Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: LindyBill who wrote (90837)	12/15/2004 11:04:46 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) of 793834

Now that Bob is blogging, you will see a lot of his stuff posted here. NY Times v. Bush's Record on the Environment By Bob Kohn This is too good (and too typical). Headline of lead story in today's USA Today: PARTICLE POLLUTION FALLS 10% IN 4 YEARS Headline of lead story in today's New York Times: MISSTEPS CITED IN KERIK VETTING BY WHITE HOUSE While the New York Times continues its tabloid journalism, USA Today reported that the average level of the deadliest form of air pollution--particulates emitted from tailpipes and smokestacks--fell 10% during the last four years. The story belies the impression that the editorial board of the NY Times is trying to create--that the Bush adinistation has a poor record on environmental protection. For example, a Times editorial today talked of an administration whose policies on an environmental matters "have been the subject of unrelenting criticism since the day Mr. Bush took office." (You don't have to look far for the source of much of that criticism). The editorial also bemoaned the delay of "vital new regulations governing the smog and soot created by power plants in the eastern half of the United States." Perhaps the Times editors should read the EPA's report before concluding how "vital" these new regulations are. Smog and soot effluents are getting better, not worse. What is "vital" is that the new regulations take into account the real data (on both environmental and economic impact of such regulations). The last thing the Bush administration should do is worry about knee-jerk reactions by the Times editorial board to anything the administration proposes on the environment. More to the point: This is a classic example of the Times using its "news" pages to distort the news. It's one thing for the Times to use its editorial page to influence public opinion, but to use its news pages--in this case, by gaping omission--is a form of journalistic fraud. I'm prepared to retract that statement if someone at the Times is willing to tell me that they really missed the story--that the reporter was home sick or the dog ate his copy--and they report it tomorrow with the prominence it deserves. I couldn't find the pollution story anywhere in today's New York Times, and a search of the Times website a few minutes ago revealed not a word on the story--which usually means, it won't appear tomorrow. Stop for a moment and consider: Unless the Times reports the story tomorrow with some prominance, those who get their news solely from the New York Times will not be well informed about Bush's excellent record in reducing the most deadliest form of air pollution. I now understand the Times motto, "All the news that's fit to print." The Times seems to think that its readers don't need all the facts; just those which "fit"-- fit their editorial agenda. bobkohn.blogspot.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next