The climate campaign has gone to DefCon1 over the tergiversations of Reuters, where alarmist news stories about climate change have fallen by nearly 50 percent following the hiring of an editor (Paul Ingrassia, formerly of the Wall Street Journal) who harbors some skeptical views. Media Mutters is all over the case, producing the chart below showing the decline in climate change coverage pre- and post-Ingrassia:
There’s a full-scale media outrage under way to purge the heretic. The Guardian, Mother Jones, and other outlets are all on the chase, proving 1) the dependence of the climate campaign on a media monopoly, and 2) that the environmental version of the Brezhnev Doctrine lives—what’s there is theirs, and don’t dare change your news coverage.
But maybe they buried the lede on this story. The Columbia Journalism Review’s account of this matter notes down toward the bottom that climate coverage is declining at other media outlets (just as Power Line predicted it would):
It’s worth noting that most newsrooms around the country have reduced coverage of climate change-related issues since 2010. In 2011, Environment & Energy Publishing, which produces Greenwire, ClimateWire, and four other news services, estimated they reduced climate coverage by about 13 percent. According to an assessment published by The Daily Climate, The New York Times cut its global warming article count by 15 percent, and the Guardian slashed coverage by 21 percent that same year. (Reuters, too, dropped its climate coverage by 27 percent in 2011, before Ingrassia came aboard.)
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.