Yet another template-follower from the Society of Environmentalist Journalists — this time the Washington Post‘s Juliet Eilperin — today delivered her latest advocacy piece for Red/Green causes. You need not read past her lede to understand where she’s coming from:
More than a decade ago in the northeast corner of Bolivia, a group of polluters and environmentalists joined forces in the first large-scale experiment to curb climate change with a strategy that promised to suit their competing interests: compensating for greenhouse gas emissions by preserving forests.
Who are the so-called “polluters” in this story? You needn’t be surprised that it’s a “coalition of U.S. utility companies.” So how do you like that — a so-called objective journalist placing a negative value judgment on one of the subjects for her story? Making matters worse is that the alleged pollutant she is talking about is CO2, an invisible gas that is essential for life.
I’ve got some other ideas if this is how we’re going to identify subjects in articles. Here are some possible alternatives for utility companies: “Massive job providers,” “inexpensive energy producers,” and “life-saving” or “life-extending energy producers.”
Meanwhile, here are a few of my suggestions to identify what Eilperin innocuously calls “environmentalists:” “shakedown artists,” “Gaia freaks,” “rent-seekers,” “people-haters,” “Earth worshippers,” and “economy busters.”
Of course Eilperin doesn’t stop there. She calls the Bolivian project an effort to keep a “biologically rich preserve of more than 6,000 square miles free from logging…,” as though that was a good thing. What does “biologically rich” mean, anyway? Is this supposed to have some kind of wealth or abundance value that is meaningful to someone or something? If so, to whom, or to what? And why? As far as I’m concerned, keeping valuable timber off limits to use for human purposes, to improve their health and standard of living, is a bad thing. But in the warped, upside-down world of Eilperin and her fellow SEJ elites, it’s all great!
Marc Morano at Climate Depot has kept up with Eilperin’s work, and it is truly abysmal, especially if you believe in reasonably balanced reporting (she doesn’t) and the value of human life over phony, manufactured environmental issues. A self-respecting news organization that calls itself objective would either put her on the opinion page or drop her, but that’s not what the Post is.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.