Inside Climate News reports that "The New York Times will close its environment desk in the next few weeks and assign its seven reporters and two editors to other departments. The positions of environment editor and deputy environment editor are being eliminated." Is this a good thing or bad?
The conventional response would be that it represents a loss of commitment to the subject. Dean Baquet, the paper's managing editor for news, says not all:
... environmental stories are "partly business, economic, national or local, among other subjects," Baquet said. "They are more complex. We need to have people working on the different desks that can cover different parts of the story."
OK. fair enough. It would, in theory, be great to see environmental issues find their way into other stories. Climate change has an effect on just about everything, after all. But let's follow the logic. Surely no one would challenge the reality that business stories are party environmental, national or local among other subjects. They are more complex and so require people working on different desks that cover different parts of the story. And yet, find me a major metropolitan daily editor who would last more then two news cycles after dismantling a paper's business section and redistributing the staff among the general reporting staff.
No, the reality is that some subjects require reporters -- and editors -- who specialize. Without an unwavering focus and dedication to understanding a subject rooted in sometimes-counterintuitive science, it is impossible to do justice to the field. This is one of the primary lessons of the last few decades of science and environment reportage. It is not the same as chasing ambulances.
Back in the pre-Internet days, dedicated science sections seemed like a wonderful idea -- to science journalists. But publishers who have to worry about ad revenue tended to come to a different conclusion and few let their science section survive into the 21st century. Now the bells tolls for environment coverage at the Gray Lady. Plus ça change.
"find me a major metropolitan daily editor who would last more then two news cycles after dismantling a paper’s business section and redistributing the staff among the general reporting staff."
The WaPo has in fact done exactly that, contracting its business coverage out to Bloomberg, etc.
I love this paragraph:
"The conventional response would be that it represents a loss of commitment to the subject. Dean Baquet, the paper’s managing editor for news, says not all"
As if he would acknowledge such a thing even if true. Baquet can't actually believe his quote carries any information at all. But I guess he has to go through the motions. Bizarre
Los diarios viven de la publicidad, no pueden tener una seccion donde se hable de la contaminacion que producen sus anunciantes, perderian las cuentas de publicidad, y NYT es un negocio como todos.
saludos desde sud america
Please visit our academic website and register on the forums in order to exchange scientific information (Agriculture) enjoy.
We as the "Agronomy Engineers" and address the following link and submit your links on our site to help meet our academic exchange.
Our address is: http://engineerab.rozblog.com
Thanks to Team Site
There's nothing like a well reasoned argument.
Which is why peter (who has some sort of problem with someone who thinks) posted nothing like one.
Peter, get some anusol to stop your arse falling off and see a doctor. Piles need to be treated.
We would prefer to make sure that route on your authentic via web spend money on Uggs Sale price, in the complete childbirth within the hunters may be easy that they can
1 thing I truly like about informational posts is the fact that they can influence a reader's thoughts. This short article is one of these articles. I am highly impressed together with your work and hope to study more.