At 5pm on Friday afternoon, The New York Times posted the following announcement:
The Times is discontinuing the Green blog, which was created to track environmental and energy news and to foster lively discussion of developments in both areas. This change will allow us to direct production resources to other online projects. But we will forge ahead with our aggressive reporting on environmental and energy topics, including climate change, land use, threatened ecosystems, government policy, the fossil fuel industries, the growing renewables sector and consumer choices.
This is terrible news, to say the least. When the Times announced in January that it was dismantling its three-year-old environment pod and reassigning its editors and reporters to other desks, managing editor Dean Baquet insisted that the outlet remained as committed as ever to covering the environment. Obviously, that was an outright lie.
The Green blog was a crucial platform for stories that didn’t fit into the print edition’s already shrunken news hole—which is a lot on the energy and environment beat—and it was a place where reporters could add valuable to context and information to pieces that did make the paper. An addendum to the discontinuation announcement encouraged readers, “Please watch for environmental policy news on the Caucus blog and energy technology news on the Bits blog,” but without the Green blog, there’s no way that these topics are going to get as much attention as they once did.
In an act of total cowardice, the Times clearly timed its announcement to avoid (for the weekend, at least) having to deal with what is sure to be widespread criticism. When I called the paper shortly after 5pm on Friday, I was informed that executive editor Jill Abramson, managing editor Dean Baquet, and corporate spokeswoman Eileen Murphy were all out of the office for the day.
Sandy Keenan, the former editor of the environment pod, and Nancy Kenney, the deputy editor who was responsible for the Green blog, didn’t answer their phones, either, but I can hardly blame them. An email that Kenney sent to colleagues at 5:02pm on Friday suggests that that the decision to ax the blog was made from up on high and came as a surprise. According to a copy obtained by CJR, she wrote:
Dear Friends and Contributors,
Masthead editors at The Times informed me around noon today that they plan to discontinue the Green blog and devote resources elsewhere.
Sandy Keenan and I are deeply grateful to you for your engrossing contributions and support over the last three years. Our deepest thanks to all of you. I will be following up with individual e-mails as best I can; I apologize for the abruptness here.
On Monday, I will begin a new editing assignment on the Times culture desk and will be reachable at the same e-mail address.
Fond regards,
Nancy Kenney
Those masthead editors should be ashamed of themselves. They’ve made a horrible decision that ensures the deterioration of the Times’s environmental coverage at a time when debates about climate change, energy, natural resources, and sustainability have never been more important to public welfare, and they’ve done so while keeping their staff in the dark. Readers deserve an explanation, but I can’t think of a single one that would justify this folly.
You're not alone in your outrage. While we'd agree there's no way this move is justified, clearly NYT thought it was from their cost/benefit view. There just aren't enough readers/viewers addicted to or comfortably conversant in the sciences. Disastrously sad, but sadly true.
There are other on-line sources for climate science, flavored for those with highly technical bents, or for those with political focus, and even for those still in the denier 'community.' Other basic science, however, is harder to get to. SciAm lost me decades ago when its narrative dropped to ~Grade 6 level, gee-whizzery; AAAS, NAS, AGU, NOAA, USGS, Nature, et al., all offer RSS feeds with highly variable content; DailyKos even has its science-specific groups that aren't always rigorous in spanning content accuracy and interest. NYT matched the Venn Diagram overlap between wonky science and societal impact, and with marked attention to accuracy -- aided by commenters. Wondering if we'll ever see the like again. Remember the Sputnik years when science was suddenly sexy? Sigh. I do. For a few of us, it still is.
Long a hardcopy subscriber, I'm now with you all daily via RSS. I'll be following your sci/env reporting critiques carefully! Thanks for doing that valuable work in these difficult times.
#1 Posted by Bel Campbell, CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 07:52 PM
Not surprised...the whole environmental movement has been hijacked by vested interests to such a degree it is almost impossible to separate the reality from the ideology....however this will never stop responsible people from direct action on their own account...
#2 Posted by William Burrell, CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 08:31 PM
Another point: The Dealbook blog, which covers the financial industry (and which I used to write for, and which does a great job) has 14 people working for it. I'm not positive, but I think they're all full time employees, and I think they are all dedicated mostly if not solely to Dealbook.
