MM: How will you environment and energy coverage differently than, say, The New York Times, which recently launched its own, specialized team dedicated to environmental coverage?
DD: Well, it takes us months to a year, even, to organize ourselves and get our fieldwork done and get our stories edited and represented. I think the upside for us is that we can provide long-term context on many of these environmental and energy issues and trends. I think what we’re able to do with the kind of explanatory journalism we provide is help people understand why they’re reading certain things in the newspapers. We’re trying to go after the “why” as much as anything. We can’t compete on timeliness, so we have to take the longer view. Can there be a new green revolution for example? Or, we’ll look at the effects of long-term temperature changes or the melting of Arctic ice caps. We can’t respond with the same rate of speed as daily newspapers do, but these are stories for the millennium, for the ages and the generations.
- 1
- 2




Recent Comments
-
Michele Travierso on
Everybody's On Edge
(4)
-
aloysiusmiller on
Well, It May Deserve an Award in Something
(69)
-
Anna Haynes on
Unscientific America Meets Denialism
(5)
-
Jay Casey on
Not For All the News in China, Part I
(5)
-
JSF on
Strike a Pose—Rogue (Rogue, Rogue…)
(80)
-
Gary Brown on
ACORN's Family Tree
(24)
-
Belinda Gomez on
The Blade’s Last Cut
(1)
-
Joel Current on
What's a News Brief Worth?
(2)
More