Archive for February, 2010

Over 20 weeks since words flowed from Norton’s mouth to a Post reporter’s ears

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

The Colorado Independent points out that Senate Candidate Jane Norton is still not talking to The Denver Post. Today’s Post article, about ads attacking her, quotes a Norton spokesperson.

This prompted me to find out the last time that Norton gave a direct word-from-mouth-to-reporter quote to The Post. In a November 11, 2009, story, The Post quoted Norton giving a speech at a Republican forum. The words went from Norton’s mouth to the ears of a reporter. But this doesn’t count, because it wasn’t a two-way communication, as far as I can tell.

So you have to go all the way back to October 4, 2009, to find a Post article containing words that came directly from Norton’s mouth into a reporter’s ears, in a two-way conversation. In that Oct. 4 article, Norton told The Post she doubts that her decision, as head of the CO health department under Bill Owens, to cut family-planning money from Planned Parenthood will be a campaign issue. She told The Post: “I think the issue in this campaign is all about the debt and the economy. It’s all about big government.”

I calculate, then, that it’s been exactly 144 days since Norton has been quoted directly in The Post. That’s over 20 weeks. I’ll been counting the days, weeks, and months, and I’m hoping The Post finally runs a words-from-Norton’s-mouth quote in the newspaper soon. I’ll post an update with each time another quote-less week passes.

Just as I’m ragging on The Post for its passive coverage of Norton’s Senate campaign, I find that FOX News has interviewed Norton yesterday on its national TV show “America’s Newsroom with Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum” during a segment titled “Martha’s Midterm Madness.”
FOX failed to ask Norton about some of her recent eye-brow-raising statements such as: 
 ·         Why does she favor the elimination of the Department of education?
 ·         Why does she support a national sales tax and flat tax, and why does she think a “simplified flat tax with exemptions for mortgages and charity” would be more viable than a pure flat tax?
 ·         Why does she think health care reform is unconstitutional?
 ·         On what basis does she think that the “rights of terrorists are more important in this administration than the lives of American citizens”?
 ·         If she’s never been a lobbyist, as she’s claimed, what was she doing from 1994-1999 as head of the lobbying department of Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) and why would an MGMA spokesman tell the Colorado Independent that Norton headed the organization’s lobbying department?
 

Still, FOX gets an itsy bitsy amount of credit for interviewing Norton at all, because you never know what a political candidate will say when questioned by a live reporter on a live broadcast, no matter how soft ball the questions are. And sure enough, the FOX interview has spurred some public debate, which is what interviews and journalism is supposed to inspire.

 

I mean, look at what happened to Sarah Palin under the gentle questioning of Katie Couric. That’s why all live interviews are in the public interest to some degree.
But you expect journalists to ask about the tough stuff and pick up on the subtleties, and to do this, journalists have to do homework. In this case, it’s pretty clear Martha MacCallum didn’t.
MacCallum did not return an email message seeking comment.
 

Jane’s Free Ride

Wednesday, February 24th, 2010

If you follow the news in The Denver Post, you’re not following Senate candidate Jane Norton very much.

Well, I take that back. You’re actually following Norton in The Post via her spokespeople and news releases…-not through words that come out of her mouth in response to questions by journalists.  

She’s been quoted directly (words from mouth) in just four articles in The Post since she launched her campaign over five months ago.

Instead of talking to reporters, Norton is giving them spokespeople, written statements, and news releases, which were used in 10 additional articles.

Since Norton’s campaign announcement Sept. 15, ten of 14 articles in the print edition of The Post, plus an additional half dozen posts on The Post’s political blog The Spot, relied on this type of controlled information for quotes.

While The Post published only 14 articles with any type of statement (direct quote, spokesperson, or news release) connected to Norton, it ran a total of 22 with Bennet statements and 18 with Romanoff statements. (Bennet has been quoted directly in an additional 20 articles about his Senate activities.) Bennet and Romanoff were each quoted directly (words from mouth to reporter) in 11 print articles.

So it looks like The Post is giving Norton a free ride, not asking her enough questions directly, printing her news releases, her spokespeople’s statements, and generally covering her less than the other candidates in the race.

Of course, this runs counter to what we expect from journalists…-to provide citizens with the information they need to make informed decisions about candidates and policy matters.  To do this effectively, reporters should try hard to interview candidates directly and ask questions.

