Of exactly the kind that characterizes Romm’s own post today — and much of his work at Climate Progress.
In a nearly 2,000-word attack on Revkin’s coverage, Romm accuses the Times reporter of deliberately misquoting the wording of a scientific report in order “to make his case against Gore seem stronger.” That’s right: Romm charges the nation’s top climate reporter of committing a journalistic deadly sin. The problem is that Romm has no idea what he’s talking about. As Revkin points out in his response to Romm on the blog, he was quoting a direct comment to him from the authors of the report, not the report itself.
Romm’s posting focuses in part on a news analysis Revkin wrote yesterday comparing an almost wholly fallacious column by George Will to a speech the former Vice President gave recently to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. (For more, see this post by John Fleck, and my own at CEJournal.) In the speech, Gore said global warming “is creating weather-related disasters that are completely unprecedented.” That was an exaggeration, and after Revkin inquired about it with Gore’s staff, the former vice president pulled the offending slide.
In my opinioin, Revkin did err in equating Will’s column to Gore’s speech. The column is untrue almost in its entirety. Meanwhile, the speech did contain one significant error but was meticulously supported and scientifically defensible overall. Romm’s attack, however, in both tone and substance, is simply beyond the pale.
I guess he hasn’t yet gotten the message that the Clinton era, with its hyper-partisan politics of personal destruction, has given way — thank goodness! — to the Obama era, where a new tone of civility and respect is struggling to take hold. Romm was acting assistant secretary of energy during the Clinton Administration, and perhaps the bitterness of that experience still lingers.
But there’s no excuse for his brand of blogging. It accomplishes nothing.
At the end of Revkin’s piece yesterday, he refers to work by David Ropeik, a consultant on risk communication who teaches at Harvard. From Revkin’s analysis piece:
“Once science moves from the laboratory or ice caps into fights over policy and the economy, Mr. Ropeik said, the issues are mainly framed by polarizing figures who tailor their message to people who already strongly support their views.”
Fits Joe Romm perfectly.
Updates:
* Revkin responds here to criticism he’s received about his story.
* Keith Kloor blogs about Romm’s attacks on Revkin here.
* Roger Pielke, Jr. responds to Romm’s charges:
This thing has 10 Comments
Your headline proves my point. Why is it okay for you to make such a exaggerated headline, which is apparently aimed at showing I’m guilty of what I accuse others of doing, but not okay for me to point out that Revkin is guilty of what he accuses others of doing.
My entire point is the exact opposite of the one you were claiming I am making — I was not “charg[ing] the nation’s top climate reporter of committing a journalistic deadly sin.” I was pointing out that what he did is what people do all the time — they say things that aren’t precisely what the sources their cite (or in this case link to) say.
Like I said, the original quote that Andy links to in his online article — which actually was cited by Pielke himself — is there for all to see.
Andy is perfectly entitled to explain why he chose the language he did rather than the language he himself cited. That is sometimes called a correction.
Note also that it is perfectly reasonable for CRED to assert what they “believe” and Gore bent over backwards to say he wouldn’t use their slide anymore.
But as I stated in my blog, Gore’s actual statement appears to be scientifically accurate. Also we don’t know that the graph he originally used does not support his view — all we know is that the authors of that graph don’t “believe” it does. Fine, Gore doesn’t use their graph any more.
My point is that Gore made an entirely reasonable statement to start with and at the very worst he made an honest mistake which he quickly corrected.
I had a rather lengthy lengthy post explaining that the equation of what Gore did with what Will did is absurd, and specifically pointing out that Andy has repeatedly been guilty of doing exactly what he attacks Gore for (of which the “probably” switch is but one example).
Now I think Andy needs to admit that he also makes honest mistakes — and then I think apologize to Gore.
I doubt Romm will come back here to explain that once he was shown to be wrong, he changed his post.
He would not, however, allow the comment that showed he was wrong to appear on his blog, which Tom posted in the update above.
You lost me at the title … “extremist”? Romm? Hopefully this blog will someday become as respected and reliable for good, solid information as Climate Progress, but not if you continue in that vein. Not that anyone is always right, but for me the sensational headline undermines any thought that the post might be worth reading.
