The Times is confused

Regular readers of the New York Times know that the Grey Lady fancies herself a champion of the common man. Recent articles and editorials have focused on the hardships faced by ordinary folks confronted with the rising costs of energy and food, as well as the number of jobs being lost overseas due to evil international trade and big, scary corporations. See what I mean here, here, and here.

The Times is also opposed to anything involving actions taken by the Bush administration, pretty much regardless of what they are. So naturally, when pro-business lobbyists (corporations! ew!) start lining up in support of last-minute reforms, a ludicrously-biased article (not an editorial) against any and all of the proposed changes qualifies as some of the news that's fit to print. Trouble is, the Times pretty much cherry-picks all the bad stuff that would come from the reforms without considering any potential benefits, advocating policies that will worsen the problems they courageously publicize in the above examples.

If rising energy costs are a problem, especially as temperatures are dropping all over the northern US, shouldn't we be looking for ways to let energy companies offer lower prices for their product? If you write for the New York Times, the answer is no.

At the Interior Department, coal companies are lobbying for a regulation that would allow them to dump rock and dirt from mountaintop mining operations into nearby streams and valleys. It would be prohibitively expensive to haul away the material, they say, and there are no waste sites in the area. Luke Popovich, a vice president of the National Mining Association, said that a Democratic president was more likely to side with “the greens.”

It may very well be that letting coal mining companies dump their waste products in streams is a bad idea that should be made illegal. The sticking point is that that people don't just dig up coal and dump rocks into streams because they think it's fun - they do it because they're trying to make electricity, which is an expensive process. Paying people to drive trucks long distances for a more environmentally-friendly dumping site will inevitably raise the costs of energy production. That the Times is simultaneously against people being cold in the wintertime (a very bold stance, by the way) and pretty clearly against any reforms that might lower the price of energy is simply irresponsible journalism.

The Times is also - along with most of the normal world - bravely and vehemently opposed to hunger. Supporting measures that might reduce the cost of chicken production, however, seems to be a little further than the paper is willing to go.

Perdue Farms, one of the nation’s largest poultry producers, said that it was “essentially impossible to provide an accurate estimate of any ammonia releases,” and that a reporting requirement would place “an undue and useless burden” on farmers.

But environmental groups told the Bush administration that “ammonia emissions from poultry operations pose great risk to public health.” And, they noted, a federal judge in Kentucky has found that farmers discharge ammonia from their barns, into the environment, so it will not sicken or kill the chickens.

I'm not entirely sure what that last sentence means (surely concentrated ammonia in a barn is different from a few parts per million in the atmosphere), but again we are faced with a direct conflict of interest. Chicken is food, which can help make hunger go away. Unfortunately, those nasty prices sometimes get in the way of everyone having as much chicken as they want. So of course, if hunger is a problem, food prices are the cause. Letting chicken farmers lower their costs (one might think) would be a good thing.

The way this article is written is pretty obviously slanted, but the real problem with it is that big business lobbyists are portrayed as evil money-grubbing planet-destroying poverty-spreading Bush cuddlers. Environmental lobbyists are quoted and presented as people who just care about the earth, and what could possibly be wrong with that? The consequences of the regulations they support aren't really given any thought.

Personally, I care more about hungry, cold people than I do about ammonia or river contamination, but really I care about both. I don't think writing an article explaining the costs and benefits of both sides would be too difficult. How much cheaper would energy be if coal companies could dump their waste products wherever they want? How many more people could buy chicken if farmers didn't have to worry about putting ammonia into the air? Is ammonia pollution really a problem? If so, how much should we be worrying about it? The Times doesn't seem to know the answer to these questions, and I doubt they thought to ask them in the first place. That's alright, though. Nobody really pays attention to national papers of record anyway.

Oh.