WaPo Cuts Environment Coverage Too, Since We're Not Interested In That Any More - Grist
EDIT
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 peoples heads spinning. Curtis Brainard at Columbia Journalism Review called the papers 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.
The news came just six weeks after the Times announced it was dismantling its special environmental team of seven reporters and two editors, to the great consternation of many of its readers.
A few optimists argued that it was a positive sign that the Times was moving its best and greenest out of their ghetto and pushing them out into the broader organization. Bora Zivkovic made the most eloquent case in Scientific Americans A Blog Around the Clock: Instead of the environmental vertical, The New York Times will now have an environmental horizontal environmental angle permeating a lot of other stories, as environmental reporters talk to and influence their new office neighbors. Ah yes, well send the greenies out like little viruses, and pretty soon the business and style sections will be positively infected with great stories about climate change and mass extinction!
EDIT
http://grist.org/climate-energy/nyt-wapo-cut-back-environment-coverage-since-were-not-worried-about-that-anymore/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed