Member-only story
Sensible reporting would be all climate, all the time.
What would you say about a newspaper that, during World War II, regularly buried stories about the war on page 12? What if the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 was relegated to page 7? Or the Kennedy assassination in November 1963 was only mentioned on the obit page, while a banner headline announcing the death of Aldus Huxley (the same day) was featured on the front page?
You’d say the newspaper couldn’t actually identify news. You’d say the newspaper had weird priorities. You’d say the newspaper was missing the big story and was elevating the trivial.
This morning, the lead story on the New York Times was “Fox News Ousts Carlson, a Voice of the Far Right.” One column over, there’s another story about the bigoted pundit.
I couldn’t find a single story about the climate crisis in the main section of the paper. Not one. Maybe I overlooked it. But I didn’t see coverage.
Wouldn’t you call that a fail? Yes, there was no dramatic new climate event — as far as I know, but I only know what’s covered in the media. During World War II, the newspapers didn’t limit coverage of the war to Pearl Harbor and D-Day. It was a BIG STORY that they covered extensively EVERY DAY. If anything, the climate catastrophe — which may herald the end of civilization, mass death…
