While I was on vacation, the Washington Post published one of the most craptastic pieces of journalism I've seen this year, a piece by the normally reputable Peter Baker called "In Bush's Final Year, The Agenda Gets Greener." Words can scarcely do it justice.
A friend forwarded it in horror. If he'd said so, I would have believed it was a clever parody. I actually laughed out loud a few times. Every media-crit staple is there in full glory, including the requisite mindless, gutless stenography for the Bush White House. Casual readers will emerge less informed than they went in -- the ultimate mark of journalistic malpractice.
I've got a lot -- as in, five posts worth (seriously) -- of grumbling to do about this piece, but for those of you in a hurry, here's the topline summary: The frame of the piece is that after years of resistance, the Bush administration is coming around on global warming. This spin is supported by a number of vague quotes from anonymous "advisers" and corporate shill environmentalists. However, there is not one single piece of concrete evidence for the thesis. In fact, all available evidence contradicts it.
Baker let himself be played by his sources. Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) is eager to show just how much private access he has to the president (ooh, he slipped a note in his pocket!). Fred Krupp of Environmental Defense is eager to provide the president cover. And "anonymous former adviser" (Rove?) seems desperate to burnish Bush's wretched legacy in his last year in office. (Just yesterday the Bush team sent around an email press release about Bush's peachy environmental record.)
The piece is a veritable road-map of today's postmodern media landscape. It deserves to be set in amber for future historians. I'll be delving further into it shortly.
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
Children and riot police face off in Canadian “Moms” video
Obama gives his first real climate speech—really
Comments
View as Threaded
josullivan58 Posted 3:50 am
03 Jan 2008
Add it to the list of lines that everyone knows, or should know, are BS.
Yes 2008 will different. That's why 16 states and 5 environmental groups (including Fred Krupp's Environmental Defense) sued the Bush administration the first day of 2008 the courts were open because Bush is blocking their global warming plans .
From NRDC The Great Galvanizer
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ddoniger/the_great_galv ...
Eileen Claussen summed it up best, yes the public image has changed, but its only image.
Bush has always been virulently anti-environmental, but there has been a big push back that has been getting a lot of public attention.
In response the Bush administration is launching a PR campaign to cover their losses and cover up their extremist behavior. The Bush administration is also framing the debate for the upcoming struggles with congress, the courts, the states and environmentalists.
The Washington Post article ends with the question whats the next step. That's easy, it will be the same as the previous steps.
Permalink