I haven't been getting out on the web much lately (outside my own sites) because I'm preparing for an exam that's next week, but this post was just the thing to get me typing again. Two problems:'

1) You assume without showing any proof that the change in ozone rules was in bad faith. It could have been because of hard science, but you don't even consider that possibility. Maybe you think that there's no way that the change could be the right move, but then the headline should be "I don't trust the government!" not "You shouldn't trust the government!" Most people just don't find others' assumptions all that persuasive.

2) It's funny to me that you believe that environmentalist groups have more sway over government than business interests who would prefer to see acceptable levels of pollutants increased. Just imagine: all that corporate money cowering in fear at the awesome power of the gray ponytail lobby!

Anyway, hopefully I can stop by more often after this next week is over. I hope all is well.

Heya! Glad to get you talking again -- best of luck with the exam!

If it were a right move to reduce the ozone level, why? How could it be that ozone was fine for years, but all of a sudden, it's dangerous? Indeed, I can't trust that aspect of science because it's constantly changing. For example, is salt good for you? It depends on who you ask and what decade it is. How about fat and alcohol? Over the years they've been bad, then good, then bad, then good. They clearly have no idea, and this fits that trend exactly.

And the environmentalist groups are part of government -- that's why they have so much sway. The majority of people who go into government bureaucracy (unelected) go because they want to tell others what to do with their lives -- environmentalists included. I'm not saying this was done by a few ponytailed people asking government to, it's those who are in government who are environmentalists trying to expand their control.

Lance wrote, "It's funny to me that you believe that environmentalist groups have more sway over government than business interests who would prefer to see acceptable levels of pollutants increased. Just imagine: all that corporate money cowering in fear at the awesome power of the gray ponytail lobby!"

Lance, you may not be aware but in some municipalties across North Carolina, environmental activist groups such as the Sierra Club do have absolute sway over government. Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County is a perfect example. Not getting a Sierra Club and Independent Weekly endorsement is a death knell for any candidate seeking office. You might like that.

Lance wrote, "You assume without showing any proof that the change in ozone rules was in bad faith."

The general public assumes that because a newspaper or television reports a code orange day for their area that it is in fact based on fact. Taking once again the liberal bastion of Orange County as an example, there are *NO* ozone monitors in Orange County. Look here:

http://www.ncair.org/cgi-bin/o3monitors.cgi?area=1

What many people don't realize is that rabid environmentalists make panic and fear based predictions based on EXTRAPOLATED data. So when people in Mebane or Carboro are running around in the streets in a state of panic over a "code orange" alert, they are not being told that the ozone monitor that recorded that alert exists in downtown Durham on 9th Street.

Ogre makes a valid and realistic point about rabid environmentalist kooks wanting to protect their government jobs.

Get back to studying Lance ...

PS - Make sure you observe "Car-Free" day. You can ride your bike to downtown Carboro and sit in a drum circle on Weaver Street and sip a soy latte. Bring your wife, it's a binder-free zone.

Well-said, Reckoning. The newspaper reports anything they like as fact, whether it is actually true or not.

"The newspaper reports anything they like as fact, whether it is actually true or not." This truth causes as much teeth-gnashing and garment-rending on the left as it does on the right. Our medial establishment just plain sucks.

@Reckoning: I don't think that anyone runs around in the street in a state of panic over a code orange day. In fact, it's rare in my experience that anyone much discusses it at all. And I've gotta ask: is there some reason based in scientific fact that you'd need more monitors in order to provide a sufficiently accurate ozone forecast for the state? I'm not saying that there isn't, but you certainly haven't said that there is. It's like you want me to assume because you suggest that the current number of monitors is insufficient that it's a fact.

And using Carrboro and Chapel Hill as examples of how North Carolina governments are ruled by leftists is kind of like holding up a few albinos as a proof that humans have white hair. Those two towns are the exception, not the rule. Not the only exceptions, sure, but exceptions. NC is still a red state, and many of the "Democrats" in state government would be more comfortable under the name "Republican" in other parts of the country.

Reckoning, your ridicule is not only beneath you -- it's also misplaced. I don't so much enjoy the Weaver Street scene; they make me edgy. I'm pretty liberal, but for me that's a question of politics, not hair length or fashion choices. Or what my latte has in it (and it's usually milk, thanks). It kind of sounds like you're suggesting that I hold my political beliefs as a matter of style or the result of groupthink. That's a cheap shot, and I don't think you have any basis for it.

But I will take that advice about studying!

HI OGRE! Just wanted to say HI as I haven't been by in a while, and now that I am done for a few days with the W.A.R. thing, figured I would see how you are doing.

Well at least we agree on the utter uselessness of the current state of the media today! I just tend to think that the left has much less a problem with them than the right does because they SEEM to me to agree much more often with the left's position than with facts or the right's position.

Heya Smokey! Time for me to find you some quizzes?

Ogre, I appreciate that you highlighted the word "SEEM" in your last comment. I think this is an example of the myopia of negative results. It's like when the one bad burrito you got from the taco wagon pretty much cancels out the dozens of good meals you had there. But it's far from obvious to me that, as a whole, the media establishment is aiming left or right.

I think there's some bias either way out there, and then a whole lot of incompetence that indiscriminately cuts against either side (and sometimes both sides).

Glad that point made it across. I don't know enough journalists personally to be able to determine for sure -- but I have seen various studies that do show the vast majority of journalists are registered Democrats.

It could be, I guess. I don't tend to trust the studies based on votes in a particular race, since there can be reasons for reporters to prefer one candidate over another for reasons that don't have anything to do with Republicans and Democrats.

Here's a University of Connecticut study showing that the percentage of Democrats and liberals among journalists pretty much mirrors that of the general population, but that reporters are more likely to describe themselves as "independent" than "conservative."

Of course, just because a reporter is a Republican or a Democrat doesn't mean that they're a bad reporter or that they have an agenda that's expressed in their work. I'll soon be a corporate lawyer who is also a Democrat, and while I'll give time and money outside of work, I'd consider it unprofessional to use whatever leverage my work gave me in furtherance of some political agenda. And as bloggers, you and I both have shown that we will call out people on our own side of the political center when they deserve it, which is to say that even as political bloggers, we aim for honesty and fairness.

It's the hacks I'm really worried about. When a reporter consistently has a right- or left-wing slant, people get to know that and adjust how seriously they take the reporter accordingly. But the incompetent ones -- those who just repeat whatever a source tells them as fact and pass it along -- those folks are just bad for everyone. Here's an example from the Columbia Journalism Review.

The Sunday talk shows continue to be dominated by conservatives, but I suspect that has a lot to do with who controls the government. When you don't run either house of Congress or the White House, just how much national news do you get to make?

I didn't realize that link tags would be stripped. Here are the links:

"Here's a University of Connecticut study": http://www.uconn.edu/newsmedia/2005/may05/rel05033.html

"Here's an example from the Columbia Journalism Review": http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind_the_news/the_fog_of_cable.php

"Sunday talk shows": http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140002

I'm with you on this. I think the hacks who slant things to advance their own political agenda do exist -- which I don't mind, except when they're not honest. I admit what my position is, and anything I blog about is going to be slanted towards freedom -- because that's what I want to advance. I don't pretend to put forth "unbiased news." Most reporters do claim they're unbiased, and I don't believe that's possible.

Ozone alert, heat advisory, Code orange, etc in other words, it is hot. Flood watch, flood warning, moisture advisory, etc... How about, it is raining.
I guess they do have a habit of sensationalizing normal occurances these days.

That can't top the highway electronic signs that proclaim "DANGER: Roadway may be wet" during a downpour.

I hadn't planned to comment on this again, but this was just too on point to leave out: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_07/009227.php (on the topic of perceptions of media bias).

Very on topic! Thanks.

And I agree with one of the conclusions of that article -- that to consider making everyone made at you means you're successful is rather infantile.