I'm shocked, shocked to find out there was collusion between environmental groups and Clinton's administration. I'm even more shocked to find anyone in the media who has even the will to expose it-albiet ten years too late.
The media establishment has been running cover for the environmental establishment for 40 years. If the "timber industry" would have wrote any of Bush's policies-the media would have trumpeted the fact. Remember Mark Rey? Whenever the media boys mentioned his name they always tagged on the appendage of "former timber industry lobbyist". Have you ever, ever heard a Clinton or Obama appointee who was an enviro ever labeled "former president of the Wilderness Society"?
The national media is dying. I want to seperate them from the local media cause I think they do a good job and still adhere to "objective reporting". You remember objective reporting-you know-who,what, when and where. Do they even teach that at the Associated Press anymore?
The AP is a joke. It doesn't matter if liberal readers think they're biased, all that matters is that over half the country thinks they're biased. Their market share is evaporating. They blame the internet-but what about "brand loyalty". You know, that thing that every business beside the media constantly worried about. Well, the media monopoly is over, and customers are fleeing. The customers don't give a crap about the journalists opinion, in fact they're often offended by it-they just want the who what when and where.
Ya wanna know how to spot biased reporting? Look for the adjectives the reporter uses. Adjectives reveal the opinion he or she is pushing. If you can sense what the reporters "opinion" about the issue he's covering is-then it isn't objective reporting. Every AP new story is an opinion piece now. When I read an AP story, I actually find myself looking for the "sub heading" that labels it an "analysis" or "opinion piece".
I think the local newspapers sense the demise of the AP. Have you noticed that the "nation/world" section of your newspaper, which the AP covers, is getting smaller and smaller? The local papers are focusing more on "local" news. If it wasn't for the local news, I wouldn't even read my hometown newspaper anymore, and I've been reading it everyday at noon for 40 years.
It's just another case of old hippies who entered once venerated institutions when they were young hippies and running it into the ground to further their political goals. If there's one saying that sums up the "Me" generation it's "the ends justify the means". Remember when Walter Chronkite was "the most trusted man in America"? Have the media even looked at their "polling numbers lateley"?
If theres any consolation to the many thousands of loggers who lost their jobs and had to find new careers in the 90's, it's knowing that today there's many thousands of out of work journalists looking for a job that won't be there again.
If I was a young "gen x'er" unemployed journalist, I'd be bitter at my old hippie bosses. They didn't loose their jobs. They have tenure. They're about to retire anyway, why do they care if their newspapers have to downsize. Their 401K's got fat milking the goodwill that was handed to them by Cronkites generation.
To these young people who want to stay in journalism, and it still is a noble founding principle of democracy, keep these words in mind. When I don't get both sides of the story, I start wondering what the other side of the story is, then I quit believing the story you're tellin me. Propaganda always fails in the long run. Ask PRAVDA. By the 80's, the Russian people quit believeing anything they had to say-even if it was true. The AP has entered the long run.
Of course the "experts" know that only 5% of the "forested acreage" on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge forest has been logged in 50 years!! The 70,000 acres/decade the "Partnership" proposes to log is only 2.5% of the forested acres. How can anyone think that 2.5% will have any environmental impact. The pine beetle just killed 700,000 acres or 25%. Nature just killed 25% of the Goshawk habitat.There will be no shortage of snag habitat.
The sad part is that Sara and Garrity don't even know how much was logged. I would think that would be the first place real "scientists" would start.They're so focused on the micro they can't see the macro.Will they publically say that 5% was too much? Maybe some one should ask them. Right.
The BDNF currently logs 500 acres/year. That's .02% (thats 2/100ths of 1%) of the forested acreage. At that rate, it'll take 50 years to log 1%!!The forest is being managed as a national park,not a national forest.
Perhaps the reporter should go to the USDA Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA)website.It has an inventory of the forested acres on the BDNF. Perhaps he should go to the USDA Northern Region website. It has "timber sold and cut" records for every forest, for every year back to 1945. Give the people the other side of the story Jesse.
Such small logging acreage makes Sara and Garrity look ridiculous and petty. To them Logic and proportion don't mean anything at all.Logic and perspective will burn off the fog of propoganda.Question the enviro establishment!
Missoula News/Independent Publishing |
Powered by Foundation