CNN gave coal company CEO a platform for Gore-bashing, did not report company's labor and safety violations
SUMMARY: On CNN's The Situation Room, Murray Energy Corp. CEO Robert Murray called Al Gore "the shaman of global goofiness and gloom and doom," and Carol Costello reported: "What [Murray is] really concerned about are people losing their jobs." But Costello did not report that several of Murray's own mines have reportedly been embroiled in controversy over labor rights and substandard safety conditions.
On the April 6 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN correspondent Carol Costello reported on "coal miner-turned-CEO of Murray Energy Corporation" Robert Murray's views on global warming, including his opinion that former Vice President Al Gore is "the shaman of global goofiness and gloom and doom." Costello concluded the report on Murray by claiming, without evidence or rebuttal, "What he's really concerned about are people losing their jobs." But Costello did not report that several of Murray's own mines have reportedly been embroiled in controversy over labor rights and substandard safety conditions.
During the segment, Murray told CNN that legislation requiring companies to cut back on emissions is "a human issue to me because I live among the people that wear the hard hats, and I saw what happened in 1990 with the Clean Air Act, and this will be much worse. ... [L]ives will be destroyed for little or no environmental benefit." But despite Murray's purported sympathy for miners, the Pittsburgh office of the National Labor Relations Board issued a formal complaint against Murray and an associate in 2001 because they "[t]hreatened Union officers and its employees with reprisals for publicizing the labor dispute between the parties" and "[t]hreatened its employees with the loss of jobs, and the loss of wages and benefits if they failed to select new Union officers and because of their support for the Union," according to a 2002 United Mine Workers Journal article.
According to a January 15, 2006, article in The Columbus Dispatch of Ohio, Murray owns Ohio's two largest mines, which "recorded injury rates about one-fourth higher than the national average last year while being cited for serious violations by the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration [MSHA]." In 2005, federal inspectors cited one of the mines, Ohio Valley Coal Co. Powhatan No. 6, "for 494 safety violations and the company paid $147,431 in fines -- nearly triple the combined amount of fines levied against Ohio's nine other underground coal mines."
An October 20, 2006, article in Kentucky's Lexington Herald-Leader described Murray as "a huge donor to Republican senators" and reported on a meeting at an MSHA office in which "inspectors confronted him [Murray] about safety problems at his mines." During the meeting, Murray reportedly made reference to his connections to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and McConnell's wife, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao: "Shouting at a table full of MSHA officials ... Murray said: 'Mitch McConnell calls me one of the five finest men in America, and the last I checked, he was sleeping with your boss,' according to notes of the meeting." The article added: "Murray, in a recent interview, denied that he referred to McConnell 'sleeping with' Chao."
CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux concluded the report:
MALVEAUX: And while that energy CEO calls global warming "goofy," others say it involves a very grave situation. A new climate report from the United Nations warns that millions of people will go hungry, thirsty, and suffer disease as the world's temperature rises if the world doesn't act.
The report warns of rising sea levels swallowing up some coastal cities like New York. Scientists say that climate change could mean a new dust bowl bringing on drought in the Southwest and making it even hotter, and bring on a wave of animal extinction. Experts say polar bears could vanish this century because they will live on ice that will melt.
However, during the segment, on-screen text read: " 'Global Goofiness': Blasting Global Warming & Al Gore."
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the April 6 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
MALVEAUX: Now an issue involving a well-known Democrat -- Al Gore -- a planet in peril and global warming gloom? "It's all just ridiculous," says one man. He says all the forecasts for disaster will themselves be disastrous for one American industry.
CNN's Carol Costello in New York. Carol, who is making these claims?
COSTELLO: Who is making these claims? Well, his name is Bob Murray. He's one of the few CEOs in the coal industry to openly mock Al Gore and what Murray calls "militant environmentalism." His words so blunt, he's attracting a lot of attention.
[begin video clip]
COSTELLO: Bob Murray is a coal miner-turned-CEO of Murray Energy Corporation. He does not hide his disdain for what he calls the "global goofiness campaign." You could say he's the anti- Gore.
MURRAY: I would describe Al Gore as the shaman of global goofiness and gloom and doom.
COSTELLO: Murray calls Al Gore and his Hollywood friends "elitists" who see the working class as abstractions to push their agenda. Needless to say, he was not impressed by Gore's testimony before a congressional hearing on global warming.
