ME on Friday morning dedicated an entire 47 seconds to the news that the Obama administration is set to issue new fuel economy standards for automobiles, requiring 30.2 mpg for cars and 24 mpg for trucks by 2011. You might argue that 47 seconds is plenty long for an article about the technicalities of federal regulations -- I sometimes work on fuel economy regulations, and the specifics can indeed be mind-numbing -- but Steve Inskeep somehow missed the most interesting (and perhaps alarming) part of the story: The standards announced Friday by the Obama administration are even lower (worse) than the standards proposed last year by the Bush administration. Bush had proposed 31.2 mpg for cars and 25 mpg for trucks.
If he had covered the story a little more deeply, Inskeep might have reached all the way back to January 26 when President Obama ordered his Department of Transportation to develop higher automobile fuel economy standards, saying: "The days of Washington dragging its heels are over." Maybe the issue was mentioned in subsequent articles this same weekend on the continued bailout of GM, but if it was I missed it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
'Kreepy? Investigative?
Gee whiz, talk about mutually exclusive!
In light of Obama's previous rhetoric, the higher standards proposed by Bush and the following fact about standards set by Carter 3 decades ago (!) Obama's fuel economy standards are pathetic.
"NHTSA's first fuel economy rule issued in 1977 for 1985 vehicles required cars to meet 27.5 miles per gallon. Twenty-six years later, the new 2011 standard is less than 3 miles per gallon better."-- Joan Claybrook, head of NHTSA during the Carter administration when it issued the the first fuel economy standard for the US.
//// end quote
I tell you, Obama has been a real let-down for me. I expect politicians to "exaggerate" but I somehow thought Obama was a bit different than most.
He's a very good con artist, that is for sure.
Yer wrong to blame Insqueak.
He's not a reporter, really.
He's what they call in Britain, a "news-reader," somebody who will reliably read--and generally not mangle--what is put in front of them to read, without cluttering up things with any real knowledge or understanding of what it is they're blathering about...
CAFE standards have been more or less on hold for years...especially the last 8...dem boys gotta sell dat gas !!
In this respect,....all that 'innovation' everyone talks about saving America in these bad economic times, should kick into high gear and hit the gas...no pun intended.
He's what they call in Britain, a "news-reader,"
Here in the US, he's what they call one "Foxy" reporter.
Just one of many.
NPR is a veritable den of Foxy reporters: Gonyea, Norris, Block, et al)
Ooops, I left off the Foxiest of them all: Mara Liasson.
Can you ever forgive me?
Inskeep does go out on assignments every now and then, just to keep his journalist's creds up to date.
Has anybody heard anything on NPR, that paragon of progressive reportage and wise punditry, about the campaign for the 28th Amendment?
I know there are several. The one I'm referring to is the one being promoted by Dr. Rikki Ott, to deprive CorpoRations, once and for all, of the rights they are said (falsely) to enjoy as 'private citizens'?
The 20th anniversary of the ExxonValdez corporate crime (not drunkenness on the job, but corporate cheapness which never repaired the giant vessel's radar) is upon us, and the damages done to that delicate environment have NEVER been put right by the most profitable company in the fucking world...
And they never will, nor will any corporation EVER be held accountable to the People as long as they can claim the 'rights' of individual citizens.
So I am writing for two purposes: 1) to invite anyone interested to participate in the Campaign for The Seperation of the Corps and the State and
2) to try to provike some response from the NPR critics here to get into the NEWS business again, and stop fellating the CorpoRats.
And after the Exxon-Valdez ran aground, there were 4 days of good weather, during which time the CEO of Exxon stonewalled with denial and denial. By the time anyone got around to trying to clean up, the weather had turned and the crude was dispersed much more than it needed to have been. The CEO should have been under arrest from the first minute, and kept there until he started taking responsibility for the clean-up. His lying made the accident much worse.
I would like to second the comment about the needed disappearance of the 'corporate person'...that 'person' is no longer needed and serves no good purpose.
I love how the film The Corporation demonstrates how that "corporate person" is essentially a sociopath.
Post a Comment