Priorities.
#3 Posted by Dan Mitchell, CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 09:14 PM
Well, it's hard to keep writing about a field in which nothing has happened since 1997. But let's give the Green blog and its ilk credit: by basing such an eager and transparent agenda on such flimsy evidence, they have collectively raised the scepticism level across the western world by several hundred per cent.
#4 Posted by Jon Jermey, CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 09:16 PM
That they reassigned the editor to culture coverage suggests that the Times just wants to join most of humanity in ignoring the stark realities facing us. That they can do this while the wreckage of Sandy is still so fresh goes to the heart of our species vast capacity for denial and avoidance. It's shocking.
#5 Posted by RaflW, CJR on Sat 2 Mar 2013 at 11:13 AM
Curtis --> This kind of nonsense --> "Obviously, that was an outright lie." is uncalled for -- a little professionalism would go a long way.
In my opinion, nearly everything on the Green Blog belonged on the Opinion Pages -- it was not journalism but advocacy and "Press Release Science Journalism".
#6 Posted by Kip Hansen, CJR on Sat 2 Mar 2013 at 12:07 PM
So now we have confirmation that the Times is turning against environmentalism. We can be angry about it all we want, and the Times can say that they need to redirect resources to other subjects, but these accomplish nothing and tell us nothing.
The real question that's worth exploring is why. Why does the Times feel compelled to shut down a blog that costs the paper practically nothing? It can't have anything to do with staff allocation and cost; these are absurd reasons on the face of it.
So what's the real reason? Let's hope there's a Bradley Manning in the Times (granted, that's a lot to hope for among cowering journalists these days) who will push the truth out to the rest of us.
#7 Posted by Pelham, CJR on Sat 2 Mar 2013 at 01:27 PM
I share Curtis Brainard's concern and disappointment with The Times.
The move only increases the size of the hole around environmental issues by which politically aligned commentators are eager to jump in and fill via blogs, social media and other forms of advocacy journalism. With my colleague Dietram Scheufele we discuss this trend in broader terms related to politics in our recent "Polarization Paradox" essay. We argue that is the time more than ever that we need to invest in independent forums where there can be cross-cutting discussion and analysis of complex problems that make partisans on all sides uncomfortable. We need to encourage our great national outlets like The Times to maintain their tradition in this area while also joining with others to create innovate non-profit outlets.
http://thebreakthrough.org/journal/issue-3/the-polarization-paradox/
I also discuss this importance specific to climate change in a recent piece at the terrific new university-based web magazine Ensia, an example of the role that such a forum can and should play.
http://ensia.com/voices/why-its-good-to-debate-strategies-to-address-climate-change/
#8 Posted by Matthew Nisbet, CJR on Sat 2 Mar 2013 at 04:06 PM
What are you talking about, Jon Jermey? 1998 was the strongest El Niño as far as we know, and the Earth keeps warming in spite of a long period of La Niña/ENSO equilibrium. Nothing happening? Really?
Flimsy evidence to you means to the rest of us, "a mountain of evidence." Where is the evidence *against* Anthropogenic Global Warming? Find it and you get a cracker.
Skepticism is one thing, but AGW denialism seems to be the sole domain of the United States, not "the western world".
#9 Posted by Jim Spriggs, CJR on Sat 2 Mar 2013 at 04:07 PM
Sad, to say the least.
I think this removal props up the denial crowd and leaves the realists and the seriously concerned 'what next' - ??
#10 Posted by Elaine Winters, CJR on Sat 2 Mar 2013 at 07:11 PM
Wow so much BS in one story..
#1 - Created to foster lively discussion
****Unfortunately a lively discussion is one in which a lot of people give their opinions and ask questions...But to the Man Made Climate Changers if you have a valid point that disputes this subject then you do not get a discussion you get a lot of "Debate closed or 98% of scientist blah blah blah.
#2 - An act of total cowardice
***Wow what a statement the paper is going under and OMG it's now cowardly to try to save your paper by cutting out news that is not newsworthy. It's hilarious to see Liberals crying when what else is there to print since the debate is so called "Over" the NYT getting rid of the section will only mean 1 or 2 "Doom and Gloom" stories won't get printed in their paper.
#3 -..at a time when debates about climate change, energy, natural resources, and sustainability have never been more important to public welfare
***Ummm what debate, you liberals never want to debate man made Climate change. I have been asking for a debate for months and all I get back is "The time for debate is over"
This is a typical liberal over-reaction just like with anything Man made Climate change, Sequester, The NYT getting rid of a Green Blog...It's always the end of the world or The sky is falling reaction from the left
#11 Posted by Mezz1120, CJR on Sat 2 Mar 2013 at 07:39 PM
AGW is a genocidal hoax. It serves everyone involved right that the spreaders of disinformation are on the decline. It bodes well for Mankind. But the climate grifters will still face judicial retribution for their crimes against humanity.
#12 Posted by Stan Lippmann, CJR on Sun 3 Mar 2013 at 07:27 AM
One problem with an "environment" activity is that the "science" is often overtaken by conflicting science - remember Nuclear Winter? - and thus covering it like it was "news" often blows up in the face of the outlet. A vast amount of environmental "science" is really opinion - nothing wrong with opinion, but it ought be so labeled - and environmental "news" is often used as a political weapon to restrict growth and development. People have grown suspicious of environment news because it has so often turned out to be biased or merely wrong. I am not attacking environmentalism, but the Times actions - it is the TImes, after all - reflect such skepticism. People have learned to be skeptical.
#13 Posted by EB Young, CJR on Sun 3 Mar 2013 at 12:39 PM
The problem is greed. It explains why vast sums are spent on political lobbying, mis-education and propaganda to derail effective solutions to climate change. It explains the irrational, deranged viewpoint of Stan Lippmann displayed above. It explains why energy efficiency, somehow, isn't regarded as a no-brainer and why the majority of Americans find it difficult to join the dots with regards to the record number of climate records which we experience more or less every year now. Ultimately, I think these things also explain the closure of the NYT Green blog. I have yet to read any other, legitimate, explanations anyway – if the argument that the NYT readership cannot understand the science behind environmental issues is being put forward seriously then big questions need to be asked about your education system. I think they need to be asked anyway.
#14 Posted by Corinthus Titus, CJR on Mon 4 Mar 2013 at 05:33 AM
Could it just be a packaging thing? Who cares what corner of the site hold the environmental news as long as the reporters keep reporting?
#15 Posted by Bob, CJR on Mon 4 Mar 2013 at 07:28 AM
This is what happens as the print newspaper caters increasingly to the uber-rich of Manhattan who own the businesses that destroy the environment and those members of the finance-related industries who don't want to hear about it. Online, the Times becomes trashier daily, with the home pages featuring perhaps one or two serious stories by major reporters at a time, and the rest filled with junk and feature articles that have been there for days because they get clicks. How can you even think of eliminating environment coverage while pouring out blogs on alcoholic beverages?
#16 Posted by Dan Cooper, CJR on Mon 4 Mar 2013 at 09:02 AM
Useful to note, while interpreting NYT poor-mouthing of environmental coverage, is that their concern-troll Dot Earth blog continues, albeit recently moved to the apparent-safety of Opinion.
#17 Posted by Kevin Matthews-ArchitectureWeek, CJR on Mon 4 Mar 2013 at 01:53 PM
What a legacy Jill Abramson is leaving for herself! Kill the environmental reporting and make Joe Nocera the NYT's official voice on the key climate issues of the day.
#18 Posted by Gizmo Greg, CJR on Tue 5 Mar 2013 at 07:17 AM
Nice try, Jon Jermey. But if the evidence for climate change is so flimsy, why have the folks on your side not been able to knock it down? Long before now someone should have been able to show that Arctic ice is not shrinking year after year, that mountain glaciers are not retreating, that spring is not coming earlier, etc.
Ah, but no one has. That's because those things really are happening. The scientific evidence for global warming is about as solid as anything in science. These changes do portend serious problems fifty to one hundred years down the road, and the American public deserves better coverage of them.
#19 Posted by Chris Winter, CJR on Tue 5 Mar 2013 at 01:10 PM