SF Chronicle purported to present "[a]rguments for and against" Proposition 87, but ignored positive health impact
SUMMARY: A San Francisco Chronicle voter's guide purported to provide the "[a]rguments for and against" California ballot initiative Proposition 87 to impose a tax on California's oil producers. But the guide failed to mention one of the major arguments of the initiative's proponents -- positive impact on California's air quality and health.
In an October 29 voter's guide that purported to provide the "[a]rguments for and against" California ballot initiative Proposition 87 -- which would impose a tax on California's oil producers, with the intent of creating a $4 billion fund to promote alternative energy vehicles, fuels, and technologies and reduce statewide petroleum consumption by 25 percent -- the San Francisco Chronicle failed to mention one of the major arguments of the initiative's proponents: that it would have a positive impact on California's air quality and health. Instead, the Chronicle noted only California's low drilling fees and that "oil producers should contribute to California's efforts to reduce petroleum consumption." As the California Attorney General's summary of Proposition 87 explains, Laura Keegan Boudreau, CEO of the American Lung Association of California, and Winston Hickox, former secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, have both signed on to a statement that characterizes Proposition 87 as a way to "reduce air pollution that causes lung disease and cancer," and asserts that the initiative would reduce "lung-damaging smog and soot" that "send[s] children to the hospital and cause[s] asthma attacks."
The Chronicle treated Proposition 87 similarly in an October 9 editorial, which urged Californians to vote against the ballot initiative but also failed to note the positive environmental and health impacts that proponents say it would have.
A report by CNN correspondent Ted Rowlands on Proposition 87 during the October 31 edition of CNN's The Situation Room also mischaracterized the proposition and the debate surrounding it. Throughout the report, onscreen text described the battle over Proposition 87 as "Hollywood vs. Big Oil," ignoring the fact that prominent environmentalists and health advocates such as Boudreau and Hickox also support the ballot initiative. The segment, which focused on the "A-list of politicians and celebrities" who have come out in support of Proposition 87, made no mention of the potential health impacts of reduced petroleum consumption.
really needs to start greasing some palms.Hollywood's got way more juice than those lung guys.
Maybe if the ALA could create a closer connection between lungs and breasts, especially around Academy Awards time, they might get some air time.
I'm glad MMFA is paying attention to the goings on out here. It's unbelieveable what the Republican/Corporate machine is up to-- it's a forboding of what's in store for the rest of the country.
In a nutshell, big money has been pounding the airwaves for months, with lie after right-wing lie, creating an almost impossible media atmosphere for progressives. They've created a wall of opinion that had become accepted as fact by the general population. It started n June with the continual Schwarzenegger slam ads against Angelides, and this Prop. 87 campaign has only continued the practice.
The right wing lesson, learned in California? Start early-- from before the beginning-- and saturate the airwaves with blatant lies about your opponent's position. Do it for months, and then sit back and watch them flounder to correct misimpressions.
Sadly, it's working here, and it'll soon be working all over the country, I fear.
Isn't prop 87 about giving tax money ($4 billion?) to a newly developed council that doesn't have any accountability to where or how the money is spent or even if the money gets spent and then also doesn't have to actually produce results with the use of that $4 billion?
I don't like the non-accountability and no-results part of the plan, and I will vote against it. It sounds so much like the last time Californians had to vote for a group of people that would be allowed to spend $10 billion and not have to actually produce any results and not have to secure authorization to spend the money. Maybe liberals are forgetting about that plan. It seems to me that both plans are very similar....one gets $4 billion and doesn't have to produce any results and the other got $10 billion and doesn't have to produce any results (and true to form hasn't produced any results, yet). I wonder why the liberals didn't complain about the last time we had to vote for wasteful taxation! Wait, I know...it is because the last time the liberals needed the money so they fully supported all that wasted tax money. But, now that it appears that conservatives may benefit from wasteful taxation, the liberals are howling FOUL! Hmmm, what does that remind you of?