Get Energy Smart! NOW!

On 18 October, Politco published a Darren Samuelson article entitled “Liberals unhappy with Solyndra focus“.

Environmental groups are desperate to shift media attention away from Solyndra’s collapse and toward allegations of Obama administration favoritism to the Keystone XL pipeline, and they’re willing to throw the White House under the bus to do it.

This article comes amid mounting criticism of the media in terms of its extensive (some might say overboard) coverage of Solyndra (in minutia) with minimal (to even zero) of the mounting questions about ethics and legal issues related with Keystone XL pipeline. As Samuelson writes

The liberal blog Climate Progress [Joe Romm] earlier this month dubbed Solyndra “the royal wedding of energy stories.”

[Romm] counted 190 mentions of Solyndra from Aug. 31 to Sept. 23 spanning 10 hours of coverage on the major television networks — ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, CNN and MSNBC — while in the same time period, the Keystone XL pipeline didn’t get a single mention on the networks.

Samuelson’s 18 October article focuses on the politically charged issue of how erstwhile Obama allies are, seemingly, pitting one Administration issue (supporting clean energy) versus another (potential approval of a pipeline that will move very dirty oil around).

What Samuelson does not, however, engage in is the more direct and basic question of whether these “environmental groups … desperate to shift media attention” have any legitimate basis for questioning and, even, complaining about media coverage.

An interesting way to look at the question: Samuelson’s own reporting. Between 12 September and 18 October, Politico reports 34 stories authored by Darren Samuelson (see list below). Of those 34, 24 stories had “Solyndra” in the title while zero had “Keystone XL” (nor “pipeline” nor “tar sands” nor “Trans Canada”). This does not do Samuelson’s record full justice, because it judges Solyndra focus solely by title. Looking at the remaining 10 stories, 9 of 10 either focused specifically on Solyndra or had a significant Solyndra angle (with mention in the first three paragraphs). The sole exception? The 15 September several paragraph story reporting that Tom Reynolds, deputy director in DOE’s Office of Public Affairs, was leaving DOE to join the Presidential reelection campaign.

Hmmm, might there be substantive and legitimate reasons to see imbalanced media coverage?

And … another issue …

As per the 18 October article, perhaps it is a big deal to see environmentalists trying to ‘spin’ media toward more accurate and more balanced coverage of energy ‘scandals’.  And, perhaps in a dog-bites-man vs man-bites-dog, would it be legitimate to ask whether Politico and Samuelson will spend column inches discussing how Trans Canada, the American Petroleum Institute, and other dirty energy promoters spend time and resources spinning media coverage.

As per Samuelson’s 18 October article, perhaps there is little reason to hold one’s breath awaiting such coverage:

David Roberts, a columnist for Grist, said he expects Solyndra to go the way of Travelgate and the death of Vince Foster — two Clinton-era headline-grabbing sagas that have effectively become historical footnotes. Articles about the bankrupt solar company, he predicted, will fade as Republicans fail to find proof of illegalities or political cronyism.

But Roberts said he didn’t have high expectations that the Keystone XL pipeline will make its way into the 24/7 media cycle, given reporters’ propensity to cover “what’s new, novel and interesting.”

“The corruption that goes on in Washington, D.C., around fossil fuels and the fossil-fuel industry every day makes anything done around Solyndra pale in comparison,” Roberts said. “But the corruption is so routine it becomes invisible. … That’s the imbalance that I think frustrates people.”

NOTE:  After writing this story, I found David Roberts’ response to this article: Politico doesn’t quite get it: The real problem with Solyndra media coverage. It begins:

Apparently, enough people have been kvetching about the media’s coverage of Solyndra that Politico felt obligated to do a story on the complaints. I appreciate that the paper gave its critics, including me, space to make our case, but reporter Darren Samuelsohn has characterized my views and aims in ways I do not entirely agree with, so I want to clarify a few things.

I, for one, am not “desperately trying to change the narrative away from Solyndra.” The whole point of the critique has been to expose the fact that another group of people, a group unremittingly hostile to Obama and clean energy, are desperately trying to focus the narrative on Solyndra — and they’re succeeding!

This is a Politico perennial. When Republicans tried to manipulate media narratives about the Solyndra bankruptcy, they were dutifully quoted in stories with headlines like, “Republicans Call Solyndra Biggest Deal Ever.” When liberals and environmentalists objected, they got stories like, “Liberals Try to Make Media Stop Calling Solyndra Biggest Deal Ever.” Republican talking points are delivered as first-order news. Liberal talking points are wrapped in meta-news about liberals and their talking points. It makes liberals sound defensive and manipulative, and it’s condescending as sh*t.

Anyway, the point of the criticism has been that the insider press has given Solyndra a level of coverage that wildly exceeds any reasonable assessment of its significance. And it has created an atmosphere of scandal that wildly exceeds any actual, proven wrongdoing or lawbreaking (of which, as I keep pointing out, there is still none). The press has done this in response to a Republican PR push that would seem grossly manipulative if its targets didn’t seem so eager to go along with it.

Darren Samuelson Politico articles 12 September through 18 October 2011

1. Liberals unhappy with Solyndra focus – Oct. 18, 2011 – Story
2. Steve Spinner leaves CAP – Oct. 18, 2011 – Story
3. W.H. won’t share Solyndra BB emails – Oct. 14, 2011 – Story
4. GOP releases DOE Solyndra memo – Oct. 14, 2011 – Story
5. Rep. upset DOE left out of hearing – Oct. 13, 2011 – Story
6. DOE bristled at Solyndra push – Oct. 13, 2011 – Story
7. GOP invites Treasury to testify – Oct. 11, 2011 – Story
8. Emails: DOE brushed off warnings – Oct. 10, 2011 – Story
9. Obama fundraiser backed Solyndra – Oct. 7, 2011 – Story
10. GOP: Solyndra questions remain – Oct. 6, 2011 – Story
11. On Solyndra, GOP wants BlackBerry – Oct. 6, 2011 – Story
12. Inside the House GOP Solyndra team – Oct. 6, 2011 – Story
13. Stearns: W.H. did deliver emails – Oct. 5, 2011 – Story
14. Bad days are coming – Oct. 4, 2011
15. W.H. brushes off Solyndra emails – Oct. 3, 2011
16. W.H. aides debated Solyndra visit – Oct. 3, 2011
17. Is Steven Chu up for the job? – Oct. 1, 2011
18. W.H.: Obama confident in Chu – Sep. 30, 2011 – Story
19. On Solyndra, the buck stops with Chu – Sep. 29, 2011
20. DOE to miss Solyndra docs deadline – Sep. 27, 2011
21. Help wanted for Solyndra inquest – Sep. 23, 2011
22. Solyndra execs invoke the Fifth – Sep. 23, 2011
23. GOP uses Solyndra mess to push CR – Sep. 22, 2011
24. GOP targets Solyndra-linked program – Sep. 22, 2011
25. W.H. nabs Solyndra critics’ flip-flops – Sep. 22, 2011
26. Obama’s losing charge on energy – Sep. 21, 2011
27. Solyndra execs to take the Fifth – Sep. 20, 2011
28. House GOP plays Solyndra for all it’s worth – Sep. 19, 2011
29. Making sense of the Solyndra scandal – Sep. 15, 2011
30. DOE staffer heading to Obama 2012 – Sep. 15, 2011
31. Emails show media-fixated Solyndra – Sep. 15, 2011
32. Dems try Solyndra counterattack – Sep. 14, 2011
33. Solyndra execs to skip hearing – Sep. 13, 2011
34. Solyndra scandal a PR nightmare – Sep. 12, 2011