It’s too bad that journalistic slant isn’t a form of energy because Juliet Eilperin would make the Washington Post the “Saudi Arabia” of bias.
Eilperin’s Oct. 24 article, “Global demonstrations to push for reduced carbon levels,” positively gushes over the events organized by 350.org, a global warming alarmist group that supposedly wants to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels from today’s 390 parts per million down to 350 ppm.
In covering the 350.org’s efforts, Eilperin doesn’t question its goals or efforts, nor does she interview anyone with contrary views.
Now compare her coverage of the 350.org event with her coverage of the skeptical Heartland Institute’s March 2008 global warming conference.
For the 350.org event, Eilperin apparently could not find anyone with opposing views. But for the Heartland event, Eilperin’s March 4, 2008 article…
… featured four ad hominem attacks from three environmental activists, abusing those who question global warming orthodoxy as members of a “flat Earth society” and participants in the “climate equivalent of Custer’s last stand…
… as I pointed out in my March 13, 2008 FoxNews.com column, “The Washington Post-er Child of Climate Bias.”
Am I cherry-picking Eilperin’s work?
Not only should you consider the other examples in my FoxNews.com column as well as some pointed out by ClimateDepot.com, but you also consider this: Juliet Eilperin’s husband works on climate issues for the Center for American Progress, a global warming-alarmist activist group.
Wouldn’t it be nice if every activist group owned its own Washington Post reporter?
Next, are the so-called climate skeptics so far out there that their views don’t qualify as within the realm of reason? Consider that the skeptics are holding their own, if not actually prevailing, in the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans on climate.
No significant federal legislation has passed and it’s not clear that any will any time soon. Polls indicate that Americans aren’t so concerned about global warming. Democrats on Capitol Hill have been advised to give up on global warming and, instead, to focus on “clean energy.”
How powerful must the skeptics arguments be when this small, under-funded, rag-tag “band of brothers” has held off for more than 20 years the onslaught of the giant eco-industrial lobbying machine.
Finally, consider Obama chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel’s effort to denigrate and dismiss Fox News as a media outlet with a “point of view.” The White House may not like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, but at least those two don’t pose as unbiased journalists like Eilperin does.
Send your thoughts to the Washington Post ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, at email@example.com.