Media: InsideClimate News Wins Pulitzer

Screen shot 2013-04-17 at 1.15.16 AMThe 2013 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting (one of 14 journalism categories) has been awarded to

Lisa Song, Elizabeth McGowan and David Hasemyer of InsideClimate News, Brooklyn, N.Y., for their rigorous reports on flawed regulation of the nation’s oil pipelines, focusing on potential ecological dangers posed by diluted bitumen (or “dilbit”), a controversial form of oil.

Our hats off to the reporters and to InsideClimate News!

It’s exciting and reassuring to see the recognition that

Climate and energy are defining issues of our time, yet most media outlets are now hard-pressed to devote sufficient resources to environmental and investigative reporting. Our goal is to fill this growing national deficiency and contribute to the accurate public understanding so crucial to the proper functioning of democracy.

This is timely as a springboard for some thoughts as we work our way towards the first redesign and redefinition of Planet 3.0. (Call it P3.0.2 if you like or P302 for short…) So by way of lingering on the subject in homage to ICN, indulge us a little introspection.

About InsideClimate News

ICN started with the following contributors:

  • Energy Foundation
  • Educational Foundation of America
  • Grantham Foundation
  • Marisla Foundation
  • Rockefeller Brothers Fund

An implicit mission of ICN was to rescue some of the best environmental journalists around. Gillis at the New York Times and Kolbert at the New Yorker may be almost alone in prospering in the field in America, but there actually are numerous journalists of the highest caliber on the environmental beat. The number of them make a respectable living at it, however, as we all know, has been precipitously shrinking as newspapers collapse and magazines struggle.

The rapid decline of the newspaper business, which may reach complete collapse (except for a few national papers) in the next couple of years, will be more than a little sad and inconvenient for some people, including a couple of my friends.

But even so, for me it can’t come too soon. The newspapers have utterly failed to connect with the community of experts in many important fields, maybe most, but they appear to have all but completely abandoned climate science.  As a result of their alienation from expertise, they’re befuddling and distracting a distracted, befuddled society.

As individuals, reporters really are like the ones in the snarky old screwball comedies – cynical, witty, perceptive, and oddly candid and cagey at the same time. To them, the newspaper is the family. They should get over it – the newspaper hasn’t worked worth a damn for its customers for a long time, and we have something better now.

Institutions like Inside Climate News and the Texas Tribune are intended specifically to replace the newspaper. To build a lightweight, modern organization mostly dedicated to getting the best people who want to write about a topic paid well enough that they can write well enough to get paid. The reporters who ought to get by will.

Look, ICN and TT and such are getting by using lean tech and lean management and lean distribution and great reporters. And as the tip economy expands, they are going to thrive.

So what of us? What of P3?

Our purpose on this site is not to build traffic for profit through advertising. (I leave that to Huffington and their great new article “17 Exciting Ways Marketers Get You to Click 18 Times and Wish You Hadn’t).

And it becomes clear from the success of ICN that the role we have in this field is not primarily that of conventional reporters. Though we have no objection to new reporting on our site, and we do try to point readers to the most important or interesting items to read on our turf, we are content to leave most of the (all-too-literal) muckraking to InsideClimate and their sort. If they can be funded to do proper journalistic research, that is a very good thing.

Journalists, however, even the best ones, have little idea how to build online community. The social interaction on conventional journalism sites is generally weak.

At P3 and our sister blogs, on the other hand, we we have nucleated a very interesting community. Lacking funds, most of us sneaking time from our day jobs, we and our friends have hosted some of the best online conversations anywhere.

If we aren’t reporters, then, who or what are we? A motley crew of informed, thoughtful ne’er-do-wells, ABDs, emeriti, academic eccentrics and hackers. People who want to have a place for ourselves to discuss, to think through things, to progress, to find a way to a better world.

We are my favorite people! I like us a lot! Somehow we’re managing to create something more than a mere echo chamber. We discuss, we exchange, and we make progress. We may not be the best writers, the most socially polished, the most politically agile. But if there’s a path to a decent future we are the ones to find it.

Call to Action

You probably think we are going to ask you for money at this point. Nope.

Maybe someday, yes, but not yet!

If we’re building a community of participation, what we need is for you to participate, and to find and recruit others who might want to participate.

What P3 is about is building, or contributing to building, a community whose special interest is, well, everything! We do this by reading, writing, commenting, praising, disagreeing, arguing and abruptly changing the subject. We do this by creating a place where it is safe to be an Earth Nerd. We do this by remembering Alan Kay’s dictum that the best way to predict the future is to invent it.

