A Friday morning headline in Politico noted that it’s “crunch time” for the climate bill currently underway in the Senate. By Friday afternoon, stories were rolling in about a speech that President Obama delivered at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in support of the legislation.
Crunch time for hashing out an international climate treaty in Copenhagen is also rapidly approaching. Stories about both domestic legislation and the global pact (as well the connections between the two) have steadily, if not prominently, trickled through the media for months. As with Politico’s article, however, reporters have stuffed a lot of the coverage full of frustrating metaphors about a “flurry of activity” on the one hand, and an “uphill battle” on the other.
That’s not to say the blow-by-blow news reporting has lacked import or substance. If you’re an environmental politics and policy junkie, it’s like catnip. But those in need of a different flavor should turn to Mother Jones’s November/December special issue, “Climate Countdown.” Focused on the Copenhagen negotiations, which begin December 7, the package is a world tour of narrative climate journalism, intended to improve upon the scattershot nature of daily coverage. Asking themselves, “What can we do?” in their Editors’ Note, Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery write:
Journalists make lousy organizers – and there are plenty of activist groups out there. But what, at this critical juncture, is our profession’s task? If climate change is the most important story of our time, why is it being covered piecemeal: horserace politics over here, green activism over there, science and tech breakthroughs, business, urban planning all in their various corners? It’s journalism’s job to bring these elements together, to synthesize disparate data points and let the public and policymakers find the big patterns, bigger pitfalls, and biggest opportunities.
That is indeed the right height for the journalistic bar. Whether or not Mother Jones’s special issue clears it is a matter for debate, but you have to give them credit for trying. Unlike many special issues, the relevant material here runs nearly to cover-to-cover, comprising ten features and essays plus a number of interesting sidebars.
It kicks off with a call to action from author and climate campaigner Bill McKibben. His essays have become a requisite part of magazine specials on climate and the environment, almost to the point of tedium. But his organization, 350.org, is planning a day of “international climate action” on Saturday, October 24, which will feature rallies and a variety of unusual publicity events. McKibben was also around for the Kyoto Protocol negotiations in 1997, so although there is nothing terribly new in Mother Jones for those familiar with his work, his insights are nonetheless timely and relevant.
It will be far more interesting to see what kind of coverage McKibben produces on the ground in Copenhagen. He is part of a three-person team the magazine is sending to the big event in December, including its Washington, D.C. bureau chief, David Corn, and reporter Kate Sheppard. Mother Jones promotes the trio in its special issue (and solicits financial support for them online), saying it will “team up with Grist and other news organizations … to track the lobbying and deal making.”
Such partnerships are becoming the norm in journalism and could prove to be an effective strategy for covering what’s sure to be a veritable circus in Copenhagen. Incidentally, this is the same strategy that Mother Jones applied to the creation of its special issue, which features the work of five separate outlets.
The Climate Countdown package is predominantly U.S.-centric, although one of its best pieces is a dispatch from Brazil by the Center for Investigative Reporting’s Mark Schapiro (who has also worked with CJR). He spent some time in the state of Paraná fleshing out the “byzantine politics of paying countries to save trees.” REDD (reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries) will be a hot topic in Copenhagen, Schapiro notes. His expedition to Brazil revealed that implementing the plan has many inherent difficulties, however, from oversight to the ways it will impact locals who depend on the forest for food and shelter. (A shorter and somewhat redundant story in the special issue points out similar problems with forest preservation projects in Malaysia.)
Another one of Mother Jones’s better offerings comes from New Zealand, from whence one of its editors, Rachel Morris, files an interesting tale about climate refugees from Tuvalu. The rising sea threatens to subsume their small, Pacific-island nation, just as it does to the Maldives in the Indian Ocean. Relocating the residents of such places will surely a be topic of debate in Copenhagen, but, as Morris reports, many people resist emigration or have trouble assimilating to new homes.
Unfortunately, there is less to praise in the stateside coverage in Mother Jones’s special issue. Although they are interesting stories in their own right, two long features—one about river floods in Alaska, the other about medicinal mushrooms in Washington—have only the most tenuous connections to climate change and really nothing to do with any specific issue that will be addressed in Copenhagen. A third feature, about the growing dustbowl in California’s Central Valley, is more on track, but misses some of the nuance present in a similar story in the current issue of The Economist.
All criticism aside, however, the narrative writing in Climate Countdown is a welcome departure from the relentlessly short and rapid news stories that crop up daily in the press. In an effort to draw attention to the issue, Mother Jones printed four different covers, each featuring a different child making a different entreaty (via voice bubble) to address climate change—and readers can go online to make customized covers featuring their own kids (or pets) and messages. The editors admit it is a “hackneyed publishing formula” that hearkens back to a 1973 National Lampoon cover that read, “If you don’t buy this magazine, we’ll kill this dog.”
- 1
- 2





The Right Height
This is a great piece, but I'd offer just one comment.
Curtis, in the piece, you say: "That is indeed the right height for the journalistic bar."
In my view, that (what the quote refers to) is not quite the right height for the journalistic bar, or at least (if it is) it's not stated quite clearly and "highly" enough.
Genuine achievement of the "public good" is the aim. The chief role of news and related journalism is to substantially support achievement of that aim and to do what it takes to ensure that the aim is achieved.
Journalism has failed, to put it bluntly, if the genuine public good is not achieved. The "aim" and "bar" are there. How CLOSE to the bar one can get is another matter. So is the degree of accomplishment one might feel when getting within various distances from the "bar" and achievement of the aim.
But, I think it's helpful and necessary not to confuse matters or diminish them. No amount of information spewing can be considered meeting the bar or achieving the aim. Nor can any amount of public "understanding" be considered to meet the aim IF that understanding is not of the sort that is sufficient to actually prompt the actions necessary to achieve the aim, that is, the public good.