Staff at The Post was busy or on other assignments yesterday and this morning…-and unable to comment on my analysis of their coverage of Colorado’s Senate race.

Now, you may be thinking, perhaps Norton is just going through a dry spell in terms of newsworthiness…-and reporters don’t need to be wasting time talking directly to her.

But no, during those five months, she’s made a string of unusual and newsworthy statements that definitely merit investigation by Post reporters.

This month, the Ft. Morgan Times reported that Norton supports a “national sales tax” and a “flat tax,” and she thinks a “simplified flat tax with exemptions only for mortgages and charity” might be viable (Ft. Morgan Times 2/9/10).  The Post did not address this statement about radical restructuring of the U.S. tax code on its news pages, though Mike Littwin included it in a column (2/19/2010).

Norton stated that the federal government has no role in health care, presumably including Medicare and Medicaid. The Denver Post’s politics and policy bog, The Spot, reported (1/13/2010) that Norton made this comment, and a statement by Norton was posted stating that she wants to protect Medicare. But the candidate did not answer questions about it directly. Also, The Post has not questioned Norton on her apparent statement that health care reform is not constitutional.

Norton apparently listened to supporters say President Obama is a Muslim, without making any effort to correct them.  And she stated that the “rights of terrorists are more important in this administration than the lives of American citizens.” This statement never appeared on the news pages of The Post, but, once again, was included in a Mike Littwin column (1/10/2010).

Norton reportedly stated that she favors abolishing the Department of Education. To its credit, The Post (12/20/2009) tried to obtain a response from Norton on this topic, but her campaign declined comment. There’s been no follow-up in the newspaper.

During a Colorado Springs radio interview (KVOR 740 AM) on 1/26/2010, she stated, “On the lobbyist thing, I’ve never been a lobbyist.” The Post didn’t pursue this issue, but the Rocky Mountain News identified Norton as a lobbyist years ago in an article (3/4/2001), reporting that Norton “worked previously as a medical lobbyist.”  Her lobbying history has been reported elsewhere as well. And she declined to talk to a Post reporter for a story about her ties to high-powered Washington lobbyists.

(Note to Post readers: Who would think that opinion columnist Mike Littwin would scoop The Post’s entire news department twice in about six months! He’s offering up important news about Jane Norton that you find nowhere else in The Post. Maybe he should try interviewing Norton himself.)

What’s a Post reporter to do about this? Here are my suggestions:

First, the most obvious one is that reporters should seek comments directly from Norton more often. The public interest isn’t served by repeatedly quoting spokespeople and written statements. We rely on journalists to ask candidates tough or uncomfortable questions, with follow-up queries, if needed. If Norton or her spokespeople refuse comment, The Post should inform readers of this, as The Post did on one occasion.

The Post should offer coverage of different perspectives on why Norton doesn’t want to talk to Post reporters, if reporters think she’s avoiding them. Let’s hear from experts about her strategy. At her last major news conference, for example, she answered only one question before departing, and at the last Republican forum on Feb. 21, where you’d certainly expect to find journalists, she didn’t show up at all.

If necessary, The Post should track Norton at campaign appearances and confront her in person with questions.

I understand that reporters are busy doing seventeen things at once, but quality coverage of Colorado’s U.S. Senate race is a big priority.

For more details on this topic, read Rocky Mountain Media Watch’s report, “Jane’s Free Ride: The Denver Post’s Limited Coverage of U.S. Senate Candidate Jane Norton.”

Jane’s Free Ride: The Denver Post’s limited coverage of U.S. Senate Candidate Jane Norton

Wednesday, February 24th, 2010

Jane’s Free Ride:


 The Denver Post’s Limited Coverage of U.S. Senate Candidate Jane Norton
 
February 24, 2010
 
 By Jason Salzman, Rocky Mountain Media Watch
 Summary: Since September 15, 2009, when Jane Norton launched her campaign for U.S. Senate, she’s been quoted directly in just four staff-written Denver Post news stories. Instead of direct quotes, Norton’s staff offers reporters spokespeople, statements, and news releases. Sen. Michael Bennet and Andrew Romanoff have each been quoted in more than twice as many articles…-even though Norton has made a string of unusual comments that merit further investigation by journalists. The Post should…-more frequently…-insist on interviewing Norton directly, and reject comments by her spokespeople. If Norton refuses to be interviewed, The Post should inform readers of this, as it did once since Norton announced her campaign. The public interest is served when reporters question candidates directly.
 
 
 

 

Post Coverage of U.S. Senate Candidate JANE NORTON
    
 

U.S. Senate Candidate Jane Norton has been quoted directly (talking to reporters) in just four staff-written news stories, published in the print edition of the newspaper, since she launched her campaign on Sept. 15, 2009 through Feb. 20, 2010. She has not been quoted directly in The Spot, the Post’s political blog.

Norton spokespeople have been quoted in nine additional articles. Norton statements or news releases have been quoted once.

In one instance (12/20/2009), when The Denver Post asked Norton about her alleged statement that she favors eliminating the Department of Education, her campaign manager, Norm Cummings “declined to comment on her remarks or the reaction to them.” He stated:  ”We’re going to have more to say about this and other issues related to budgetary restraints and out-of-control spending after the first of the year. It’s a holiday. Nobody cares.” It’s well past the first of the year, and The Post has not followed up.

Post Coverage of U.S. Senate candidate MICHAEL BENNET

Michael Bennet was quoted directly in 24 Post articles during the same period (eleven linked to the Senate campaign and 13 linked to his activities as U.S. Senator). Bennet spokespeople were quoted in 11 additional articles, 10 of which were related to U.S. Senate campaign. Bennet statements, letters, or emails were quoted in seven articles, one of which was related to the Senate campaign. Bennet once told The Post he would not comment on a story (9/16/2009) about emails accidentally sent to reporters.

Post Coverage of U.S. Senate Candidate ANDREW ROMANOFF

During the same period, from Sept. 15 to Feb. 20, Andrew Romanoff was quoted directly in 11 Post articles.  Romanoff’s spokespeople were quoted in five more articles, and Romanoff statements were quoted in two additional articles. Romanoff told The Post he would not comment on a story about his alleged communications with the White House about a job.

Denver Post news articles with quotes or comments by Senate Candidates (Sept. 15, 2009 …• Feb 23, 2010)

Norton                

4 (articles with candidate quotes)                          

9 (articles with spokesperson quotes)                          

1 (article with candidate news release or statement)                                 

27 (articles with mentions)

Bennett               

11  (articles with candidate quotes)                                              

10  (articles with spokesperson quotes)                                        

1    (article with candidate quote from news release or statement)                                            

89  (articles with mentions)

Romanoff           

11 (articles with candidate quotes)                                                 

5   (articles with spokesperson quotes)                                        

2     (articles with candidate quote from news release or statement)                                           

42  (articles with mentions)

(An additional 20 articles contained Bennet quotes about his activities as U.S. Senator)


Reporters should seek more comments from Norton

Romanoff and Bennet have been quoted twice as often as Norton. But reporters have had plenty of material that merits comment by the leading Republican candidate. For example, during this same period, Norton has made the following statements that are sufficiently unusual that they meet the basic standard of newsworthiness and merit investigation by reporters:

 ·         This month, the Ft. Morgan Times reported that Norton supports a “national sales tax” and a “flat tax,” and she thinks “simplified flat tax with exemptions only for mortgages and charity” might be viable (Ft. Morgan Times 2/9/10).  The Post did not address this statement about a major re-structuring of the U.S. tax code on its news pages, though Mike Littwin included it in a column (2/19/2010).

 ·         Norton stated that the federal government has no role in health care, presumably including Medicare and Medicaid. The Denver Post’s politics and policy bog, The Spot, reported (1/13/2010) that Norton made this comment, and a statement by Norton was posted stating that she wants to protect Medicare. But the candidate did not answer questions about it directly. The Post has not questioned Norton on her apparent statement that health care reform is not constitutional.

 ·         She apparently listened to supporters say President Obama is a Muslim, without making any effort to correct them.  And she stated that the “rights of terrorists are more important in this administration than the lives of American citizens.” This statement never appeared on the news pages of The Post, but was included in a Mike Littwin column (1/10/2010).

 ·         She apparently stated that she favors abolishing the Department of Education. The Post (12/20/2009) tried to obtain a response from Norton on this topic, but her campaign declined comment. To its credit, The Post (12/20/2009) tried to obtain a response from Norton on this topic, but her campaign declined comment. There’s been no follow-up in the newspaper.

 ·         During a Colorado Springs radio interview (KVOR 740 AM) on 1/26/2010, she stated, “On the lobbyist thing, I’ve never been a lobbyist.” The Post didn’t pursue this issue, but the Rocky Mountain News identified Norton as a lobbyist in an article (3/4/2001) reporting that Norton “worked previously as a medical lobbyist.”  Her lobbying history has been reported elsewhere as well.

RECOMMENDATIONS
First, reporters should obviously seek comments directly from Norton more often. The public interest isn’t served by repeatedly quoting spokespeople and written statements. We rely on journalists to ask candidates tough or uncomfortable questions, with follow-up queries, if needed. If she or her spokespeople refuse comment, The Post should inform readers of this, which The Post did on one occasion. In an Oct. 25, 2009 piece about Norton’s ties to Republican honchos, The Post wrote that “Norton, through her spokesperson, declined to comment.”

If appropriate, The Post should offer coverage of different perspectives on why Norton doesn’t want to talk to Post reporters, if reporters think she’s avoiding them. Let’s hear from experts about her strategy. At her last major news conference, for example, she answered only one question before departing and at the last Republican forum, where you’d certainly expect to find journalists, she didn’t show up at all.

If necessary, The Post should track Norton at campaign appearances and confront her in person with questions.
 

FURTHER INFORMATION
List of Norton quotes given directly to reporters that have appeared in four stories in the Denver Post:
 

“The very heart and soul of who we are as Americans is being eroded. We’re seeing Washington’s giant hand grabbing everything in sight” (The Denver Post, “GOP forum: It’s us vs. Dems ” Nov. 11, 2009); “I think the issue in this campaign is all about the debt and the economy. It’s all about big government”  (The Denver Post, “GOP shelves values agenda,” Oct. 4, 2009);  “I will unite our party.” She was also quoted as saying that Republicans can take back the Senate seat held by Sen. Michael Bennet if they reach out to “young people, minorities, and women” (The Denver Post, “Norton, Penry get early nods,” Sept. 26, 2009); “I have served as lieutenant governor. I’ve campaigned before. I think I know what it takes, and I’m just looking forward to getting out there and talking about the issues.”  “I think there’s a saying that says dogs don’t bark at parked cars. So, they (Democrats) must think our campaign has some steam if they’re taking swipes like that.”  (The Denver Post, “Norton’s Senate Run Official,” Sept. 16, 2009).
Rocky Mountain Media Watch
Founded in 1994, Rocky Mountain Media Watch is a Colorado-based nonprofit organization aiming to hold journalists to their own professional standards, like those promulgated by the Society of Professional Journalists and others. RMMW gained national acclaim for its analyses of the local TV news industry in the late 1990s.
Contact: Jason Salzman, 303-292-1524

Rocky
Mountain
MediaWatch
1836 Blake Street, #200
Denver CO 80202
303-292-1524

Facebook:           Bigmedia.org

Twitter:                @BigMediaBlog

YouTube:             BigMediaBlog

 

 

 

 

What happened to Bob Ewegen?

Friday, February 19th, 2010

In recent years, journalists have had an unfortunate tendency to be on our kitchen tables one day and to vanish the next. Ignoring the impact this has on the journalists themselves, it’s disorienting to those of us who follow the news and the writing of specific working stiffs who produce it.
 

So I’d thought I’d add an occasional “What happened to them?” post on this blog for anyone who cares about where the disappeared journos have landed.
 

One such journalist who vanished abruptly after 36 years at The Denver Post is Bob Ewegen. He left without explanation in November of 2008. ColoradoPols readers may have noticed his reappearance on Pols (as “voyageur”) in January.

Here’s what he has to say (via an email) about the state of Colorado journalism and his current situation:
 

On the one hand, my one-year noncompete clause has now expired.  But the non-disclosure parts of my separation package are probably still in place.  In any event, I want to stay away from the posture of “everything was great on my watch but it all went to hell when I left.”
 

Charles de Gaulle liked to say “The graveyards are full of indispensable men.”
 

On the health front, I’m definitely better.  My blood sugar is down due primarily to less stress and more exercise.  I am continuing my paralegal classes at Community College of Denver, where I currently have a 4.0 average, and am on track to certify as a paralegal in May, just a few weeks before my 65th birthday.
 

When not attending classes, I work part-time at The Law Office of Misty Ewegen as Director of Research and Communication. My work there has focused primarily on writing, legal research and editing.  Our practice is picking up and the flexible hours can accommodate outside activities.
 

