Guest essay by Eric Worrall
New York Times is advertising for a chief editor to head up their new climate team. But in my opinion the job description is very telling about the kind of service they want their climate editor to provide.
The New York Times is looking for a climate change editor
Drone footage that shows Greenland melting away. Long narratives about the plight of climate refugees, from Louisiana to Bolivia and beyond. A series on the California drought. Color-coded maps that show how hot it could be in 2060.
The New York Times is a leader in covering climate change. Now The Times is ramping up its coverage to make the most important story in the world even more relevant, urgent and accessible to a huge audience around the globe.
We are looking for an editor to lead this dynamic new group. We want someone with an entrepreneurial streak who is obsessed with finding new ways to connect with readers and new ways to tell this vital story.
The coverage should encompass: the science of climate change; the politics of climate debates; the technological race to find solutions; the economic consequences of climate change; and profiles of fascinating characters enmeshed in the issues.
…
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/jobs/nyt-climate-change-editor.html
Notice anything missing from the job description? Whatever happened to balanced journalism? If the New York Times had asked for applications from people “interested in getting to the bottom of the climate story”, of telling the truth, no matter which way it leads, I would have written a very different review of their job advertisement.
They are not about news, they are about enforcing a political ideology.
No I think it is about trying to frighten the public and give children nightmares. Thus they should be trying to recruit the likes of Freddy Krueger, Jason or Chucky as their Climate Scam Editor.
New York Times Companies (NYSE:NYT) received more than $1,000,000 in “grants” from Rockefeller Foundation in 2014-2015 alone.
I think I posted this quote here already some time ago, but it is so very fitting to this debate that it deserves a second run.
Part of the motto on the front of the building of
THE DALLAS DAILY MORNING NEWS:
… ACKNOWLEDGE THE RIGHT
OF THE PEOPLE TO GET
FROM THE NEWSPAPER
BOTH SIDES OF EVERY
IMPORTANT QUESTION
Well – what a pity that this maxim is rather old-fashioned nowadays…
My advice for the sponsors of THE NEW YORK TIMES is to use a new and more appropriate name for your propaganda outlet:
THE NEW YORK PRAVDA
There. Would this not be a more honest self-declaration?
All the News That’s Left to Print.
=============
Kim, August 28, 2016 at 7:27 am :
Why, how very apt! Excellent. LOL
Nominated for Quote of the Day, or of the Millenium, or something!
From the article
“The coverage should encompass: the science of climate change;…”
From Dictionary.com
en-com-pass
[en-kuhm-puh s]
verb (used with object)
1. to form a circle about; encircle; surround:
2. Obsolete. to outwit.
Sounds like “pay to play”, and it used to be frowned upon with regards to “high class” publications like the NYT.
I guess this is the “new normal” for monetizing in “journalism”.
No, I don’t think so.
You only need a vocabulary of about 50 or so words.
A lot of could, should, might, may, new research confirms, unprecedented, denier, and just a few others.
The NY Times’ position is the factually correct position, those who disagree and cite other evidence and facts are the ones playing politics. Always. It’s simply not possible for their view to be political because they are, after all, the intellectuals of the New York Times, who would certainly know themselves if they were political and they have deemed themselves not political. Got it?
I think you got it in one.
The New York Times is looking for a True Believer (after Eric Hoffer). Preacher wanted 🙂
Eric,
“Whatever happened to balanced journalism?”
Racism, Big oil, emergency, xenophobia, (non-Islamic) terrorism, emergency, the patriarchy, the 1%, Donald Trump . . and emergency. Where you been?
“Whatever happened to balanced journalism?”
Marketing and adverstising.
The moment more income accrues from advertising than from the cover price, journalism gives way to the advertorial.
Which is why my website has no paid advertising on it at all.
Unlike this one ….;-)
Nope, Leo, I think it’s just good old propaganda that’s at work, and as evidence I offer the plummeting of ratings/value for virtually all of the “mass media” outlets. Sure, they advertised stuff, for money, but that didn’t magically prevent them from also being political agenda pushers.
Leo, I also run a WordPress blog page (nothing to do with climate) and WordPress adds ads to the site automatically. It’s the price you pay for “free” blog space. I have to pay WordPress a yearly sum to turn the ads off at my blog ($30, so not much). WUWT is huge compared and perhaps in another bracket entirely, but I have no reason to believe that Anthony Watts gets revenue from the advertising foisted upon him here.
Leo
I’ve worked for newspapers for a good part of my working life, dating back to the 1960s. The cover price of virtually every magazine and newspaper, worldwide, has always been established to cover newsprint and distribution costs, nothing more. Advertising pays the wages and provides the profit . . . and there’s nothing wrong with that.
They want an editor with an “entrepreneurial streak”? That says it all right there.
The editor should also be “obsessed”. Certainly not a word that would describe a balanced journalist.
Interesting that they’re not promoting from within their organization . . .
Whatever happened to balanced journalism?
Perhaps they should also have balanced coverage of the notion that Earth is flat.
[perhaps Jim should take a moment to learn a few things about what climate skeptics actually believe, rather than being a lazy stereotype hurler -mod]
Perhaps the mod-er-ator ought to post under an identifiable handle instead of being an anonymous coward using the “mod” handle.
…
This is one of the problems with this site……the mod-er-ators are biased.
[We who serve the readers, the writers and the owner of this site do not pretend to be “unbiased journalists.” We do, however, seek truth. Unlike those in the NYTimes who cherish their Pulitzer heritage for concealing the millions of Ukrainians who died of starvation and in prisons as the Times hid the plight behind Communist propaganda. .mod]
“We do, however, seek truth”
.
.
.
That is easy to say for an anonymous coward.
Oh wow, Beaumont, upping the insult ante. You got some cojones. I’m your huckleberry.
Beaumont Vance August 27, 2016 at 7:23 pm
Mods, as a rule, are supposed to be anonymous; this so there can be no cult following for or against. They are like a jury in a trial for those concerned, unknown and unapproachable.
By the way, instead of belly-aching, perhaps you might have commented on the historical event the mod was speaking of, that is, if you even have any education of it. If not, show some class and politely ask.
michael
Mike, you should read the post. There’s been an admission of bias. You say “They are like a jury”……but this particular “jury” admits they are biased. Perhaps the anonymous coward should post under their real name. Don’t you think that would be better than them remaining anonymous??
Oh Beaumont, “anonymous coward”, is that the best you got? You obviously aren’t familiar with this site. Why don’t you come back when you actually have something you believe is intelligent to say or, at least, when you have better insults to hurl. Be creative, it won’t hurt, it’s a sign of intelligence.
Wait a minute. Is your real, legal, given name Beaumont Vance? Or is it Vance from Beaumont? TX?
Jim Brock, Houston
SMC, you are the one that is not familiar with this site. This site has has mod-er-ators that have been known to post replies after comment threads are closed. The simple fact that mod-er-ators post as commenters is hilarious.
How cute, you made a testable hypothesis. Now, back it up.
SMC: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/02/more-wordpress-com-troubles-for-wuwt-post-thread-closure-comments/
This site has has mod-er-ators that have been known to post replies after comment threads are closed. The simple fact that mod-er-ators post as commenters is hilarious.
Well Beaumont, as I recall that was a one time event, partly due to an oddity of WordPress software, and was made public on this site by our host. As you speak in support of JimY above, I’ll note that one of his heroes (according to him in another thread) is none other than Gavin Schmidt. Anyone familiar with his “best practices” in regard to commenting and moderating would lose an entire beer through their nose at the mere attempt to accuse WUWT mods of anything less than exemplary behaviour while ignoring his.
Oh, how nefarious our host and his coterie of moderators are. An unannounced change to code, made by wordpress, inadvertently changed the commenting settings allowing comments after a post was closed. The problem was discovered, a post about it was written about it, action was taken, the problem was corrected and a moderator was removed from duty… Got anything else? Got anything better?
” that was a one time event”
.
.
.
That was the “event” where the mod-er-ator was caught. There is no way we can know how often it occurred prior to being “caught.”
[Speaking of being “caught”, you have been. You have used IP addresses in Brazil (177.18.144.213) and also in France (89.82.226.240) within minutes of each other, which indicates trolling and likely a fake name using a proxy or tor server to hide yourself. That’s a policy violation for this site. -mod]
Oh, how nefarious our host and his coterie of moderators is. An unannounced change to code, made by wordpress, allowed comments after a post had closed. The problem was discovered, an article was written about it, action was taken to correct the issue and a moderator was removed from duty… Got anything else? Got anything better?
SMC, I guess you missed the point.
.
A commenter comments.
A mod-er-ator mod-er-ates.
.
Allowing an individual to do both creates problems.
That was the “event” where the mod-er-ator was caught. There is no way we can know how often it occurred prior to being “caught.”
I see you neatly sidestepped the issue of Gavin Schmidt’s questionable practices. Don’t worry, I doubt anyone noticed….
As to your claim, you are wrong. Since comments are closed either by announcement or at the 14 day mark, and all comments are time stamped by WP, it is easy to determine what comments were added after comments were closed. By all means, research the daylights out of it and make your case. Put up or shut up.
Getting back to Gavin Schmidt, could we also talk about the practices of a certain Mr. Cook? Oops, a few more beers just went up through people’s noses….
Beaumont, I think you are suffering from conspiracist ideation. You should see someone about that. I understand they have some nice medications that could help.
Allowing an individual to do both creates problems.
By all means, trot over to Skeptical Science and RealClimate and make your case in the strongest terms possible.
” I understand they have some nice medications that could help.”
..
..
Ad-homs from you are funny
“I see you neatly sidestepped the issue of Gavin Schmidt’s questionable practices”
..
.
.
Changing the subject?
.
.
You lose
MOD: “Speaking of being “caught””
…
Too bad you have been.
.
.
.
If and when you want to reply to a comment on this blog, please use a real name instead of “mod” which is nothing more than an anonymous coward.
[Wow, somebody who uses a fake name on their own website, while lecturing others on how to run theirs. ICYMI you do provide your website in your comment form, so it is fair game to look at it. On http://www.beaumontvance.com/blog/the-stupid-are-too-stupid-to-know-they-are-stupid you have a link to your Linked in Page here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/veltri
Your real name is apparently Dan Veltri. Maybe you should start commenting under that. -mod]
” Maybe you should start commenting under that. -mod]”
…
I will when you start commenting under your name instead of “mod”
[Sorry, Dan, that’s the policy here, sort of like anonymous peer review in science, moderators names aren’t revealed in comments. If you don’t like the policy, and apparently you don’t, you are most certainly welcome to not comment here further under fake names and obfuscated IP addresses, -mod]
Dan, or should I still call you Beaumont, you really need to work on your grammar and spelling on your blog. But I guess you’re too stupid to know you’re stupid.
[Yes, this passage from Dan Velrti’s post on the Dunning-Kruger effect is just priceless -mod]
Attention Moderator
if this person is not the real Beaumont Vance then perhaps someone should be notified of possible identity theft.
I think we were meant to denigrate the real Mr Vance.
michael
Changing the subject?
.
.
You lose
That’s kinda funny pretend Vance. I responded directly to your general accusation as well as to specific issues you raised, and compared and contrasted between this site and the top sites on the other side of the debate. You ignored all my points and accused me of changing the subject.
All there is left to figure out is if you are being disingenuous, or if you are simply a victim of the very stupidity that you accuse others of on your site.
I see you disabled the link on your site to your linkedin account. That was pretty quick! But your actual linkedin account is still active and I note that you are a graduate of Penn State. LOL, a paragon of virtue that place. I see also you made good with the whole Weebly startup thing. Congrats.
Beaumont/Dan apparently lives in San Francisco. Educated at Penn State and living on the Bay. Kind’a says it all. He’s really not very good applying Alinsky’s methods. Maybe he should resign as COO of Weebly and become a community organizer, like Obama. At least he might gain some experience at the whole ridicule and personalization thing.
Well ,
I finally learn your name.
Sign you never answered the question about the Ukrainian Famine. How about this one instead Katyn Massacre.
Oh and that bit about lemon juice hiding you, hows that working for you?
michael
SMC August 27, 2016 at 9:54 pm
Dan, or should I still call you Beaumont, you really need to work on your grammar and spelling
Friend comrade you have reduced me to tears I cannot spell to save my life. I was born Blind and was not able to see until 4th grade. Its not fair ,,,, Give me all your wealth to make it right.
That is not going to work is it?
I think I hurt myself laughing
michael
Beaumont, if I may address you by your first appellation, are you in favour of published climate science approved in print by anonymous expert reviewers? I thought so.
Your (slight) peer review here is also by anonymous reviewers so just accept it. If you have something intelligent to say we will spot it pretty quickly. Still waiting…
The issue re the NYT is they DO pretend to be unbiased journalists, yet they have advertised a senior position that includes as qualifications an evident bias, an intention to lie about the controversy, and to continue to spew the pulp fiction that characterises CAGW. In the coming years, as the temperature plunges, the NYT will be claiming that it is hotter than ever, that the localised cold is caused by a disrupted climate and that is it all our fault for burning fossil fuels and not investing enough money into (stupid) renewable energy conversion technologies. In other words, more of the same. All storms will be ‘super’, all hurricanes ‘unprecedented’ and all tornados ‘preventable’. Cat 3 hurricanes will be ‘a special kind of 3’. Mark my words. Feel free to use Copy-Paste.
