Last week I wrote a strongly worded and widely read piece: “The New York Times Abandons the Story of the Century and Joins the Energy and Climate Ignorati.”
I received a great deal of support for the analysis from of number of people, even someone who works at the Times. But there was some blowback for my call to cancel your subscription to the paper.
Of course, Big Media seems impervious to outside criticism — indeed, often wears it as a badge of honor (“if everybody’s criticizing us we must be doing something right”). Maybe nothing can be done.
In the case of my post, the blowback came from Charlie Petit at MIT’s Knight Science Journalism Tracker. Petit is someone I respect — he “has been on the science and technology beat since 1970.”
We exchanged e-mails and then had a phone conversation. He retracted his most strongly worded comment, and I decided to modify what I had written. We both agreed that blogging without an editor has many benefits, but it does have costs.
He gave me some very positive words of encouragement for Climate Progress — and some advice, too, which hopefully will improve my blogging in the months to come.
One thing I realized in rereading my earlier post is that I didn’t put what I was suggesting into the full context of what has happened in the past five years. So I added this at the end:
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT
The NYT remains a great and important paper in many respects. Its coverage this year on climate science (by Gillis) and fracking have been exceptional. That said, I do think that if climate is your priority issue, as it is for many readers, and if you are frustrated at the poor coverage of this issue at the Times, if you have tried letters to the editor and to the ombudsman, as I’ve suggested in the past, all to no avail, if you worry about the apparent influence of fossil fuel companies on the Times, then canceling your subscription is one of the few ways you have left to send a message.
A number of sources have confirmed, as a 37-year EPA veteran reported here, the Oil & Gas “industry is targeting the Times” because its fracking series “had an unprecedented role in prodding EPA into action.”
Certainly it appears that the business side of the NY Times has warmed up to the fossil fuel industry as part of its effort to find a viable business model in the Internet age:
- 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″
- Media stunner: New York Times partners with Shell Oil to peddle elite access
So what do you think a climate hawk should do, since letters and emails don’t work?
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
I think it makes only sense to “cancel” something, when you provide a better alternative and in general are more constructive.
Not every single article is bad in the NYT, SPIEGEL etc, but many climate science article or how things are moderated in the times of astro-turfing.
Calling for cancellation of INSERT_MEDIA_COMPANY_HERE or not voting for INSERT_RANDOM_PRESIDENTIAL_CANDIDATE_HERE is a strongly emotionally driven call. I understand this and i feel sometimes the same, but as long there is no alternative, and even when the opposite is so bad it can not even be compared, such calls are not the best way to go.
Maybe start some kind of initiative, voice your opinions and lay out in detail what is exactly wrong and what is at stake. So before i would call for cancellation i would call to correct mistakes and use other journalists in the future.
The problem with what you suggest is that over the years many of us have written to complain to the NYT about its awful, inaccurate, unbalanced, biased and damaging portrayal of climate change and the certain disaster humanity faces if we don’t all pull together and get to work on this problem.
The NYT, by its actions, has been a significant delayer. They are as guilty as ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, Halliburton, and the Koch brothers.
You are probably right, i do not have ANY subscriptions… and on second thoughts and reading more comments i think it is ok to cancel subscription.
Joe, this is a bold move you are making because readers will take notice and likely act as you are suggesting.
However, your, and our problem with New York Times reporting on climate change/ climate chaos, has a recent history and since June, a new Executive Editor has been named. That is worthy of consideration.
Jill Abramson is the first woman to be named to that post in the paper’s entire 169 year history.
Will her new role make the paper wake up and listen to the honest scientists and activists? Time will tell.
Or, does your challenge to NYT subscribers offer an opportunity to meet with Ms. Abramson along with people like Michael Mann, Dr. Trenbreth, Gavin Schmidt and yourself to have a face to face with her to get her attention to this extinction-prone matter of climate chaos.
Let her see the price the paper is paying by its careless approach to the greatest threat humans have ever faced.
She is features in a New Yorker piece and the link is below.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/10/24/111024fa_fact_auletta?currentPage=all
Changing Times
“Jill Abramson takes charge of the Gray Lady”.
by Ken Auletta October 24, 2011
As always Joe, you lead and people that trust you are willing to follow. Maybe this matter deserves more thought. New Executive Editor = new approaches? Worth a try.
