Eric Worrall is complaining today about a New York Times call for a climate change editor (archived here). Eric wants the job spec to include giving weight to pseudo-science and conspiracy theories, instead of focusing on the realities of climate change.
The NY Times blurb about the job that upset Eric was this:
Drone footage that shows Greenland melting away. Long narratives about the plight of climate refugees, from Louisiana to Bolivia and beyond. A series on the California drought. Color-coded maps that show how hot it could be in 2060.
The New York Times is a leader in covering climate change. Now The Times is ramping up its coverage to make the most important story in the world even more relevant, urgent and accessible to a huge audience around the globe.
We are looking for an editor to lead this dynamic new group. We want someone with an entrepreneurial streak who is obsessed with finding new ways to connect with readers and new ways to tell this vital story.
The coverage should encompass: the science of climate change; the politics of climate debates; the technological race to find solutions; the economic consequences of climate change; and profiles of fascinating characters enmeshed in the issues.
The coverage should include journalism in a variety of formats: video, photography, newsletters, features, podcasts, conferences and more. The unit should make strategic decisions about which forms are top priorities and which are not.
The climate editor will collaborate with many others throughout the newsroom, but will operate apart from the current department structure, with no print obligations. (The Times is also searching for editors to lead similar teams exploring education and gender.)
Eric didn't like it that the NYTimes not only didn't want to promote the latest and greatest "climate hoax" conspiracy theory, it didn't even mention considering wacky ideas from fake sceptics. Eric wrote:
Notice anything missing from the job description? Whatever happened to balanced journalism? If the New York Times had asked for applications from people “interested in getting to the bottom of the climate story”, of telling the truth, no matter which way it leads, I would have written a very different review of their job advertisement.That strongly suggests that Eric is a conspiracy theorist of the first order, when he talks about "getting to the bottom of the climate story". As if there's something deep and dark to get to the bottom of. And as if there's a story to be had that only climate conspiracy theorists theorise about. As if there's some alternate "truth" that is led to by wacky pseudo-scientists.
From the WUWT comments
Gregory confuses science with politics:
August 27, 2016 at 6:44 pm
They are not about news, they are about enforcing a political ideology.
JohnKnight is big on projection:
August 27, 2016 at 6:55 pm
Eric, “Whatever happened to balanced journalism?”
Racism, Big oil, emergency, xenophobia, (non-Islamic) terrorism, emergency, the patriarchy, the 1%, Donald Trump . . and emergency. Where you been?
Jim Yushchyshyn says what you may be thinking, and falls foul of the science denying WUWT moderator (WUWT bolding):
August 27, 2016 at 7:06 pm
Whatever happened to balanced journalism?
Perhaps they should also have balanced coverage of the notion that Earth is flat.
[perhaps Jim should take a moment to learn a few things about what climate skeptics actually believe, rather than being a lazy stereotype hurler -mod]
Beaumont Vance jumps in and gets a serve too. The mod is proud of her, or most likely his, bias and claims, against all evidence, to "seek the truth":
August 27, 2016 at 7:23 pm
Perhaps the mod-er-ator ought to post under an identifiable handle instead of being an anonymous coward using the “mod” handle.
This is one of the problems with this site……the mod-er-ators are biased.
[We who serve the readers, the writers and the owner of this site do not pretend to be “unbiased journalists.” We do, however, seek truth. Unlike those in the NYTimes who cherish their Pulitzer heritage for concealing the millions of Ukrainians who died of starvation and in prisons as the Times hid the plight behind Communist propaganda. .mod]
Bartleby wishes that journos would give equal weight to "flat earth" theories to make sure reporting is falsely balanced. He's got a point. When was the last time you read in the NY Times about how NASA might have faked the moon landing? It just goes to show that free speech is dead ...doesn't it?
August 27, 2016 at 7:10 pm
Eric, I honestly think “Balanced Journalism” disappeared with the Fairness Doctrine in the 70’s. t came out of the advent of cable television and the resulting loss of a public duty on the part of broadcasters to present both sides of a story. The print media quickly followed and now we have the internet, four generations removed from radio (where the Fairness Doctrine was developed).
People need to go out looking for contrary perspectives now and as you’re well aware there are a whole group of State Attorney’s General that would very much like to put an end to that also. If they’re successful we’ll witness the death of free speech in the US and likely the world.
mpaul thinks Anthony Watts should apply. At least he recognises that Anthony doesn't blog (ie write his own articles), his blog is just a notice board for quack theories from nonentities:
August 27, 2016 at 7:17 pm
It would seem that the editor of the most widely read blog on climate science would be an ideal candidate. Anthony, you should apply. They would at least have to grant you an interview given your resume. If they don’t, that would be very telling.
RACookPE1978 talks about shear destruction, but I don't think he or she is referring to tropical cyclones:
August 27, 2016 at 7:46 pm
They also left out facts, research, and basic investigation of the press releases from the universities (looking for future grants), the bureaucrats, and the self-promoters and companies seeking business and sunsidies from the government. But you see, only the evil oil companies are in business for profit, for the shear destruction and deprivation they can expand!
AndyE is saddened that a leading media service would want to publish articles informing the general public about climate change. I'm guessing he prefers to read that climate science is a hoax:
August 27, 2016 at 8:19 pm
I find this advertisement so sad. Not because journalists haven’t before been given top jobs to further some biased ideology – but because NY Times are so brazen and open about it. And because they simply do not comprehend how glaringly obvious it becomes that the fourth estate, generally speaking, is no longer here just to “seek the truth” and fearlessly print it.
No wonder genuine investigative journalists are leaving the news media in droves to set up business on their own – as bloggers or publishing their own books. All this does not really matter – because we now have the internet as a forum : the fourth estate (as it used to be) is fatally wounded.