Not only has Kloor at least tried to take up the gauntlet, but Revkin has showed up as well.
And in two major advances on that thread, Keith admits he doesn't quite get what we're on about, and Andy Revkin admits his Gore/Will comparison was flawed!
"Our greatest responsibility is to be good ancestors."
-Jonas Salk
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Let me repeat the dictum of the Kloor J-School: When interviewing a source, you never have a definite story in mind. Nor should you tell your editor what story you're writing, beyond something vague like "it's about geology." In journalistic circles, that's like a chemist saying, once you learn your 4 elements, the rest is pretty much optional.
And boy, is he precious for someone who doesn't do reporting, but (routinely anti-environmentalist) op-eds.
The above towards not equating - not that I am saying you are - a journalist like Revkin with a magazine columnist like Kloor. I freely admit I represent dead-tree-and-transistors-but-not-specialty-magazines media, but there really is a difference. Even Audubon itself is a newsletter-type if glossy magazine, not a journalistic enterprise as such. The burdern the NYT operates under is substantially different.
Thank you for your comments on that thread. Your (very large) ability coupled with your (large) patience is inspiring.
I also liked Bart Verheggen's summation:
"""
Let’s distinguish the following main issues:
- To what extent is climate change occurring, and to what extent is it man-made?
- To what extent is that (going to be) a problem?
- What can or should we do about it?
The first questions are strictly scientific; the middle has a judgment value to it, and the latter is primarily a political/moral judgement (and has more to do with technology than with climate science).
The public debate makes most sense on the third issue, whereas in reality, it’s centred around the first.
"""
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/05/18/why-climate-journalism-is-a-rotting-carcass/#comment-4953
"I like to start with Rachel Carson and Silent Spring. If you deconstruct Silent Spring, the whole book is nothing but three questions:
-- What’s going on that’s new, different, and scary?
-- What’ll happen if we don’t fix it?
-- How can we fix it?"
Jeremy Jackson
http://scicom.ucsc.edu/Q&A/2009/jackson.php
In the category of good environmental journalism how about NPR's Living on Earth program?
That interview was just reprinted, it can be found now along with more good work by this new science journalist, here:
http://www.lastoceanproject.org/newsroom/
Post a Comment