Not really a debate, but better suited to this forum’s sensibilities than MPSIMS - For your amusement -
I was struck by how both articles about the same exact thing are factually correct and seemingly evenhanded, but the addition of a word here or quote there gives each article an entirely different context. Here is our local paper the Salisbury Daily Times take on the issue contrasted to the Washington Post’s take. I know this happens all the time, but different slants in the puportedly “straight news” articles was just too perfect to let it slip by
Maybe I read the two article too fast, but I didn’t pick up on the slant.
I thought the Post article explained to me, an outsider, the background info from both sides.
I found the local, Salisbury, article not quite as informative. Perhaps I would, had I lived in Maryland and knew about this controversy from reading the local paper over the last 3 years, or so.
Well The Daily Times article “slant” which is supported by the quotes and interviews it uses, reflects that overall this was an overreaching and unfair requirement that would have seriously impacted local growers and there is relief that it has been defeated.
The Post article (IMO) through the preponderance of its quotes and examples seems to cast the story as a defeat for fair minded environmental rule making by the previous Democratic administration that will let big business off the hook for waste that it’s suppliers produce.
I tried to read the two articles with an open mind. I had no inkling of the issue before you posted this.
I did assume that you were talking about a biased viewpoint relative to whether you were a card-carrying envionmentalist or a pro-business person. (or a chicken farmer caught in the middle of this mess).
IMHO, I just didn’t think that either piece was slanting the news, assuming you had no preconception or point of view about the issue.
The Daily Times article opens by telling us a controversial state environmental regulation, which had been imposed by a state agency that had overstepped its authority, was struck down thereby relieving poultry companies of a burden. Governor Ehrlich has garnered praise for this action from both parties. In the second half of the article, we learn some critics opposed this decision. But these charges are answered by Virgil Stockley’s defense of the poultry companies.
The Post article opens by telling us that rules that were an effort to hold poultry giants accountable for the pollution caused by their industry, have been abandoned. The article then devotes several paragraphs to describing the ecological damage caused by the waste these companies have disavowed their responsibility for and telling us that despite the threat of this pollution, efforts to stop it have been rolled back. We’re also told that Governor Ehrlich, who decided in the poultry industry interest’s favor, received $150,000 from them when he ran for office.