 [1] |
|
FERC "Finally Stepped In"; Upset by Cheney Task Force But Not by Hillary's; "Victimized by the Free Market"; Liberal Night on PBS Correction: The June 18 CyberAlert quoted Newsweek's Evan Thomas as saying on CNN's Reliable Sources: "Generally the rank and file press is pretty green and they're going to use the Europeans to take the Bush's to task." I then added: "[Yes, he said 'the Bush's.']" Actually, he did not. In listening to it again on tape, though it's hard to make out since he's being talked over at that point, it sounds more like he said "the Bushies," which makes more sense.
Rather announced: "Good evening. With much of the power hungry American West showing signs of following California into an energy crisis and the rest of the country wondering who will be next, federal energy regulators finally stepped in today. As CBS first reported to you last week, price restraints were in the offing and tonight they are officially in place on power markets in eleven Western States. Whether this is too little too late remains to be seen." In the subsequent story on FERC's
"market mitigation" plan, in which prices are set to the highest
cost energy produced that day, Wyatt Andrews noted that FERC did not go
far enough for some: "While the vote today was unanimous, one
Democrat, Bill Massey, said there may still be a need for price
controls."
Three-and-a-half years later, however, with a
Democrats attacking a Republican President CBS News suddenly found who
attended task force meetings to be quite newsworthy. Dan Rather intoned on
the June 18 CBS Evening News: Roberts relayed the Democratic spin, as
transcribed by MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth: "Democrats are demanding to
know who helped shape the President's energy policy and tonight accused
the White House of stonewalling." After a clip of Ari Fleischer promising cooperation with the GAO, Roberts continued: "The White House has come under stinging criticism for its ties to the oil, gas and energy industries. Much of the attention has focused on top political adviser Karl Rove, who held up to a quarter of a million dollars in stock in energy giant Enron Corporation even as the task force was forming policy. Rove, who has since sold the stock, has denied any conflict of interest, and today the President backed him up." Following a soundbite of President Bush expressing confidence in Rove, Roberts concluded: "The GAO isn't about to roll over on the issue and says that it will press the White House later this week to release the document's that it's asked for. White House officials tonight are defiant, saying those meetings were private and will stay that way." What a difference a new President makes. From
the January 1995 MediaWatch, the MRC's since discontinued monthly
newsletter: From the April 6, 1998 MediaWatch: While the ABC, CBS and NBC network morning and even shows skipped the development, as did CNN, on NBC's Meet the Press over a week later Tim Russert did raise it. For more details about the judge's ruling and the lack of coverage, go to: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/1998/cyb19980115.html#2 [2]
Just last Thursday on the same show, reporter John Blackstone highlighted "suspicions" that California "is being victimized by the free market" and asserted that investigations of power companies are underway, "driven by doubts the free market has been a fair market." But what "free market"? As even the NBC Nightly News reported on Monday night, unlike what occurred in neighboring Nevada, retail electricity prices were not deregulated last year in California, which might explain why Nevada has plenty of power. NBC's Roger O'Neil explained: "Utilities in both states have to buy power when demand surges -- that's air conditioning season in Nevada. But the difference is surging power costs here have been passed on to customers. Rates have gone up steadily and are 46 percent higher now than nine months ago, but the power companies are solvent." Dan Rather's full rundown of his new polling which found most want price caps imposed: "For whatever, if anything, it may be worth, a new CBS News/New York Times poll indicates U.S. opinion split on whether California's energy shortage is real or created to boost power company profits: 43 percent of those polled said the shortage is real, 45 percent said it isn't. But a solid majority said the federal government and the Bush administration should step in to help California, which it did somewhat today. And there's overwhelming support nationwide for government-set price caps on what power companies can charge. President Bush opposes price caps. Whether or not there has been manipulation of the California energy markets is the subject of a major independent news investigation we've been working on here at the CBS Evening News. And we'll start special Eye on America reports with the investigative results tomorrow evening." I'm sure that will be balanced. Last Thursday, June 14, CBS's Blackstone
gave credibility to conspiracy theories, MRC analyst Brian Boyd noticed.
