Corrected, But Not Enough

When the New York Times corrects itself on the something related to a GOP position, it is always and everywhere the case that they are forced to move the needle from a negative slant, to a less slightly negative one

[from Power Line by John H]-->

This morning's New York Times contained the following correction:

NYT--> "An article on May 7 about the Obama administration's appointment
of a panel of experts to find ways to make hydraulic fracturing safer
misstated the prevalence of cases in which fluids from the gas drilling
process have been proven to have contaminated drinking water. There are
few documented cases, not numerous ones, although federal and state
investigations into reports of such incidents are continuing"

That is obviously a significant correction, but to understand how
serious you have to go back to the original article, linked above. The
article describes the Obama administration's setting up a panel to find ways to make hydraulic fracturing safer and cleaner. This is how the
Times explained the rationale for new regulations:

NYT--> "Hydraulic fracturing involves the high-pressure injection of
fluids into underground shale formations to break open natural gas
pockets. The technique, which has been in limited use for decades, is
expected to significantly increase recovery of domestic gas supplies and
keep prices moderate for years.

NYT-->"But the process also pours millions of gallons of dangerous chemicals into the ground and into wastewater treatment systems, which in some cases cannot remove all the potential toxins. There are also numerous documented cases in which fracking fluids leaked into aquifers and
contaminated drinking water"

If that were the case, it would be easy to see why the Obama
administration thought it was critical to make the process safer. The paragraphs above were followed by this characterization of the Republicans' position:

NYT--> "Within hours, House Republicans issued a press release
denouncing the study as wasteful, duplicative, and another example of
red tape run amok. They said that fracking has been used safely for more
than 60 years and that the Environmental Protection Agency already has
sufficient authority to regulate it"

Nearly every reader no doubt reacted to that paragraph with the thought
that fracking has hardly been used "safely" if there are "numerous
documented cases" in which water has been contaminated. Certainly that
history demands further regulation.

So the Times reported the story so as to make Republicans look stupid or
venal. In fact, the House Republicans were right: hydraulic fracking has
a long, safe history. We need to get going on developing our vast
natural gas resources, not appoint another panel to stall development in
the name of a barely-existent environmental problem. But only the
handful of readers who saw the correction would have any idea how
misleading the Times' original article was.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry