THE MEDIA'S SELECTIVE ATTENTION:
<font size=4>
It was no surprise that the big media did all they could to ignore the pro-democracy marches in Baghdad this week.<font size=3> Sure, they can say they weren't massive; but even <font size=>a tiny demo in favor of the insurgents would have won front-page coverage.<font size=3> Isn't this a good first question to ask Dan Okrent, by the way?
<font size=4>
But another story has been buried for partisan reasons. Bush's latest environmental move - reducing emissions from Midwest power plants by a hefty amount - has received the usual cold shoulder from the NYT and WaPo.<font size=3> Over to Gregg Easterbrook, who has built up a great record of dealing with the actual facts of environmental policy:
<font size=4>
All in all, Bush's announcement sounds progressive and important. So how did the media play it? The New York Times, which has had the incredible, super-ultra menace of Midwest power plants on page one perhaps a dozen times since Bush took office, put the plan to end the problem on page A24. The Times story was a small box cryptically headlined. "E.P.A. Drafts New Rules for Emissions From Power Plants." The Washington Post put the story on page two but under the headline, "E.P.A. Aims to Change Pollution Rules," suggesting something ominous, adding the subhead, "Utilities Could Buy Credits From Cleaner-Operating Power Plants," neglecting to add that credits could be purchased only if the result was an overall decline in pollution.
The proper placement for this story was page one--where the anti-Bush environmental stories always run--and the proper headline was, BUSH ORDERS DRAMATIC POLLUTION REDUCTION. But you didn't see that, did you?
No, we didn't, Gregg. But did you really expect fairness on the environmental issue? For a swathe of reporters, this is not a matter of empirical reporting; it's a matter of faith. Bush cannot be pro-environment because he's Bush.
<font size=3>
andrewsullivan.com |
