I recently wrote about the New York Times brushing off the ethical concerns raised by many who were concerned that the sourcing the paper had done was shoddy at best. The Times reacted to critics with the gusto of a government bureaucrat and likely hoped the entire ordeal would disappear.
No such luck.
Copies of the emails used for the articles have fallen into the hands of one of the critics. As such, it’s come to light that many of the “officials” and “industry insiders” that were referenced in the series were nothing of the sort.
In the article and in the document viewer, readers never learn the actual positions or identities of the e-mail senders, who are characterized using descriptors like “official,” “energy analyst,” “federal analyst,” “senior adviser” or “senior official.” Nowhere is an e-mailer characterized as an “intern.” …
The “intern” was C. Hobson Bryan, a 2009 college physics-engineering graduate who E.I.A. said was hired as an intern in summer 2009 and upgraded to general engineer in March 2011. [Emphasis added.]
Using interns as well as people who stand to financially gain from the downfall of shale gas makes one wonder why the Times seems so committed to creating the narrative that there is something fishy going on with shale gas. The answer is painfully unsurprising:
WASHINGTON — Federal lawmakers called Tuesday on several agencies, including the federal Securities and Exchange Commission, the Energy Information Administration and the Government Accountability Office, to investigate whether the natural gas industry has provided an accurate picture to investors of the long-term profitability of their wells and the amount of gas these wells can produce.
“Given the rapid growth of the shale gas industry and its growing importance for our country’s energy portfolio, I urge the S.E.C. to quickly investigate whether investors have been intentionally misled,” wrote Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, Democrat of New York, in one of three letters sent to the commission by four federal lawmakers, all Democrats. …
Steve Maley at RedState nails why the New York Times and Democrats are working together to put an end to this energy source:
But when it comes to setting national energy policy, these same representatives (along with Mr. Markey and just about every other non-energy state Democrat you care to name) are reflexively opposed to any industry-led solutions. Their government-centric energy solutions would involve central planning and control, “socialization”, and zero innovation. They would have us shivering in the dark.
I think it’s more than that however. It’s quite apparent that the global warming crowd decided a long time ago that “green” is the future. Now they have one of their greenies in the oval office, and they aren’t going to let a little thing like innovation and market forces get in the way of their dreams. And by all appearances, it seems the Times is more than willing to play their part to bring it down.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.