Relating how one businessman moved his plant to Los Angeles, which has a
reliable city-owned electricity system, Blackstone charged: "But Gary
Johnson didn't have to move his factory out of state, he simply moved into
the city of Los Angeles, which operates its own public utility. Thanks to
the city owned power company, LA has managed to avoid California's
blackouts and soaring prices. But that has added to suspicions the rest of
the state is being victimized by the free market." In a column which appeared in the Washington Post on June 13, the day before Blackstone's anti- free market conspiracies, economics writer Robert Samuelson offered a simpler explanation for California's problems. An excerpt: Although details are complex, the root cause of California's electricity problem is simple: Demand outran supply. A booming economy coupled with little power-plant construction led to a scarcity of generating capacity, which was compounded by low levels of water to produce hydroelectric power. Wholesale electricity prices rose dramatically, in part because prices for natural gas -- the fuel used in many of California's plants -- were rising dramatically. None of this was Davis's fault, but he has made a bad situation worse. He's tried to defy the law of supply and demand. The 1996 "deregulation" of California's electricity industry had forced the major utilities to sell many of their generating plants and buy power on the wholesale market, mainly -- though not exclusively -- from companies that had purchased their old plants. Meanwhile, retail electricity rates were frozen. The idea was that competition among power producers would keep wholesale prices low. When demand overwhelmed supply -- destroying this assumption -- Davis resolutely opposed raising retail electricity rates. The consequences were predictable and disastrous. First, the state's two largest utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison, became insolvent. No business can survive indefinitely if it is forced to buy its product at $1 and resell it at 75 cents. PG&E has declared bankruptcy. Edison also has billions of dollars of unpaid debt and remains out of bankruptcy only at the forbearance of its creditors.... The point of raising retail rates is not only to cover wholesale power costs but also to dampen demand -- to promote "conservation." People become more energy-conscious.... END Excerpt To read Samuelson's entire piece, go to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58321-2001Jun12.html [3]
MRC analyst Geoffrey Dickens took down Lauer's questions on the June 18 Today: -- "For 36 tumultuous days last year a nation waited to see who the next President of the United States would be. Then on December 12, two days before this photo opportunity the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in a controversial 5-4 decision stopped the Florida ballot recount requested by then Vice President Al Gore effectively ending his quest to become the 43rd President. Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz is the author of Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000. Alan, good to have you back. You're not going to get an invitation to the Supreme Court picnic after this book gets around. Why did you want to go back in and tackle this subject? So much was written about it." -- "Let's make sure people understand the facts here. You were a clerk at the Supreme Court for Justice Goldberg back in the sixties. You are a Democrat, let me repeat, you are a Democrat." -- "Alright, so why shouldn't I believe that this is 200 pages of sour grapes?" -- "In some ways by talking about how they would have voted, we are almost getting ahead of ourselves, because your main argument in this book is they never should have taken this case." -- "So it had nothing to do with the law. It had to do with politics. They were basically trying to overrule an election." -- Lauer: "You make some, some serious charges. Here's a quote from the book, bear with me it's a little bit long. 'Now in one fell swoop, five partisan judges have caused many Americans to question each of the assumptions under girding the special status accorded these nine robed human beings. Their votes reflected not any enduring Constitutional values rooted in the precedence of the ages but rather the partisan quest for immediate political victory. And in so voting they shamed themselves and the court on which they serve and they defiled their places in history. Some of them were motivated by partisan advantage.' Here's the part that gonna raise eyebrows: 'Others were motivated by expectation of personal gain.'" -- "So you're saying she [Sandra Day O'Connor] has curried favor with the Republicans and George W. Bush and will serve to her advantage should she compete for Chief Justice?" -- "I would imagine because you were a clerk you've got contacts. You've argued, as you said, before the Court. You've got some inside information here. How has this impacted the relationship between the justices on the Court?" -- "Do people other than legal scholars like you, really care? You know there was so much talk after the election that this would tarnish the reputation of the Court. Do you see any evidence from people on the street that, that's happened?" -- "And do people who listen to you saying that the justices, these five in particular, acted on politics alone but then are gonna look at you and say, 'but this book has to be a result of your politics?' You answer that." Lauer wrapped up by noting: "If you'd like to read an excerpt from Supreme Injustice you can log on to our website at today.msnbc.com [4]."