Mike:
Perhaps you just read the headline and not the first paragraph. The headline is a PARODY of Romm’s approach in his own hyberbolic attacks on Andy Revkin, including a wholly unwarranted and fallacious attack on his journalistic integrity.
Revkin may have made a mistake, his coverage overall may not be perfect, and fair, civil criticism certainly would be well within bounds. But he does deserve to be treated with respect. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be Romm’s style.
In fact, that style can be so laughably over the top that it simply invites parody.
Joe:
You say, “Your headline proves my point. Why is it okay for you to make such a exaggerated headline, which is apparently aimed at showing I’m guilty of what I accuse others of doing, but not okay for me to point out that Revkin is guilty of what he accuses others of doing.”
I have nothing wrong with taking a journalist to task for errors. But I believe it should be done civilly, and with respect. Those two words did not come to mind when I read your nearly 2,000 word post.
So, Yulsman parodies Romm’s parody of Revkin’s tactics to criticize Romm. This is getting silly. Tom, you can’t have it both ways — if you want everyone to be civil, then you don’t get to use attention-getting parody headlines.
Brad:
Actually, nothing in Romm’s 2,000-word attack on Revkin was “parody.” He was deadly serious, and what he said impugned the reputation of a dear friend and one of the best journalists in America.
I’m really not sure what Romm and his supporters hope to accomplish by savaging Andy. As someone who has covered climate change since 1982, and who has known Andy for that same period of time, I’m truly astounded and thoroughly disgusted.
If you want to be civil and play fair, I’ll be the first to support you even if I disagree with you. If you want to defame someone, particularly a friend, I will fight back.
I’m sorry- If Andy Revkin is one of the best climate journalists, this is another example of the sorry state of print journalism. Never once does Mr Revkin explain or justify his false equivalence of George Will’s uninformed and false statements about Global Warming with Gore’s scientifically accurate presentations. Let me ask you this-who is better known in the wider world George Will or Joe Romm? And yet you write about Will’s column:”The column is untrue almost in its entirety.” But because Will is spouting falsehoods civilly you are not disturbed. A well known respected columnist with a large readership disseminates falsehoods and it bothers you not at all-and you spend all of your energy criticizing Joe Romm who vigorously attacks Will and his enablers. Get a grip!
Max:
I’m not sure what gave you the false impression that I am “not disturbed” by Will’s columns. I’ve criticized them severely many times in this space, and so have many of my colleagues, whose work I’ve referenced. I am reacting to the criticism leveled at Andrew Revkin, which has ballooned completely out of proportion to any error of false balance he may have made. (Let me ask you Max: Do you believe that he is “evil,” as Michael Tobis, a climate scientist at the University of Texas, has repeatedly said?)
From the beginning, I have argued that Revkin’s work should be judged in its totality, and I firmly believe that any fair critique would conclude that no reporter has done more to raise public awareness of climate issues than Andrew Revkin. So in blog postings and comments on others’ blogs I have asked again and again what people hope to gain by going to war against Andrew Revkin. I’ve never gotten an answer.
That in itself is my answer: This isn’t really about rational discourse and solving one of the most vexing problems humanity has ever faced. It’s about posturing, emotion, extremism, and viewing anyone who disagrees with you as a demon.
Hello Tom- Thank you for your reply. In answer to your question no I do not think Andrew Revkin is evil. I have read stories of his that are well written. I believe the story we are talking about-comparing Will and Gore a very weak effort on Revkin’s part. Let me ask you another question: do you really want to characterize vigorous verbal criticism of Revkin’s poor quality article as “going to war against Revkin”? Is Revkin really that thin-skinned? You ask the question what do people hope to gain by criticizing Revkin-I’ll tell you: how about an apology to Gore and how about better quality reporting in the future-that would be nice.
One Trackback
[...] bloggers, such as my colleague Tom Yulsman, are aghast at Romm’s nasty and crude tone, while others, like David Roberts at Grist, are perhaps [...]