This is such a brave post - calling out your former employer for its lack of complete reporting, and pointing out why it has been the case. I hope you get far more pats on the back for this than any sort of colleague backstabbing from jealously. Hopefully the LAT editors will wake up. You are venturing out with truth, fairness and accuracy as your guide. That will always prevail. Start with the obvious - climate change - and get those who politicize it and think they can explain it away without taking ownership of the foundational problem to work toward a solution perhaps future generations will thank them for when history is written. Thnx Sammy.
Thanks very much, Tom...I'm hopeful my friends and colleagues at LAT will read this with an open mind. Definitely trying to be helpful and constructive.
Great article Sammy! It definitely reads as very sympathetic to your fellow journalists. I actually felt it was almost too sympathetic for one specific part:
"Or maybe you you’re open to making the climate connection, but you don’t feel like you know enough. You haven’t found the Covering Climate Now tip sheet yet. Or your newsroom leaders haven’t offered enough training."
First, do journalists really need training to simply add a sentence or two mentioning a related topic? Second, I'm not sure you even need to be that knowledgeable about climate change to cover the fact that the scientific community states there is a link between climate change and extreme weather events.
In the end, individuals are responsible for their words or lack thereof and the phrase 'lie by omission' exists for a reason. If you want to fairly cover a topic, then provide all the context!
Well done, Sammy. Giving readers the facts, taking responsibility, unafraid to call out those who are not yet ready to accept the challenges that come with honest, factual reporting. Keep it up - we need your voice!
From an Eaton Fire survivor (total loss!) and what I now feel comfortable calling myself -- climate change refugee -- longtime LA Times subscriber and former journalist, thank you for this post. I was already subscribing, but this post made me join as a paid subscriber.
I wish there were more articles or videos interviewing trusted local scientists on the deadly combination of the long drought plus the stronger, longer Santa Ana seasons -- and what this all means for our lives: where do we live, how do we live, what can we expect? Not just a sentence or two adding "climate change" to the article. But explaining the various scientific phenomenons at play with recent history and local political context, but also answering the, "So what are we supposed to do about this new reality?"
After all, especially in Altadena, so many of us lived alongside so many scientists working at public institutions and so many lived here precisely because they loved being so close to the same mountains from which the fire erupted. (Or, like Peter Kalmus formerly of JPL, they move away because of it. He moved after the Bobcat Fire in 2020.) Science is a huge discussion here.
I've read all the Altadena, Eaton Fire journalism I can find in English, and one of the best that I've read, re-read and shared with both fire survivor neighbor and friends alike is Alissa Walker's interview with Dr. Lucy Jones from Caltech, a recognizable and trusted local scientist. Available here: https://www.dwell.com/article/dr-lucy-jones-natural-disaster-preparedness-los-angeles-fires-64818568
Dr. Jones discusses how her family experienced floods after the Station Fire at their La Cañada home, how she had thought about moving to Altadena after but chose Pasadena because of flood/fire risk, how now she's getting a wooden fence taken out from her house, south of the 210. It's far, far easier to trust and relate with a scientist who also lives in your neighborhood. The great thing is Los Angeles has tons. I wish to see more of this kind of context in the Times too -- and also see Times journalists bring this scientific explanation and realities up to the electeds and leaders they have access to.
Thank you for this very thoughtful comment...I agree everything you've said here and especially appreciate your sharing Alissa's piece. We definitely need stories that do more than add a sentence or two; that should be the baseline, and generally a measure for piece that largely are not focused on rebuilding/responding/averting worse disasters, I think.
Grateful for your paid subscription; I'll do my best to make it worthwhile. I'm terribly sorry for everything you've had to go through, and hope we can work together to prevent as much further suffering for others as possible.
Thanks for spelling out journalists’ reality: “struggling to stay employed, avoid burnout and maintain journalistic integrity amid political attacks and meddling billionaires. . .why would you open yourself up to more hate mail than usual?” I’ve assumed morale is low at LA Times. Some journalists juggle multiple jobs to make ends meet.
I’d love to know how readers can help improve morale with better support for journalists or reciprocate their support. I don’t know why the orgs, that supported AB 1 (McKinnor, 2023) Legislature Employer-Employee Relations Act, took no position on AB 886 (Wicks, 2023) California Journalism Preservation Act. FWIW here’s my story on how journalism can help empower activism https://hoiyinip.substack.com/p/journalism-help-transform-sierra-club-empower-activism
This is a terrific article! I hadn't noticed this glaring but understandable omissions and will now be on the alert. How about finding/creating an opportunity -- a fellowship or intensive workshop or zoom network -- for journalists to get an infusion of climate understanding.
