The New York Times Eliminates Their Environmental Desk: Is This Bad News?

The New York Times has just announced that they are eliminating their environmental desk, with their environmental reporters and editors being assigned to other departments.

            Despite the tough times that all papers are facing today, the reason for the decision was not budgetary, says Dean Baquet, the New York Times’ managing editor for news operations. Since the desk was established, the paper says that news reporting is more “interdisciplinary,” having multiple aspects, such as business and economics. “They are more complex. We need to have people working on the different desks that can cover different parts of the story,” says Baquet.

            I can’t say for certain that this is a bad move on the part of the New York Times. Only time will tell. I fear that, without dedicated staff, some environmental stories will not make it to the pages of the Times. And, as well, stories about fracking or oil drilling in the Gulf could also lose their environmental focus.

            I don’t believe that the New York Times wants to diminish their coverage of the environment. The paper performed a similar restructuring with their education desk a few months ago. But I am troubled by the rationale that the paper gave for the change, that environmental stories are more “interdisciplinary” and no longer “singular and isolated,” as they had been when the desk was established. The environmental desk was only established in 2009. Have things changed that much in a little over three years to warrant this change? Have the stories of climate change and fracking become less “singular” in three years? Are oil spills more “interdisciplinary” than they had been in 2009? How have stories on efforts to save habitat changed? Are they no longer “singular and isolated?” I just don’t see there being that much change to the news stories on the environment.

We need good news coverage on the environment, and the United States is already underserved by its newspapers and other news sources. I hope that this move by the New York Times doesn’t further diminish our ability to stay informed on what is happening to our environment.