Republicans and the Clean Water Act

In this blog post, I evaluate media coverage on a different facet of my environmental topic. Recent news pertains to the Clean Water act in the United States and the lack of support it is receiving from the Republican Party. According to media coverage, this poses a major threat to the strength of the Clean Water act and the efforts to prevent pollution and waste from invading various bodies of water.

Los Angeles Times Article, “Too Dirty to Fail?” is written by Lisa P. Jackson, the administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency. She states that the Republican stance on environment is negative, and says that the situation is a major threat to the protection of water from pollution and waste. Jackson also mentioned that the lack of water protection can directly correlate to pressing issues with health.The Los Angeles Times article uses example of pollutants such as Mercury, Soot and Nitric Oxides, with their possibly effects on the human body, to portray the severity of this issue. The use of these different examples, with in depth description of the possible health problems that can arise, make this news story effective. It uses the approach of education and awareness to address citizens about the concerns for protection of water. Jackson’s approach provides an understandable explanation, for the everyday citizen absorbing the news and focuses on presenting the Clean water issue as worrisome.

The NY Times article titled “GOP vs. the Environment,” was published October 14^th, a week earlier than the Los Angeles Times article mentioned above. Interviewed in this piece, Henry Waxman (senior Democrat on Energy and Commerce Committee) said that the Republicans efforts to weaken the clean water and air acts is the “most anti environmental Congress in history.” The NY Times provides a brief view into the history of the Republican Party, mentioning their support for environmental issues in the 1990’s. The most pressing problem addressed in this article, similar to the Los Angeles Times, is the weakening of the clean water and air acts causing pollution and health problems. Another Democrat was interviewed (Barbara Boxer) and she brought up the health risks that can surface without support for the Clean Water act.

With an issue such as the Clean Water act, the news coverage is either neutral stating the facts, or split based on political parties- similar to a lot of environmental issues.

The Los Angeles Times article about the Clean Water act can be considered biased because the author is the administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency, so her job is to thus, protect the environment. However, her presentation of the material is valid amongst other sources, and relays valuable guidelines that should be followed for citizens. The facts are presented accurately, as well as the problems that can surface if this issue is not addressed.

The NY Times article is more neutral in its presentation of the facts than the Los Angeles Times article. There is less of a voice in the NY TImes article, even though it is in the opinion pages. The last sentence presents an opinion, but the general display of information and news is straight forward. However, the two sources mentioned in the article (Henry Waxman and Barbara Boxer) are both Democrats. The perspective of a Republican Party member could present a different dimension to the issue.

Both articles present the issue with the Republican party and the environment, but there is a very different tone presented in the LA Times Article. This can hinder the ability to stay neutral on the issue, and sway to take sides with the Democrat, or pro- Environmentalist perspective. As a general news source, the NY Times is more objective, just presenting hard facts about the current issue and getting the news out there in an understandable, unbiased way. In both articles, including a Republican's outlook on the issue, even if only to strengthen the Democrat's position, would make the news seem less one sided. As a reader, if you are neutral on the situation, it is valuable to understand both sides so that you can move forward and formulate your own opinions as an educated, informed citizen.

The video below, from the Global Report, talks about rising pollution rates in various bodies of water in the United States. This is due to the vagueness of the Supreme Court in expressing which bodies of water are protected by the Clean Water Act. As a result, according to the EPA, about 117 million American citizens access drinking water that is now potentially being polluted because these bodies of water are not protected by the Clean Water Act.