I could easily take the position were I willing to lie, obfuscate, hide, cheat, block relevant opposing views, take the money and run. But I am not like that so my morality prevents me taking the position on those terms. I have no doubt they will fill the post – Robert Mugabe has always been able to find fellow citizens willing to sell their souls and beat their compatriots to death at his command. Doing it with a pen is no different – same moral failure, same emptiness about their box of virtues.
Yesterday I posted a reply to “Beaumont Vance”, which began:
“Beaumont Vance” (that’s your newest fake screen name, is it?) says…
I know who that site pest is, and it isn’t ‘BV’ or ‘Dan’.
He has previously posted comments under dozens of other screen names, all of them fake. In the past those comments were almost always deleted, with or without comment, for violating site policy.
His intent is to make it appear that dozens of different people are giving their point of view. But to quote a line from The Exorcist, ‘There is only one’.
Dozens of fake comments may raise the traffic numbers, but they aren’t needed. Readers want to know that they’re replying to a real person, not to fabricated identities.
It would serve the interests of probity and the high standards of this site, if comments under multiple fake names are promptly deleted as they were in the past.
While I disagree with Beaumont’s phrasing, I have to agree with his point on moderation. It would be better for everyone if the moderation team would simply reply instead of using their mod-edit powers to add footnotes.
On the other hand, there is a strong difference in believing something disproved before the invention of writing and disagreeing with a conclusion about how resources should be allocated to solve one of the world’s many problems.
The main problem I have with climate reporting is “the here is evidence that the world is warming so you must support our political causes” attitude. The fraction of natural warming is not quantifiable to any degree of accuracy, the effects of warming are speculative, and almost certain to be mild, and the actions proposed to counter CO2 range from weak to counter-effective, but are almost universally very expensive and unquestionably damaging to society as a whole if climate effects are mild. In conclusion, we have better ways to spend our society’s limited resources.
That’s a ludicrously distilled paragraph. There is a lot of content to cover, and constant “we’re all going to die” coverage not only is technically wrong, but in the end, will increase public distrust of science.
…This silly rant, from an idiot whose web page has zero likes, zero re-tweets and zero comments, qualifies this moron to be the next “Climate Editor” for the New York Slimes ! (Mod, The NY Slimes owes you at least two beer for finding them such a treasured and rare lunatic)
And “Beaumont Vance” is your real name? Really???
I don’t see a post on it, it might have been in some moderator Email that spilled over to me (I’m not a moderator, though my work on the Test page means I can edit comments but don’t, outside of that page).
IIRC, the anonymous “.mod” was adopted after some people who disliked moderation applied to them started attacking the moderator directly. If you have a valid complaint, appeal to Anthony. As you have noted elsewhere, he does respond to valid complaints.
Personally, I don’t think you have any valid complaints. If you don’t like WUWT, just go away. Heck, even if you do like WUWT, just go away. At the very least, thank WUWT for giving you more attention than your blog gets!
Oh like it would amount to a hill of beans to you if it were signed Clyde Jones or Nancy Fu instead of “mod.”
Keep pretending that you are important for using an “identifiable handle” and being horribly offended that not everyone does.
What a crazy thing to rant about! Personally, I love it when the mods comment. I don’t need his or her ID to enjoy what is said. As for this thread – oh my! I’m filing this in my “Great Threads – Trolls” file. Thanks to all mods for the time and effort you put in – and thanks for outing BV so beautifully. 🙂
Presumably this is you, right?
https://www.linkedin.com/in/beaumontvance
Heh, “Financial Services” eh?
So thoroughly qualified to comment on niche science matters, right?
Eejit…
Jim Yushchyshyn August 27, 2016 at 7:06 pm
Hello Jim, I think a few here misunderstood you, so I am responding.
First, why do you feel that the earth is flat? With all the physical evidence that it is not, I find it odd you hold this view. I understand that your holding such a view may effect your employment and the affection that your family pet holds for you, and that is why you not using your real name. Rest assured no one here will breathe a word, It will be just our secret, you, us and Homeland Security. So, come feel comfortable and tell us who you are.
Michael
-Jim Yushchyshyn
They should have balanced coverage of everything their readers have an interest in. You imply that AGW scepticism is equivalent to believing in a flat earth and yet your efforts to defend your CAGW religion on this site have been soundly trashed by our simpleton inhabitants. Tell us, do you favour the CAGW hypothesis from the position of an Observant Environmentalist or an Ordained Socialist?
Ah, Jimmy . . don’t tell me you fell for that “shell game” conjob too!
Beaumont Vance August 27, 2016 at 8:18 pm
We who serve the readers, the writers and the owner of this site do not pretend to be “unbiased journalists.”
Oh yes my gaze passed over what you speak note the occupation “unbiased journalists.” Juries are at the start required to be unbiased but as the trial proceeds the evidence will cause a bias toward guilt or innocence.
Now why are you trying to deflect you own inadequacies in rhetoric on the mod?
michael
Perhaps Jimmy Y can provide a defense for the NY Times version of a flat world – Louisiana “climate refugees.” – something even the most outrageous global warmists wouldn’t dare claim. Ditto for
most of the other NY Times really dopey assumptions about something they obviously know very little about.
[Speaking of being “caught”, you have been. You have used IP addresses in Brazil (177.18.144.213) and also in France (89.82.226.240) within minutes of each other, which indicates trolling and likely a fake name using a proxy or tor server to hide yourself. That’s a policy violation for this site. -mod]
Ah, mod, do you have to ban him just yet. I’m having fun. 🙂
Sorry SMC, I embarrassed the mod-er-ators and the shenanigans that occur on this site. You’ll never see this message because the mod-er-ators are as screed up.
[They are? That’s news to us. It is worth noting that on your blog http://beaumontvance.com/ all your posts seem to have zero comments. That could mean one of two things: 1. You don’t allow or censor all comments 2. Nobody has any interest in commenting there. Here at WUWT we are approaching two million comments including yours, so we must be doing something right -mod]
Beaumont, Dan, the only one that’s been embarrassed is you.
” Here at WUWT we are approaching two million comments including yours”
.
.
.
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
[Ah, no. Sorry Dan, you missed the mark. That’s not a comment about popularity, it is a comment about an effective comment policy that has worked well for years, whereas you don’t seem to have any effective commentary policy or content going on. -mod]
Beaumont/Dan, if you want to start pulling out $5 Latin for logical fallacies, then I suggest you go back to school. Otherwise, stick to the sophomoric trolling…it’s more amusing.
