New York Times Expands Climate Team

[applegrove]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/jobs/nyt-climate-desk-jobs.html?_r=0

"SNIP..........


As the earth’s temperature continues to break records, climate and environmental reporting is taking on new urgency. The Times is expanding its coverage of the globe’s changing climate and the political, economic, technological and social consequences, from scientific research to the decisions of CEOs to the struggles of people living in places that are increasingly vulnerable to the effects of change.

We are looking for journalists with creativity and deep experience who can help the team broaden its explanatory, investigative and visual skills and give the coverage global reach.

............SNIP"

[sagetea]

1. It's not too late!

We can still make everyone awake...Indigenous people need to be those people they hire. They see it first hand.

A'HO

sage

[hatrack]

2. Gee, and it only took them four years to realize the story wasn't going away . . .

Judging by appearances, things are not looking good for environmental reporting at The Times.

In January, The Times dismantled its environmental reporting “pod” – a group of reporters and editors solely devoted to that subject who worked with one another to develop stories and projects.

Then, on Friday, The Times’s “Green” blog ended after more than four years (initially as Green Inc.).

Many readers are unhappy and disillusioned about the changes, believing that they speak to declining interest on the part of top editors in this important subject. And in the case of the blog, they miss having a single online destination for environmental developments that may not be big enough to make it into the paper and for other voices from freelance contributors.

EDIT

https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/for-times-environmental-reporting-intentions-may-be-good-but-the-signs-are-not/?_r=0

On Friday afternoon, The New York Times discontinued the Green blog, the paper’s one-stop shop for environment-related news. Then on Monday, the Washington Post announced it was pulling its star climate reporter, Juliet Eilperin, off of the beat and putting her on an “online strike force” covering the White House.

All of this can only mean one of two things: 1) The environment is fine, or 2) imminent global catastrophe is not as interesting as photo essays of matching, over-upholstered apartments in Manhattan.

The Times decision in particular has people’s heads spinning. Curtis Brainard at Columbia Journalism Review called the paper’s recent pledge to continue its robust environment coverage “an outright lie.” Paul Raeburn captured the sentiment in a post on the Knight science journalism blog Tracker: “The editors of the Times have perhaps forgotten that they work on an island, and that the entrance to their building is not too far above sea level — current sea level, that is.” Slate served up a sampling of “the 65-odd other Times blogs that did not get the axe,” which include The Carpetbagger, about awards shows, The Rail, on horse racing, and six blogs on style, fashion, and leisure.

EDIT

As for the Washington Post, the paper tells CJR it will replace Eilperin, and that it has no plans to significantly change its environment coverage. The move has raised hackles among climate hawks nonetheless. “No point in keeping one of the country’s leading reporters on the story of the century,” quipped Joe Romm at Climate Progress. “She had a good run, but that climate story is so five minutes ago.”

And at the Times, shifts are already underway. The two former environment team editors have already been assigned to different beats, and at least one reporter, Mireya Navarro, who covered the environment in the New York metro area, has been assigned to a different beat entirely. She now covers housing.

EDIT

http://grist.org/climate-energy/nyt-wapo-cut-back-environment-coverage-since-were-not-worried-about-that-anymore/

[applegrove]

3. And I thought I was posting good news in the OP.

[hatrack]

4. Well, it is (relatively speaking) . . . .