Explore the vast range of titles available.

To avoid climate change catastrophe, the world must rapidly transform its economy away from fossil fuels. But to achieve this historically unprecedented task, the news industry must also transform, urged the organizers of a town hall meeting at Columbia University's School of Journalism, held on April 30, 2019. The meeting marked the start of Covering Climate Now, a multiyear initiative led by the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) and The Nation, in partnership with The Guardian, to create what they call a new playbook for journalism that's compatible with the 1.5-degree future that scientists say must be achieved. At the close of the town hall, the former PBS broadcaster Bill Moyers announced that the Schumann Media Center, a philanthropy that he leads, would provide $1 million to the Columbia School of Journalism to finance the first year of the project. Climate change is an important and complex story, and news organizations will need help in producing sustained, quality coverage.

Concerning those predictions, The New York Times was -- as it is today in a contrary crusade -- a megaphone for the alarmed, as when (May 21, 1975) it reported that \"a major cooling of the climate\" was \"widely considered inevitable\" because it was \"well established\" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate \"has been getting cooler since about 1950.\" Now the Times, a trumpet that never sounds retreat in today's war against warming, has afforded this column an opportunity to revisit another facet of this subject -- meretricious journalism in the service of dubious certitudes. Which returns us to [Andrew Revkin]. In a story ostensibly about journalism, he simply asserts -- how does he know this? -- that the last decade, which passed without warming, was just \"a pause in warming.\" His attempt to contact this writer was an e-mail sent at 5:47 p.m., a few hours before the Times began printing his story, which was not so time-sensitive -- it concerned controversies already many days running -- that it had to appear the next day. But Revkin reported that \"experts said\" this columnist's intervention in the climate debate was \"riddled with\" inaccuracies. Revkin's supposed experts might exist and might have expertise, but they do not have names that Revkin wished to divulge.

Concerning those predictions, The New York Times was -- as it is today in a contrary crusade -- a megaphone for the alarmed, as when (May 21, 1975) it reported that \"a major cooling of the climate\" was \"widely considered inevitable\" because it was \"well established\" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate \"has been getting cooler since about 1950.\" Reporter Andrew Revkin's story was headlined: \"In Debate on Climate Change, Exaggeration Is a Common Pitfall.\" Regarding exaggeration, The Times knows whereof it speaks, especially when it revisits, if it ever does, its reporting on the global cooling scare of the 1970s, and its reporting and editorializing -- sometimes a distinction without a difference -- concerning today's climate controversies. Revkin reported that \"experts said\" this columnist's intervention in the climate debate was \"riddled with\" inaccuracies. Revkin's supposed experts might exist and might have expertise. But they do not have names that Revkin wished to divulge.

Concerning those predictions, The New York Times was -- as it is today in a contrary crusade -- a megaphone for the alarmed, as when (May 21, 1975) it reported that \"a major cooling of the climate\" was \"widely considered inevitable\" because it was \"well established\" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate \"has been getting cooler since about 1950.\" Now the Times, a trumpet that never sounds retreat in today's war against warming, has afforded this column an opportunity to revisit another facet of this subject -- meretricious journalism in the service of dubious certitudes. Which returns us to [Andrew Revkin]. In a story ostensibly about journalism, he simply asserts -- how does he know this? -- that the last decade, which passed without warming, was just \"a pause in warming.\" His attempt to contact this writer was an e-mail sent at 5:47 p.m., a few hours before the Times began printing his story, which was not so time-sensitive -- it concerned controversies already many days running -- that it had to appear the next day. But Revkin reported that \"experts said\" this columnist's intervention in the climate debate was \"riddled with\" inaccuracies. Revkin's supposed experts might exist and might have expertise but they do not have names that Revkin wished to divulge.

Concerning those predictions, The New York Times was -- as it is today in a contrary crusade -- a megaphone for the alarmed, as when (May 21, 1975) it reported that \"a major cooling of the climate\" was \"widely considered inevitable\" because it was \"well established\" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate \"has been getting cooler since about 1950.\" Now the Times, a trumpet that never sounds retreat in today's war against warming, has afforded this column an opportunity to revisit another facet of this subject -- meretricious journalism in the service of dubious certitudes. Which returns us to [Andrew Revkin]. In a story ostensibly about journalism, he simply asserts -- how does he know this? -- that the last decade, which passed without warming, was just \"a pause in warming.\" His attempt to contact this writer was an e-mail sent at 5:47 p.m., a few hours before the Times began printing his story, which was not so time-sensitive -- it concerned controversies already many days running -- that it had to appear the next day. But Revkin reported that \"experts said\" this columnist's intervention in the climate debate was \"riddled with\" inaccuracies. Revkin's supposed experts might exist and might have expertise, but they do not have names that Revkin wished to divulge.

Concerning those predictions, The New York Times was -- as it is today in a contrary crusade -- a megaphone for the alarmed, as when (May 21, 1975) it reported that \"a major cooling of the climate\" was \"widely considered inevitable\" because it was \"well established\" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate \"has been getting cooler since about 1950.\" Now the Times, a trumpet that never sounds retreat in today's war against warming, has afforded this columnnist an opportunity to revisit another facet of this subject -- meretricious journalism in the service of dubious certitudes. Which returns us to [Andrew Revkin]. In a story ostensibly about journalism, he simply asserts -- how does he know this? -- that the last decade, which passed without warming, was just \"a pause in warming.\" His attempt to contact this writer was an e-mail sent at 5:47 p.m., a few hours before the Times began printing his story, which was not so time-sensitive -- it concerned controversies already many days running -- that it had to appear the next day. But Revkin reported that \"experts said\" this columnist's intervention in the climate debate was \"riddled with\" inaccuracies.

Concerning those predictions, The New York Times was - as it is today in a contrary crusade - a megaphone for the alarmed, as when (May 21, 1975) it reported that \"a major cooling of the climate\" was \"widely considered inevitable\" because it was \"well established\" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate \"has been getting cooler since about 1950.\" Now the Times, a trumpet that never sounds retreat in today's war against warming, has afforded this column an opportunity to revisit another facet of this subject - meretricious journalism in the service of dubious certitudes. Reporter Andrew Revkin's story was headlined: \"In Debate on Climate Change, Exaggeration Is a Common Pitfall.\" Regarding exaggeration, the Times knows whereof it speaks, especially when it revisits, if it ever does, its reporting on the global cooling scare of the 1970s, and its reporting and editorializing - sometimes a distinction without a difference - concerning today's climate controversies. Revkin reported that \"experts said\" this columnist's intervention in the climate debate was \"riddled with\" inaccuracies. Revkin's supposed experts might exist and might have expertise but they do not have names that Revkin wished to divulge.