In the meantime, it’s late here in my exotic vacation destination. Maybe we can do this again sometime…Assuming you aren’t banned. I’m off to bed. Goodnight.
…Pssssst…Hey Dan,/Beaumont/Vance..Have you noticed that the mods are letting you continue your silly rant ? Why ? … Because your childish rants are so humorous…
I do enjoy watching someone like Vance be schooled.
There have been a number of times I ventured an opinion on this site that that was not well thought-out, and received some schooling. While I never much like seeing my brilliant ideas aren’t so brilliant, for the most part I have found the corrections uplifting, and surprisingly polite, for the wild, wild world of the web.
If you come here to learn, its a great place. Otherwise, not so nice.
To the subject of the New York Times: Yikes! They are not even trying any more.
I notice that Dan’s a big cheese at Weebly. I also notice they’ve named their latest interface “Carbon”. Ho ho!
Dan’s linkedin profile says he enjoys international travel. I presume that will be travelling by foot/bicycle/horse/donkey/camel/goat, because if Dan flies in planes that would clash with his green ideals.
Oh, who am I kidding? Of course Dan flies in planes, as like most greenies he’s a complete hypocrite. And I doubt he flies in cattle-class with all the little people seeing as he’s such a business success.
Jim Yushchyshyn —
Have you ever checked your own beliefs against the data? For instance have you noticed how both CO2 and computer model temperature predictions are going up and up but real temperature data is not? Have you ever noticed that the number of major storms, droughts, wild fires, etc world wide is flat? Have you noticed that England school children still know what snow is (remember that crazy alarmist prediction, no snow in England ever again)? We are still waiting for the Northwest passage to open. Twelve years ago Al Gore told us it would open in 2014.
Have you ever stuck your head outside a window? If you did nothing bad happened to you, right?
Sea level is rising at the same rate it has been since the glaciers began to melt so many thousands of years ago.
Species extinctions in the last two centuries have almost entirely taken place on isolated island when man introduced goats, pigs, sheep and rats. Global warming had nothing to do with it.
The list of things that Hotheads have predicted that have not happened includes ALMOST EVERYTHING THAT THEY HAVE EVER PREDICTED!!!!!! It’s like total fail!!!!
And yet you still believe their crap?????????
Eugene WR Gallun
EWRG..
Yes, unfortunately there are still many ignorant morons that “believe” that CRAP.
Many are politicians.
The CAGW junk-science “mimicry” embedded comments and/or commentary being posted by Beaumont Vance and Jim Yushchyshyn appear to me to be highly characteristic of individuals that were diagnosed at an early age as being Learning Disabled.
US Public School Administrators truly “love” their students that have been “officially” diagnosed as being Learning Disabled (autistic, etc.) simply because the State and Federal governments “reimburses” each county’s PS system at a “3-to-1” enrollment rate for each LD student. And that is exactly why the “threshold” for the determining of a learning ”disability” is extremely low. (more LDs, … more money, more money)
Plus the fact that the PS systems are given “million$” in special funding by state and federal entities to pay for Special Ed teachers, special equipment & facilities, personal transport to/from schools and/or specific one-on-one “babysitters” when in attendance at school.
And those diagnosed as being Learning Disabled don’t have to “learn” anything, nor do they have to make a “passing grade” on any test or testing ….. because they will be “pushed” thru the Grades from KG to HS and given a Diploma to attest to the fact that they “graduated”.
So, the big question is, …… is the aforementioned CAGW junk-science “mimicry” embedded comments ….. the direct result of getting a “free pass” thru the Public School System via an LD Diagnosis ……… or the direct result of being “brainwashed” with all the Political Correct BS and the CAGW junk-science nonsense that is now being taught in the US Public School Systems?
If the aforesaid Public School nurturing of “junk-science nonsense” is begun at an early age (KG or Elementary) it will manifest itself as an un-questionable/non-debatable Religious belief beginning in one’s late teenage years and remaining steadfast thru their adult years.
“balanced coverage of the notion that Earth is flat”
Poor Jimbo is feeling left out. !
Nah. we will leave that one to Naomi Klein
JY.
The Earth, to my observation, is quite flat… in many places.
If one puts a ball on the ground and it does not roll. Flat Earth.
The Earth is also concave or convex in many places.
But you didn’t mention that.
The earth is flat. It is gravity that is bent. (I think)
The Earth is flat. SPACE is curved.
No matter where you go, there you are.
Schitzree – I’ve noticed that too.
Jim Yushchyshyn
August 27, 2016 at 7:06 pm
Whatever happened to balanced journalism?
Perhaps they should also have balanced coverage of the notion that Earth is flat.
——————————————-
Perhaps Jim, yes….but you see the “flat Earth” cabal does not listen…..
The notion that the Earth is flat, these days, exist only with the AGW……….is not happening in the real Earth Jim……..and where it is claimed to be happening it is a coco land flat earth invented and in uphold by a gravy train , a scam machinery producing wealth for the AGW cabal aka the flat earthlings…..and no flat earthling is ready and supportive to such as a balanced coverage of such as notion…
Money seems to be buying everything these days, even a flat Earth, a very juicy one indeed for the AGW, the flat Earth industry.
Jim Yushchyshyn August 27, 2016 at 7:06 pm
Whatever happened to balanced journalism?
“Perhaps they should also have balanced coverage of the notion that Earth is flat.”
Perhaps if you believe the earth is flat you should take a science course or some sort of geography 101.
“Who is going to save the world from those people who believe they can save the planet by claiming and reporting on their moral superiority.”
Anonymous Heins
I offer you a truism, which at first sight looks so trite as to be not worth saying.
That “Persistence is the absence of effective self destructive behaviour”
I.e. if these idiots win, they will destroy the society that created them and allowed them to have such fanciful notions.
And thereby destroy themselves.
I can assure you that hand picking potatoes from the fields under the supervision of an Islamic slave master will not leave much time to ponder the exigencies of climate change.
+100
A. D.. try this one. +1776.
Eric, I honestly think “Balanced Journalism” disappeared with the Fairness Doctrine in the 70’s. t came out of the advent of cable television and the resulting loss of a public duty on the part of broadcasters to present both sides of a story. The print media quickly followed and now we have the internet, four generations removed from radio (where the Fairness Doctrine was developed).
People need to go out looking for contrary perspectives now and as you’re well aware there are a whole group of State Attorney’s General that would very much like to put an end to that also. If they’re successful we’ll witness the death of free speech in the US and likely the world.