Climate coverage, even for catastrophic wildfires, needs to be in plain language that a lot more people understand. Around 9th-grade level. Stressing impacts in the near future, not 2050 or 2100. Clearly connected to other topics that concern people now. Mostly in a positive tone, not constant gloom and doom.
And that takes a lot more creativity.
My latest free newsletter (at cruzclimate.com) opens with “Editorial: Climate expert syndrome,” that dives into the problem a little deeper. Which was motivated by watching a recent YouTube video “Why the Clean Energy Transition Needs A Rebrand!” at https://youtu.be/ad_g4m6jKqQ Made for people in the UK, but almost all applies to the U.S. Highly recommended.
Assume you never saw the phrase “greenhouse gas” before, or you’ve seen it but aren’t sure. Is it gas that gets pumped into a greenhouse? What does gasoline have to do with greenhouses?
Why not call it “climate pollution?” Then you don’t leave people guessing. Or need to explain it over and over. Or educate people that care far more about how they’ll pay their skyrocketing electric bill next month than learning a bunch of climate jargon. See climatejargon.com for more than 400 examples, growing weekly. I’m still working on alternate words and phrases that most people can understand. Not easy.
Preaching to the climate choir doesn’t change minds. Anti-climate propaganda is funded by some of the richest people, corporations, and (cough) governments in the world.
Here's my take, Sammy: If none of the fire stories from Jan and Feb 2025 mentioned climate change as a culprit, I would think the Times was guilty of suppressing the truth. If all the same stories mentioned climate change, I would think, man, the Times is crushing it. Where do you draw the line between weak editing and deliberate suppression? I find it difficult to believe that 87% of the time, editors missed the omission of "climate change." It doesn't pass the smell test. Couldn't this be a move by the Times' owner to shift the narrative a little to the right to attract to the paper more red-meat Republicans? I mean, look at what's happened to the editorial board--it's gone, right? And what about those right-leaning opinion writers? Didn't the owner select them hoping to gain more Republican readers to the Times?
This is such a brave post - calling out your former employer for its lack of complete reporting, and pointing out why it has been the case. I hope you get far more pats on the back for this than any sort of colleague backstabbing from jealously. Hopefully the LAT editors will wake up. You are venturing out with truth, fairness and accuracy as your guide. That will always prevail. Start with the obvious - climate change - and get those who politicize it and think they can explain it away without taking ownership of the foundational problem to work toward a solution perhaps future generations will thank them for when history is written. Thnx Sammy.
Thanks very much, Tom...I'm hopeful my friends and colleagues at LAT will read this with an open mind. Definitely trying to be helpful and constructive.
Great article Sammy! It definitely reads as very sympathetic to your fellow journalists. I actually felt it was almost too sympathetic for one specific part:
"Or maybe you you’re open to making the climate connection, but you don’t feel like you know enough. You haven’t found the Covering Climate Now tip sheet yet. Or your newsroom leaders haven’t offered enough training."
First, do journalists really need training to simply add a sentence or two mentioning a related topic? Second, I'm not sure you even need to be that knowledgeable about climate change to cover the fact that the scientific community states there is a link between climate change and extreme weather events.
In the end, individuals are responsible for their words or lack thereof and the phrase 'lie by omission' exists for a reason. If you want to fairly cover a topic, then provide all the context!
Hey Doug, appreciate your reading and totally fair arguments to make.
Well done, Sammy. Giving readers the facts, taking responsibility, unafraid to call out those who are not yet ready to accept the challenges that come with honest, factual reporting. Keep it up - we need your voice!
Thank you Rabbi Laura!! I'll do my best.
From an Eaton Fire survivor (total loss!) and what I now feel comfortable calling myself -- climate change refugee -- longtime LA Times subscriber and former journalist, thank you for this post. I was already subscribing, but this post made me join as a paid subscriber.
I wish there were more articles or videos interviewing trusted local scientists on the deadly combination of the long drought plus the stronger, longer Santa Ana seasons -- and what this all means for our lives: where do we live, how do we live, what can we expect? Not just a sentence or two adding "climate change" to the article. But explaining the various scientific phenomenons at play with recent history and local political context, but also answering the, "So what are we supposed to do about this new reality?"
After all, especially in Altadena, so many of us lived alongside so many scientists working at public institutions and so many lived here precisely because they loved being so close to the same mountains from which the fire erupted. (Or, like Peter Kalmus formerly of JPL, they move away because of it. He moved after the Bobcat Fire in 2020.) Science is a huge discussion here.
