In this era of hyper-partisanship, the mainstream media thinks that bi-partisanship is beautiful…unless both parties agree on an environmental policy, in which case the media invariably recasts the story such that it’s the Green Democrats versus the Dirty Republicans.
On cap-and-trade policy, I’ve noted in a previous post how the media willfully ignores that both parties oppose energy rationing. Instead, you’ll read or hear about the “Republican War on Science,” whenever Congressional climate policy gets rejected by a bipartisan, bicameral vote.
There was another example of this phenomenon last Wednesday. The Energy and Water Subcommittee of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held a hearing during which there was unanimous bipartisan agreement that the Environmental Protection Agency had overstepped its bounds on a controversial policy regarding mountaintop removal coal mining in Appalachia.
To me, at least, unanimously bipartisan opposition to a major Presidential policy on an ultra-divisive issue is newsworthy. But there was no mention of it in any of the stories on the hearing that I read. Readers of the stories that I read would have thought that the Democrats and Republicans clashed.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org
Why Alarmism?
by William Yeatman on March 3, 2009
in Blog
When it comes to global warming, dire predictions seem to be all we see or hear. But is the alarmism justified?
In today’s Cato Daily Podcast, climatologists Patrick Michaels explains why the news and information we receive about global warming have become so apocalyptic. According to Michaels, a Cato senior fellow in environmental studies, science itself has become increasingly biased, with warnings of extreme consequences from global warming becoming the norm. That bias is then communicated through the media, who focus on only extreme predictions.
Click here to listen to this insightful commentary. It is likely to change the way you perceive the media’s portrayal of global warming.