I'm reading Breaking News: The Remaking of Journalism and Why It Matters Now by Alan Rusbridger and wanted to share this quote with you.
"Maybe it was the unseasonably mild weather outside, but my thoughts turned to climate change. Even the best-intentioned news organisations struggled with the subject. It wasn’t hard to compile a list of reasons why: • With some, it came down to ownership–a sceptical or uninterested proprietor. Or leadership: ‘My editor doesn’t believe in it.’ • Highly regulated or ‘impartial’ organisations (the BBC, for instance) struggled to reflect the weight of scientific agreement while also airing the existence of critical views. 29 • Journalism is better at rear-view mirrors than looking into crystal balls. It’s good at recording what happened yesterday; less comfortable at predicting what might happen in 20 or 30 years’ time. • News thrives on the novel, the changing and the unique. But climate change is always there, and the story varies little from month to month. • There are dramatic stories which are–quite probably–related to climate change. But the best scientists are cautious and meticulous about evidence. Most will be reluctant to attribute specific extraordinary weather-related events (hurricanes, floods, droughts, fires, etc.) to global warming. • Science reporting needs care and expertise. The economic crisis in the press has seen the shedding of knowledgeable specialists and the shrinking of environmental teams. • Many newsrooms are now driven by metrics: what drives traffic? What leads to more subscribers? If not enough people read climate change stories, why run them?"
Start reading it for free: http://a.co/2Siws9J