DEFINING REPUBLICAN DEVIANCY DOWN, AGAIN

In an otherwise first-rate story about flooding increases in the U.S., Justin Gillis of The New York Times falls into the usual manistream-media bad habit when assessing blame for the lack of federal action on climate change:

... local leaders say they cannot tackle this problem alone. They are pleading with state and federal governments for guidance and help, including billions to pay for flood walls, pumps and road improvements that would buy them time.

Yet Congress has largely ignored these pleas, and has even tried to block plans by the military to head off future problems at the numerous bases imperiled by a rising sea....

The gridlock in Washington means the United States lacks ... a broad national policy on sea-level rise....

The Obama administration recently gave Virginia more than $100 million to carry [a neighborhood safeguarding] plan out....

While the Obama administration is trying to create a few showcase neighborhoods, there is no sign Congress is prepared to spend the money that cities and states say they need....

Several studies have concluded that Naval Station Norfolk, the world’s largest naval base, is profoundly threatened by rising seas, as are other coastal bases. The Pentagon has managed to build floodgates and other protective measures at some facilities. But attempts by the military to develop broader climate change plans have met fierce resistance in Congress.

That was the case this summer, when an effort by the Pentagon to appoint officers to take charge of climate resilience led to a House vote prohibiting taxpayer money from being spent on the plan.

(Emphasis added.)

Note that none of this is the fault of Republicans; it's caused by "Congress," or the "House," or "gridlock." Gillis writes as if he's not allowed to point out, as a plain statement of fact, that federal action on climate change is blocked by the Republican Party.

So, until well into the story, Gillis only alludes to Republican resistance:

“I’m a Republican, but I also realize, by any objective analysis, the sea level is rising,” said Jason Buelterman, the mayor of tiny Tybee Island, one of the first Georgia communities to adopt a detailed climate plan.

... A Republican congressman from Colorado, Ken Buck, recently called one military proposal part of a “radical climate change agenda.”

“When we distract our military with a radical climate change agenda, we detract from their main purpose of defending America from enemies” like the Islamic State, said Mr. Buck of Colorado....

Finally -- 37 paragraphs into the story -- we're told outright that opposition to climate action overwhelmingly comes from Republicans. But "Congress" i ultimately to blame. If you're a reader who believes that all our representatives in D.C., regardless of party, are just big babies who won't compromise, you're not disabused of that notion:

Many people in Congress, almost all of them Republicans, express doubt about climate science, with some of them promulgating conspiracy theories claiming that researchers have invented the issue to justify greater governmental control over people’s lives. So far, this ideological position has been immune to the rising evidence of harm from human-induced climate change.

The Obama administration has been pushing federal agencies, including the Pentagon, to take more aggressive steps. But without action in Congress, experts say these efforts fall far short of what is required.

“In the country, certainly in the Congress, it hasn’t really resonated -- the billions and perhaps trillions of dollars that we would need to spend if we want to live on the coast like we’re living today,” said David W. Titley, a retired rear admiral who was the chief oceanographer of the Navy, and now heads a climate center at Pennsylvania State University.

People who already know better will read this and understand who's at fault. People who don't might continue to be bamboozled into believing that, when it comes to preventing action on climate change, Both Sides Do It.

*****

And then there's an NPR story about Donald Trump's visit to a black church in Detroit.



In the story there's this assertion, at 1:16 (emphasis added):

After rumors all week that he wouldn't even address the crowd there, Trump spoke.

And then, at 2:20, in reference to Trump's interview with the church's pastor, Wayne T. Jackson, there's this:

Before the service, Trump also gave a one-on-one interview with Pastor Jackson. There had been rumors the interview would be entirely scripted -- questions and answers.

But those weren't rumors. They came from a rare first-rate campaign story in The New York Times, a genuine scoop by Yamiche Alcindor, based on an internal campaign document and a reliable source:

Instead of speaking to the congregation at Great Faith Ministries International, Mr. Trump had planned to be interviewed by its pastor in a session that would be closed to the public and the news media, with questions submitted in advance. And instead of letting Mr. Trump be his freewheeling self, his campaign prepared lengthy answers for the submitted questions, consulting black Republicans to make sure he says the right things.

An eight-page draft script obtained by The New York Times shows 12 questions that Bishop Wayne T. Jackson, the pastor, intends to ask Mr. Trump in the taped question-and-answer session, as well as the responses Mr. Trump is being advised to give.

The proposed answers were devised by aides working for the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee, according to an official who has been involved in the planning but declined to be identified while speaking about confidential strategy.

But hey, the press wants Trump and the GOP not to embarrass themselves and to get back in the race, so let's call these embarrassing facts "rumors," right?

This is what some campaign reporters are going to do from now till November. Get used to it.