Juliet Eilperin and the ‘Saudia Arabia of bias’

October 25, 2009

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.

Unbiased pillow talk?

Unbiased pillow talk?

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 ombudsman@washpost.com.

13 Responses to “Juliet Eilperin and the ‘Saudia Arabia of bias’”

  1. […] we get to her latest effort, you may want to review our October 25, 2009 article that prompted Alexander’s wet noodle lashing of Eilperin. In that article, we pointed out […]

  2. […] new stenographer at the Washington Post, following in the embarrassing tradition of Juliet Eilperin, Joby Warrick, Gary Lee and others. Layton is also assisting the left in its jihad against […]

  3. […] week, Steve Milloy of the Green Hell blog profiled Juliet Eilperin, a Washington Post journalist who frequently writes on enviornmental issues, and whose husband,  Andrew Light Jr., as Milloy […]

  4. […] Irony. The Washington Post story on ClimateGate is written by a reporter whose husband is a lobbyist working on climate issues for the Center for American Progress. He wrote his PhD thesis on policy and ethics. One cannot make […]

  5. […] real,” meaning, I suppose, that Eilperin starts obviously slanting her climate change reporting. Some observers think she’s doing this already, and that’s the point. Because of who she married, we can’t trust that she will successfully […]

  6. justbeau Says:

    Dr. Light’s PhD is in philosophy. How can philosophy help the Center for American Progress help prevent catastrophic global warming?

  7. justbeau Says:

    The reporter’s mother is a mediator for the Postal Service, dedicated to helping Federal workers not go postal. And mom is with the Committee of Concerned Scientists. That’s a maternal double dose of Big Government and wanting more.

  8. dublds Says:

    Justbeau is right. But I actually credit enviro-reporters with knowing their target audience. Clearly anyone with a lick of logical sense can see the clear fallacies and shortcomings in Global Warming alarmism. But this is not the target audience. Sadly the target audience is the large segment of society that is undereducated, prone to look to the government for assistance, and with ample spare time to mobilize for an issue they can understand. Few of these types can understand the complexities of economics or foreign policy. But bundle some simple pseudo-science with simple terms and some hollywood-ish doomsday scenarios and you have a captive audience. Granted this is less journalism than indoctrination, but you can’t argue with the fact that it puts food on the table for reporters so they indulge it heavily. At the end of the day though, you have to understand the problem is not the messenger, but the society that validates such a hollow message. If YOU’RE not buying it, put yourself in the mindset of the guy who is. Then think how far off the reservation the whole societies that buy this agenda wholesale are. Well Newsflash: Ours is too, like it or not. Need proof? Write an opinion piece about how wealth, success, and credibility should be directly related to an individual’s effort and contribution and submit that to the WaPo.

    They’ll send that shit through the shredder faster than you can blink. Logic and reason left the building long ago. Our society is a lost, manipulated shell of what it once was and this type of journalism is the effect not the cause. This is the sad, sobering reality about the world we live in. It should make you mad, but if it surprises or outrages you NOW, you’re a few days late and a few dollars short…

  9. cowboyupusa Says:

    You know, it is amazing how these people can wake up and look at themselves in the mirror!
    I find it amazing the level that they will go to keep there dream alive, no matter what the cost… How does one look at there Children, there family, there friends and most of all the Public and Lie! The fact that anyone takes them to task on there beliefs, they go basically bongers….there eyes roll back into there heads, the spit flys in every direction and all you asked is for proof what they are saying or some other statement of logic. The real kicker is that they are both people who have a agenda,and she should be the last person to have the responsibilty of the job she has, she should be writting for Acorn.

  10. bear865 Says:

    It has been the same ever since the Luciferian Synarchy, including the Bankstah Gangstahs, really got this mess started with the Abamanation of a book: “Silent Spring” by the paid liar Rachel Carson (a book clearly canted to make any and every idiot in the world accept it as Gospel). This had all be in preparation since about 1937 when Bertrand Russel started the ball rolling. Good old Bertrand, he along with H.G. Wells being two of the most even men who ever lived, and definite enemies of the USA.

    More poison comes from the British Black Nobility and their minions than you can possibly imagine.

  11. henrybowman Says:

    Wow… just from the photo alone, it’s obvious: these people ARE the “Goode Family.”

  12. justbeau Says:

    In general, the occupation of environmental journalism seems staffed by sadly unthinking writers. So many environmental claims are so lame that a person with elementary common sense can expose them. It used to be reporters wanted to be investigative. However, instead of this, eco-journalists want to repeat yarns. Its a sad commentary on their educations and their ethical values.

    Genuine science is premised on critical thought. Its not one sided, like propaganda, and its not unthinking. It integrates and has to be holistic, to have merit.

    One can understand why this White House attacks Fox News. Its sadly disrespectful of free speech and democracy, but its understandable in terms of power.

    The environment is merely an arena for political competition. Now there is a network willing to reveal some of the compious weaknesses within Democratic claims about the environment. This is a threat to one of the means by which Democrats obtain power. They know it.

    Since old media like the Washington Post provided just one side, it becomes a rude shock for Democratic voters to learn that there are weaknesses in claims about Global Warming, etc. This threatens to undermine their faith in Democratic politicians. This is a powerfully disruptive force in a poltical sense, like the Web must be within nations run by dictators.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: