New York Times public editor files final report, never mentions the paper’s dreadful global warming coverage
"New York Times public editor files final report, never mentions the paper’s dreadful global warming coverage"
The New York Times has been widely criticized for its terrible climate coverage in the past three years. But you would never know that from, “A Final Report From Internal Affairs,” the last column of Clark Hoyt, the public editor.
Hoyt was supposed to represent an objective, independent perspective that represents the public’s concerns — in order “to help this newspaper live up to its own high journalistic standards,” as he put it. But he has nary a word to say about the one area where the NYT failed to live up to its standards more than any other.
Future generations will certainly never remember what Hoyt calls his “disagreement of greatest consequence [with exec editor Bill Keller] “” over the Times article suggesting that John McCain had had an extramarital affair with a young female lobbyist.”
But they will be bitter and puzzled over how the one-time ‘paper of record’ blew the story of the century (see Science Times stunner: “”¦ a majority of the section’s editorial staff doubts that human-induced global warming represents a serious threat to humanity” and the 2009 “Citizen Kane” award for non-excellence in climate journalism and below).
This year alone, the NYT has put three dreadful, unbalanced “teach the controversy” climate pieces on its most precious real estate — the front page:
- N.Y. Times Faces Credibility Siege over Unbalanced Climate Coverage: One oft-quoted communications expert calls this attack on the IPCC, “the worst, one sided reporting I have ever seen…. In this article, the New York Times has become an echo-chamber for the climate disinformation movement.”
- In yet another front-page journalistic lapse, the NY Times once again equates non-scientists “” Bastardi, Coleman, and Watts (!) “” with climate scientists
- Brulle: “The NY Times doesn’t need to go to European conferences to find out why public opinion on climate change has shifted”¦. Just look in the mirror.”
Then again, Hoyt’s omission is not a total surprise since Hoyt blew the big stolen-email story, as I discussed in December (see Anti-science idealogues spin the NY Times public editor, Clark Hoyt, on “Climategate”: Revkin quickly makes fool of Hoyt with dreadful front-page story):
One thing is clear from the story known as ClimateGate “” the anti-science ideologues are much better at “Working the Refs“ than the climate science realists….
Here’s our own Ken Levenson from a comment on today’s CP post, British PM attacks “anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics” while UK Conservatives reaffirm climate science and need for “desperately urgent” Copenhagen deal:
What a breath of fresh air! Particularly after just ingesting Clark Hoyt’s pile of manure this morning.
The only good thing I can say about Hoyt’s treatment is that it unintentionally allows Andy Revkin to hang himself. Revkin is quoted at the end saying “Our coverage, looked at in toto, has never bought the catastrophe conclusion and always aimed to examine the potential for both overstatement and understatement,”
EARTH TO REVKIN: THE IPCC IS THE MIDDLE GROUND AND ITS MIDDLE GROUND IS CATASTROPHE.
That Revkin betrays his inclination for the horserace over “truth” is just another nail in the coffin for his pathetic coverage. Too bad Hoyt has gotten used in the process.
I agree that Hoyt’s piece, “Stolen E-Mail, Stoking the Climate Debate,” raises questions about his own bias “” and Revkin’s independence to cover the story.
What’s shocking is that Hoyt, the supposed “readers’ representative” only quotes from those who think the Times has underplayed the story, which is hardly what the independent public editor should be doing….
In his December piece, Hoyt has three straight quotes from those on one side, including the uber-extreme anti-science Steven Milloy — without bothering to mention Milloy’s connections to Philip Morris and ExxonMobil, connections even Fox News apologized for failing to disclose.
So Hoyt leaves after 3 years, another in a long line of forgettable members of the status quo media oblivious to the media’s miscoverage of the story, oblivious to the multiple catastrophes we face if we don’t quickly and sharply get off our current greenhouse gas emissions — catastrophes enabled by a snoozing media.
Hoyt says his “assignment has been to try to help this newspaper live up to its own high journalistic standards.”
Here’s a sample of the NYT’s flawed coverage during Hoyt’s tenure:
- Media stunner: When asked “Does it matter, from a journalistic point of view, whether [Freeman Dyson is] right or whether he’s wrong?” his NYT profiler replies “Oh, absolutely not.”
- Signs of global warming are everywhere, but if the New York Times can’t tell the story (twice!), how will the public hear it?
- MacCracken: The New York Times quote did not represent my views, and it did not even represent the reporter’s attempt to portray my comments
- Grist on the NYT’s “baseless hit job on Gore,” plus the story’s origin in a Fox News doctored video
- The New York Times sells its integrity to ExxonMobil with front-page ad that falsely asserts “Today’s car has 95% fewer emissions than a car from 1970″³
- Shame on the New York Times for running ExxonMobil’s greenwashing ad once again “” they can’t plead ignorance this time, only greed
- Is the New York Times coverage of global warming fatally flawed?
- NYT climate reporter on NPR: “I’ve made missteps. I’ve made probably more mistakes this year in my print stories than I had before.”
- NYT pushes global cooling myth (again!) and repeats outright misinformation
- NY Times spins the greatest nonstory ever told, suckering UK Guardian into printing utter BS
- NYT persists in selling spin from long-wrong deniers that the IPCC overestimates the danger from warming, when the reverse is true
- Here’s what we know so far: CRU’s emails were hacked, the 2000s will easily be the hottest decade on record, and the planet keeps warming thanks to us! The NY Times blows the story.
- Unstaining Al Gore’s good name 2: He is not “guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements” and is owed a correction and apology by the New York Times
- NYT embraces false balance, equates Will’s active disinformation with Gore’s effort to understand and communicate climate realism
- NYT seems shocked, shocked by media’s own failure to explain climate threat