Log in | Jump |

CEJournal

News & Perspective from the Center for Environmental Journalism
This item was posted on January 6, 2009, and it was categorized as Climate, Climate Change, Environmental journalism, Global Warming, Global warming skeptics, Journalism, climate variability, greenhouse gases, newspapers.
You can follow comments through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and trackbacks are closed.

Editor’s note: This is the third installment in my open notebook project. As I mentioned in my first post, I’ve been commissioned to write about the future of the climate change story. As I do my reporting, I will post updates about my interviews, and whenever possible, some multimedia content.  The idea is to share my reporting process as I go along. If you have any thoughts about what’s important here, and what I ought to emphasize in my story, leave me a comment. In the end, I’ll follow my journalistic instincts in crafting the final story, but I take seriously the possibilities for conversation that Web 2.0 opens up, which is why I’m doing this blog.                                 

 Yesterday, I posted a summary of my interview with Andrew Revkin of the New York Times. Today, I add to the open notebook project with this posting about my interview on Monday with Peter Dykstra, former head of CNN’s science and environment unit, which was canned last month. Dykstra had a bit of a soft landing: He is currently serving a brief fellowship at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. After that, he does not know.  

 

For awhile, CNN distinguished itself by dedicating an on-air correspondent, Miles O’Brien, to the technology and environment beat, and six producers, all of whom formed the network’s science, technology and environment unit. But in December, CNN axed the entire operation, laying everyone off, including O’Brien, and the chief of the unit, Peter Dykstra.

 CNN claims that it is going to integrate these subjects into the network’s coverage, rather than having a standalone unit. But we probably shouldn’t hold our breath waiting for that to happen.

 Particularly when it comes to the environment, “rightly or wrongly, they don’t feel that it is a way to draw more audience to CNN,” Dykstra says of the network’s management. “Let’s just say that that was not foremost in their decision-making.”


 

 But aren’t climate change, energy technology, and the other issues the unit covered more newsworthy than ever? And isn’t covering the news the core mission of a network with the word “news” in its title?

 Well, not entirely. “It has to sell well commercially, and environmental stories have had a mixed history in that regard,” Dykstra says. “It also has to bring in the metrics. And increasingly, broadcasters are relying on the metrics they see on their Web sites.”

 Broadcasters once relied on Nielsen ratings to tell them what viewers were watching. Although they knew that these ratings were quite limited in value, there was no other way to judge what was popular and what was not. “Nielsen ratings have never been fully trusted, even though they are the basis for the business model,” Dykstra says.

 The ratings, he points out, are expensive and usually 24 to 48 hours old. Even the best defined Nielsen numbers “tell you next to nothing about whether an individual story is popular.”

 Web clicks, by contrast, provide instantaneous feedback on how many people did or did not come to a story. And this information is free. So Web clicks are “increasingly influencing what’s on television,” Dykstra says. Even though stories on the Web are by definition different from what’s broadcast on television, Web clicks are simply “a more reliable measure of any audience interest than television has had at its disposal.”

 The result of relying on this new measure of audience interests? Peter directed me to look at the line-up of story links on CNN’s home page, just to the right of the main story. Among links to stories on politics, the war in Gaza, and other serious topics, there were these headlines: “Old ladies bowl better than Obama?” and “Twin boys born in different years.” (That latter one in particular sounded like it would feel right at home at the National Enquirer.)

 And then there was this gem  ”Simmons kisses anchor’s foot.” When I clicked it, up came a two minute and 14 second video — an eternity in broadcast — of Richard Simmons kissing (actually “devouring” is more like it) CNN’s Kiran Chetry’s foot. Not content to show the “kiss” once, the video shows it over and over and over. (We also learn that Kiran was wearing white shorts underneath her skirt. One wonders why…)

 Meanwhile, there was significant environmental news that could have been aired in the past week or so. For example, the Washington Post reported this a few days ago: “The Bush administration appears poised to push through a change in U.S. Forest Service agreements that would make it far easier for mountain forests to be converted to housing subdivisions.”

 In global warming news, the National Snow and Ice Data Center has reported that very rapid growth in Arctic Ocean sea ice experienced in the fall — which was hyped by global warming skeptics — has slowed, and that unusually warm temperatures now prevail. (See this graph  for more detail. It shows that sea ice extent is significantly below the 1979-2000 average.)

 To be fair, CNN’s Web site offers a long list of environmental pieces, but almost all are exclusively Web stories and were not broadcast on the cable channel itself.

 So by telling editors what sells the best, Web clicks are helping to drive the coverage at CNN, both on the air and on the Web site.  “What you routinely see is a mix of serious and absurd stories,” Dykstra says. What we are unlikely to see is sustained, serious coverage of the complexities of climate change.

Dykstra does offer this one bit of praise for CNN: “The people who do Planet in Peril are very capable, and it is very well done. But it is an occasional marquee feature that is driven by sponsorships, rather than sustained, day-to-day coverage.” The program totaled just six hours in two years. “Six hours is what Lou Dobbs gets in a week on CNN.”

 As was the case with Iraq and the economic crash, the news media have failed to anticipate and cover the full import of global warming. So Dykstra predicts the country is in for a rude awakening when the impacts become more evident.   “We’ve had 20 years of reporting on climate change,” Dykstra says, “but it is very clear, at least in this country, that it has not been enough to have been taken seriously.”

Toward the end of the interview, Dykstra turned a bit philosophical, directing me to the following quote from Thomas Jefferson on how the third President of the United States envisioned the role of the news media — then limited to newspapers — in our society:

 ”. . . were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

I wonder what Jefferson would say now.

Share
This item was posted by .


You can follow comments through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and trackbacks are closed.

This thing has 4 Comments

  1. Susan Moran
    Posted January 7, 2009 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    Depressing, indeed — Dykstra’s comments about CNN and the broader industry-wide decline of serious and sustained climate change and other environmental coverage.
    Please explain, as I don’t fully understand, why the shift to relying on Web clicks vs traditional Nielson ratings necessarily translates into less, and less serious, environmental coverage? Is it an age/generational issue? Is the younger Web audience less interested in serious coverage, or just more interested (than “older” print readers) in quirky, “Richard Simmons kisses anchor’s foot”-type stories?

    And my Peter Dykstra, one of the more insightful, eloquent journalists I’ve ever met, find his way to new adventures that will serve him and the public at large!
    susan

  2. Tom Yulsman
    Posted January 7, 2009 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    Good question! I’m not sure I know the answer, so I’ll put it to Peter in an email and post his answer here. My guess is that television audiences have always preferred “Richard Simmons devours anchor’s foot stories” over downers like climate change, but now the feedback from Web clicks is specific and revealing in a way that Nielsen was not. And this, in turn, gives the management types who could care less about actual news the ammunition they need to beat down any serious journalists who happen to be left in management positions at places like CNN.

    Andy Revkin touched on this too in my interview with him. (See that posting.) He said that things like mac and cheese recipes get far more hits on the New York Times site than Dot Earth, his blog. (And btw: He also said he will be de-emphasizing work on Dot Earth as this new science and environmental pod gets going. That will likely have a far bigger impact than the blog does, because the newspaper talks to a much larger audience.)

  3. Joanna
    Posted January 8, 2009 at 9:06 am | Permalink

    On one hand this is really depressing but hopefully it is another reason for journalist to embrace the web and then maybe the media giants will see that people are interested in the environment…

  4. Posted April 14, 2009 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    Very interesting site, Hope it will always be alive!

Comments are currently closed