I am old enough (60) to remember the Fairness Doctrine, and it resulted in an unchallenged establishment worldview on broadcast media. Cronkite was consistently left-wing Democrat, and no one really called him on it. Most of the call for a return to the Fairness Doctrine are leftists (currently the establishment), and merely want to shut up the opposition.
Tom Halla said: “Most of the call for a return to the Fairness Doctrine are leftists (currently the establishment), and merely want to shut up the opposition.”
That makes no sense, right wingers are always complaining about the left wing biased MSM, so why on earth would liberals campaign for a return of the Fairness Doctrine? Also, it was Reagan who led the efforts to repeal that, which was done in 1987.
As far as shutting down the opposition, the calls on the left have gone from talk radio to cable (Fox) to the internet. The current push for “web neutrality” is very ominous.
Chris writes: “it was Reagan who led the efforts to repeal that, which was done in 1987.”
I meant only that cable TV (HBO) was born in the 70’s and was the pre-cursor to a communications media that wasn’t controlled by the FCC, ultimately resulting in the death of the doctrine. In truth, I didn’t know it was formally “repealed” since the FCC never controlled cable. Interesting Regan had something to o with it, I’ll have to read up on that.
And to John: I understand; the Fairness Doctrine never guaranteed good reporting, but it allowed for it. When some issue came up that was biased in its reporting, an inspired person could get time on the air for rebuttal, something only possible on internet sites that accept commentary these days, which is an improvement but I notice more and more sites disabling commentary. Just last week NPR, the bullhorn of the “Progressive” movement shut down the peanut gallery and will forthwith dictate truth to the public unchallenged while using US tax money to do it.
“I am old enough (60) to remember the Fairness Doctrine, and it resulted in an unchallenged establishment worldview on broadcast media. Cronkite was consistently left-wing Democrat, and no one really called him on it.”
Yep, you are absolutely correct. I too am old enough to remember the Fairness Doctrine (59), but Walter Cronkite was far worse than just being a consistently left-wing Democrat. He was the first Dan Blather (Rather). He is unquestionably the founding father of our current propaganda oriented (lying) media:
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
The end always justifies the means.
The truth is expendable so long as you can influence public opinion to achieve your goals.
Good riddance to both Walter Cronkite and Dan Blather.
Thing is, Bartleby, it’s not that hard to present the; “This means war!” gang as one side, and the; “More sanctions and air strikes first!” gang as the other side.
Come now, Bartleby, you’re looking through rose-colored glasses. They have never been unbiased. Most of our founding fathers owned a newspaper or three after the revolution, and the media has always been precisely for whomever they want.
Part one of politics is all about getting selfish desires for a particular group. The question then becomes whether the desires are high-minded or low. Whether they they uplift the people or crush them, and whether they uplift the entirety of a nation. (Otherwise “Divided We Fall.”) Those questions lead to part two of politics, debate-and-compromise. (It is not suppose to occur in back rooms, if you are high-minded.)
I can remember when Boston had six newspapers. Not one was “fair.” But they were honest about their “side”.
What really seems most hypocritical about the NYT is their pretense that they don’t have selfish desires, and speak for God.
benofhouston wrote:
“They [newspapers] have never been unbiased.
Quite correct, sir.
Many of the old newspapers had Democrat or Republican in their name, pushed the party viewpoint, and endorsed only their party’s candidates while denigrating the opponents. There was no pretense of unbiased reporting (note that I did not use the term ‘journalism’).
But there were lots of newspapers and if you wanted the other side of anything, all you had to do is buy the opposing paper.
Then came radio, followed by TV and the creation of ‘journalism.’ Clever, was it not, to change the job of reporter to journalist? Reporters reported the news answering the questions Who, What, When, Where, and Why, if applicable. Journalists started injecting themselves into the story thereby introducing their own biases. To make a story appear to be at arms length, journalists interview the man-on-the-street who holds the view they want represented and leave out anything that does not support their, or their editor’s view.
We’re back to square one with biased reporting, just like the good old days, but IMO, anyone claiming to be an ‘unbiased journalist’ [oxymoron] is selling you a pup.
In my genealogical research, I’ve fortunately had access to pre-1900 editions of my home-town newspaper. No one was even pretending from the 1880’s through at least the 1930’s that there was any kind of impartiality in the newspaper game. At least they were honest about it.
Bartleby, the FCC ended the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 under Reagan, not in the 70’s.
“Eric, I honestly think “Balanced Journalism” disappeared with the Fairness Doctrine in the 70’s.”
“Balanced” journalism disappeared because of the Vietnam war. Before the Vietnam war, the reporting was fairly straight, although, even then there was some Leftwing bias, but it was the Vietnam war that really brought out the Leftists in the news media, or at least, caused them to show their true colors (anti-war, in this case). And they have carried on with the Leftwing propaganda ever since that time, getting more strident and partisan every subsequent year.
“… interested in getting to the bottom of the climate story”, of telling the truth, no matter which way it leads…”
That is the old NYT – the one in the movies.
Doesn’t exist anymore.
Never did. The NYTimes sent Walter Duranty to the Soviet Union in the 1930s. he reported that everything was fine in the Ukraine, so they give him a Pulitzer prize. In the 1950s they sent Herbert Matthews to Cuba and wrote about that democratic reformer Fidel Castro. Jokes on the Cubans. The NYTimes has always been a left wing agitprop rag. Don’t let anybody get away with saying anything else.
I am somewhat proud of the fact that my grandfather, Alexander Wienerberger, published a book on that Ukraine situation, one of only two true accounts. His very vocal political stand against Stalin cost him 16 years in lubyanka, too.
[We thank him for his courage, for his survival. .mod]
Walter: Right you are. The problem is that most newspapers and maybe the TV MSM look to the NYTimes for leadership. Our own Houston Chronicle hews the line pretty closely.
I’m having trouble with WordPress tonight – can’t even spell my name right! LOL
JohnWho, I am having the same probs
Oo, oo, oo…pick me, pick me!! I can slather bovine scat, make up fairy tales and play video games with the best of them!! I can even write in a semi coherent fashion with minimal spelling and grammatical errors!! I’m excellent when it comes to handling a red pen… wouldn’t want any actual facts or science to clutter up the narrative. I’m also an authoritarian despot with a firm whip hand.
Yes, though you’d have competition from our current trolls here. Whose styles I recognise, having seen them turn other blogs into m**xist sounding-boxes. Scant chance of that here.
:))
It would seem that the editor of the most widely read blog on climate science would be an ideal candidate. Anthony, you should apply. They would at least have to grant you an interview given your resume. If they don’t, that would be very telling.
