DISQUS

Jolly Green Girl · 1 year ago

excellent article and point Chris. I can not believe that gas prices are soaring and the government is doing nothing about it. The profit the gas execs made last year is staggering and yet we are all taking it without a peep.

With the economy in shambles and staying in a losing war; it seems the environment has been pushed to the side. But with posts like these.. hopefully we can still be active with our voices and pen.

nishland · 1 year ago

Great article! I believe the media has abandoned much more than the environment. These days they tend to favor sex, destruction, and entertainment over the things that really matter most. People want to be informed

Preston · 1 year ago

I see the stats you're quoting, but I also feel NYT and WSJ are doing more. I see tons of green interest stories on NY Times, and I'll even get a pretty good green story from WSJ, too. Plus, NYT has Tom Friedman and Dot Earth -- they're doing some good things right now.

Also, a lot of the green movement right now seems so lifestyle based, and perhaps these newspapers just aren't interested in catering to that crowd. I mean, don't get me wrong, I think there are business stories relating to the environment that need to be told, but I'm just thinking out loud ...

severebeef · 1 year ago

Journalism is dead. Thank you so much for another batch of yellow journalism for clicks.

Alex · 1 year ago

a blog entry

Cheers.

BGreen · 1 year ago

Very good read this morning, but have a question. Has anyone ever done a study of the environmental cost of the US Elections process? Not only is it a horrible waste of time and public dollars, but the environmental cost is shameful! Talk about a carbon footprint ;~(

Thanks for your continuing efforts to share green news!
Bonnie

Chris Baskind · 1 year ago

@BGreen: After the 2008 U.S. Presidential primary season, I don't think you'll find too many people who wouldn't go for a shorter election cycle. ;-)

MyJoy · 1 year ago

Unfortunately, the protecting/saving the environment requires the kind of sacrifices that existed during World War 2

- rationing of carbon producing items including
- gas, fertilizer, food, plastics
- recycling drives
- victory gardens
- forced deprivation

Coming out of the Great Depression it was probably easier [maybe not welcome] to impose the required restrictions. The government manipulated/co-opted the media to aid the war effort.

Newspaper owners probably know that such actions taken today would affect their revenues greatly and society as a whole, so have little interest in promoting conservation/simplicity.

Uncle B · 1 year ago

You address people that spend their days in air-conditioned offices, drive home behind windshields of their heated cars to the 'burbs and run into their climate controlled homes, about environmental issues. These in-debt, worry laden, over caffeinated,over fed, under exercised, over achieving slaves to industry need to go to the country for a month just to get in touch with what 'environment' means, but right now the corporate world has them held as tight as it will go, and if they skip one breath, they will lose it all! And, we want to export this lifestyle to the Iraqis - no damn wonder they aren't biting!

Diane Hockenberry · 1 year ago

While I think your comments are interesting and you can't argue with fact when it comes to the number of headlines focusing on green issues, I find it in contradiction with Murdoch's actual business policies in an attempt to be more eco-friendly. He's leading the charge in the media industry when it comes to this topic, by vowing to make News Corp carbon neutral by 2010 and switching their distribution fleet to all hybrids. Before I chastise Murdoch completely for changes in coverage, I'd take a step back and look at his business practices that seem to tell a different story.