Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel has a column in the Washington Post today (1/3/12) outlining the three important election issues to watch–and one of them is about how the press covers the process:
Third, the media’s obsession with false equivalence: How the election is covered will almost certainly have a measurable impact on its outcome.
The New York Times‘ Paul Krugman describes what he’s witnessing as “post-truth politics,” in which right-leaning candidates can feel free to say whatever they want without being held accountable by the press. There may be instances in which a candidate is called out for saying something outright misleading; but, as Krugman notes, “if past experience is any guide, most of the news media will feel as though their reporting must be ‘balanced.'” For too many journalists, calling out a Republican for lying requires criticizing a Democrat too, making for a media age where false equivalence–what Eric Alterman has called the mainstream media’s “deepest ideological commitment”–is confused, again and again, with objectivity.
That reminded me of a piece I read two days before in the Washington Post (1/1/12), where reporter David Nakamura discussed Barack Obama’s looming decision on the Keystone tar sands pipeline, one of “several potential political landmines littering his playing field”:
Republicans successfully added a provision to the two-month payroll tax cut extension mandating that Obama make a politically sensitive decision on the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline by the end of February. He had hoped to delay a decision on the project–which Republicans have said will create jobs but environmentalists have said would harm natural resources–until after a federal environmental review is completed in 2013.
As is the convention, both sides are represented here. But does this make much sense? The problem with Republicans claims about job creation is that they are, according to many experts, wildly inflated. That would be important to note in a piece discussing the “political landmines” here.
The flipside, we’re told, is that “environmentalists” think the project might “harm natural resources.” That could mean anything–pollution from a spill, perhaps. Or it might be a reference to the greater threat from climate change. So the “natural resource” would be the planet Earth. “Balanced” journalism treats inflated jobs claims and the fate of the planet equally.
Who are the “environmentalists”? Are they scientists, activists, both?
I you want true balance then you need to say who made the inflated job claims and who paid the people making those claims.
Who are the experts who refused the job creation claims is also important to know.
On the environmental side you should cite who made the claims, and if it is made by activists you should try to verify their claims. Then you present your findings.
@toyotabedrzrock
by “you”, you mean nakamura, right?
Federal environmental review due in 2013?Like Nancy Ps healthcare we on the right want to fast track this.We will do the review AFTER we have started.Remember Nancy’s statement “we will find out what is in it after we Ok it”.Joking aside ,we will not allow much lollygagging in the realm of energy development once we are elected in.That report better be forthcoming.
This assertion of “harm” to “natural resources” is ridiculous… and a lot worse… banal. People “know” what “jobs” are. What is less clear is how much we Depend upon “natural resources”. And some categories of “natural resources”- eg the oceans, & the atmosphere- are considered “sacrifice zones” by many ‘pragmatic’ people… areas where “we” simply roll our eyes & extend our collective palms skyward with the “what can I do about it?” gesture.
A NASA scientist, James Hansen, said that developing the Keystone would be “the beginning of the end” with regard to the effect on global warming (NOT “climate change”… “GLOBAL WARMING”). He made this statement based on scientific modeling… something that some other WAPO reporter has undoubtedly covered. Is synergy dead in the newsrooms? ^..^
I believe the major environmental concern is with contamination of the Ogallala Aquifer which supplies irrigation water and drinking water to millions of people in the area. Also with adverse impacts to wetlands (which act like sponges to absorb flood waters and help clean groundwater), shallow groundwater, surface water (streams, for example), and certain plant and animal species.
I don’t know what risk assessment tests or environmental impact studies have been done in connection with this project but once groundwater is contaminated, it can be very difficult to clean up. Imagine cleaning water in all the crevices and cracks below the ground. Sometimes it’s impossible to clean up and can stay contaminated for centuries.
@Michael E. Who is this “we”, and who is he to say the report better be forthcoming? Apparently it is scheduled to be completed in 2013. I don’t believe things of this nature should be rushed if it is going to be done correctly and accurately. Of course we need jobs and we must cut back on energy use. Is creating more energy any good if we kill the planet we live on? We kill the planet, we kill ourselves. Pay attention to the NASA scientist, James Hansen. So little common sense in this world. So many talking heads.
I should also mention that cleaning up groundwater can be very, very costly, depending on such things as the size of the plume of contamination, whether it is moving, and what the contamination is.
The Ogallala feeds the middle third of the country but it’s disappearing fast, probably due to overuse that exceeds aquifer recharge or, in other words, more water being pumped out than is going back into the ground. This area has been called the breadbasket of America and supplies a substantial amount of the total annual U.S. agricultural harvest.
It’s hard to believe that we can run out of fresh, clean water, (just like other resources), but indeed we can so I think concerns about the Keystone tar sands pipeline need to be taken seriously.