Joe, I hope you and your family are out and enjoying the fall colors. However, this comment deserves a reply.
I really believe there should be massive ‘call your governors & senators’ action. Flooding them with demands they advocate the interests of the American people, not those of the corporations that fund their election campaigns.
Also, more activism, more demonstrations, marches, the US has to become a country on the march for the causes it’s citizens believe in, because the gov isn’t doing it.
The power really lies with the people, attach to the Occupy movement, make daily life in the US impossible for the moneyed elite controlling Washington unless the most pressing issues are adressed. Elect someone who represents these people, collect a billion to be able to nominate your own president. It will require only 20 bucks from 50 million people to start a massive campaign to elect Bernie Sanders, Nader or some non-crazy president. Or at least give him a shot.
Basically take control of the land back from corporations, move your money away from the big banks, drive less so you buy less gas from the fossil corps, do everything an alternative way so the elites don’t get your cash which they can spend to distort politics.
Write and call in to NYT and other publications with your anger, etc.
Perhaps a two week suspension and then take a new subscription, if done widely would bring attention without destroying the paper
If letters and email don’t work, then your options include (in order of escalating action): don’t read, cancel subscription, encourage others to cancel, publicly oppose with direct action (picket head office, ridicule, burn, make it into toilet paper for public washrooms…). Consider that you’re already providing a much-needed alternative (and, hopefully, increasingly read). The NYT may have been around a long time and have provided a useful service; but it’s still just a business, not a sacred temple. In the grand scheme of things, most people on Earth DON’T read the NYT anyway, just the last-century die-hards. Personally, I think I only know one guy in his late 60′s who actually has a newspaper subscription now.
I’m sure quite a few people cancelled their subscriptions to the NY Times after the Judith Miller affair. Working with a corrupt presidential administration to misguide a nation into an unnecessary war is about as bad as it gets. . . Unless you compare it to complicity in the march towards catastrophic climate change.
What should we do?
I cancelled a long time ago because of the refusal of the NYT to tell the political story of the country in context and without the false equivalency BS that is the way of the non-Fox MSM in these anti-rational times.
But because of the NYT’s coverage of climate and its insistence of another false equivalency, I have another reason to keep it cancelled.
I will NOT renew any subscription to the NYT until both of those habits are corrected.
I hope everybody does the same.
If a newspaper is not covering all topics with incredible journalistic integrity and honesty, than it’s not worth anyone’s time and money. Either your are committed to truth or not, and the NYT has proven that it’s not committed to truth anymore. Why should we forgive them for blatantly lying to us? We shouldn’t, and if we do, interest groups will notice and will use the NYT to misinform us again.
I will keep my subscription to the NYT because it’s a reflection of what the MSM is thinking, and I still think there’s more good than bad. (I’m not inclined towards USA today, or WSJ as a MSM source.) The NYT is certainly not the only news I read, nor do I trust everything that I read. For climate stuff, it’s Climate Progress, other science magazines, blogs, …
The point of leverage for climate activists is probably OWS, Obama, Congress, the elections, “laywers” (e.g. NRDC), businesses (e.g., cleantech sector), …
(I wish there was an edit/delete button, or spell checker in this commenting system. “Lawyers”, not “laywers” …)
We have preview.
It probably does come down to money for the most part. They and others like them need to have their money situation affected in negative & positive ways in order to change their climate coverage quality and quantity. One individual probably can’t affect this on his/her own. So it’s about getting a group together to try things. This group could try real-world “on the ground” bits of activism and/or net-based. One of many, many things to try might be to encourage groups to cancel subscritions and instead to buy articles they DO like. A “buy-cott” of articles that meet certain standards.
Another option is to try to compete for money they’re after. Again, grouping together with others is likely needed to start a competing media outlet. (Obviously even an amazing blog like this one has its limits of reach and influence. Also, there are way too many lone ranger efforts and way too many organizations with highly overlapping mandates splitting the pie and reinventing wheels. Folks have to get past themselves and find common ground and really get cause-driven.) Maybe a multiple non-profit collaboration, maybe a co-operative, maybe a platform of supervised citizen journalism, or maybe some clever innovation that hasn’t been tried. It should focus on audio and visual and less on reading.
