[Speed Gibson,
Sunday March 27, 2005 at 6:22am]
Puff Pieces
The Minneapolis Star Tribune Editorial Pages seemed a little thin today. Perhaps because of the Easter holiday. Or perhaps because some of their material again found its way into other "news" sections.
The Metro Section has a "puff" piece (pun intended) on the smoking bans soon to take effect in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties. The article extols the proposed benefits and even comes up with some new ones, all along the lines that we're too stupid to make these choices ourselves. The many counter arguments - scientific, medical, legal, moral, and economic - are barely mentioned. There is always a clause missing from these glowing tributes of how clean the air will now be in these establishments: "those that remain in business." I fear greatly that at least one of our favorite "mom and pop" diners we frequent will be among the casualties.
The Business Section has a "puff" piece on Ethanol. Again, the massive evidence against it, some even from liberals who fear environmental damage from growing too much corn, is barely acknowledged. The past and present subsidies are also barely acknowledged. The laws prohibiting "pure" gasoline sales in Minnesota are also barely acknowledged. There was a sidebar about "Unintended consequences" but this only discussed the effect on commodity prices for corn and livestock. The "Opposition is strong" portion within the article is similarly oblivious to the major problems of producing and burning Ethanol.
With second-hand smoke, there are at least some tangible benefits, though already available under existing law. For Ethanol, there are no tangible benefits, not to the general public anyway. Indeed, there are only tangible drawbacks, such as increasing our dependence on foreign oil.
For Governor Pawlenty and Senator Norm Coleman to be pushing higher Ethanol production by mandating higher consumption is at best just politics. But I think it's worse. I think they know better. But of course, they are presented as thoughtful, forward thinking public servants on this issue.
This is why bias in the Editorial Pages matters, as many have said. If the Publisher and Managing Editor are content with publishing poorly researched, poorly reasoned, and often poorly written articles there, why should they care when the same happens elsewhere in the paper?
The Metro Section has a "puff" piece (pun intended) on the smoking bans soon to take effect in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties. The article extols the proposed benefits and even comes up with some new ones, all along the lines that we're too stupid to make these choices ourselves. The many counter arguments - scientific, medical, legal, moral, and economic - are barely mentioned. There is always a clause missing from these glowing tributes of how clean the air will now be in these establishments: "those that remain in business." I fear greatly that at least one of our favorite "mom and pop" diners we frequent will be among the casualties.
The Business Section has a "puff" piece on Ethanol. Again, the massive evidence against it, some even from liberals who fear environmental damage from growing too much corn, is barely acknowledged. The past and present subsidies are also barely acknowledged. The laws prohibiting "pure" gasoline sales in Minnesota are also barely acknowledged. There was a sidebar about "Unintended consequences" but this only discussed the effect on commodity prices for corn and livestock. The "Opposition is strong" portion within the article is similarly oblivious to the major problems of producing and burning Ethanol.
With second-hand smoke, there are at least some tangible benefits, though already available under existing law. For Ethanol, there are no tangible benefits, not to the general public anyway. Indeed, there are only tangible drawbacks, such as increasing our dependence on foreign oil.
For Governor Pawlenty and Senator Norm Coleman to be pushing higher Ethanol production by mandating higher consumption is at best just politics. But I think it's worse. I think they know better. But of course, they are presented as thoughtful, forward thinking public servants on this issue.
This is why bias in the Editorial Pages matters, as many have said. If the Publisher and Managing Editor are content with publishing poorly researched, poorly reasoned, and often poorly written articles there, why should they care when the same happens elsewhere in the paper?