I think the piece is great. But, too often, I think, the journalism profession seems to see its aim as something less than its aim should be and must be.
In the present case, I think the issue is just a matter of wording, at least mostly. But, I DO get the strong sense that journalists (and especially the media) are dramatically missing the bar, and society is suffering because of it.
Thanks, and Be Well,
Jeff
Posted by Jeff Huggins on Fri 23 Oct 2009 at 05:35 PM
From here:
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/12/eyes_of_the_world_on_bali_1.html
This will work, please read carefully!
Compelling idea to “clean public attitudes toward action re. climate change”
Because this truth shows asset bubbles so well, real (inflation-corrected) asset price histories, e.g.
http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/RD_RJShomes_PSav.html
(and please don’t miss the last chart therein) are kept well-away from the public’s attention!
And then the people are counting air in asset prices as national wealth!
And such counting/worrying about this air MUST get in the way of rational “public attitudes toward action re. climate change”!
So the idea is: get real asset price histories in the public’s face (ongoingly), thus cleaning minds (by ca. 1.3 GDP, see below), and expect increased rationality
of “public attitudes toward action re. climate change”.
The noted ca. 1.3 GDP is my calc., maybe a year ago, of the above-historical-trends pricings of U.S. homes + stocks. This makes for a LOT of representative democracy effects, I’ll bet!
Sincerely,
Ed Hamilton
Posted by Ed Hamilton on Fri 23 Oct 2009 at 06:02 PM
Dear Curtis,
So far, I haven't seen mention of the big letter, that is, the letter from eighteen leading scientific organizations to U.S. Senators regarding climate change, in the news media? In particular, I question whether The New York Tiimes has covered it yet?
Can you let us know? Can you cover this question, to see who covers it, how well, and when?
After all, the letter presents a particular and easily-identified event. And, given recent polling and also observations from journalists themselves, the public is still very confused about global warming. What better test to see if the news media even have their heads on straight? How many will cover this letter, prominently, that makes such a clear statement, from eighteen organizations no less, on a subject on which large portions of the public are doubtful?
If the media don't cover this letter, it seems to me, many questions have been answered. No need to continue looking for "magic words", as some journalists do as part of their confusion as to why the public understanding is so low.
Or rather, other questions, more important ones, are raised: WHY do the media not cover such a letter? Let's examine that question.
Please, this presents a great and (in my view) necessary "test" and opportunity for reflection and examination.
Be Well,
Jeff
Posted by Jeff Huggins on Sun 25 Oct 2009 at 11:40 AM
Oh, I get it. If the left wants to accuse Fox News of campaigning, it's not producing journalism. If it's Mother Freaking Jones doing it, it's worthy of lauding.
It's such a shame that the industry is theoretically represented by such a hack and biased publication as CJR.
Posted by Dan Gainor on Mon 26 Oct 2009 at 01:32 PM
Dear Curtis,
I've waited until today, to see The Times' Science section. Still no mention of the letter that the AAAS and seventeen other scientific organizations sent to the Senate regarding climate change last week.
I looked carefully through the papers (The Times) on Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and now today. And, I've searched using The Times' website. I can't find any mention of the letter in the paper. (As you must know, the letter was issued on Wed. or Thurs. of last week.)
So please, can "The Observatory" examine whether, and how well, the news media covered that particular letter?
My guess is that much can be learned from that examination and corresponding dialogue.
Be Well,
Jeff
Posted by Jeff Huggins on Tue 27 Oct 2009 at 02:49 PM
For those who assume coal, combined with carbon sequestration, is a straightforward part of our energy future, check out "Not Under My Backyard" by Victoria Schlesinger. I've been waiting for someone to write that piece. Bush, Obama, et al talk as though it's a done deal. Meanwhile, back in reality, scientists are struggling just to get approval for TESTING it. LOL.
Posted by Paul Wells on Wed 28 Oct 2009 at 07:29 PM
When exactly in its 30-year-or-so history has Mother Jones been accurate in predicting the disposition of 'the major issue of our times'? Post-Three Mile Island, when it was with the Luddites on nuclear power? During the 1980s, when its editors were accepting the line that Reagan's nuclear buildup, if unchecked, made nuclear war more likely? How about during the AIDS hysteria which peaked during the Bush years, which asserted that straight, white, non-IV drug-using America was going to be infected unless it woke up and extended more toleration (through 'funding', of course) to gay-rights group - or so the not-always-coherent party line went? So far as I can tell, this publication has dutifully accepted every prediction of apocalypse put forward by leftish-activist groups and politicians made during its existence without skepticism. The answer to each crisis is, of course, give people like us more power over mass production and consumption. Just more power will do. Oh, and funding.
There used to be a joke about a particularly distasteful radical-chic lawyer that "I didn't believe the guy was guilty until I heard Kunstler was his lawyer". In a similar spirit, the designation of global warming as a threat by Mother Jones rather comforts me. I think we're going to be all right.
Posted by Mark Richard on Fri 30 Oct 2009 at 03:43 PM
It's nice to see Mark Schapiro's Mother Jones story about GM's money trees in Brazil highlighted here. You also mentioned partnership in journalism - and there's an additional partnership involved with this story. Schapiro also worked with our team at FRONTLINE/World to produce a series of videos about his journey into the forest reserve. You can watch the videos, and check out our ongoing Carbon Watch project at the url below. Carbon Watch is a joint effort between FRONTLINE/World and the Center for Investigative Reporting.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/carbonwatch/moneytree/
Posted by Charlotte Buchen on Wed 11 Nov 2009 at 05:44 PM