This morning's Wheeling Intelligencer carries yet another Murray Energy press release disguised as an actual news article. "EPAResponds To Court Ruling On Clean Air Act" is mislabeled. A more accurate title would be "Murray Energy Responds to EPA" since two-thirds of the article covers Murray Energy's response with . . .
"round up the usual suspects"
This afternoon's editorial in the Wheeling News-Register, "EPA Shirked Duty To Flint Residents," follows the usual pattern for Ogden editorials: avoid carrying the AP report when the story breaks (so that the reader is given no background on what happened) and then interpret what happened to suit the persuasive needs of the . . .
Catching up on the 2014 election -- oops, they somehow missed $35,000
Cleveland.com reported last week that:
Murray Energy Corp.'s PAC acknowledged it failed to publicly disclose $35,000 it gave in 2013 to a political fund controlled by John Boehner, then the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.
. . . . . . .
So what if the state loses (yet again) -- AG Morrisey has a November election to think about?
Despite a long losing streak in judicial suits involving the Clean Power Plan, WV Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and 24 other state attorney generals are trying an even more unlikely-to-win tactic -- going directly to the Supreme Court. As The Hill reported on Wednesday:
The state attorneys general leading the court fight . . .
The Friday Intelligencer
Issues that were covered:
Murray vs. the EPA
The morning Intelligencer featured a ruling by a U.S. district judge that requires EPA administrator Gina McCarthy to give a deposition in a suit filed by Murray Energy. The Intelligencer devoted much more coverage to the decision than any other source that I could find -- . . .
Criticizing the EPA
A couple of reactions:
The editorial says that the EPA is breaking the . . .
The Intelligencer gives us its usual "fair and balanced" front-page coverage plus a predictable editorial
A one-sided, front page story on the appeals court's decision
Yes, on Saturday the Intelligencer reported that the "Court Puts ‘Waters Of U.S.’ Definition on Hold." Rather than printing the more-balanced AP report on the decision, Ian Hicks wrote a clearly biased account that featured four supporters of the decision . . .