On Tuesday, I blogged about the Trump administration’s decision to end a major study of the health effects of mountaintop mining. Today, despite not covering the original story, the Wheeling New-Register editorialized about that decision. Before doing so, however, the editorial spent the first two paragraphs attacking Obama even though it was his administration that initiated the study. (My hunch is that the “Ogden Editorial Manual” requires that any editorial that deals with coal must dedicate at least two full paragraphs to criticizing the former president.)

After suggesting that the study was ended by “budget considerations,” it does editorialize that the Trump administration should allow the study to go forward:

A scientific, objective study could balance claims by some environmental radicals that people living near any coal mine are at risk. If not, we ought to know it. And if the claims have any basis in fact, we ought to know that, too.

Trump should allow the study to proceed. Getting at the truth is important.

(Note that despite all the previous studies that link mountaintop removal with major health risks, the editorial claims that it’s only those “environmental radicals” who are saying this.)

Contrast the News-Register’s tepid response with an editorial from yesterday’s Lexington Herald-Leader. For example, the Herald-Leader examines the Trump administration’s claim that this was done for budgetary reasons:

The Appalachian health study is the only one of eight current Interior-funded National Academies projects that has been put on even temporary hold. The other seven with $100,000-plus price tags are proceeding. Interior also is continuing to fund research into cleaning up oil spills and a review of U.S. Geological Survey laboratories.

Besides, the funding for the health study was set aside by OSM in 2016 and so can’t help solve future budget crunches.

And the editorial sees a much different reason for why the study was halted:

But it’s an old familiar story: Protecting coal industry profits almost always gets top priority among the government agencies that are supposed to protect the public from the effects of mining. . . .

If links were confirmed by this study or future studies triggered by this study, it would be incumbent on the coal industry and the government to mitigate the harm. And that might cost the industry some money. And that is why the study has been halted. Once again, coal industry profits triumph over the people who are left behind when the mining ends.

Apparently the Lexington Herald-Leader doesn't have the blind allegiance to Trump and coal companies that our papers do.

If you go to the Lexington Herald-Leader webpage, you’ll also notice that its editorial contains links to the six sources that are used in the editorial. From my recent experience of newspaper webpages, it appears that linking to sources in editorials is becoming the industry standard. I have seen the Wheeling papers occasionally do this but I doubt that it will become a regular feature – linking would require the use of credible sources and require that there be some truth behind the assertion. (For example, Mike Myer’s frequent “liberals say” or “Democrats argue” would mean that he had to point to an actual liberal or Democrat who said what he claimed they said.) Another reason why I doubt it will happen is laziness. The News-Register has a hard enough time posting its editorials (this one wasn’t) on its site; actually linking to sources would require yet another step in the process.