I agree, Mr. Watts should send them his resume. This blog covers everything they want and should be used as an example. With the wide readership WUWT enjoys, I’m sure many regular readers here would carry over to the NYTimes, if Mr. Watts were the editor.
I’d subscribe if they hired Mr. Watts . . or hell froze over ; )
Nope. Believe me, Anthony, you don’t want to wade in that cesspool!
The NYTimes would never pick Mr. Watts… But it would be a heck of a lark.
More like Samson casting down the temple.
I second the motion. What a great post it would be! “My job interview at the New York Times.” I bet there would be thousands of comments.
“Must be familiar with copypasting from PR documents and not be inquisitive.”
“Must also be adept at creating article titles that convey the fearful future we face and motivate readers to alarm and action, regardless of the article’s scientific content.”
NYT has long left “news” and “journalism” and sanity.
What they want is a Science Fiction Writer to fulfill their obligations to Federal Government Propaganda from which they are payed most generously.
Lots of writers about, bushels to buy, by the cent on a ton.
That’s the problem with NYT. Anyone reading their not baked gloom and boom stories can turn and look out the window to see the “end of the world conflagration” appears rather … muted.
Yellow Journalism… is now Green Schlock
The yellow kid sensationalism of the 19th century is now manifest today as green gods sensationalism.
There were NEVER any newsmen. There has only been activists, making waves to sell ink.
Uh, uh, … Paul W, …… “yes” there were …. and they were employees of the Grit (newspaper).
This is from the application page. Any on this site have the courage/inclination to apply?
“To Apply
Applicants should submit a resume, examples of previous work, and a memo outlining their vision for coverage to Dean Baquet and Sam Dolnick by Sept. 19. This vision is the most important part of the application. It should be specific and set clear priorities. Some important questions to wrestle with:
• What audiences should we be focusing on?
• How will our coverage fit into their lives, and how will they experience it?
• How will we distinguish our coverage from other journalism in this space?
• What will be the main vehicles for the coverage? Features? News? Videos?
• Should there be a signature voice attached to our climate coverage? Who?
• How will you make a difficult subject interesting and accessible?
• What stories are we willing not to do?
• What should the team look like to get it done?”
They left out Truth in Journalism, or as you said: “Balanced Journalism”.
I would apply (just for fun), but my resume would be discarded at their first look…
• What stories are we willing not to do?
I think that right there wraps it up in a nutshell.
No mention of inquiring mind or background in a science .. oh dear.
J Philip Peterson —
NYT motto — “All The News That’s Fit To Print”. ?????????????????
I note item number seven on the list — “What stories are we willing not to do?” Now that is the make or break criteria for this job.
Eugene WR Gallun
– What audiences should we be focusing on?
People who buy or are likely to but the New York Times.
– How will our coverage fit into their lives, and how will they experience it?
Our coverage should reinforce their existing belief system and make them feel confident and secure in their position, thus encouraging them to continue to read the NYT
– How will we distinguish our coverage from other journalism in this space?
Our goal will be to set the editorial standard for climate change, forcing other publications to follow our lead (lede). We will do this by establishing a strong editorial narrative that resonates strongly with our progressive readership. We will publish or ignore stories based on how well those stories support our narrative. Scientist who publish papers that support our narrative will be promoted and positioned as hero’s using Joseph Campbell’s mythic structure. Scientist who publish facts and findings at odds with our narrative will be demonized and dehumanized. We will encourage our readership to attack and punish non compliant scientists as a way of building tribal loyalty among our readership.
– What will be the main vehicles for the coverage? Features? News? Videos?
All of the above. We seek to dominate all sources of news to ensure that our readership does not seek out alternative sources where they might confusing information.
– Should there be a signature voice attached to our climate coverage? Who?
We will seek to create the appearance that all glamorous, attractive and intelligent (GAI) people subscribe to our narrative. As such will will write stories, structured as “news”, whose purpose will be to demonstrate that GAI celebrities endorse our narrative. We will select GAI entertainers (DiCaprio, Alba, Jolie, etc.), Humanitarians (Bono, Clinton, Gore) and Industrialists (Gates, Buffet) for this purpose.
– How will you make a difficult subject interesting and accessible?
By painting climate science not as a subject of objective facts but rather as an epic moral struggle between the forces of enlightenment and virtue (those who agree with us) vs the evils of ignorance and greed (those who disagree with us).
– What stories are we willing not to do?
Any facts or data that do not support our narrative should be banned.
– What should the team look like to get it done?
We will select only those people who are passionate about the mission and have demonstrated an ideological fealty to the cause. Some background in journalism is a plus but not required.
Greg Gutfeld should apply. He has background as an editor of Prevention and Men’s Health, so he knows how to read through releases for bull excrement and hype.
“to make the most important story in the world….”. Interesting choice of words.
They also left out facts, research, and basic investigation of the press releases from the universities (looking for future grants), the bureaucrats, and the self-promoters and companies seeking business and sunsidies from the government. But you see, only the evil oil companies are in business for profit, for the shear destruction and deprivation they can expand!
I saw nothing about being able to sift through volumes of references to ensure the readers have all the facts nor, anything about having a strong work ethic and willing to work long hours to bring the balance of truth to the readers.
I wonder if they asked anyone on the team?
Mikey, Philbaby, Kevin, Gavin?
Come-on you guys… NYT needs you.
“• What stories are we willing not to do?”
This is probably the most important thing on your application…
D*mn! Should have read a couple comments further first! 🙂
No problem – glad someone else noticed that from the list. JPP
J. Philip Peterson — Sorry didn’t see this post — Eugene WR Gallun
We don’t get the NYT much here in western Canada. Having read that job description I can say without reservation that the print version of the NYT would not be worthy to wrap fish.
Sad really, and ironic, considering that the newsprint for that paper and for many editions of the NY phone book, came from Port Alberni. Which is where the fish are.
I am a long time reader of the Globe and Mail which I felt was an excellent paper for many years. It has deteriorated to the point where it’s hardly worth picking up. The same is happening to papers all over the world.
I would not wrap fish in any of today’s papers. It is insult to the fish. I ask for brown paper every time I order, If they do not have it ? Next take-out!
Now The Times is ramping up its coverage to make climate change into the most important story in the world and to make it seem relevant and urgent.
What they really mean.
The CAGW promoters are feeling desperate. Their theory is falling apart in front of their eyes, so they are trying to do some reinforcement by redoubling their efforts.
I find this advertisement so sad. Not because journalists haven’t before been given top jobs to further some biased ideology – but because NY Times are so brazen and open about it. And because they simply do not comprehend how glaringly obvious it becomes that the fourth estate, generally speaking, is no longer here just to “seek the truth” and fearlessly print it.
