Photo

There’s been a flurry of blog, Facebook and Twitter shock and anger following Katherine Bagley’s exclusive report for Inside Climate News on the decision by The New York Times to shut down its standalone environment “pod” and redistribute that able team of reporters and editors to other desks (not necessarily other duties).

In the piece, top Times editors insist that this move will not diminish or dilute the paper’s commitment to sustained, effective environmental coverage.

I believe them (with a caveat; see below). In a century when the roots of environmental problems often lie half a planet away (consider the ivory trade, or the contribution of greenhouse gases and soot to Arctic ice melting) what’s needed most is collaborative post-departmental journalism, not individual desks and editors competing for the front page.

Others with lots of journalism experience have different views. My friend Dan Fagin, who teaches journalism at New York University after a long career at Newsday, posted this reaction on my Facebook item on the development this morning:

[W]ithout a designated staff your editor would have to rely completely on borrowing reporters from other desks, and editors on those desks would get no credit from management for any environmental stories their borrowed reporters produce. Meanwhile, the reporters themselves would feel the pressure from their desk editors — the editors who do their evaluations — to stay on their own desks. It sets up an adversarial system that has already failed in many newsrooms. The best solution is what the Times has sadly dismantled: a small dedicated staff with diverse skills AND the ability to tap other expert writers when appropriate.

I recognize these points, but still disagree. The Times excelled at environmental coverage before there was an environment pod, continued during that phase, and, I predict, will do so going forward, within the financial constraints facing all journalism. Editors like Dean Baquet and Glenn Kramon (both quoted in the Inside Climate News post) are masters of marshaling inter-disciplinary teams to tackle complicated, persistent questions. I know they recognize the importance of global warming, the erosion of the world’s biological riches, the impacts of pollution on people and ecosystems.

On the environment beat, look back at “The Big Melt” series in 2005 (along with the prize-winning “Arctic Rush” Discovery-Times documentary) and the 2006-7 “Energy Challenge” reports. Both involved reporters with foreign, business, political and science specialties.

Some of the paper’s most important environmental projects, including the prize-winning “Choking on Growth” series on China’s pollution crisis, Charles Duhigg’s 2010 series, “Toxic Waters,” Jeff Gettleman’s 2012 reports on links between insurgent forces and Africa’s elephant slaughter, originated on different desks. A shift in desks is not going to prevent Elisabeth Rosenthal from covering the unanticipated impacts of the biofuel boom or the amazing benefits of distributed solar power in rural Africa.

That’s not to say all’s well. And here’s the caveat. What’s happening in the paper’s newsroom (and much more so in other newsrooms!) is not specific to the environment. As today’s post noted, the religion and education desks have had a smilar fate.

Revenues for conventional news operations are bound to keep shrinking. The best view of how this plays out may well be the documentary “Page One: Inside The New York Times,” which chronicles a pivotal year, 2009, when 100 newsroom positions were eliminated (I took a buyout at the end of that year and write on a contract through the Op-Ed desk now). Thirty more positions are being eliminated now.

These background financial pressures, building around the industry the same way that heat-trapping greenhouse gases are building in the atmosphere, are what will erode the ability of today’s media to dissect and explain the causes and consequences of environmental change and the suite of possible responses.

There are tough times ahead, one way or the other. Having fewer standalone desks does not necessarily matter as long as there is a commitment high in a newsroom (and ownership) to covering the stories that matter most on a turbulent planet dominated by a young, amazing species in full sprint mode.

There’s much more to ponder, of course.

I’ve long thought, for example, that it’d be better in Washington to have reporters cover risk and regulation instead of having single reporters cover particular agencies (think of cross-cutting issues like genetically modified foods, the health impacts of pollution…).

But I’ll leave more to Twitter (follow my relevant conversations there at this link), or in the comment stream.

Joe Romm, whose dad was a newspaper man, has weighed in with a comprehensive piece at Climate Progress. Here’s an excerpt:

Anyone who follows climate science, solutions, and politics knows that climate change is in the process of emerging as the story of the century — and that’s only if every major country pulls together to rapidly transform the global economy to avoid catastrophe. If the climate silence and inaction continues, it may well be the story of the millennium — see NOAA: Climate change “largely irreversible for 1000 years,” with permanent Dust Bowls in Southwest and around the globe. So I also think that, as the still-influential “paper of record,” it sends a very bad message to the rest of the media.

One focal point of his piece is recent comments by Times assistant managing editor Glenn Kramon, who (as I said above) was a central force behind the paper’s sustained focus on energy and climate since the “ Energy Challenge” series began in 2006. What’s notable, and disturbing, is the recent New York Magazine article on the troubles facing The Times, which discloses that Kramon “is moving to San Francisco to become the new technology editor.”

With Kramon out of the newsroom, my caveats above gain more weight.

Bora Zivkovic, the blog editor at Scientific American (and much more), posted a must-read analysis of the shift at The Times, noting the importance of sustaining the paper’s Green Blog. One administrative issue, of course, is who would manage that blog without a desk? In my reply to his post, I said that all roads lead to the Science desk. In a comment, Dan Fagin of New York University predicted that the paper, due to “organizational culture and especially economics,” was unlikely to adopt Zivkovic’s prescription. I hope you’ll explore the conversation and join in, there or here.

(There is one odd element there, a posted comment that was removed and replaced with this note: “This comment removed by blog owner, due to inclusion of a link to ideologically-motivated anti-science site What’s Up With That.” If I censored every comment on Dot Earth that had an ideological framing, or was in some way anti-scientific — think GMO debates, nuclear power, etc. — there wouldn’t be a lot left. I know that leads to frustration and some noise, but I err on the side of free speech. On a related front, I’ll be writing up a piece this week on research finding that incivility in comments amplifies polarization.) [1:55 p.m.: I asked Bora about the comment policy. His reply is in a comment below. 5:25 p.m.: Bora has posted a comment on his blog that explains his “my blog, my rules” approach to comments.]

Margaret Sullivan, the Times Public Editor, posted “Keeping Environmental Reporting Strong Won’t Be Easy.” Here are some snippets:

Dean Baquet told her this about the Green blog: “If it has impact and audience it will survive.”

She sought input from Elisabeth Rosenthal:

“The pro is that you give specific attention to a subject that needs it,” she said. “The con is that it takes the subject out of the mainstream of news flow.”

Sullivan closed with her own view: