Angered:
A dispatch from Washington in the national
section of today's New York Times (Jan 15 2002) reports on revisions to Clinton
administration rules covering wetlands. "The steps outlined today by the
Army Corps angered environmental advocates, who accused the administration of
capitulating to the interests of developers and miners and jeopardizing
ecologically sensitive areas," the Times reports. The news article goes on
to quote "the managing attorney of Earthfirst, an environmental law
firm" and "the wetlands lobbyist for the National Wildlife
Federation." Both oppose the rule changes. "Environmental groups said
the administration, under pressure from home builders and coal miners, was
reducing its oversight role in the name of slashing bureaucracy," the Times
reports.
The Times news article quotes not a single coal miner, not a single developer
and not a single home builder. If you want to know what home builders think
about the matter, you have to read the Washington Post, which reports this
morning, "Susan Asmus, a vice president of the National Association of Home
Builders, described the changes as a modest but welcome improvement. The
builders sued to try to stop the Clinton administration's stricter rules, a suit
that is pending. 'We're happy the Corps has not taken the opportunity to clamp
down further,' Asmus said. 'To the extent that they're reducing some of the
excessive burdens, that's good.'" Or you could read the Los Angeles Times,
which reports, "Developers welcomed what they said is much-needed
flexibility in the rules, and they said they are hoping the administration will
continue to roll back onerous regulations. 'California home builders need as
much flexibility as possible to build homes,' said Brian White, legislative
representative for the California Building Industry Assn. 'We look forward to
working with the administration for more changes.'"
It's a classic example of the difference between an unfair news article and a
more fair one. The New York Times article quotes two environmental groups; the
Washington Post story and the Los Angles Times article each quote one
environmental group and one developer. It's as if the New
York Times, while happy to accept advertising from real estate developers,
doesn't want to stoop so low as to sully itself by actually quoting in its news
columns someone who represents the developers' point of view. None of the
articles get into the quite relevant fact that the definition of a wetland has
become so all-inclusive that, while the word evokes sweeping, wildlife-filled
places such as Everglades National Park, for regulatory purposes the term now
just about includes everything down to a parking lot puddle.
Smartertimes 15 Jan 2002
|
