Veteran journalist Clark Hoyt explains why Choke Hold needed to be written
The InsideClimate News series he edited has already been honored five times by journalism organizations.
Clark Hoyt has been a reporter, editor, Washington bureau chief, corporate news executive and news ombudsman during a journalism career that started half a century ago at The Ledger in Lakeland, Florida. The majority of his career — 38 years — was at Knight Ridder. In 1973, Hoyt shared the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting with Robert S. Boyd for their coverage of Democratic vice presidential nominee Thomas Eagleton’s history of treatment for severe depression. Hoyt was public editor, or ombudsman, for The New York Times from 2007 to 2010. In 2010, he joined Bloomberg News, where he was an editor at large in Washington and later senior adviser to the CEO and independent senior editor, or ombudsman.
Hoyt became a contributing editor to InsideClimate News (ICN) in 2016. In 2017, he edited ICN’s signature investigative body of work called Choke Hold, which examines the inordinate power of the fossil fuel industry across society — how it gets its way in legislation, regulation, elections and courtrooms. The series has already won five journalism awards and recognitions. ICN’s Director of Strategic Development Beth Daley recently caught up with Clark to talk about Choke Hold. Below are his edited answers.
Beth Daley: What intrigued you to edit Choke Hold?
Clark Hoyt: David Sassoon (ICNs founder and publisher) asked me to take on the project, and I found the subject intriguing because it promised to tie together so many strands that seemed unrelated in isolation but were in fact part of a larger and most troubling picture. The fossil fuel industry wields enormous power through its hold on politicians, its fierce tactics in courtrooms and its shrewd messaging/public relations. Taken as a whole, the industry’s multiple strategies have allowed it to gain the upper hand, at least for now, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that its products threaten catastrophic environmental consequences.
BD: What was the origin of the series and how did you conceive articles into distinct, but related, works?
CH: The series really started as a brainstorm generated by the ICN staff. Each of the stories illustrated one of the strands. One looked at the take-no-prisoners approach in court cases, illustrated by Exxon’s strategy to turn government investigators into the investigated. Others investigated the control of Congress and state legislatures, seen in the stories about the climate-denying chairman of the House Science Committee and the Ohio legislator who is fighting to reverse the state’s embrace of alternative energy sources. It also examined the aggressive misinformation campaigns, described in the story about how think tanks initially funded by the industry are now arguing that carbon dioxide and a warming atmosphere are really good for the planet, a position so extreme that even fossil fuel companies are uncomfortable with it.
BD: What was the most challenging part of editing the series?
CH: We tried to tell these stories through the impact on real people, and sometimes finding just the right case study proved challenging. For example, Dave Hasemyer, was looking for someone whose experience would illustrate the story about how the coal industry fights to prevent miners from getting black lung benefits. The first person he found would have been great, but he was a heavy smoker, so we knew that would pose a problem: Was his difficulty breathing the result of years in the mines or smoking? Dave finally found the absolutely perfect person in Bethel Brock, a 77-year-old non-smoker with advanced black lung disease, who had fought for 14 years for benefits. He was the right example, and the wonderful result of Dave’s asking questions was a victory for Brock: He was finally able to get his benefits.
BD: What are your takeaways from the series?
CH: The work of this team produced a compelling picture of how a determined industry, flush with cash to contribute to politicians, hire legions of lawyers and fund multiple organizations purporting to produce disinterested research, can bulldoze its way against the greater public good. It’s sobering. But one can hope that by reporting the activities of the industry and demonstrating their impact, a series like Choke Hold can begin to raise awareness. It’s what accountability journalism is all about.
BD: What are you working on now?
CH: My wife, Linda Kauss, and I are now in the early stages of a book project. You might say it’s related to climate. It’s about the lasting impact of radioactive fallout from nuclear testing in the 1950s. Linda’s family was one of those affected.
