— Anaïs Nin
You point out the incentive behind these articles, and call out the Guardian as a distribution channel for academics and conservation groups.
Without a distribution channel, how should academics and conservation groups get their message out?
Which message is better for our society, one driven by the academics who have been warning us of the danger of radical climate change, of mass poisoning of our homes and environment, of total ecosystem collapse (birds- down 29% https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6461/120, fish, down over 70% https://www.geographyrealm.com/study-finds-staggering-declin..., amphibians, 40% of species on the edge of extinction in 2012 and things have only gotten worse since https://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/1406, insect populations, down 80% https://www.pnas.org/content/118/2/e2023989118, ... shall I continue? Do you know what total ecosystem collapse looks like?
or perhaps the message of Netflix or Disney? Or the message/distribution channel of fake news bent on destroying Western democracy? Or the message/distribution channel used to keep us calm while we commit mass suicide?
Sorry, I'm ranting. Yes, your charge is correct. The Guardian is an important distribution channel for the sources which are trying to get us to stop killing our planet, our home, our selves.
And perhaps it is good to have such a channel.
-- hey, sorry, just saw that you intended your comment to be neutral. Forgive me for letting my grief carry me away.