Big Ag spent over 160 million last year lobbying congress. Because of that, we get inaction on many things. As a long time westerner I'm very aware of what cattle welfare ranching has done to our public lands and animals. Have you heard of "wildlife services"? Look up how many animals they kill every year. Too many wild horses? Nope, but welfare ranchers always want more lands for their welfare cows. And nothing will change until we get the money out of politicians' hands. Until then, eating meat 5 times a day is healthy, meat alternatives are poison, and big ag is sustainable.
Both the lack of a sense of responsibility to fact-check the deceptive ads these media organizations take money to promote, and how how little money it costs bad-actor businesses to abuse those media entities' positions of influence, are very curious things. One would think these media entities' credibility would be worth more to them. Complicity in confusing the public about climate pollution will eventually hurt their brand image and thus their intrinsic value.
Follow the money. News media are all desperate for AD dollars these days and JBS is all about trying to reverse the bad publicity from few months ago about their polluting and illegal meat packing plants in Brazil. The Americans are so bad, they don't care anymore whether they have any integrity anymore. It's all about the money and impartial journalism and integrity doesn't pay the bills and make the owners rich.
What an alarming situation - spreading misinformation in ads/paid content is just as bad as writing about misinformation in an editorial fashion. Both are detrimental to the news industry.
And that's why we need the visibility of Heated and other institutions of modern journalism like Popular Information from Judd Legum, The Racket from Johnathon M. Katz and work from places like Vote Save America to ring the bells of the true news louder and louder!
Thanks for the great reporting. It appears that entities like the NYT are more interested in ad revenue than in restricting ads that convey misinformation.
I sympathize with news outlets trying to navigate relying on ad revenue to fund their journalism and giving platforms to companies like this, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. It absolutely sucks journalists and editors think HEATED is attacking their reporting because of articles like this, because in practically every article the point is made that there is great journalism at these outlets, and the issue isn't potentially biased reporting because of ads. The issue is giving a platform for companies that are harming the planet.
But one thing I think deserves more discussion is just how many fossil fuel or other polluting companies can be drawn into lawsuits for breaking laws already on the books. Like the big climate lawsuit in California shows, there is nothing "new" in terms of illegality these companies are doing. False advertising, misleading consumers, etc are all already against the law. They just need to be enforced.
From the Politico Vision Statement on their website:
"POLITICO strives to be the dominant source for news on politics and policy in power centers across every continent where access to reliable information, nonpartisan journalism and real-time tools create, inform and engage a global citizenry."
Apparently their vision to provide reliable information and to inform a global citizenry does not extend to their pay-to-access advertising section--a bit of a loophole, don't you think? One that lies below the water line in my mind, threatening to sink the entire operation's credibility.
Thank you for such clear reporting. Your final paragraph boils it down succinctly with this statement:
“Our most reputable news outlets are funding their fact-based journalism by giving polluters a platform to lie. This is eroding public trust in journalism.”
Can’t outlets like NYT, WaPo, and Politico find “good” entities that would give them advertising dollars? Late-stage capitalism sucks, I’m sorry.
Shame on these outlets for claiming HEATED is sowing distrust. They should review their own behavior and ethics- if the platform gives support to ads that spread misinformation they are responsible for spreading that misinformation and any distrust that follows.
Crazy...All this climate legal action is very irresponsible and unlawful, and all it will do is push up the cost of food…
On every metric a warmer planet is good news.
No proof exists unless you believe failed climate models that a naturally warming planet is our fault.
What I hate is unscientific statements with no facts… and that is what the IPCC is doing .
We have contributed to increase in CO2 but it has had a very small impact on temperature…. but it has improved the food supply.
Forget carbon free strategies … it’s a myth pushed by elites to make money.. we will be sticking with Fossil fuels and nuclear…. We will have no choice.
Big Ag spent over 160 million last year lobbying congress. Because of that, we get inaction on many things. As a long time westerner I'm very aware of what cattle welfare ranching has done to our public lands and animals. Have you heard of "wildlife services"? Look up how many animals they kill every year. Too many wild horses? Nope, but welfare ranchers always want more lands for their welfare cows. And nothing will change until we get the money out of politicians' hands. Until then, eating meat 5 times a day is healthy, meat alternatives are poison, and big ag is sustainable.
Both the lack of a sense of responsibility to fact-check the deceptive ads these media organizations take money to promote, and how how little money it costs bad-actor businesses to abuse those media entities' positions of influence, are very curious things. One would think these media entities' credibility would be worth more to them. Complicity in confusing the public about climate pollution will eventually hurt their brand image and thus their intrinsic value.
Follow the money. News media are all desperate for AD dollars these days and JBS is all about trying to reverse the bad publicity from few months ago about their polluting and illegal meat packing plants in Brazil. The Americans are so bad, they don't care anymore whether they have any integrity anymore. It's all about the money and impartial journalism and integrity doesn't pay the bills and make the owners rich.
What an alarming situation - spreading misinformation in ads/paid content is just as bad as writing about misinformation in an editorial fashion. Both are detrimental to the news industry.
And that's why we need the visibility of Heated and other institutions of modern journalism like Popular Information from Judd Legum, The Racket from Johnathon M. Katz and work from places like Vote Save America to ring the bells of the true news louder and louder!
Thanks for the great reporting. It appears that entities like the NYT are more interested in ad revenue than in restricting ads that convey misinformation.
I sympathize with news outlets trying to navigate relying on ad revenue to fund their journalism and giving platforms to companies like this, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. It absolutely sucks journalists and editors think HEATED is attacking their reporting because of articles like this, because in practically every article the point is made that there is great journalism at these outlets, and the issue isn't potentially biased reporting because of ads. The issue is giving a platform for companies that are harming the planet.
But one thing I think deserves more discussion is just how many fossil fuel or other polluting companies can be drawn into lawsuits for breaking laws already on the books. Like the big climate lawsuit in California shows, there is nothing "new" in terms of illegality these companies are doing. False advertising, misleading consumers, etc are all already against the law. They just need to be enforced.
From the Politico Vision Statement on their website:
"POLITICO strives to be the dominant source for news on politics and policy in power centers across every continent where access to reliable information, nonpartisan journalism and real-time tools create, inform and engage a global citizenry."
Apparently their vision to provide reliable information and to inform a global citizenry does not extend to their pay-to-access advertising section--a bit of a loophole, don't you think? One that lies below the water line in my mind, threatening to sink the entire operation's credibility.
Thank you for such clear reporting. Your final paragraph boils it down succinctly with this statement:
“Our most reputable news outlets are funding their fact-based journalism by giving polluters a platform to lie. This is eroding public trust in journalism.”
Can’t outlets like NYT, WaPo, and Politico find “good” entities that would give them advertising dollars? Late-stage capitalism sucks, I’m sorry.
Shame on these outlets for claiming HEATED is sowing distrust. They should review their own behavior and ethics- if the platform gives support to ads that spread misinformation they are responsible for spreading that misinformation and any distrust that follows.
To answer the question at the start, no. Spreading corporate propaganda undermines a news outlet's credibility. Full stop.
Crazy...All this climate legal action is very irresponsible and unlawful, and all it will do is push up the cost of food…
On every metric a warmer planet is good news.
No proof exists unless you believe failed climate models that a naturally warming planet is our fault.
What I hate is unscientific statements with no facts… and that is what the IPCC is doing .
We have contributed to increase in CO2 but it has had a very small impact on temperature…. but it has improved the food supply.
Forget carbon free strategies … it’s a myth pushed by elites to make money.. we will be sticking with Fossil fuels and nuclear…. We will have no choice.