory find out about and write about the "Some See Beetle Attacks on Western Forests as a Natural Event"-style hijacking of the climate beat by non-environmental reporters at the New York Times?
Please?
"The value journalists continue to provide in a 'disintermediated,' Net-enabled world ...is to continue to ask public figures the uncomfortable questions that they won't choose to answer on their own."- Scott Rosenberg
#12 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 05:57 PM
re "Some See Beetle Attacks on Western Forests as a Natural Event" (although down around paragraph 15, the story finally lets readers know that climate change is the probable cause) - perhaps Dean Murphy and/or Jim Robbins would benefit from reading "Reporting and Writing Basics" in the Reuters Handbook, here -
http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php/Reporting_and_Writing_Basics
e.g.:
"The first two paragraphs of a news story are crucial. Tell the reader immediately what has happened and why it’s important. If you haven’t told the story in the first two paragraphs it’s too late"
...
"Headlines must be sharp and informative...Ensure information in the story agrees with the headline"
Why does it matter, on this story? Hank Roberts said it best - "My measure is to imagine how this will all read to youngsters in 50 and 100 years, if they look back to assess how well we did by them, managing what would become their world. "
#13 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Tue 21 Jul 2009 at 06:37 PM
Great use of the adjective "crack" in the first sentence. Especially considering the headline. It made an image of Barney Fife jump to mind. Does the sheriff give this team more than one bullet?
BANG CRACK BANG! Long live the 2nd amendment.
#14 Posted by Hank Henry, CJR on Tue 25 Aug 2009 at 09:33 AM