"Beat sweetener" was written all over John Broder's April 30 New York Times profile of new Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, "a woman of untamed energy, competitiveness and confidence in the boardroom and on a mountain trail."
The Obama White House made (yet another) move bound to disappoint progressive activists. But good luck trying to get corporate media to explain the impact. Here's how the September 3 New York Times piece by John Broder started off: WASHINGTON — President Obama abandoned a contentious new air pollution rule on Friday, buoying business interests that had lobbied heavily against it, angering environmentalists who called the move a betrayal and unnerving his own top environmental regulators. The president rejected a proposed rule from the Environmental Protection Agency that would have significantly reduced emissions of smog-causing chemicals, saying that it would [...]
If the White House encouraged Americans to prevent colds by wearing sweaters, one would hope that media outlets would point out that there's no evidence that being chilly has anything to do with catching a cold. Likewise, if the Interior Department green-lights a plan to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean in order to demonstrate "a willingness by President Obama to approve expanded domestic oil and gas exploration in response to high gasoline prices," as John Broder and Clifford Krauss wrote in the New York Times today (8/5/11), then reporters really ought to point out that expanded offshore drilling [...]
"2 Republicans Open Door to Increases in Revenue" reads a headline in Monday's New York Times. The suggestion is that a few Republicans are walking away from the the party's no-tax-hike orthodoxy. That much is clear from John Broder's lead: Two senior Republicans said Sunday that they might be open to raising new government revenue as part of a deal to resolve the dispute over the federal debt ceiling, but they warned that there was little time to enact a comprehensive deal. This would be a pretty remarkable development. So who are we talking about? Broder reports: One of the [...]
The New York Times had a good editorial on May 20 headlined"Gas Prices and Political Pandering." The paper slammed Republican rhetoric about domestic production and gas prices: [Sen. Mitch] McConnell said his bill would bring relief at the pump by raising domestic output. That is fiction. Production will take years to come online and even then would have a tiny impact on prices set on the world market. And they also pointed out that Obama was making similar arguments: Last weekend, he, too, was out there pitching domestic production…. None will quickly lead to new drilling or have any effect [...]
Today it's the New York Times (5/6/11) framing the story according to nonsensical GOP talking points: House Passes a Bill to Expand Offshore Oil Drilling JOHN M. BRODER WASHINGTON — With rising gasoline prices and skyrocketing oil company profits as a backdrop, the House approved a bill on Thursday to force the Obama administration to accelerate oil lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Virginia. The 266-to-149 vote, largely along party lines, was a skirmish in the larger battle between Republicans and Democrats to capitalize on consumer anger over the price of gasoline, which has [...]
Do you want to know what environmentalists think of the "compromise" climate bill unveiled by senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman yesterday? Ifso,don't read the New York Times today. Times reporter John M. Broder (5/13/10) quotes Kerry, Barack Obama (a supporter of the bill) and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (formerly a somewhat iffy supporter). He alsoreferencesthe feelings of two main industry groups–the Edison Electric Institute and the American Petroleum Institute–as well as BP, ConocoPhillips and the United States Chamber of Commerce. Then, in the second-to-last graph: Some environmental advocates were involved in drafting the bill and were highly supportive. But [...]
The formula for "contrarian" journalism was aptly summed up by Wonkette (1/6/09): Take a widely accepted belief (e.g., "Dogs make good pets") and write a cool 600 words arguing why its opposite is SECRETLY truer ("Why all dogs should die"). Of course, it helps if the upside-down world you're proposing turns out to be one that is surprisingly cozy to powerful corporate interests. Thus the piece that appeared on the front page of the New York Times today (4/4/10) arguing that maybe we're all a little too worried about that oil spill in the Gulf. To back up this counterintuitive [...]