How ’bout that Wash Post write up on EPA greenhouse gas decision/hearing!

Yesterday, Senate Democrats held a hearing to, basically air grievances against EPA’s December decision to deny California the ability to regulate CO2 emissions. Looking at The Washington Post’s write up of the hearing, you need to get 9 paragraphs into the story to get an inkling why the EPA ruled as it did. The headline, subhead, and the first 8 paragraphs focus exclusively on lawmakers critical of the decision – calling it shameful, outrageous, and so forth. Finally, in paragraph 9, the reader learns that the EPA administrator defends the agency’s decision by saying it complies with the Clean Air Act and that California hadn’t proved it had a “compelling and extraordinary” problem. You might think fuller coverage of the EPA’s position might follow. Nope. The Post reporter reverts right back to the critics in paragraph 10 and pretty much continues the Democratic rant through the rest of the story. So much for reporting on the issue in a way that gives readers a clue what the actual argument is about. Slanted reporting?? At the Washington Post?? Nah… But do have a look at the “other side” of the issue, as explained yesterday by CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis. –link