I suppose one could try to affect their money through creation or changing of laws. That is, one could try working “the democratic system”. So get that group working to lobby for laws and regs that better oversee the media. OBVIOUSLY the system isn’t very attentive right now if you’re not a mega-corporation or multi-billionaire, so you might want to join the democratic reform movement first. People like Harvard prof Lawrence Lessig and Occupy Wall Street seem to be right, IMO, in that this is the change that needs to be done first.
I can understand why an individual who new better would keep putting gasoline in their car or keep the electricity turned on in their house even though they know this is the problem; it’s just too darned inconvenient to stop. However, to stop reading a newspaper is not inconvenient. It is just a habit. There are plenty of other places to get the news. This is an easy one. If you are unwilling to try to change this habit, than you are pathetic and considering yourself a Climate Hawk is delusional (assuming that some sort of actual action is requisite to CH status). I guess you could be a Climate Hawk (The risks of global warming are sufficient to warrant a robust response) with the operational principle that the response is the responsibility of others.
If the NYT is willing to provide such destructive coverage of the story of the century (AGW), what makes you think the other news they provide is really any better, any freer from distortion.
(I don’t read the Times except maybe stories linked from this site but I am trying to un-plug my house and plug-in my car.)
Trained ‘scientists’- in Biology, Chemistry etc still do not ‘get’ climate science-
I am not trained in the hard sciences, but understand the science. In the end its the ability to be flexible, open to new ideas, without having dogmatic beliefs. Extend that to the general population- and you begin to see why the public is still in a sleepy inertia with ACC.
What climate hawk buys the dead tree edition of any newspaper anymore? Seriously. Ick.
As far as subscribing online to the NY Times I certainly want to, and many times I’ve almost done it because they have lots of great stuff. But everytime I’ve balked because their climate reporting is just horrid.
Not just bad but truly terrible.
Years ago the NYT got a lot of my money and I was an addicted readers. I’ve spent countless Sundays’ reading it all. Those days disappeared reluctantly when their climate reporting fell to the ranks of the Judith Miller WMD shillfest.
The real problem with traditional major media sources like NYTimes is that their real “subscribers” are the corporations.
Subscriptions of the citizen readership barely pays for their slab of dead tree and the ink smearing.
So when push comes to shove on “inconvenient truths” — like the fact that the second hand smoke from Big Carbon products is destabilizing our weather system — the big money wins. One way or the other the beast finds a way to feed itself.
The citizen subscribers get exactly what they pay for: a pile of dead tree with some ink.
Freedom of the press has always belong to those that own one.
Fortunately we have something called the internet now that is full of amazing content that isn’t reliant on global corps to put the words out there.
So citizen should start subscribing to these sites and make sure they stay viable and can grow their voice. “Subscribe” to Climate Progress. I do.
And find the alternative online press in your town and write for it. I do that too.
Waiting for the NYTimes to actually cover climate change accurately is like waiting for global corporations to cut their emissions just because they want to…or for congress to pass a carbon price all by themselves.
Yes, cancel. We are talking about the fate of the planet. This really calls for zero tolerance when it comes to the really important issues: climate change, clean water, food security, war. We cannot allow reporting that say sides with big oil or obfuscates the issues. We can not afford it. We don’t have time for that; not from the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, the networks. We need to break some of these companies up, implement firewalls between public radio and business and political interest, and find ways to create more competition in local markets maybe through subsidies. And by all means we need to not put up with poor reporting. Democracy cannot survive if people don’t have good information. Nor can we survive as a species if we are incapable of perceiving and responding to real environmental threat. We need a vibrant, competent, independent media to do that.
It is not surprising that Petit comes to the defense of the Grey Lady. Much of mainstream media embraces the notion that the press in little more than a stenographer who’s job it is to repeat whatever anyone says, and Mr. Petit speaks for the MSM.
Michael Massing and Bill Moyers are far more objective critics, and their indictment of the NYT and the MSM is scathing, as is Bernie Sanders.
I considered canceling my subscription to the New York Times when it became apparent they were allowing themselves to be used by the Bush administration in the run up to the Iraqi war,printing unverified propaganda from second rate reporters such as Judith Miller, while ignoring legitimate and well sourced evidence that the administration was lying.
When they subsequently tried to delay publication of Plamegate until after the election, and downplayed the importance of the Downing Street memos, I felt I had no choice.
I still occasionally read the NYT, and yes — they occasionally have a good bit of reporting — but overall, they’ve blown it on the two biggest and most important stories of the Century so far.
A stopped watch is right twice a day — and the NYT gets some things right. But that’s no reason to reward it with readership.
Have our standards for journalism sunk so low that “… they get some things right … but not the really important stuff …” has becom a justification for supporting them?
I hope not.
Cancel them, I say, and tell them you are, and tell them why.
John, you are an enlightened commenter.
Since the Times has appointed a new Executive Editor and she being tg\he first woman in the paper’s 169 history to achieve that position, do you see any value in approaching her to determine her views on the sixth extinction? Just a thought.
Cancelling a subscription is easy lifting. Then there are millions more to convince to do the same. Heavy lifting.
And, to what advantage?
Thinking beyond the point of anger is what we need. Not knee-jerking.
You’re all kidding right? This is just occurring to you to ask this question? Santo cielo!
By the 90s one could see what a lot of crap the Sunday Sabbath gas-bag shows were (“Gosh, can’t make one step without knowing what Sam and Cokie think!”). I was a devotee of the Post, the NYT, and my local paper for years – read all three every day! By 2003 all of them were toast in our house. And as near as I can tell the mighty liberal NPR may as well stand for “Nincompoops Parroting Republicans” (my Road to Damascus moment with them is when they decided to have a debate over torture several years ago, and also decided to cut out the voice of Michael Moore [no, not a fan in particular] on Morning Edition, but to interview Dick Cheney[!]).
What set me over the edge with American newspapers was reading in the Italian daily La Reppublica while in Rome in January 2003 which reported that American special forces had entered Iraq in prep for the invasion – while we in the States were still talking as though we didn’t know if there would be one or not. The same story was picked up by the Post . . . . in March!
The paucity of voices (why, pray, are Tom Friedman, George Will, Wolf Blitzer, etc. etc. etc. still given a platform?) in the media is appalling. In my life I’ve been privileged to know intelligent, dedicated people who actually know something about, well, the Mid-East and Climate change. But hey, who are those who have dedicated their lives to the study of such issues in the face of mighty intellects such as Beck and Hannity?
You want to start a revolt? The cliche in third world countries in the 60s was to take the radio stations first, but there was something to that. Occupy Wall Street yes . . . but you either invade the studios of Fox, CNN, et al., or we go off to grow vegetables in the countryside because we’ll all be on our own as Venus syndrome takes hold, the oceans acidify, and limited nuclear war, if there is such a thing, becomes a very real possibility as resources become scarce and people desperate. Maybe some day there will be trials for not just war crimes in this country, but for crimes against the planet. We will look to see in the dock not just the Koch brothers, but editors and news producers as well. But don’t hold your breath.
The idea of csncelling delivery for a few weeks may be a good one to preceede a total cancellation. If a significant number of people can coordinate a time period to not have the paper delivered, it only takes a few thousand to be noticed, it would definitely send a message to the paper. If we do not get satisfaction with the response, then begin a cancellation campaign. I do not buy the times, it is very expensive, i do read it in the library or other people’s homes.
The Times still has far better news coverage on a wide variety of topics than most other news sources. Killing off one of the few newspapers that still has any depth or breadth will increase general ignorance on any number of issues.
On the other hand, the Times news operation does treat climate change as a trivial news story–how get attention? Maybe it’s time to stage a protest in front of the newspaper building.
The columnists are divided between some who take the issue seriously and others like David Brooks who just will not mention it.
I agree. TNYT does quite well on a number of issues; just not so well on this one.
I think we need to do something a little more dramatic than cancelling subscriptions to change things in this country.
Occupying Wall Street is not the best focus of our anger. In the capitalist system, businesses are going to do whatever they can legally to increase profits. The more billionaires the better, I say, as long as they pay a fair tax in exchange for their freedom and opportunity to operate a business in this country.
I think we need to go at the source of our problem: our elected leaders. They are the ones making the laws, taking lobbyist donations, making it legal for businesses such as the Koch brothers and Murdoch to make billions while at the same time mounting disinformation campaigns.
I, therefore, suggest that we march on the offices of U.S. Representatives and Senators. They’ve been getting a free ride. Let’s camp out in front of their offices so they can experience their constituency’s wrath personally.
Are You Joking? It’s Not Even A Question At This Point
Given the stakes of climate change, The New York Times’ coverage has been repeatedly dismal and grossly insufficient.
If we — or most people — can’t even give up a paper when that’s the case, we may as well give up and go home.
The philosophy that goes like this — “I’ll stick with something until/unless there’s a better immediate and easy alternative” — that is, the “lesser of two evils” approach — is the fundamental thing that keeps the status quo going and keeps us addicted to it.
It’s quite interesting to see how many people enjoy handcuffing themselves to something that’s not working. It’s like staying in a repetitively abusive relationship.
I quit The New York Times long ago — and I had bought it, and had followed it, closely for years. I tried writing to folks there, calling them, offering to help them (for free), and all sorts of things, to no avail, and I’ve followed their dismal coverage. Enough.
I actually think that The New York Times has done a huge disservice to the U.S public in recent years. That’s because when you occupy a position — when you presumably have and claim to have a role — you DO have a responsibility to fulfill it, and there’s an opportunity cost to the public if you don’t, so to speak. For example, consider a father who claims to be the father of two children but feeds them only two days a week, leaving them to be hungry five other days. Should he get applause, or even deserve any credit, or be considered a good father, for feeding them (reluctantly) for those two days while letting them starve the other five days? No. Parents are supposed to feed their (minor) children seven days a week. Parents who do so two days a week, and let them starve the other five, don’t deserve applause for the two; instead, they deserve deep criticism, and an F grade, because of the five days of failure. The New York Times should be measured relative to what it SHOULD be doing in order to genuinely serve the public good, not relative to the even worse record of many (though not all) other media.
In any case, The New York Times has lost me; and history will judge them.
Sigh,
Jeff
Right Jeff. This wasn’t even a close question six years ago, let alone now. Of course people should not subscribe to and thereby support an institution that is destructive to knowledge and true democracy. As Tenney Naumer (comment #1) said, The New York Times has been as destructive as Exxon Mobil to the future of humanity. What difference does it make that one is fueled by greed and the other by a combination of ignorance and cowardice? We should reject both, of course.
TS
Is it “kosher” for climate hawks to pay to have paper made from trees hauled in fossil fuel trucks and cars delivered to our doorstep in any event? I canceled all print media — ALL PRINT MEDIA — many years ago and rely 100% on electronic. Don’t need a subscrip to the NYT because I can read all of their articles for free whenever I want. Same is true for every national newspaper. It takes a little work to do it this way, one has to actively seek out news, use effective search terms, etc but with a little practice it works. Plus, the bulk of NYT revenue comes from ads, not reader sales. And the proportion of total readers that care enough about climate coverage to cancel is negligible. That said, should anyone give NYT any money at all to keep doing what it does? Yes — it’s one of the few major newspapers that still does a half-decent job at reporting. Better than some “Washington Times” rag or having everything watered down to USa Today kindergarten level. But now the question is, how does the readership effect coverage and content? Probably in MORE and louder and more insistent calls and letters and maybe from more prominent people. My Rep is
Chris Van Hollen. If enough of his constituents asked him to, he might be willing to put his two cents in with the Post. Or maybe the corps that pay for ad space, see of some of them can be recruited to weigh in. Find the pressure spots. Because as much as I believe in boycotts, the one being suggested here doesn’t seem to have any real power in it.
Of course you should cancel your subscription to the New York Times. Not only are they a very poor newspaper on the issue of climate change, but they nearly single-handedly, from a media source, got us into the Iraq war based on false and misleading stories. They are a newspaper that has no problem telling false stories if it sells newspapers. I stopped paying attention, like most of the country, to the NYT a long time ago. I think the only people who still rely on it for news are those in Washington DC and New York state itself.
It is why most people outside the U.S. knew there were most likely no WMD. The problems regarding the source of the intelligence, and the strength of the counter-intelligence, was discussed openly.
The biggest shock to us was how the U.S. could have been so misled into thinking 1) there were WMD, and 2) that they’d be greeted as liberators. Truly it was a demonstration of how poorly U.S. media did its job to inform citizens.
As for cancelling a subscription, yes. Sloppy reporting is just a minor reason though. Dead tree media is on its way out. There’s still room for print papers, right next to the 8-tracks, vinyl albums, and cassette and video tapes (on the bottom shelf, near the buggy whips).