Sunday, January 29, 2006.

It was a big day for environmental news, as two of the nation's most influential dailies – The New York Times and The Washington Post – both led with environmental stories. Above the fold. Right-hand columns. Lead stories. Both, moreover, dealing with climate change, all too often viewed as a "non-news" story.

There was a big difference though. The Post story, by environmental reporter Juliet Eilperin, while it came with an unusual quirk, was a one-day story. Here today, seemingly gone tomorrow.

The Times story, by Andrew Revkin, the only daily newspaper reporter whose beat in may ways IS climate change, led to follow-ups, both in his own reporting and in pickups by other national media.

The News in Review

The context:

In an era of shrinking news holes and vanishing air time minutes for much serious news – and certainly for environmental news, let alone news about something so "remote" as climate change – many in news and editorial management are beginning to question how best to appeal to shrinking audiences of readers and viewers.

"One of the puzzles if you're in the news business is figuring out what's 'news,' the Post's David Ignatius had written just 11 days earlier in a Post op-ed. "The fate of your local football team certainly fits the definition. So does a plane crash or a brutal murder. But how about changes in the migratory patterns of butterflies?"

"Scientists believe that new habitats for butterflies are early effects of global climate change – but that isn't news, by most people's measure. Neither is declining rainfall in the Amazon, or thinner ice in the Arctic." Citing work done by Thomas E. Lovejoy, Ph.D., head of The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, and New Yorker writer Elizabeth Kolbert, Ignatius allowed that the media may be "all but ignoring the biggest story in the history of humankind."

Same Day, Same Subject – Different Stories

First the Post's lead story on January 29:

The Post that day clearly was not ignoring the climate change story. "Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change," the newspaper's two-column, page one lead story headlined. Subhead: "Some Experts on Global Warming Foresee 'Tipping Point' When It Is Too Late to Act."

Those closely following the climate change story recognize that the "tipping point" issue clearly is not "new" among many reputable scientists, and therefore, arguably, not "news" by the traditional definition. So just what is it that justified the lead story, in addition, perhaps, to it's being a slow-news day Sunday?

Eilperin opened the story with a parenthetical phrase which not so long ago many editors might have balked at: "Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm ...." Despite objections from climate change deniers and paid apologists, most respected climate scientists indeed accept that point. Eilperin's lead paragraph – a 38-word single sentence – concluded that "humans may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend."

"This 'tipping point' scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad, because the answer could determine how drastically countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years," Eilperin continued.

Yes. But, again, not something that magically occurred in the traditional 24-hour news window usually associated with front-page news stories.

As with Eilperin's story, Revkin's Times lead story that day also keyed off prominent climate scientist James E. Hansen, Ph.D., director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

That's about where the similarities end.

"Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him," the Times headlined. Revkin's lede: The top climate scientist at NASA says the administration "has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming."

"They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," Hansen said of NASA public affairs staffers, prompting a "we promote openness and we speak with the facts" denial by NASA's deputy assistant administrator for public affairs, a politically appointed position currently held by Dean Acosta. "It's about coordination" and not censorship of science, Acosta is quoted as having told Revkin.

Well, it hit the proverbial fan.

Journalism list serves were abuzz about the Times's article, virtually silent on the Post's. Sunday evening broadcast news shows of course picked up the Times story, as did Monday morning network shows and cable outlets.

Just two days after both articles appeared on January 29, a Revkin piece in the Times was headlined "Lawmaker Condemns NASA over Scientist's Accusation of Censorship." It was House Science committee Chair Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), whose green credentials are second to none among congressional Republicans.

"Good science cannot long persist in an atmosphere of intimidation," Boehlert counseled NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin. "Political figures ought to be reviewing their public statements to make sure they are consistent with the best available science," he continued. "Scientists should not be reviewing their statements to make sure they are consistent with the current political orthodoxy."

Reaction again from Acosta: "NASA is committed to full and open communications."

Come February 4, a week after the first Revkin story, Time magazine posted online a Karen Tumulty and Mark Thompson piece headlined "The Political Science Test." Despite the president's State of the Union oratory championing science, they wrote, "growing numbers of researchers, both in and out of government, say their findings" on a range of environmental and other issues "are being discounted, distorted, or quashed by Bush administration appointees."

"White House officials don't see that pattern of interference," they reported, quoting Bush's "respected" science advisor John Marburger.

Meanwhile, Revkin's original piece on January 29 was leading to a rash of "me too" e-mail and telephone complaints to him from NASA and other agency scientists and public affairs staffers. "They called or e-mailed the Times and sent documents showing that news releases were delayed or altered to mesh with Bush administration policies," Revkin reported. He reported that in October 2005 a NASA presidential appointee, George Deutsch, told the agency's web designer to "add the word 'theory' after every mention of the Big Bang.

Revkin reported that he "sent some of the documents" to NASA's Griffin and other senior public affairs officials seeking a response. While not responding directly to Revkin, Griffin on February 4 sent a "statement of scientific openness" to NASA's 19,000 employees saying "NASA has always been, is, and will continue to be committed to open scientific and technical inquiry and dialogue with the public." Griffin's guidance counseled that agency public affairs staff not "alter, filter or adjust" the work of NASA scientists. Emphasizing a need for coordinating its communications, Griffin said in the e-mail that some changes in agency public affairs procedures "can and will be made." He said a new policy will be disseminated throughout the agency.

As for Hansen, the brouhaha prompted the inevitable inside-the-Beltway speculation on how and whether he would survive the contretemps. As one of the world's most respected and most highly visible climate scientists, he unquestionably has a certain "Teflon" quality and superstar status that make him largely impervious to political retaliation.

"But let's see if his requests for travel funding" begin to get turned down over coming months, one veteran public affairs wag – with NOAA and not with NASA – jested.