Jul 21, 2017
It’s amazing to me how a few, well-chosen adjectives and sentences can be used by reporters to completely change the tone of what should be a neutrally-reported article:
“well-funded farming groups”….how come “well-funded” is never used to describe NRDC, or Sierra Club, whose annual budgets dwarf many of our organizations by orders of magnitude?
“….farmers succeeded in pushing through a controversial bill…” …I think California urban water interests were part of this effort, as well…right? Guess that just didn’t fit the authors’ apparently pre-determined story line.
“Valley farm groups aren’t shy about pressing their case in Washington. Westlands, for instance, spent a combined $1.3 million lobbying Congress and various federal agencies on water issues in 2015 and 2016, according to OpenSecrets.org.” How come the Bee doesn’t report how much NRDC is spending on lobbying? Not to mention their egregious track record of “sue and settle” on federal litigation via civil suit provisions….attorneys’ fees paid for, at the expense of federal agency budgets.
“Biologists attribute the fisheries’ collapse in large part to too much Central Valley river water being dammed, pumped and shunted into irrigation canals instead of being allowed to flow on a more natural course into the ocean...” WHOSE biologists? Obviously, the environmental litigants and their allies, seeing how this statement is sandwiched in between the NRDC blather.
I’m not sure I can conclude that this is “fake news”. But, as has been the case for the past 10-15 years on these matters….it’s definitely “incomplete” and obviously “biased” news.
Thanks for letting me vent.