GORE: If the crib's on fire, you don't speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action. The planet has a fever.
COSTELLO: Murray calls that "hysteria," saying Congress doesn't understand the consequences of bills to curb global warming.
MURRAY: Every bill that's been introduced to address it is going to destroy manufacturing jobs in America. It's going to raise the electric rates for people on fixed income.
COSTELLO: Murray says 52 percent of our electricity is generated by coal. It's the cheapest way to make it. Environmentalists say it's also the dirtiest way, accounting for a third of carbon dioxide emissions, which many scientists say is the culprit behind global warming.
Murray says maybe, but if companies are forced to cut back emissions without needed technology not now available, manufacturers will simply outsource overseas.
MURRAY: It's a human issue to me because I live among the people that wear the hard hats, and I saw what happened in 1990 with the Clean Air Act, and this will be much worse. And we must prevent that, because lives will be destroyed for little or no environmental benefit.
[end video clip]
COSTELLO: We must stress that most in the scientific community says global warming does exist and must be dealt with. We also called on Al Gore for a response. His camp reiterates that by saying, "To say that this is a debate between former vice president Al Gore and the coal companies is a mistake. Today, the scientific community has once again spoken loudly and clearly and confirmed that global warming is real. It is caused by human activity, its consequences are serious, and that actions must be taken now to avoid the worst damage." Suzanne.
MALVEAUX: Well, Carol, does Murray believe that there is any room for compromise here?
COSTELLO: You know, he really does. What he's really concerned about are people losing their jobs.
If all of these emissions controls are being put into place all at one time, he fears that'll be too expensive for companies to absorb. And what happens when that happens? They lay off workers.
MALVEAUX: Thanks Carol.
And while that energy CEO calls global warming "goofy," others say it involves a very grave situation. A new climate report from the United Nations warns that millions of people will go hungry, thirsty, and suffer disease as the world's temperature rises if the world doesn't act.
The report warns of rising sea levels swallowing up some coastal cities like New York. Scientists say that climate change could mean a new dust bowl bringing on drought in the Southwest and making it even hotter, and bring on a wave of animal extinction. Experts say polar bears could vanish this century because they will live on ice that will melt.















MALVEAUX: Here we have 2 gentleman whose careers teeter on their positions on global warming. Mr. Gore, with his entire political career now tied to the affirmative side of global warming, says "the planet has a fever." Mr. Murray, with his millions in salary hanging on the ability to continue to produce energy in the dirtiest way, is concerned with the "human cost" of environmental legislation, regardless of whether the "fever" will affect those same people adversely AND who likes to spend money on things other than safety in his company.
COSTELLO: That's right! Think we can get a compromise?
Difference is one of them is fighting for the survival of the human species, the other is fighting to "stay the course", even if that means total devastation.
Guess who is who.
Randy
CNN's Costello: "[Murray's] words so blunt, he's attracting a lot of attention."
Attention? From who?
I just did a simple Google News search for 'Bob Murray' and 'coal'. The results were a grand total of four articles over the past month, and one of those was from (surprise!) rushlimbaugh.com.
Doesn't look like "a lot of attention" to me.
C(ertainly) N(ot) N(ews) = the new Fox Snooze... what reputable *news** source would bring a CEO of an energy company to refute SCIENTIFIC FACTS!! This is like bringing a family member of a thief to the victim's house saying there is no way my brother stole your phone- despite the fact the stolen phone is, in fact, in the thief's hand...
Or a NAMBLA member to provide a counterpoint to internet safety advocates.
Maybe Time/Warner has an investment in his coal mines.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
The Clean Air & Water Acts are all that stands between us and returning to the days of burning rivers, and suffocating smog!! This CEO is concern as all CEO's are about profit, and nothing else!
Jobs? Where was his dander was when NAFTA, CAFTA and all the treaties we signed under Clinton and Bush to outsource manufacturing jobs?
Where was he when Walmart torpedoed a whole nation's manufacturing base by outsourcing to China, India, and Mexico?
The idea he would have a platform on a news show with no counter opinion leaves us with the obvious deduction that the network has an agenda allied with the CEO at the expense of the public interest!
