PDA

View Full Version : Media bias



Seadog
09-30-2003, 07:33 AM
This was in a trade e-magazine from the Rural Water Association.
Green Bias??? This one should be used in some classroom as a good example of bias in the media. The Washington Post publishes this article relying on 3 quotes from environmentalists, provides no counter argument to the environmentalists. Then, goes to report that without federal Clean Water Act protections for small wetlands, there will be no protection (using Maryland as an example). The reporter does not consider that there is no federal law for the protection of ground water; YET, Maryland has strict regulations on ground water. Nor does the Post feel compelled to realize that many local and county governments regulate land use where there is not federal statue (in many ways). Is considering that a state government would step in – in the absence of federal rules – too much to ask? Especially when that is the common pattern? If it is only EPA (the feds) who can protect local recourses, what is the point of local and state government? Further, common law does prohibit contamination of water supplies (with punishment). Here is the money quote from the Post article, “"When we look at the Bush administration, this has to be considered one of the most significant blows to damaging water quality and really setting back environmental laws. This would have an enormous impact that I think we can't ignore." A further reading of the article may make you laugh or cry - it shows the EPA report that the paper was reporting on was a “what if” report…. “What if” there is not protection and all hell breaks loose (the angle that the Post choose to cover). However, on the other, what if EPA stop regulating, and the states picked up the job and did it better???????? Why not chose to report on both potential options…
Wastetown Post article:
More than half the streams and one-third of all the wetlands in the mid-Atlantic region could lose federal Clean Water Act protection under a regulatory change being considered by the Bush administration, according to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency analysis.
The changes could leave drinking water supplies for more than 3 million people in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Delaware with no regulatory protection from pollution and leave small streams within the District and some states with no regulation at all, a report by the EPA's Philadelphia office says.
It could also thwart efforts to clean up the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, environmental advocates say.
"Anyone who thinks you can pollute upstream waters and not harm the Chesapeake Bay hasn't passed seventh-grade science," said Nancy Stoner, water program director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The EPA document recommends that the agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reconsider a plan unveiled in January to stop applying Clean Water Act protections to most intrastate, nonnavigable wetlands and headwater streams.
Doing so, the EPA report contends, would have "profound and far reaching impacts" and "have serious effects on the progress made during the last 30 years to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's water."
The report, which was released to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation under a Freedom of Information Act request, is not part of the public record the EPA is compiling on the proposed policy change, officials said.
"This is all part of the internal deliberations," said Pat Boyle, a spokesman for the EPA Region III office, which manages the mid-Atlantic states. "Headquarters asked all the regions some theoretical 'what if' questions, and we offered some discussion on best-case scenarios. It was all very hypothetical."
Earlier this year, the Department of the Interior quashed an analysis by one of its divisions, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which questioned the wisdom of rewriting the Clean Water Act rules. Then the department offered written comments supporting the EPA and Corps of Engineers plan.
Within the mid-Atlantic region, states have criticized the administration's plan because it would shift much of the burden of monitoring and regulating wetlands and streams to states and local governments.
The EPA analysis suggests that removal of regulations that limit pollution flows into smaller wetlands and waterways could increase treatment costs for public drinking water supplies that draw from them.
It notes that in the District and states such as Pennsylvania, which rely on the EPA to issue pollution discharge permits, the "federal government's role as a backstop" would be lost.
Environmentalists point out that the rule change would remove protections of the most important part of any watershed -- the small wetlands, creeks and streams that mark the headwaters of any river.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation officials said that removing federal protections for those waterways would make it virtually impossible for states to meet goals such as cleaning up the bay.
"It's just completely outrageous," said Theresa Pierno, vice president of environmental protection and restoration for the foundation. "When we look at the Bush administration, this has to be considered one of the most significant blows to damaging water quality and really setting back environmental laws. This would have an enormous impact that I think we can't ignore."
Stoner said half the ducks in the United States breed in waters that may lose protection and 40 percent of endangered species spend part of their lives in them.
"The wildlife impacts are truly devastating," she said.
The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries wrote in comments to the EPA: "The loss of any of these habitats will be permanently detrimental to wildlife populations in Virginia."
Officials at EPA headquarters said that the public record on the proposed rule change is still being compiled and that no date has been set for a final decision.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
[ September 30, 2003, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: Seadog ]

Dave C
09-30-2003, 08:10 AM
Seadog,
What do you expect from such a left-wing rag?
Again, you are confusing the "facts" with their propaganda. wink I try not to let the facts get in the way of allowing them to further their own agenda.
[ September 30, 2003, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: Dave C ]

Seadog
09-30-2003, 11:18 AM
I gave up a long time ago about expecting facts from the media. I just felt things were getting flat and thought I would throw out a new topic. You never can tell what will get the blood flowing.

Mandelon
09-30-2003, 11:31 AM
OH yeah, without those protections, we will just start dumping motor oil in all the streams..... :rolleyes:
All it looks like is Bush trying to get the feds out of local's hair.
Do we really need multiple layers of laws all regulating the same stuff? :confused: