thank you for your comment on the MCFly story “Men behaving inanely“, which followed on from our “Green Christmas, White Elephants and Unintentional larfs.”
We’ve put the airport’s ‘green’ credentials under scrutiny many times in the past, and will do so again in the future. See e.g.
That doesn’t mean EVERY story about the airport has to be about its carbon emissions – and this latest one wasn’t. It’s hardly a sign of a conspiracy of silence – just that we aren’t a single-issue newspaper.
The Manchester Evening News published hundreds of articles a year about the Airport, many of which seem to come straight from press releases. A search for “Manchester Airport” on your newspaper’s website reveals 4195 hits.
A search for “Manchester Airport” “climate change” reveals 28. It’s kind of like running thousands of stories on the tobacco industry and a hundredth of that number on lung cancer and emphysema.
You point to a story published in July – the most recent – which seems to have been put together by getting an Airport press release, phoning Friends of the Earth for a react quote, and then splicing the two together. Previous stories were based on a couple of protests by a campaigning group. Before that is a piece on plans to demolish a couple of houses. A favourite, from June 2009, is a hard-hitting investigation entitled “Concorde Centre to open an eaterie”
So, please point me to the “many” articles which explain who owns the airport, what the plans for expansion of the airport are, whether these plans are compatible with the stated objectives of its owners, Manchester City Council etc, around climate change and carbon dioxide emissions.
We don’t expect Manchester Evening News to be a “single-issue newspaper”. You have constructed a classic strawman argument there, which is a bit of a surprise to me – I expected better of you. What we do expect – but never get – is for local media to hold the powerful to account, and ask searching questions of their plans and the implications of those plans for all of us, but especially for the young who will suffer the brunt of their parents’ selfishness and stupidity and cowardice. This, it appears, is too much to ask.
If all this seems too high falutin’ , then let’s take it back to the two stories I blogged about. Both were obviously puff pieces put out by the Council and the Airport. What place do they have in a newspaper? How do they meet the definition that “news is something that someone somewhere doesn’t want you to know”? Or do you have a different definition of news?