After reading your newsletters for a couple of years now, I can spot fossil fuel fake ads a mile off. I just listened to one the other day on NPR, and of course I see them all the time when reading the NY Times online. Because of this awareness, I am far less likely to "go along with" the notion that the fossils are making a sincere attempt to "transition" us away from the use of the products that earn them billions every year.
So, thanks for the awareness. Now, to spread this awareness to others!
I'm actually curious why other than yourself, Emily, and Amy Westervelt fossil fuel advertsing wasn't seemingly really worth covering to other journalists?
I mean hindsight is 20/20, and I myself didn't have fossil fuel advertising on my mind really in my climate advocacy, kinda shamefully, before I started reading HEATED, but it seems so obvious now that fossil fuel advertising should have been covered like tobacco advertising was and the same penalties applied, namely it being illegal to advertise.
Just if you want to share of course. Thank you for the quick reporting on this, and I do believe it is a testament to your work and HEATED that we now have the head of the UN giving speeches on this. It really does make a difference.
It's interesting that coverage of this call in the UK press is far overshadowed by the amount of journalistic wailing about a large investment fund pulling out of sponsoring book festivals after a campaign by Fossil Free Books. Very good example of how PR firms can shape narratives even in defeat. And / or how captured media people are without even realising it.
Thank you for creating the petition, Julie. I’m a NYT subscriber and have written multiple letters to the editorial and advertising leadership with nothing but a form email in response.
The one NYT staffer I received a reply from was their climate editor David Gelles. He stated, “I’m well aware of this issue and the paper has been clear and consistent on its position.” Obviously the money is too good to pass up. That is their position.
Public pressure and shaming by individuals can only go so far. Ultimately losing subscribers or legislation banning fossil fuel advertising are the only paths I can see that will wake up these firms to their complicity in the crisis that helps create the news they cover!
Yes, the greed is truly grotesque. Thanks for your efforts, Jeff. I'm a firm believer that all of it can add up to making the difference. Public pressure, policy initiatives, letter-writing, etc. I'm thinking of the
apartheid divestment movement of the '80s, tobacco in the '90s, and all of 350.org's efforts to get major institutions to divest from fossil fuels. Keep up the good fight!
To say the New York Times' stewardship is an embarrassment at this point would be an understatement. For all the talent it has on the reporting side, its anti-worker, anti-trans, and pro-fossil-fuel streaks undermine the paper's value. I certainly won't be subscribing anytime soon.
Slightly off topic, but one of the sad things is that there are a number of ways Big Oil technology could be used in the fight for a livable climate, but maybe considered less profitable and so ignored. Everything from pumping water out from under glaciers to using refurbished gas lines to move radiant heat into dwellings to using fracked waste water to harvest lithium. And these are probably the tip of the iceberg. And if utility companies were not profit seeking private or pseudo companies, grid modernization and faster uptake of rooftop solar, microgrids, virtual power networks and commercial scale renewable energy could happen much more quickly without sky high consumer electricity costs.
After reading your newsletters for a couple of years now, I can spot fossil fuel fake ads a mile off. I just listened to one the other day on NPR, and of course I see them all the time when reading the NY Times online. Because of this awareness, I am far less likely to "go along with" the notion that the fossils are making a sincere attempt to "transition" us away from the use of the products that earn them billions every year.
So, thanks for the awareness. Now, to spread this awareness to others!
I'm actually curious why other than yourself, Emily, and Amy Westervelt fossil fuel advertsing wasn't seemingly really worth covering to other journalists?
I mean hindsight is 20/20, and I myself didn't have fossil fuel advertising on my mind really in my climate advocacy, kinda shamefully, before I started reading HEATED, but it seems so obvious now that fossil fuel advertising should have been covered like tobacco advertising was and the same penalties applied, namely it being illegal to advertise.
Just if you want to share of course. Thank you for the quick reporting on this, and I do believe it is a testament to your work and HEATED that we now have the head of the UN giving speeches on this. It really does make a difference.
It's interesting that coverage of this call in the UK press is far overshadowed by the amount of journalistic wailing about a large investment fund pulling out of sponsoring book festivals after a campaign by Fossil Free Books. Very good example of how PR firms can shape narratives even in defeat. And / or how captured media people are without even realising it.
I created a MoveOn petition. Please share widely. Thanks. https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/new-york-times-stop-shilling-for-fossil-fuels?source=rawlink&utm_source=rawlink&share=deafb076-e8f7-4660-8e7c-d97ee0eb9484
Thank you for creating the petition, Julie. I’m a NYT subscriber and have written multiple letters to the editorial and advertising leadership with nothing but a form email in response.
The one NYT staffer I received a reply from was their climate editor David Gelles. He stated, “I’m well aware of this issue and the paper has been clear and consistent on its position.” Obviously the money is too good to pass up. That is their position.
Public pressure and shaming by individuals can only go so far. Ultimately losing subscribers or legislation banning fossil fuel advertising are the only paths I can see that will wake up these firms to their complicity in the crisis that helps create the news they cover!
Yes, the greed is truly grotesque. Thanks for your efforts, Jeff. I'm a firm believer that all of it can add up to making the difference. Public pressure, policy initiatives, letter-writing, etc. I'm thinking of the
apartheid divestment movement of the '80s, tobacco in the '90s, and all of 350.org's efforts to get major institutions to divest from fossil fuels. Keep up the good fight!
To say the New York Times' stewardship is an embarrassment at this point would be an understatement. For all the talent it has on the reporting side, its anti-worker, anti-trans, and pro-fossil-fuel streaks undermine the paper's value. I certainly won't be subscribing anytime soon.
Thanks as always for your reporting. I’m off to write to the New York Times about their duplicity.
Slightly off topic, but one of the sad things is that there are a number of ways Big Oil technology could be used in the fight for a livable climate, but maybe considered less profitable and so ignored. Everything from pumping water out from under glaciers to using refurbished gas lines to move radiant heat into dwellings to using fracked waste water to harvest lithium. And these are probably the tip of the iceberg. And if utility companies were not profit seeking private or pseudo companies, grid modernization and faster uptake of rooftop solar, microgrids, virtual power networks and commercial scale renewable energy could happen much more quickly without sky high consumer electricity costs.
Thanks for the update on the greenwashing by the press.