I've read all the Altadena, Eaton Fire journalism I can find in English, and one of the best that I've read, re-read and shared with both fire survivor neighbor and friends alike is Alissa Walker's interview with Dr. Lucy Jones from Caltech, a recognizable and trusted local scientist. Available here: https://www.dwell.com/article/dr-lucy-jones-natural-disaster-preparedness-los-angeles-fires-64818568
Dr. Jones discusses how her family experienced floods after the Station Fire at their La Cañada home, how she had thought about moving to Altadena after but chose Pasadena because of flood/fire risk, how now she's getting a wooden fence taken out from her house, south of the 210. It's far, far easier to trust and relate with a scientist who also lives in your neighborhood. The great thing is Los Angeles has tons. I wish to see more of this kind of context in the Times too -- and also see Times journalists bring this scientific explanation and realities up to the electeds and leaders they have access to.
Thank you for this very thoughtful comment...I agree everything you've said here and especially appreciate your sharing Alissa's piece. We definitely need stories that do more than add a sentence or two; that should be the baseline, and generally a measure for piece that largely are not focused on rebuilding/responding/averting worse disasters, I think.
Grateful for your paid subscription; I'll do my best to make it worthwhile. I'm terribly sorry for everything you've had to go through, and hope we can work together to prevent as much further suffering for others as possible.
Thanks for spelling out journalists’ reality: “struggling to stay employed, avoid burnout and maintain journalistic integrity amid political attacks and meddling billionaires. . .why would you open yourself up to more hate mail than usual?” I’ve assumed morale is low at LA Times. Some journalists juggle multiple jobs to make ends meet.
I’d love to know how readers can help improve morale with better support for journalists or reciprocate their support. I don’t know why the orgs, that supported AB 1 (McKinnor, 2023) Legislature Employer-Employee Relations Act, took no position on AB 886 (Wicks, 2023) California Journalism Preservation Act. FWIW here’s my story on how journalism can help empower activism https://hoiyinip.substack.com/p/journalism-help-transform-sierra-club-empower-activism
Thank you for sharing Hoiyin!
Couldn't agree more. Thank you Sammy.
Thank you for reading, Matt!
Well done Sammy. Incredible work as always.
Thank you Sepand!
This is a terrific article! I hadn't noticed this glaring but understandable omissions and will now be on the alert. How about finding/creating an opportunity -- a fellowship or intensive workshop or zoom network -- for journalists to get an infusion of climate understanding.
Thank you Susan! That's an interesting idea. Possibly for Covering Climate Now...
Climate coverage, even for catastrophic wildfires, needs to be in plain language that a lot more people understand. Around 9th-grade level. Stressing impacts in the near future, not 2050 or 2100. Clearly connected to other topics that concern people now. Mostly in a positive tone, not constant gloom and doom.
And that takes a lot more creativity.
My latest free newsletter (at cruzclimate.com) opens with “Editorial: Climate expert syndrome,” that dives into the problem a little deeper. Which was motivated by watching a recent YouTube video “Why the Clean Energy Transition Needs A Rebrand!” at https://youtu.be/ad_g4m6jKqQ Made for people in the UK, but almost all applies to the U.S. Highly recommended.
Assume you never saw the phrase “greenhouse gas” before, or you’ve seen it but aren’t sure. Is it gas that gets pumped into a greenhouse? What does gasoline have to do with greenhouses?
Why not call it “climate pollution?” Then you don’t leave people guessing. Or need to explain it over and over. Or educate people that care far more about how they’ll pay their skyrocketing electric bill next month than learning a bunch of climate jargon. See climatejargon.com for more than 400 examples, growing weekly. I’m still working on alternate words and phrases that most people can understand. Not easy.
Preaching to the climate choir doesn’t change minds. Anti-climate propaganda is funded by some of the richest people, corporations, and (cough) governments in the world.
Time to change.
Here's my take, Sammy: If none of the fire stories from Jan and Feb 2025 mentioned climate change as a culprit, I would think the Times was guilty of suppressing the truth. If all the same stories mentioned climate change, I would think, man, the Times is crushing it. Where do you draw the line between weak editing and deliberate suppression? I find it difficult to believe that 87% of the time, editors missed the omission of "climate change." It doesn't pass the smell test. Couldn't this be a move by the Times' owner to shift the narrative a little to the right to attract to the paper more red-meat Republicans? I mean, look at what's happened to the editorial board--it's gone, right? And what about those right-leaning opinion writers? Didn't the owner select them hoping to gain more Republican readers to the Times?