Yes, we need jobs but water is fundamental to life and I know of no other substitute for it.
Extracting tar sands is hard. Makes 4X the GHGs, destroys forests, poisons clean fresh water, and is till to be burned as crude fuel to release even more COâ”Å¡”Å¡ (and more toxic an other GHGs too.) So far I see a win for those invested and a lose lose for us, the ecosystem and last but not least the ones who will make a mint over this mess.
Marj of course all these things should be handled in a responsible manner. But I do not trust the left to do so.They have a long history of saying how things should be done ,usually with a political component.To that end they tend to obfuscate and delay all developments, until their hand is firmly ensconced around the golden gooses neck.T bone Pickens has done thousands of fracking wells for decades without one mistake.Yet the left would have you believe……
Canada has used this technology(tar sands) for some time to good report.I truly believe that Obama coming in -thought he could use green fears(his ex green czar said as much) to gain massive government controls, and therefore leverage his beliefs in social engineering.Today we suffer the overspill from this run for the doors mentality.Lets be positive.America lives on a sea of energy.Enough for all our need for countless generations to come.We are truly blessed.We will learn how to use it in ways never imagined.With damage from the taking- being miniscule.What happened to the belief in American exceptionalism?We will get it done and get it done right.We will await the reports.We will not let political back room talk in smoke filled rooms rule the day.
Oh “WE” being those who will soon push Obama and his cronies out.The American voter!
Already, in the U.S., we are seeing real problems with insufficient fresh water, particularly in the Southwest. I happen to live in a groundwater protected area–not in the Southwest– which means that many of us who depend on groundwater sources, as our primary source of water, have peak and/or average demand which closely approach or even exceed the dry period capacity of yield. We have reduced recharge rates and declining water tables.
These lowered water tables also cause a reduction in flow of certain streams that adversely impact aquatic life and interfere with the ability of that stream to assimilate man-made and natural pollutants, resulting in an over-polluted stream.
But, hey, who’s worried? America is exceptional. We can teach nature a thing or two.
…and what about the jobs, and overall economy boost, that would be created by legalizing hemp?
Oil companies have always gotten their way no matter which corporate servant -democrat or republican- gets selected.
My rant-
In the ongoing battle between corporate “citizens” and human citizens, Obama’s betrayal of the movement to legalize hemp/cannibis should make it obvious to everyone which “citizens” he is loyal to. For more reasons than Obama’s betrayal of hemp, I hope that people spend their energy finding and supporting a candidate that is not a corporate servant!
If we landslided the Republican party out of power in 2008, why can’t we landslide ALL corporate servants out of office, especially the presidential office?
With the corporate media blocking all informative discussion about candidates who are NOT corporate servants, isn’t it time recognize that giving much more support to non-corporate media (like democracynow.org), is an essential means of getting rid of all corporate servants? The 2008 landslide against corporate rule was just the start and the job is nowhere near done. Rendering corporate media as the insignificant worthless nut-jobs they really are must be the next step if we are to have any hope of permanently getting rid of all corporate servants.
Take the 2008 landslide to the next step of getting rid of ALL corporate servants -finish the job!
Elaine are you blaming the cyclical change in water tables on America?
Kathleen I have no problem with legalizing Pot…..under certain distinctions.When an officer pulls over a man weaving down the road he administers a test to see Blood Alcohol levels and proceeds accordingly.In the same instance with pot, what tests are available for an officer to use?We would need such a test well before legalization can be considered as a matter of practicality.I do think a stoned populace could play to the left.Help to understand Obamas economic policies.Dude pass the munchies.
No, read it again….and again if you need to do that: Many people in this country are reliant, some entirely, some substantially, (and some may be dependent on surface waters) for all domestic, commercial, agricultural, and industrial use coming from ground water resources.
In many places in this country, the amount of water taken out of the ground (ground water) exceeds the amount of rain water that is replacing it and, therefore, the water table below the ground declines. Lowered water tables can cause wells (certainly private ones) to go dry. The base flow that you see in a stream is the ground water flow. Therefore, if the water table declines enough, the entire stream can dry up as well and the only water coming to that stream is water from flooding. Just a reduction in base flow, however, from overuse of ground water, interferes with instream and downstream water uses, adversely effects aquatic life and interferes with the ability of the stream to absorb point and non-point sources of pollution.
And just what does “environmentally sensitive” mean? I saw that phrase repeatedly in Keystone coverage printed by the Omaha World-Herald and other Midwest outlets. I can think of hundreds upon hundreds of sites in which wild nature still operates that I would consider to be “environmentally sensitive.” I get the notion that some journalists think of parking lots and concrete jungles as “environmentally sensitive.”