Letters 1 & 2

Letter 1

To: The New York Times [or]

The Washington Post [or]

Politico

Subject: Ethical issues

Gentlemen:

It is absurd that you are producing editorials that allow oil companies to promote the idea that they are Such Good corporate citizens and that they are Really Very Concerned about climate change.

It’s absurd because as news organizations you know for a fact that for 35 years they have been lying and spreading false information about the effects of burning petroleum on the environment.

More absurdity: You on the one hand decry “the rising temperatures that are shrinking the Himalayan glaciers” and on the other hand produce advertisements for the actual companies that are causing the shrinking glaciers.

Mix messages much, do you? You need to either take the position that climate change must be dealt with, or you take the position that selling ad space is more important than values, and any resulting ethical issues can go to hell in a handbasket.

It is obvious that you have taken the latter position.

I will not be reading your newspaper until you stop running ads for the fossil fuel industry.

Signed,

A Concerned Citizen
Who Is Fed Up
With The Oil Companies
Controlling The Narrative.

Letter 2

To: The New York Times [or]

The Washington Post [or]

Politico

Subject: Duplicity

Gentlemen:

Whose idea was it to get in bed with the oil companies by producing these “advertorials” about how innocent and friendly and environmentally conscious the oil companies are now? About how they have changed their tune from the lying and obfuscation they are famous for and are now warmly and fuzzily advocating environmental responsibility (and prevaricating through their teeth all the while)?

Let me get this straight: you want us to pay you to read your articles online while you are shilling for the companies who are causing the greatest (avoidable) calamity in the earth’s recent history?

“Democracy Dies in Darkness”. Really. How about "Democracy Gets Massacred in Broad Daylight" when erstwhile responsible news outfits sell out for a few bucks; when the bean-counters downstairs persuade the executives that “We really shouldn't give up revenue just for some principles".

Question: Would you run full-page advertisements on the societal benefits of AR-15’s with 50-round clips? Would you take full-page advertisements on the beneficial health and mental effects of heroin and fentanyl? Perhaps you would, if the bean-counters whispered seductively enough in your ear: “Can't give up revenue for principles.”

Here’s the deal: If you side with the lying oil companies, we can’t believe anything you print. You are complicit. You are venal.

Lose the “advertorials” That will be a step in the right direction. Otherwise, you're promoting doublespeak of the worst kind: duplicity.

Signed,

A Concerned Citizen

Who is Fed Up With the

Machinations Of The

Fossil Fuel Industry And

Those In Cahoots With

Them.

New York Times email addresses:

nytnews@nytimes.com

letters@nytimes.com