As a "point of view" series, that's what P.O.V. stands for, there's nothing necessarily wrong with a one-sided documentary. But the problem is, PBS has no plans to offer a balancing hour in the series. In fact, from the topic list of the upcoming P.O.V. episodes there's no sign any will approach any subject from a conservative angle. As for the Moyers show, the Washington Post's TV Week summary of it made clear its agenda: "A team of scientists and environmentalists examines man's impact on the environment, from the destruction of forests and wetlands to the annihilation of animal species." Now, if we could just "annihilate" PBS. Here's an excerpt of how the PBS Web site previews tonight's show, set to air at 8pm on Washington, DC's WETA-TV: CBS News reports on a dust storm in Mongolia that is traveling across China and into the US, The New York Times reports that Florida may face a water deficit of 30% by the year 2020, and the New Orleans paper, the Times Picayune, describes a "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico that is as big as the state of New Jersey. The proliferation of news stories such as these, along with the call for the first full-scale scientific survey of the Earth's ecosystems, known as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, inspired journalist Bill Moyers and his team of award-winning producers to take a look at what is happening to our planet and what we can do about it. Bill Moyers Reports: Earth on Edge probes two of the most critical questions of the new century: Will Earth continue to have the capacity to support the human species and civilization? Moreover, what can we do to protect our life-support system-the natural environment?...."We are pushing our planet to the absolute limit of its ability to function," says Dr. Melanie Stiassny, one of the biologists interviewed, whose findings suggest that Earth is approaching critical environmental thresholds that may be irreversible.... END Excerpt from Web site For more, including links to organic food growers, go to: http://www.pbs.org/earthonedge/ [5]
MRC analyst Jessica Anderson caught this tribute on the June 18 Good Morning America: Diane Sawyer: "It's picture of the
morning time, Charlie." Her mother's character and her father's energy. Quite a combination, indeed. -- Brent Baker [6] >>>
Support the MRC, an educational foundation dependent upon contributions
which make CyberAlert possible, by providing a tax-deductible
donation. Use the secure donations page set up for CyberAlert
readers and subscribers: >>>To subscribe to CyberAlert, send a
blank e-mail to:
mrccyberalert-subscribe >>>You
can learn what has been posted each day on the MRC's Web site by
subscribing to the "MRC Web Site News" distributed every weekday
afternoon. To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: cybercomment@mrc.org [8].
Or, go to: http://www.mrc.org/newsletters [9].<<< |
Dan
Rather opened Monday's CBS Evening News by celebrating how the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), has "finally stepped in
today" by deciding to regulate California's electricity market.
"Whether this is too little too late remains to be seen," Rather
worried.
Liberal
Democrats kvetch about the Bush-Cheney energy task force meetings and CBS
News jumps. For years, conservatives and a group of physicians complained
about how Hillary Clinton's health care task force violated the federal
open meetings rules by holding sessions which involved both federal
employees and outside experts. But the networks, including CBS, didn't
care, not even when a federal judge in late 1997 leveled a $286,000 fine
to compensate the physicians group when he decided White House officials
were less than honest about the composition of the task force.
CBS
confirmed Monday night that its liberal claptrap about how energy
companies have been pillaging California has become accepted by the
public. Dan Rather relayed how a new CBS News/New York Times poll
determined that while 43 percent consider California's energy crisis to
be real, 45 percent think it was "created to boost power company
profits."
Though
Matt Lauer made clear that Alan Dershowitz is "a Democrat" and
asked him to react to the charge that his new book is just about his
"politics," the left-wing Harvard law professor got a platform
on Monday's Today to extrapolate about his tome on the Supreme Court's
presidential election decision, Supreme Injustice: How the High Court
Hijacked Election 2000. To draw out Dershowitz's views Lauer even read a
long excerpt from the book, including quoting Dershowitz as writing:
"And in so voting they shamed themselves and the court on which they
serve and they defiled their places in history. Some of them were
motivated by partisan advantage." Lauer interceded: "Here's the
part that gonna raise eyebrows: 'Others were motivated by expectation of
personal gain.'"
Liberal
night on PBS tonight, as if that needs saying. Most PBS affiliates tonight
will air a two-hour Bill Moyers Reports special, Earth on the Edge,
followed by the season premiere of P.O.V. with a one-hour look at, as the
Washington Post's TV Week put it, "one boy's tireless effort to
overturn the Boy Scouts of America's anti-gay policy."
"She's
cool. She just is," ABC's Diane Sawyer cooed about Chelsea Clinton,
though no one beyond those she meets personally have heard her speak since
1997.