We must have the Fairness Doctrine, and we must bust the monopolies created by the deregulation of the media in America if we are to restore our constitutions freedoms eroded by the corporate media through the Neo-Con persuit of consolidated power!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
We've been losing manufacturing jobs since 1940. Get over it. It's one of those capitalism things that you choose not to understand.
Whoops.
(It's one of those "factual" things that you choose not to understand.)
A. Your table deals with jobs lost because of imports, not "manufacturing" jobs, which is what Dan mentioned.
B. What does your table show that refutes what I said, even if the figures were about all manufacturing jobs?
The reason we lose labor positions because of free trade is the same reason Michael Dell and Bill Gates aren't Michael Gonzales and Bill Juarez.
Interesting. So your position is that "imports" are not manufactured somewhere? Mexican workers have the magical ability to create durable goods without actually "manufacturing" them?
Certainly many of those jobs involve manufacturing...but what about administrative support? Sales staff? Transportation jobs for exporting goods, etc. etc. etc. If it's singly and uniquely "manufacturing jobs", why not just list that in the chart.
Better charts: http://www.bls.gov/iag/manufacturing.htm
For some odd reason, while the # of manufacturing jobs have fallen since NAFTA, the hourly wage has gone up for those remaining jobs. I wonder if that's because those workers that are more productive remain valuable and to the companies are retained at a higher rate..hmm, that WOULD explain the higher productivity and output figures too.
Look, no ill will, but jobs go to Mexico because the labor is cheaper for the same job. That keeps costs down for US consumers. Capitalism posits that as work becomes simpler and workers become more educated, the labor-intensive jobs will filter down the ranks, while the higher-educated will move onto something else, either by will or by necessity.
I don't really think that is characteristic of "capitalism" per se, which as I understand it just talks about the ownership of industries. It is certainly characteristic of the system we live under, which I would call "corporate statism."
It is simply one system, among many, for organising an economy, and one that favours the interests of the owners rather than the workers, for the simple reason that the owners had a much larger say in the promulgation of economic policy than the workers.
Now, it could be argued that this is a better way of organising an economy, but one would have to look at the question of "better for whom?"
Eh, it's more "free market" than "capitalism", I suppose. And, you're right, Valentinian, it's the age-old question of "better for whom" when speaking on economic terms.
The tough part is that as you begin to redistribute wealth, the initiative to gain wealth lessens. So, for instance, if we overtaxed the corporations, it's less likely they would invest as much into development, create more jobs, etc.
Unless humanity somehow evolves to work for the greater good and for the advancement of its own kind, I think an economic model that promotes the best per capita while ensuring growth is the best way to go.
"The tough part is that as you begin to redistribute wealth, the initiative to gain wealth lessens."
Riiight. Everyone would just be complacent because the will to make more money would just fade away. Also, all that redistributed wealth would make people too afraid to take risks in the market because they would have nothing to fall back on?
"So, for instance, if we overtaxed the corporations, it's less likely they would invest as much into development, create more jobs, etc."
Yes. Companies would not reinvest in the consumer/labor base because having nobody to externalize their costs to or buy their products and services is really smart. Moreover, the failure of your example is that the taxes you mention just disappear. What becomes of that money? Is it reinvested in the infrastructure and people that facilitates the prosperity of the company? Is it given back to the company in the form of subsidies?
Taxes are the investment that makes this country prosper.
So the loss of manufacturing jobs is a free market thing, but Al Gore pushing for cleaner and renewable energies, which will cost jobs in the dirty energy markets, isn't a free market effect.
And I suppose you would have protested the advent of the automobile back in 1905, because of the "human cost" to the manufacturers of buggy whips and carriages.
Randy
"We've been losing manufacturing jobs since 1940."
We lost manufacturing jobs during World War II (1941-45)?? Do you have a source for that?
Good catch. I was so fixated on the premise that I overlooked the preposterousness of pinpointing 1940 as the beginning of the manufacturing shrinkage.
Randy
Yep. And hours later, I'm still waiting for the source of that claim.
It's kind of hard to 'get over it' when our national infrastructure is crumblings because we've exported all of our manufacturing and machine-tool capacity to third world nations. What kind of economy would you like the United States to have? One where everyone either works in the service industry, entertainment industry, or a dot-com? How long do you think we'll be able to sustain that, hmm?