<$BlogRSDUrl$>

My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.

2007-04-02

How Media Both Invents And Destroys Stories

You've probably seen and heard the headline today from the Supreme Court: High Court Rebukes Bush on Car Pollution. (from the AP)

Denver Post: same

WaPo: Supreme Court: EPA Can Regulate Car Emissions . . . In rebuke to Bush Administration policy . . .

NYTimes: Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases The Supreme Court’s ruling that the Clean Air Act expressly authorizes the E.P.A. to regulate carbon dioxide emissions was a strong rebuke to the Bush administration.

NBC Nightly News: video of lead story from tonight here, though it leaves out the obligatory Brian Williams hyperbole about the administration's "rebuke from the Court".

So that's the hype. What did the Supreme Court ACTUALLY say?

From Justice Stevens' 5-4 decision:


We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPA’s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. Cf. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Re-sources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843–844 (1984). We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.

VIII.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Not exactly "you're fired." Not even close.

Is this a rebuke? Not really--it's a loss.

It DOES NOT order the Administration or the EPA to make rules regulating car emissions.

It DOES NOT order the Administration or the EPA to acknowledge the "real and imminent" threat of global warming.

It DOES NOT order the Administration or the EPA to craft policy decisions based on global warming.

All this ruling does, it would seem, is to tell the Administration and the EPA to make a decision on whether to enact rules related to greenhouse gas emissions in a fashion consistent with the current law.

That's it. No more. This is strictly a procedural ruling, and not at all anything to deserve the top spot on the evening news or the headline of tomorrow's paper. But that is what it will get.

In the meantime, you're probably thinking the Court's work for the day was done with that bit of administration. But there, you would be wrong. Because the Court came to this decision today, also:

Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Appeals By Detainees At Guantanamo Bay.

Of course, that's not how the decision is reported. For instance, you won't hear that the Court decided by 6-3 not to hear this case--instead, you'll hear how "a divided court" came to this decision with "signals that it would reconsider" later.

Curious how none of that language shows up in the Mass. v. EPA stories.
Posted by: Michael / 4/02/2007 10:37:00 PM

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?