Politico’s Framing of Jackson’s Resignation from EPA: ‘After Four Years of Battling Republicans and Industry’
In their December 27 story about Lisa Jackson's resignation from atop her perch at the Environmental Protection Agency, Darren Samuelsohn and Erica Martinson at the Politico wanted readers to believe that occurred after "after four years of battling Republicans and industry while also giving the White House some heartburn along the way over her push for new clean air rules."
Please. It's not as if only Republicans oppose the EPA's energy-hostile agenda; last time I checked, most of West Virginia's national politicians, as well as many if not most of the state's coal miners who are losing their jobs as a result of out-of-control environmentalism, are Democrats. And I don't recall President Obama or the White House ever having any problems with what Jackson was saying or doing. The Politico pair also waited until the sixth paragraph of their report to mention Jackson's admitted use of an accountability-avoiding email account in the name of "Richard Windsor" to conduct official business. Excerpts from their report follow the jump:
It's been over a week since the Michael Bastasch at the Daily Caller exposed EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's use of alias email accounts to conduct official business. A Monday evening Investor's Business Daily editorial noted that this practice is more than likely illegal, because "Federal law prohibits the government from using private emails for official communications unless they are appropriately stored and can be tracked" -- something which can hardly be done if non-flagged Jackson accounts are under names like "Richard Windsor."
Despite the obvious journalistic hot buttons of government secrecy and stonewalling (the Competitive Enterprise Institute has been trying through freedom of information requests since May and a lawsuit filed a few months later to get the EPA to reveal the contensts of "certain correspondence on the secondary email account assigned to" Ms. Jackson), establishment press coverage has been virtually non-existent.
The new villain, same as the old villain, but with a twist.
TNT continued the Hollywood practice of condemning oil and gas in its June 12 episode of “Rizzoli & Isles.” The plot featured an ex-Blackwater agent, masquerading as a yoga guru, who kills a vegan student and a professor in order to hide his drilling for natural gas from shale. This episode was a triple decker for left-wing stereotypes.
The professor that was murdered had condemned hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, in a video saying, “fracking is an invasive way to extract natural gas. Proponents say it will liberate the U.S. from dependence on foreign oil. But, my research indicates it will destroy the environment.”
One of the two main characters, medical examiner Dr. Isles reinforces that idea later in the episode saying, “they pump hundreds of chemicals thousands of feet underground. It pollutes groundwater.” Even the villain ominously tells Detective Rizzoli and Dr. Isles (after tying them in their car, which is parked on a spillway) saying, “a few million gallons of water’s gonna come pouring through here. It’s pretty toxic, from all the fracking.”
The clear anti-fracking statements throughout the show are not new for Hollywood, and they leave out important facts. Researchers from the University of Texas at Austin recently concluded that “there is no evidence” of polluted drinking water caused by fracking. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson even told the Ithaca Journal, “We have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk.”
The liberal news media, which has been anti-oil industry for years, has also portrayed fracking for natural gas in a negative light. The New York Times even had to print a correction in May 2011 after it overstated criticism of the practice. They were forced to admit “There are few documented cases [of water pollution], not numerous ones.”
The American Petroleum Institute has written that fracking fluid is made up of about 90 percent water, 9.5 percent sand. According to the director of the Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Kathleen Hartnett White, only 0.5 percent “is a mix, not of ‘596 chemicals’ but of just a few, such as guar gum, and emulsifier commonly used in ice cream. And remember: these chemicals are diluted in millions of gallons of water.”