RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Bagley reports: "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 New York Times building. (photo: Raymond Boyd/Michael Ochs Archives)
The New York Times building. (photo: Raymond Boyd/Michael Ochs Archives)

New York Times Dismantles Its Environment Desk

By Katherine Bagley, InsideClimate News

12 January 13


Times says demise of the nine-person team, created in 2009, won't affect climate coverage.

he 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. No decision has been made about the fate of the Green Blog, which is edited from the environment desk.

"It wasn't a decision we made lightly," said Dean Baquet, the paper's managing editor for news operations. "To both me and Jill [Abramson, executive editor], coverage of the environment is what separates the New York Times from other papers. We devote a lot of resources to it, now more than ever. We have not lost any desire for environmental coverage. This is purely a structural matter."

On Dec. 3 the Times announced that it was offering buyouts to 30 newsroom managers in an effort to reduce newsroom expenses. But Baquet said the decision to dismantle the environment desk wasn't linked to budgetary concerns and that no one is expected to lose his or her job.

Instead, Baquet said the change was prompted by the shifting interdisciplinary landscape of news reporting. When the desk was created in early 2009, the environmental beat was largely seen as "singular and isolated," he said. It was pre-fracking and pre-economic collapse. But today, 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."

The environmental reporters were told of the decision on Wednesday. Baquet said he will meet with each of them to discuss their next assignments and the future of their beats. No decision has been made about the fate of the Green Blog, the online site for the Times' daily coverage of energy and environment news.

The paper did a similar restructuring of its education desk a few months ago. Baquet said editors are also considering whether religion reporting could benefit from this type of change.

News that the New York Times is closing its environmental desk comes just a week after The Daily Climate reported that worldwide coverage of climate change continued a three-year slide in 2012—and that among the five largest U.S. dailies, the Times published the most stories and had the biggest increase in coverage. Times assistant managing editor Glenn Kramon told The Daily Climate that "climate change is one of the few subjects so important that we need to be oblivious to cycles and just cover it as hard as we can all the time."

"I ask myself, 'In 20 years, what will we be proudest that we addressed, and where will we scratch our head and say why didn't we focus more on that?'" Kramon said.

On Thursday, Kramon responded to questions from InsideClimate News in an email. "Fortunately, we still have those reporters who cover climate change so well, and we expect to cover the subject just as aggressively going forward," he said.

Beth Parke, executive director of the Society of Environmental Journalists, said that while solid environmental coverage doesn't always require a dedicated team, the Times' decision is "worrying."

"Dedicated teams bring strength and consistency to the task of covering environment-related issues," she said. "It's always a huge loss to see them dismantled ... It's not necessarily a weakening to change organizational structure, but it does seem to be a bad sign. I will be watching closely what happens next."

Dan Fagin, a longtime science journalist and director of the Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program at New York University, said the Times' decision was "disappointing." He said the environmental desk "has done a terrific job and produced outstanding work" in large part because its editors and reporters could make covering the environment their sole responsibility.

"The New York Times has too much editorial integrity to abandon its environmental coverage completely," said Fagin, who serves on the InsideClimate News advisory board. "But if you don't have the editorial structure to support the kind of commitment needed to do both daily coverage and deeper investigative and explanatory work, it is hard to imagine that you could keep the same level of intensity."

Baquet said it's up to him to make sure the Times' environmental coverage doesn't falter. "My goal is to make sure we're producing the same level of work," he said. It "is too important of a topic to let it slip."

Bill Keller, the Times' former executive editor, created the environmental desk in 2009 and hired Erica Goode, now a national desk reporter covering criminal justice, as its editor. Sandy Keenan took over in April 2011 and is now being reassigned. Under their leadership, the desk has tackled complex and controversial subjects. In 2012, Justin Gillis won the John B. Oakes Award for Distinguished Environmental Journalism with a 10-part series, "Temperatures Rising," showing the consequences of global warming. A few months before Hurricane Sandy devastated parts of New York City, a story by Mireya Navarro warned that the city was moving too slowly in its preparations for rising seas and increasingly severe storms. After the storm, Gillis and Felicity Barringer wrote a story questioning the wisdom of rebuilding coastal areas that are repeatedly destroyed by natural disasters. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+16 # Scott479 2013-01-12 23:03
Eliminating environmental oversight frees Obama to complete his tar sands pipeline.
+29 # divadoc 2013-01-13 00:36
It would be better to eliminate the Pentagon Desk, or the War Desk. Eliminating the Environmental Desk is very difficult to see as anything other than a very giant ostrich putting its head in a very giant hole, reassurances that it means nothing substantial notwithstanding . The meaning is in the message. In the body language. In the gesture. Big sellout, that's what it says to me. Very discouraging.
+18 # X Dane 2013-01-13 00:42
This is simply terrible and very irresponsible. At a time when we need to be informed about the climate more than ever before.

So many people do not realize the danger the planet is in, what it will mean for their lives, and even more for the life of their children.

We all must be aware, so we can let our representatives ......and the president know that they MUST take action and work with leaders of the other countries of the world. In this we are not the mightiest country in the world, We are ALL in the same boat, but we SHOULD be the leader.

So I do find it stunning that The New York Times choose to roll over and play dead. SIMPLY DISGUSTING
+19 # Smokey 2013-01-13 04:33
A worldwide slide in climate change reporting? Big problem.... Supposedly, the excitement about Hurricane Sandy reversed the trend. However, the news that the "Times" is reducing its environmental reporting suggests the news problem may be getting worse.
+18 # Citizen Mike 2013-01-13 08:03
So much for the rightwing claim that the NY Times has a leftwing bias. This shows that The Times is the loyal servant of the corporate culture and will help the greedmongers to suck up every last nickel while they destroy the planet which is their own home.

The greedmongers will be safe in their deep hidden tunnels with their hundred-year food supply stashed away. The rest of us are supposed to die, that is our job.
+14 # mudbike 2013-01-13 08:12
Face it. We are doomed because the powers that be are so corrupted and blinded by their own greed. They will continue their destructive ways. I am 63 years old and fully expect to see the end of most or all human life on this planet brought on by environmental catastrophes. I feel sorry for any children being born into this mess.
+15 # RMDC 2013-01-13 09:09
The NYTimes is never going to write anything that would piss off its advertisers -- some of the worst polluters on earth. So why not close down the whole NYTimes and open up the NYTimes public relations agency? That is what is has become.
+8 # Kootenay Coyote 2013-01-13 09:23
Wildly unreasonable, given present realities in the world outside the Newsroom.
+5 # Michael_K 2013-01-13 13:01
The New York Times has always overtly maintained that it is the sole arbiter of what is or isn't "fit to print".

The problem is that it is increasingly at odds with the values and mores of the community it pretends to serve, ensuring its eventual demise.
+4 # Anarchist 23 2013-01-13 22:15
The New York times made its reputation with its reporting of the sinking of the Titanic while all the other papers were holding out hope that the liner was still afloat. Very ironic that it can't see that now we are all on the 'Titanic' and there are no life boats for anyone-even the 1%.
0 # nancyw 2013-01-28 17:59
It will soon be impossible for the newspaper to ignore the obvious. When the storms and floods and droughts and locusts begin their ascent in numbers and descent upon this earth, it will be newsworthy and they won't want to lose sales!

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.