In Colorado, anyone can call himself a paralegal but you can’t call yourself a certified paralegal unless you’ve been certified.  I find the classes stimulating and figured why not get the certificate?  Of course, I also have my B.S. in Journalism and my M.S. in Labor Relations.  Given the parlous state of both the news business and trade unions, that proves my mastery of lost causes. Perhaps I can now pursue a Ph. D. in Building the Titanic. ;-)
 

Seriously, I still entertain thoughts of attending law school in 2011.  Meanwhile, I serve pro bono on the Board of Directors of the Colorado Judicial Institute and am also Journalist in Residence at CJI. We work to preserve fair and impartial courts in Colorado and promote excellence in our legal system, avoiding the kind of horrors that the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Caperton case revealed.  John Grisham’s novel “The Appeal” is admittedly modeled after that case. 
 

The reason I am not even thinking about law school until 2011 is that 2010 is an election year.  I remain passionately committed to the goal of restoring the state budget to solvency and have told state Treasury Cary Kennedy I’d like to do what I can for her campaign on a volunteer basis. 

Now that I am no longer a journalist, I am free to do such radical things as going to a caucus (effectively banned at The Denver Post). It is possible the election may lead to other opportunities. 
 

How are journalists (who still have jobs) planning to cover the election?

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

You find people on both the far left and right of the political spectrum who couldn’t care less about the health of mainstream journalism or its coverage of stuff like elections.

But most political junkies agree with what Bob Moore, editor of the Coloradoan, told me: “My concern is whether the traditional media is in a position to do the election justice. There just aren’t enough eyeballs on these races to do the critical analysis.”
 

So how are the local journalists who still have jobs going innovate to cover the elections with fewer resources?

Moore, who’s assigned himself to the 4th Congressional District Race, said he’s had preliminary discussions with Adam Schrager at 9News about working with the University of Colorado and Colorado State University to do quick fact-checks of political advertisements.
 

 

“We expect a lot of sketchy ads this fall,” Moore said, “and there just aren’t enough bodies to get this basic political journalism done.”
Many of the bodies still practicing journalism can be found at The Denver Post. What kind of coverage can we expect from the state’s number-one newspaper?
 

“For print, for the mother ship, if you will, I really think the way we covered the Udall-Schaffer campaign in 2008 is the kind of model that I would like to continue this time around,” Political Editor Curtis Hubbard at The Post told me.  “By that I mean, really trying to take …bigger picture’ looks and give readers a sense of where the candidates are on the issues and profiling them in that capacity and trying not to get distracted by the miscellaneous objects campaigns will throw up every day.”
 

 

Hubbard said he’s also considering finding citizen journalists to illuminate political events in new ways. One possibility is to “tap into people who might have access to events that we don’t have access to.”
 

The Post doesn’t have a final plan for this, but it might engage partisans to live blog or comment in some way from campaign events that The Post can’t attend, according to Hubbard. As an example, he pointed to a citizen journalist who, as part of the Huffington Post’s “Off the Bus” project, recorded presidential candidate Barack Obama talking about how Pennsylvanians cling to guns and god.

“Under our ethics policy, that wouldn’t fly,” he said. “Our ethics policy states that you identify yourself as a journalist and that you are working on a story. And so we wouldn’t have had access to that story. But, it absolutely was newsworthy.  How can we tap into the people who might have access to events that we don’t have access to?  It’s really intriguing to me, and I think could be very important.” (To delve more into the ethics of this, see the April issue of the Columbia Journaism Review.)

Hubbard promised that real, live journalists will be assigned to the major races: “We’ll significantly staff the state-wide races, the congressional races. We’ll use our resources with YourHub.com to do local-level things as best we can.” And Web-based tools will be offered to help voters make decisions.
 

Adam Schrager, the 9News political reporter, told me that the “Truth Tests,” which are basically fact checks of political ads, are the most popular election stories his station does, and the plan is to continue airing them this election cycle.
 

Schrager plans to “do whatever we can to give people access to the people who are asking for their votes.” This could include, among other things, taking voter questions for interviews or debates, offering live chats, and possibly lunch conversations.
 

“The more journalists you have, I think, the better,” he told me. “But at the same time, I’m more concerned about an active electorate than I am an active media. In the end, frankly, it’s up to individual voters to be skeptical themselves and to ask questions. That’s their responsibility. All we can do is help in the process.”
 
Along these lines, Schrager may teach online viewers how to do their own “Truth Tests” of political ads or brochures, as Schrager did at Douglas County and Berthoud libraries last year.
 

Even if innovations like these lead to quality coverage of the election, the empty seats at State Capitol press conferences these days are a pretty clear indication that the on-the-ground media coverage of the campaign will take another hit this year.
 

“Nontraditional media may be able to fill a little bit of the void but they won’t be able to afford to travel with the candidates on a regular basis and see how they tweak their stump speech from town to town and look for signs of pandering and things like that,” Moore at the Coloradoan told me.
 
 

 

 

 

Media Watch project launched

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

Starting today, Rocky Mountain Media Watch will monitor statewide news outlets and spotlight journalistic lapses (e.g., factual errors, omissions, lack of fairness) in coverage of policy issues through 2010. In addition to media criticism, the media watch project will present local perspectives on current journalistic issues, as it did on its blog earlier today. (See next post.)

The project will review statewide print media, local TV news and public affairs shows, and news and talk radio.
 

“We hope in our small way we can keep reporters honest…-or at least give them something to think about,” said former Rocky Mountain News media critic Jason Salzman, who’s directing the effort. “We have a progressive perspective, which we’re not hiding, but we’ll do our best to present differing views accurately. We want to be fair, like my columns in the Rocky tried to be.”

 

The media watch work will be posted on Bigmedia.org, the Rocky Mountain Media Watch website, and cross-posted on other blogs. They will be authored by Salzman

 

Founded in 1994, Rocky Mountain Media Watch is a Colorado-based nonprofit organization aiming to hold journalists to their own professional standards, like those promulgated by the Society of Professional Journalists and others. RMMW gained national acclaim for its analyses of the local TV news industry in the late 1990s. Over the past five years, the organization has been mostly dormant. Funding for the Colorado Media Watch project, which will run at least through 2010, is provided by a group of donors.
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jason Salzman, 303-292-1524
 

Facebook:           Bigmedia.org
Twitter:                @BigMediaBlog
YouTube:             BigMediaBlog
 
 

 

 

Journalism and global warming

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

Here’s an excerpt from a chapter I wrote in How the West Was Warmed, edited by Beth Conover and published last year by Fulcrum Press. The title of the Chapter is, “Journalists and the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming.”

You’d expect a newspaper like The Denver Post to give major play to the story about mountain pine beetles devouring Colorado’s lodgepole pines, and it is. It’s no Jon Benét Ramsey…•style media frenzy, but the pine-beetle infestation was the focus of fourteen staff-written news articles from January 2008 through May 2009 in The Post, covering everything from its potential impact on tourism to legislative efforts to fund beetle-related battles. But The Post’s coverage of the possible connection between the dying forests and global warming has been skimpy at most-.

The Post’s news coverage about the pine beetles raises the question of whether journalists should discuss the possible role of global warming when reporting on an event that may…-or may not…-be caused by it. And if they do mention global warming in this context, are journalists obligated to quote skeptics who may not think global warming is occurring at all?

Addressing the first question, Christy George, special projects producer at Oregon Public Broadcasting, told me that when it comes to covering events like forest fires or hurricanes, reporters should explain the possible role of climate change in their stories. (George is the current president of the Society of Environmental Journalists, but spoke to me as an individual reporter, not on behalf of that organization.)

“It’s not that we want bad science, where people say [a hurricane] is caused by climate change,” she says. “But the good science that says you can’t say this is climate change, but this is what we’d expect with climate change.”

The pine-beetle story also deserves this type of journalistic treatment, with different views on the possible role of climate change in the infestation.

And should global-warming skeptics be quoted? George observes that the most hard-core global-warming skeptics have made a shift, previously asserting that there was no such thing as climate change at all but now saying the climate is changing, but humans are not responsible. She thinks the views of these skeptics need not be included in stories. “There’s no value to me as a reporter to continue to throw in that person who says humans aren’t causing climate change at all, because we’re just past that, in terms of the scientific evidence,” she says. “There are tremendous disagreements about the impacts [of climate change] and what to do. We don’t have to look hard to find conflict in the story,” she said.

Here’s an op-ed based on the book chapter.

Learn more about the book here.