Like the NYT, they weren’t that reliable on it either way.
In general, if journalists took climate change seriously, most of media would be about it; most screens would be half about it, with tickers and banners constantly on it. The anti-alarmists are the half-assers who took the air out of it.
A big joke about these mainstream publications is how quickly they’d open their pockets to accept fossil fuel industry native advertisement money. WaPo, NYT, WSJ, The Economist, et al - they’d always have some kind of AEI industry flak or Heartland Institute goober or Saudi stooge pen an Op-Ed about how fossil fuels are inescapable and alternatives don’t work / cost too much / have a secret downside orders of magnitude worse than O&G.
It was the same “We Report, You Decide” bullshit that FOX News played out in big bold letters for their rube base. The fishwrap editions just knew how to play their cards closer to the chest.
Like the NYT, they weren’t that reliable on it either way.
In general, if journalists took climate change seriously, most of media would be about it; most screens would be half about it, with tickers and banners constantly on it. The anti-alarmists are the half-assers who took the air out of it.
A big joke about these mainstream publications is how quickly they’d open their pockets to accept fossil fuel industry native advertisement money. WaPo, NYT, WSJ, The Economist, et al - they’d always have some kind of AEI industry flak or Heartland Institute goober or Saudi stooge pen an Op-Ed about how fossil fuels are inescapable and alternatives don’t work / cost too much / have a secret downside orders of magnitude worse than O&G.
It was the same “We Report, You Decide” bullshit that FOX News played out in big bold letters for their rube base. The fishwrap editions just knew how to play their cards closer to the chest.