Sign the petition: Stop NPR from gutting its climate coverage

Stop NPR from gutting its climate coverage.

Credo
Nov. 2, 2014

National Public Radio just made the baffling decision to drastically reduce its staff dedicated to covering climate change and the environment, leaving just one part-time reporter on the beat.¹

It’s unacceptable for one of our major sources of journalism in the public interest to essentially abandon it’s coverage of climate and the environment by reducing the staff covering it from four full-time journalists to one part-time reporter...
 
NPR’s decision is part of a disturbing anti-science trend within the news media. According to a study released last year, the number of newspapers that included a weekly science sections has shrunk from 85 to just 19 in the past 25 years.³ That’s why it is so crucial for NPR to provide meaningful coverage of climate change that is honest with the American people about the scope of the problem and what must be done to address it.

Tell NPR: One part-time reporter is not enough. Reverse the decision to slash your team of reporters covering climate change and the environment...

Sign the petition to NPR:

"One part-time reporter covering climate and the environment is not enough! Reverse your decision to radically reduce your coverage of climate change and the environment."

Climate Change Dangers Are 'Higher Than Ever': U.N. Report

NBC News

Nov. 2, 2014

Pollution and climate change due to human influence is “clear,” and the observed effects are “unprecedented,” according to a report released Sunday by a United Nations panel.

The 116-page report is the fifth since 1990 prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The latest installment synthesizes the findings of the previous four reports and presents new conclusions that environmental scientists arrived at since the fourth report was released in 2007.

Economic and population growth have contributed to greenhouse emissions, which are “higher than ever,” and caused the earth to warm, the report concludes.

“The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen,” the report said, adding that this has caused extreme weather all over the world. “It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions.” The risks that these extreme weather conditions present affect a wide range of people but are most devastating to disadvantaged populations, the report said.

The report recommends allocating finances to encourage people and governments to come up with new ideas to tackle climate change. IPCC vice chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele wrote on Twitter that “ordinary people” can make choices that reduce climate change, “but policymakers have responsibility to facilitate.”

Still, the report warns that “even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally.”

“We can't prevent a large scale disaster if we don't heed this kind of hard science,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday in response to the report. “The longer we are stuck in a debate over ideology and politics, the more the costs of inaction grow and grow.”

Bloggers, journalists and freedom of speech

Minor Win for Bloggers in Fourth Circuit's GHF Ruling
TechLaw
September 28, 2009

En route to tossing out a $2.9 million jury verdict for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the author of a hateful screed at , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit slipped in a goodie for bloggers at footnote 13:

[W]e believe that the First Amendment protects nonmedia speech on matters of public concern that does not contain provably false factual assertions. Any effort to justify a media/nonmedia distinction rests on unstable ground, given the difficulty of defining with precision who belongs to the "media."

Similar statements rejecting a distinction, for First Amendment purposes, between official "media" and non-media speakers were made in Flamm v. Am. Ass'n of Univ. Women, 201 F.3d 144, 149 (2d Cir. 2000), and In re IBP Confidential Bus. Documents Litig., 797 F.2d 632, 642 (8th Cir. 1986), both of which the Fourth Circuit cited.

The case is Snyder v. Phelps, No. 08-1026 (4th Cir., Sept.24, 2009).





A NEW JERSEY JUDGE HAS A DIFFERENT TAKE

Judge Says Blogs Not Legitimate News Source; No Shield Protections
from the seems-to-leave-a-lot-of-leeway dept
TechDirt
July 4, 2009

Back in May we wrote about a lawsuit questioning whether or not a blogger could use journalism shield laws to protect a source who sent her info she used for a blog post. The company the info was about is suing her for slander (which is odd, since slander is usually spoken, while libel is written). The woman, Shellee Hale tried to claim that she was protected under New Jersey's shield law, which allows a journalist to protect sources. In writing about this case originally, we pointed out that the judge in question clearly did not know much about the internet, and via his questions seemed positively perplexed that anyone would blog at all: "Why would a guy put all this stuff on a blog? Does he have nothing better to do?"

Thus, it should come as no surprise that the judge has now ruled that Hale is not protected by shield laws because she has "no connection to any legitimate news publication." This is troubling for a variety of reasons. First, it leaves open entirely to interpretation what exactly is a "legitimate news publication." The judge seems to think it only applies to old school media, saying: "Even though our courts have liberally construed the shield law, it clearly was not intended to apply to any person communicating to another person." Sure, but that doesn't mean that an individual who posts something in the pursuit of reporting isn't media as well. It looks like Hale will appeal this decision, and hopefully other courts will recognize that you don't have to work for a big media organization to be a reporter any more.




TEXAS ALLOWS BLOGGER EARLY APPEAL

A Texas Case Asks Whether Bloggers Enjoy Journalists' Right to Early Appeals
By JULIE HILDEN
Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Earlier this summer, a Texas Court of Appeals issued an opinion addressing a question that is likely to be of very significant importance in the coming years: Should the law treat bloggers the same way it treats traditional journalists?

In this column, I'll analyze the ruling. I'll also suggest that traditional journalists do not exclusively deserve special protections such as the right to interlocutory appeal. Rather, such protections should be available to all online and offline writers.

The Ruling on the Interlocutory Appeal, and the Ruling on the Merits

The Texas appeal, Kaufman v. Islamic Society, pitted writer Joe Kaufman against one subset of a larger set of Islamic groups that had co-sponsored a "Muslim Family Day" at an Arlington, Texas "Six Flags" amusement park. The suit alleged that Kaufman had defamed the plaintiffs in a highly critical piece he wrote about the event for the website of Front Page Magazine.

Kaufman sought summary judgment at the trial court level, and lost. He then tried to appeal. However, the plaintiffs argued both that Kaufman's appeal lacked merit, and that he was not entitled to file it yet.

In particular, the plaintiffs contended that Kaufman did not fall within a special statute allowing journalists to file interlocutory appeals – appeals that occur mid-case. Interlocutory appeals are generally rare and disfavored, because of the problems and delays that occur when cases ping-pong back and forth between trial and appellate courts. The statute carved out a special exception.

The appeals court ruled for Kaufman on both points, holding both that he was entitled to an interlocutory appeal, and that he was entitled to summary judgment on the merits of his defense. However, my focus here is on the Texas court's ruling allowing an interlocutory appeal on the ground that Kaufman counted as a journalist, even though his work appeared online.

The Reason Kaufman Was Granted An Interlocutory Appeal

Regarding the interlocutory appeal issue, the Texas appeals court cited a specific state statute that allowed such an appeal to be filed in this instance. The statute, by its terms, is triggered by the denial of a motion for summary judgment that is partially- or wholly-based upon a free-speech-based claim or defense...