I say, include the good/bad news section as long as you have good news to share. Or maybe just share the good news.
Thanks for calling attention to this (as frustrating as it makes me feel). Similarly, I get an uneasy feeling whenever I hear an ad from Facebook on one of NYT's podcasts, within weeks or days of the Frances Haugen whistleblower hearing, or any other reporting on Facebook. Maybe there's a more general principle about accepting ads from major industries that you are covering. I don't listen long enough to figure out what they're spinning, though - just hit that skip button repeatedly.
I noticed that one of the NYT's recent podcasts - The Ezra Klein Show - has an episode titled "It's Time for the Media to Choose: Neutrality or Democracy?" and although I haven't listened (yet?) I appreciate the title...
Tangent: I think that a good way to regulate social media would be to have a mandatory ad registry/archive that includes the ad, the date, the purchaser, the search terms or targeting criteria, and possibly the price paid for the ad. Such a regulation could be applied to legacy news media, as well.
Fish, Otis, & Luna are my kind of people. Naps rock.
Also, it doesn't surprise me the NYTimes allowed that ad.
This is the news org that still hasn't apologized for their disastrous mistakes during 2016 that helped give the world Trump in the White House, or their failures during the run up to war in Iraq.
Even if they sometimes have those who do great journalism, as a media org, the NYTimes has yet to prove that they can learn from their mistakes, or that they care about facts over fabulism.
Thanks, as always, for keeping watch over the climate journalism space.
Does anyone know which episode in particular? I’d love to play it for folks at my ad agency and see if they can figure out what’s inaccurate! I’ve tried listening to them but had no luck!
Where's the corporate $$$ transparency, like Open Secrets for politics? Personal investments of management (like the Bloom/DeJoy USPS mutual admiration); governing board personal and business affiliations. Thinking they're all areas riper for conflicts the less they're exposed. And all possible sources of influence on content we too often trust?
Hi Emily - I came across this event during COP26 that is related to this. It was about Advertised Emissions, or the emissions that can be directly linked to the ads that are being published for that company. It was fascinating to hear how this group (Purpose Disruptors) were able to link the ad spending to emissions released, and how much these emissions amounted to. A really cool call to action for the advertising industry too to do their part in the climate crisis. Thought you might find this interesting, and here's the website about it: https://www.purposedisruptors.org/advertised-emissions
Frustrating but not surprising. I’m lucky to have HEATED home my BS radar with many ads like these (our local gas utility, CenterPoint Energy, floods MPR with BS) but most people do not. Expect better from the NYT.
David Roberts (drvolts) and Amy Westervelt have a great pod about this on Volts. It’s fascinating and scary how much public opinion is manipulated. “Public Relations” is just a new word for “Propaganda”; my favorite line from the convo.
I’d love someone rich enough to run an ad campion countering this from a climate perspective, full of fear mongering (don’t take the high road when your enemies don’t play by the rules).
If the New York Times can't identify whether EXXONMOBIL is being misleading about its advertising, they are either lying or incompetent, and I don't know which they would deem to be worse.
🎯 ! Such a helpful, clear, precise analysis. Thank you!
I say, include the good/bad news section as long as you have good news to share. Or maybe just share the good news.
Thanks for calling attention to this (as frustrating as it makes me feel). Similarly, I get an uneasy feeling whenever I hear an ad from Facebook on one of NYT's podcasts, within weeks or days of the Frances Haugen whistleblower hearing, or any other reporting on Facebook. Maybe there's a more general principle about accepting ads from major industries that you are covering. I don't listen long enough to figure out what they're spinning, though - just hit that skip button repeatedly.
I noticed that one of the NYT's recent podcasts - The Ezra Klein Show - has an episode titled "It's Time for the Media to Choose: Neutrality or Democracy?" and although I haven't listened (yet?) I appreciate the title...
Tangent: I think that a good way to regulate social media would be to have a mandatory ad registry/archive that includes the ad, the date, the purchaser, the search terms or targeting criteria, and possibly the price paid for the ad. Such a regulation could be applied to legacy news media, as well.
Fish, Otis, & Luna are my kind of people. Naps rock.
Also, it doesn't surprise me the NYTimes allowed that ad.
This is the news org that still hasn't apologized for their disastrous mistakes during 2016 that helped give the world Trump in the White House, or their failures during the run up to war in Iraq.
Even if they sometimes have those who do great journalism, as a media org, the NYTimes has yet to prove that they can learn from their mistakes, or that they care about facts over fabulism.
Thanks, as always, for keeping watch over the climate journalism space.
Nap well, Fish & friends!
Time to look at Politico for all the same reasons.
Does anyone know which episode in particular? I’d love to play it for folks at my ad agency and see if they can figure out what’s inaccurate! I’ve tried listening to them but had no luck!
Where's the corporate $$$ transparency, like Open Secrets for politics? Personal investments of management (like the Bloom/DeJoy USPS mutual admiration); governing board personal and business affiliations. Thinking they're all areas riper for conflicts the less they're exposed. And all possible sources of influence on content we too often trust?
Hi Emily - I came across this event during COP26 that is related to this. It was about Advertised Emissions, or the emissions that can be directly linked to the ads that are being published for that company. It was fascinating to hear how this group (Purpose Disruptors) were able to link the ad spending to emissions released, and how much these emissions amounted to. A really cool call to action for the advertising industry too to do their part in the climate crisis. Thought you might find this interesting, and here's the website about it: https://www.purposedisruptors.org/advertised-emissions
Frustrating but not surprising. I’m lucky to have HEATED home my BS radar with many ads like these (our local gas utility, CenterPoint Energy, floods MPR with BS) but most people do not. Expect better from the NYT.
David Roberts (drvolts) and Amy Westervelt have a great pod about this on Volts. It’s fascinating and scary how much public opinion is manipulated. “Public Relations” is just a new word for “Propaganda”; my favorite line from the convo.
I’d love someone rich enough to run an ad campion countering this from a climate perspective, full of fear mongering (don’t take the high road when your enemies don’t play by the rules).
If the New York Times can't identify whether EXXONMOBIL is being misleading about its advertising, they are either lying or incompetent, and I don't know which they would deem to be worse.