Networks Play Up Energy Politics,
Ignore Real Costs
Energy reports blame Bush for gas prices,
misinform about oil refining and encourage fear of nuclear power.
Reporters continued to question President Bush during his April 28, 2005, news conference about what he or his energy bill could do for current gas prices. Of course, the notion that Bush is able to or even should broker a quick fix for gas prices is false. But reporters have been hyping rising prices for weeks without explaining the simple rule of supply and demand. Theyve also steered clear of explaining how government regulations raise the cost of oil refining.
Bush Doesnt Set Gas Prices
Bush cant single-handedly affect gas prices, but ABCs
Terry Moran still introduced his April 27, 2005, World News
Tonight report thus: For the second time in a week now, the
president went out and gave a major speech on energy policy, trying
to reassure Americans who are angry and anxious about rising gas
prices that he is doing something. Mr. Bush has said he has a simple
answer for those wondering why he hasnt acted to lower gasoline
prices. Bush: I said I wish I could. If I could, I would.
Moran admitted that he cant, but later ended his
segment with political pressure. The presidents political team
believes the high gas prices are the main reason for his sagging
poll numbers, Moran said. So they hope, Charlie, that the public
will give him some credit simply for addressing the whole energy
issue.
Likewise, on NBC Nightly News April 24, 2005, John
Seigenthaler said, President Bush is also facing growing pressure
from an American consumer who wants him to do something about the
high price of gasoline in this country.
That attitude continued through the presidents April
28 news conference, as ABCs George Stephanopoulos gave his
analysis: Those high gas prices are the reason the White House
thinks that the presidents poll numbers are in the tank. They know
he doesnt have a short-term solution to the problem.
Regulation Costs Money
After Bush called for more oil refineries in the United States to
decrease dependence on foreign sources, ABCs Betsy Stark pointed
out that you still have to get a refiner to invest in a refinery.
And they havent been willing to do that, she said on the April
27, 2005, World News Tonight. NBCs Tom Costello, on April 27s
Nightly News, asked why no refineries have been built since the
1970s. His source, from the Energy Merchant Corporation, replied
that the price of oil has not been high enough to encourage those
alternative energy investments.
Thats not the whole story, and to their credit, the CBS Evening
News acknowledged it. On the April 25, 2005, broadcast, Anthony
Mason included a source who explained that weve been crippled by
our own environmental regulations. Fadel Gheit, an analyst with
financial services provider Oppenheimer & Co., said, Its a
self-inflicted wound. We have been sitting on our hands. For the
last 30 years, we have not built a refinery in this country.
Businesses invest where there is money to be made, and when
government regulation inhibits profit, an industrys growth slows.
Whos Afraid of Nuclear Power?
Reporters
didnt miss the chance to undermine Bushs suggestion of greater
dependence on nuclear power, either. Even though Bush praised it as
one of the safest, cleanest sources of power in the world,
reporters didnt spend any time looking into the pros and cons of
nuclear power. Instead, they dismissed it as scary.
Betsy Stark, on ABCs World News Tonight April 27,
2005: The problem is still the public. While the Chinese and the
Europeans are getting used to nuclear power as a source of
electricity, in the United States ever since Three Mile Island
Americans have been afraid of it. On April 27s NBC Nightly News,
Tom Costello included Bushs praise for the energy alternative
before saying, Many Americans still fear nuclear power. But with
oil now at $51 a barrel, the president thinks its time to
re-evaluate.
Like oil refining, nuclear power production involves
many costs that these reports didnt address. Insurance for power
plants is costly and involves taxpayer-funded subsidies to make it a
viable alternative. But the market consequences of energy proposals
are lost in the medias broad-strokes painting of the issues.