No wonder genuine investigative journalists are leaving the news media in droves to set up business on their own – as bloggers or publishing their own books. All this does not really matter – because we now have the internet as a forum : the fourth estate (as it used to be) is fatally wounded.
@AndyE
” … NY Times are so brazen and open about it.”
You nailed it!. Since the beginning of history people spreading the news were pretending to be honestly telling the (their) truth – no matter how false this claim actually is. It’s terrifying to see that the NYT doesn’t even pretend to offer any thing but opinionated shameless propaganda.
Can this job be done from a rural setting in a western state?
Made me think of this:
This Stuff’s Made In New York City!!!
NO!!
“rural setting in a western state” is the ultimate knock out criterion.
From the east coasts point of view even pot head Hippies from Eugene or Portland are considered racist eco nazis! So no Chance – sorry!
Do they accept North Korean nationals?
I’m pretty sure they do.
They’d fit right in.
It is the NYT for gosh sake.
The New York Times is a political, emotional, elitist organ. Expecting it to be conversant in the facts surrounding the issue of global warming is like expecting Al Gore to understand calculus. Facts and debate are things alien to the Times, which considers itself the last word. And also the savior of the planet.
A New York version of a religious fundamentalist – they know the truth, no need for discussion. Pretty
disgusting to see former dictatorships like China and Russia making the Times look closed minded and out of touch.
The first word is “drone”, so I’m sure they will have no problem finding a fitting candidate.
What ever happened to RGB – Professor Robert Brown from Duke University? I haven’t seen him around here for a while. Always enjoyed reading what he has to say. I think he would be a good candidate…
Well, believing that an educated non-scientist could be good at translating science facts for the general public, I applied! Thanks for the job tip, Eric 🙂
I’m only posting this for the record. (Just in case I am offered the job…. you will certainly hear about it here if I get it!)
#(:))
And, yes, oh, yes, Anthony (or rgbatduke — indeed, what has happened to that fine mind (if a bit frenetic of a writer at times)? I sure hope he is okay….. — YOU ARE MISSED, RGB!) would be a FINE editor of another climate publication. He has proven experience and success!
****************************************
What is all that junk above in this thread about “balanced reporting?” This isn’t a newspaper, silly. This is a “gee whiz” interesting things, privately hosted, climate blog, for Pete’s sake. Bring on the science realist point of view, WUWT — it is badly needed in this biased reporting environment!
***************************
And about one of the finest moderators in blogland mistakenly posting after comments closed:
B — F — D.
IOW: So what?
That sickening SaulfromMontreal was just a mixed up little whiner who thought WUWT was his civil infraction hearing and he didn’t get his turn to talk — again. I’m glad he got shut out (by mistake). Couldn’t have happened to a finer rat.
Janice. I would love to see your application for the NY Times climate change editor. Only after they respond to you…you would be a good one (editor). Just sayin…
If you get to interview stage Janice please send the full story to Anthony 🙂
Aw, JPP and Eric — What gallant men you are. Thank you for honoring me with your respect and regard (that you think I might be good at that job was generous hearted and that you would say so was so kind!). Lol, yes, I will sound trumpet in bold and ALL CAPS if I get that job.
Well, JPP, I was writing my “Vision for Coverage Memorandum” for about 2 hours last night (I covered all the mentioned issues in the application announcement — including “what we will not publish” — I specifically mentioned Mr. Pachauri and items of that nature….. among other gossipy or political or other science-irrelevant angles — this type of article is GREAT for WUWT, but, my main goal for the NYT’s climate section would be science teaching). So, it is pretty long….. . Thank you for asking 🙂
I hope you assured them you would never mention Al Gore the Sex Poodle or Peter Gleick the misunderstood information gatherer and creator or Mikey Mann the borer of few trees.
That would be in bad taste…iykwim.
Hey Janice! That’s brilliant! I sure hope you get as far as an interview – I fear you are WAY too nice to get the actual job – However, might I suggest you take the opportunity of pointing out to them that if they want to turn their falling numbers around, the best way would be to go full-pelt into exposing the sc*m? (Read “a” or “u” into that asterisk. Both fit.) They could Lead the Way in telling their readers all the gory details!!!
Plenty of “catastrophic” stories in who-took-the-cash, monstrous rip-offs and much in the way of treasonous behavior. Politicians and scientists colluding with activists and selling out their country! Deals done (not so dirt cheap) behind closed doors!
You get the drift.
I do apologize for all the exclamation marks – I got carried away. 🙂
If you don’t read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the news paper, you are mis-informed.
Mark Twain
Cheers Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
… an if you read the NYT you are ill-informed.
… an if you read the NYT you are
ill-informeda maroon.There, that should help.
It would be fair to say, in this particular case that upon reading one would not be informed in any useful way whatsoever
🙂
Roger
The New York Times advertisement for a new member to spin climate fear propaganda is an example of why people are turning off MSM .
There is absolutely no chance they would hire anyone that says … climate changes and humans have some impact however climate models are proven failures grossly exaggerating warming and natural climate variables are not even close to being overtaken by a trace gas very essential to life on earth .
Newspapers used to maintain credibility because they tried to balance stories and not be propaganda tools .
The New York times will be gone before the Artic is ice free .
I worry that the duties would include vetting the other articles and section lest any non-climate-change-PC facts slip through.
Moderators are site-appointed and –approved, not individuals expressing commentary.
…sections…
“The New York Times is looking for a ‘catastrophic climate change’ advocate”
Now, that’s about right.
Is the melanomas idiot that has tried to hide his identity above, the same DAN VELTRI that has applied for the ” New York Times ” Climate Editors post “? He gets my vote, idiots in Bull S//T out.
Of course they need an editor for the climate change story. If you do not edit it thoroughly, there is probably no story left / sarc
I thought Climate Scientists did all the climate editing that was needed.
So foolish of the NY Times. Extra CO2 has benefited the world. Where is the catastrophe in better performing plants?
Humans inventiveness has flourished in times of warming. Internet and computing be just one.
The New York Times is a leader in covering climate change. Now The Times is ramping up its coverage to make the most important story in the world even more relevant, urgent and accessible to a huge audience around the globe.
________________________________________
Syrias Assad and Turkeys Erdoghan are in charge already. Maybe some youngster with ISIS experience.
________________________________________
No need to release.
Dear NYT,
You will have noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of climate propaganda for a long while from all sorts of sources. Yet in polls, climate change remains stubbornly near the bottom of peoples’ concerns. With typical NYT hubris, you think you alone can change this. It is this kind of hubris that will see you terminally financially underwater long before any of your Manhattan property is physically underwater.