We hope you, the reader, will want to pitch in. Be a reader/writer. Comment. Write. Chart data. Draw schematics. Upload photos. Recommend us and talk us up on social media. Find the video of the week or the quote of the week. Brainstorm. Help us design ways to engage you and others like you on the internet.

Help us make the future fun again, not by ignoring or glossing over the risks and problems but by finding ways to resolve them.

It’s a Good Day for All of Us!

We’re a long way from deserving congratulations yet at P3.0, but so much for introspection. This is an occasion to celebrate forward movement both on the internet at large, and in sustainability journalism.

InsideClimate had a head start, but they have certainly earned their stripes! It’s now a must read-site. Congratulations!

 

Comments:

  1. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/man-is-fallen-and-will-destroy-the-earth--but-at-least-we-greens-made-him-wait-8554548.html

    ".... a pessimistic valedictory note I offer, for you cannot focus closely on what is happening and not be a pessimist. But there is more to Man, I do accept, than simply a destroyer, and the pessimism is not unmitigated: the chainsaws may outnumber them, and the chainsaws ultimately may win, but the green campaigners were there, and they fought."

    Steven Earl Salmony
    AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
    established 2001
    http://www.panearth.org/

  2. It's Elizabeth Kolbert with a K. No relation that I know of to the televised successor to Pat Paulsen (look it up if you're too young to remember), or the recent Carolingian Senate candidate.

    [ Fixed, thanks! -mt ]

  3. I've been excited all week about Lisa Song's Pulitzer, thoroughly deserved. InsideClimate has been one of the news sources that really cut through the mishigass, and all those spills and the nonsense being propagated to the public (those advertisements!), along with the media blackout, were a target-rich subject needing much fresh air.

    About P3, I don't know how it could be done, but it would be nice if there were some pattern to the way articles here are organized. I hate to mention hierarchy, a loaded word, but if there were some topics and subheadings it would help with navigation. Right now I look at recent comments (all too often with my name on the list, but that's neither here nor there) and the first few rows of articles, and sometimes ones that interest me drop off before I have time to think about them (we all have lives, at least some of the time) which makes it too easy to overpost where I've already been. Being hot under the collar about the proliferation of denialist memes, for example, I've overdone that. At the very least, the list of recent comments could be in a much smaller font so as not to dominate content.

    In addition, though part of P3's intent is to encourage literate commentary, sometimes it is overly abstruse. While that is a choice I know you have made, I'm not sure the broader public is well served by so much sophistication.

  4. ICN's Pulitzer is good news, certainly. It's too bad they aren't attracting a better class of troll in their comments, though. In the comment thread for the article about Al Gore's Climate Reality project, the prevailing meme is the tu quoque calumny "scientists who support the AGW consensus are in it for the gold."

    Sigh. I wish someone (I certainly don't have the expertise) would assemble the hard figures to refute that infuriating nonsense once and for all.

  5. Well, they are not internet natives and they don't know how to build a community. My point exactly.

    As for the "in it for the gold" accusation, probably the best rebuttal I've seen is this one.

    Yeah, I suppose it's a bit facetious, but the question as posed arguably demands nothing better.

  6. About P3, I don’t know how it could be done, but it would be nice if there were some pattern to the way articles here are organized. I hate to mention hierarchy, a loaded word, but if there were some topics and subheadings it would help with navigation.

    Well, we can easily do tags, and then offer tag histories. E.g., I am now thinking there will be a "media" tag, wherein we introspect about design and content and discuss our relationship with other sites. Not something we really want to expose to occasional visitors, but very useful for discussions much like this one.

    If you look at how Slashdot operates, you see that some articles appear under "games" or under "politics" etc. without appearing on the "front page" while others appear simultaneously on the front page. We can easily achieve that with off-the-shelf WordPress functionality.

    sometimes ones that interest me drop off before I have time to think about them

    They're all still here in

    http://planet3.org/category/featured/
    http://planet3.org/category/featured/media/
    and
    http://planet3.org/category/beyond-planet-three/

    but having categories would indeed help.

    At the very least, the list of recent comments could be in a much smaller font so as not to dominate content.

    +1

    (Good idea!)

    sometimes it is overly abstruse

    Guilty as charged. There is going to be some editorial control over that now - more on this to come. Expect this to improve.

    Thanks for your ideas! If you have more, keep 'em coming.

  7. I wonder if there's a case for a weekly open thread of some kind? I've had a couple of questions recently which I thought fitted on here, but I don't know where they'd go - for example how greatly peak phosphorus has been exaggerated. Maybe it would be possible to pick out interesting questions and expand these into threads of their own.

  8. Pingback: The Climate Change Debate Thread - Page 2423

  9. Pingback: Another Week in the Planetary Crisis, April 21, 2013 – A Few Things Ill Considered


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.