Before heading out on a bike ride this morning (the annual BridgePedal extravaganza, in which 18,000 Portlanders of all ages ride across the city's bridges--it's awesome, but I digress), I sat down to skim through the Oregonian newspaper to see the latest spin on the Presidential campaign. I came across a brief piece headlined "Different approaches, few practical steps" which turned out to be a Cox News Service summary/comparison of Obama's and McCain's energy plans.
Now, it's really nice to see a story that focuses on actual issues and facts rather than the "celebrity" attack du jour or the latest media hand-wringing over Obama's supposed "problems." But guess what -- the summary leaves out some key facts and misleads in several areas.
Please join me below the fold to find out how the reporter got it wrong about each candidate's energy plan -- and what you can do to help set things straight.
So once I hobbled back from the bike ride I sat down and fired off a quick email to the reporter as well as my local newspaper.
Here's a link to the Cox News Service story as it appears on their website. (The Oregonian's website is so awful I'm not going to waste time trying to find a link to the story there!)
The three main problems I saw with this story (and there may well be more, I just did a quick scan) are:
- The reporter omitted any mention of nuclear power--specifically, John McCain's plan to build 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 (with no plan for what to do with all the waste).
- The reporter also left out any mention of each candidate's support for cap and trade programs to combat global warming.
- He gives the impression that both McCain and Obama are about equally supportive of developing alternative fuels; in reality, Obama's plan is far more ambitious and focused (e.g., direct major investment vs. vague talk about tax credits).
Also, there's the claim that "neither candidate has offered practical plans for paying for" their plans. I would bet my bike helmet that Obama actually has offered practical plans for how he would accomplish his energy plans.
For those who want all the details, McCain's plan is here. Obama's plan is here.
Given the traditional media's seeming inability to get basic facts straight, it really is up to people like us to speak out.
Please take a couple minutes to contact the reporter and politely set the record straight. The reporter's email is bdeans (at) coxnews.com. If you noticed this story in your local paper, be sure to cc: them as well so they know that readers are noticing when they run inaccurate stories.
FWIW, here's the letter I sent (of course, when you write be sure to use your own words so this isn't an astroturf kind of thing):
Dear Mr. Deans,
Your Cox News story comparing Obama and McCain's energy plans appeared in today's Oregonian. I very much appreciated seeing a fact-based, non-horse-race type of coverage of actual issues --rather than the recent silliness like the Paris Hilton/celebrity attacks coming from the McCain camp. However, I was mystified as to why the piece left out a key component, particularly of McCain's plan--nuclear power, specifically that McCain proposes building 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 and supports the Yucca Mt. waste project.
Also missing, I believe, was any mention of both candidates' support for a cap and trade system (Obama's much more aggressive) to reduce global warming.
Finally, the analysis is misleading on the issue of alternative energy. While Obama would directly invest money in expanding wind, solar, etc. and would set benchmarks for increased use of alternative energy, McCain's plan is vague (I think his position paper says something about normalizing the patchwork of tax credits but doesn't specifically say what he intends to accomplish). His only direct investment is in so-called clean coal.
Sincerely,
Ruth in OR