One more thing. ‘What stories are we willing not to do?’ is different from the more normal form ‘not willing’, as in, say, ‘ We are not willing to vote for Hillary Clinton’. If I say ‘We are willing not to vote for Hillary Clinton’, it sounds like our vote, and likewise your stories or lack of them, can be bought.
Regards,
Charlie
PS Sorry if I upset anyone’s sensibilities at the NYT with that ‘not vote for Hillary’ talk.
But NYtimes’ already good at that:
‘Color-coded maps that show how hot it could be in 2060.’
________________________________________
– Since a quarter of year the locations above 25°C on the weather maps here are tainted scarlet/ruby red.
Transatlantic climate change approach – what’s more to ask.
The cruise ship Crystal Serenity sailing into the village of Ulukhaktok on King William Island. The companion ice-breaker RSS Shackleton in front (and looks pretty small compared to Serenity). Taken from the helicopter.
https://my.yb.tl/CrystalSerenity/blog/view-image/large/19233/
Roald Amundsen sailed by here on August 16, 1905 and there was no sea ice here at that time either.
The most dangerous part of the trip for Serenity is coming up today and tomorrow when they go through the very shallow Dease Strait into Cambridge Bay / (Goja Haven) where Amundsen camped out to learn Inuit Arctic survival techniques. Franklin in 1821 and Simpson in 1838 had previously sailed boats in these waters in August when it is almost always ice-free.
Then there was the expedition led by Dr. Hoel in 1922, who reported that “so little ice has never before been noted”, among other observations which today would be “alarming”.
I’m sure they’ll find some nice young brainwashed liberal college grad to fill the position. It will be golden for NY Times if they get someone who actually has been ‘conditioned’ to believe the lie. It will be like employing someone of a faith based religions who just can’t understand how people can’t see that god is real.
The nice thing is this “first draft of history” will record the biblical collapse of the credibility of the liberal media.
“What should the team look like to get it done?”
WHAT? Seriously? Who the hell asks that on an application? What should you look like? Here’s one: what should you look like before applying for this job? Well, let’s see…..grabs mirror…..I should look like I am wearing a business suit from the waist up and not show my PJ bottoms and fuzzy slippers. I should comb my hair from it’s bed head appearance and attempt to tame the curls. I should look serious, determined to squash all resistance to anyone that voices an opinion not in line with my paycheck. I should be tall but not too tall, commanding yet demure and above all not look like a ball buster, yet be terrifying to my subordinates and competitors. In other words, I should look like this:
I want to apply and send back an edited version of their job summary and questions, covered in red pen with suggestions on their wording choices.
Their ad is way too long. It could have been shortened to something like the following:
“Climate whore wanted. Ability with the artful use of lies, emotionalism, and other irrational arguments is essential. No experience, or brains required.”
The NYT has a long history of reporting with a strong point of view. You highlighted this with the Ukraine famine case. There have been many others including embarrassing admissions that whole stories which fit the general viewpoint were made up.
Embarrassing admissions that did not lead to a change in practice. Why are so many Americans, Audtrailians, and Europeans
skeptical of their news media? They recognize what they are getting. Those who are not skeptical are flying blind.
Journalism when ranked with honorable professions falls slightly above child molestation, but certainly below armed robbery.
For antone who applies for this climate whore job should also include one question in the first line of their cover letter….where would we be without climate change,i.e. warming??
Whooops..anyone. More caffeine!
“the most important story in the world even more relevant, urgent and accessible”
BallBouncesTranslation: in spite of endless advocacy under our previous editor, the hoi polloi still think it’s unimportant, irrelevant, trivial, and difficult to understand.
“accessible” – dumbed down and a single PoV so readers don’t have to think about it.
How about that Raines fellow?
Andy Revkin – wasn’t this his function, if not job?
Maybe he’s just too honest .
I think there may well be something to that. He has been known to listen to the other side.
==========
They are really looking for a religion editor.
They are really looking for a religion promoter. a religion marketing agent, promoter, salesman/saleswomen/salesit and provocateur and propagandist.
Nothing, noting in the description at all says “journalism” or “honest research and report” ….
I think they did away with their religious editor years ago.
I guess, in a way, they want to bring him back.
an evangelist, or a ministry of “truth”, in the orwellian sense.
I nominate Willis.
+ a million
+ another million here. wonder how long the cagw meme would last with willis at the helm of climate science information distribution to the public. 🙂
Read the headline. “Joke of the Week, NYT Climate Change Editor Job”. I thought, this isn’t even a cartoon by Josh. Then I re-read the same thing. SURPRISE it said the same thing. (No wait, in “newspeak” this sort of JOB which is a JOKE and a JOKE are the same thing!)
The NY Times employs fact-checkers. Newspapers also have deadlines.
How is AW’s BREAKING NEWS paper from 2012 going BTW?
Facts have have a known liberal bias and timeliness doesn’t seem to be one of AW’s strongsuits (or facts for that matter). They are looking for an entrepreneurial type and AW’s startup journal Open Atmospheric Society has to be a feather in his cap. Well, maybe we don’t want to mention that after all.
“The NY Times employs fact-
checkersfakers.The New York Times uses the same accounting techniques the paper critiques
Climategate/Wikileaks
The Hypocrisy of the New York Times
Strikes me the NYT hasn’t come along much since the halcyon days when Jayson Blair was their star reporter.
“…the politics of the climate debate.”
Because there can be no scientific debate from the warmists side, because they believe computer model output is more important than data, or from the skeptics side, because the warmists refuse to entertain any heretical notions.
Change.org is a website where you can start a petition for almost anything. Eric, start a petition for the NYT to select Janice to be the editor of the NYT climate section. What fun. I will sign.
“News ways to tell this vital story”. Apparently the “old ways” didn’t get the message across. Oh dear!
New York Times’ Top Shareholder Is a Clinton Foundation Donor
A rundown of the many connections between the Times and the Clintons
http://freebeacon.com/politics/new-york-times-top-shareholder-is-a-clinton-foundation-donor/
I penned this one awhile back:
http://dailybail.com/home/hillary-clintons-climate-plan-cronyism-gone-wild.html
…extreme bias preferred.
The Time’s likely trying to keep up with the Washington Post, which runs at least one alarmist story per day. WaPo embarrassed the Times by getting way ahead of it on Wattergate and the Times hasn’t forgotten.
It sounds like the Times is looking to hire a good science fiction writer or a good story teller able to tell spooky stories around the campfire that hold the audience’s interest. Whether those stories are true or not isn’t important.