EPA: Working hard to crush US economy with $700 billion hit

[_bcspace]

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has devoted an unprecedented number of bureaucrats to finalizing new anti-coal regulations that are set to be released at the end of November, according to a source inside the EPA.

More than 50 EPA staff are now crashing to finish greenhouse gas emission standards that would essentially ban all construction of new coal-fired power plants. Never before have so many EPA resources been devoted to a single regulation. The independent and non-partisan Manhattan Institute estimates that the EPA’s greenhouse gas coal regulation will cost the U.S. economy $700 billion.

The rush is a major sign of panic by environmentalists inside the Obama administration. If Obama wins, the EPA would have another four full years to implement their anti-fossil fuel agenda. But if Romney wins, regulators will have a very narrow window to enact a select few costly regulations that would then be very hard for a President Romney to undo.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/november-surprise-epa-planning-major-post-election-anti-coal-regulation/article/2512538#.UJdNrobhfiB

[_MeDotOrg]

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has devoted an unprecedented number of bureaucrats to finalizing new anti-coal regulations that are set to be released at the end of November, according to a source inside the EPA.

A lot of newspapers want confirmation from more than one unnamed source before running a story.

[_Drifting]

A lot of newspapers want confirmation from more than one unnamed source before running a story.

Would they not accept a warm feeling in their innards as confirmation?

[_subgenius]

A lot of newspapers want confirmation from more than one unnamed source before running a story.

actually not true

[_EAllusion]

The independent and non-partisan Manhattan Institute

That language was chosen to give the reader a sense that it is unbiased by ideological agenda. The Manhattan Institute is a [quite] conservative think tank. It's "independent" and "non-partisan" in the sense that it isn't outright owned by the Republican party. Its loyalty is to conservatism, not a particular party. This is a misleading choice of words in context. It's perfectly fine to refer to it as a conservative think tank just as CATO should be called a libertarian think tank and the Center for American Progress a liberal think tank.

[_MeDotOrg]

A lot of newspapers want confirmation from more than one unnamed source before running a story.

actually not true

From the Reuters handbook of Journalism:

Our reputation for accuracy and freedom from bias rests on the credibility of our sourcing. A Reuters journalist or camera is always the best source on a witnessed event. A named source is always preferable to an unnamed source. We should never deliberately mislead in our sourcing, quote a source saying one thing on the record and the opposite or something clearly contradictory on background, or cite sources in the plural when we have only one. Anonymous sources are the weakest sources...

...The weakest sources are those whose names we cannot publish. Reuters uses anonymous sources when we believe they are providing accurate, reliable and newsworthy information that we could not obtain any other way. We should not use anonymous sources when sources we can name are readily available for the same information.

Unnamed sources must have direct knowledge of the information they are giving us, or must represent an authority with direct knowledge. Remember that reliability declines the further away the source is from the event, and tougher questions must asked by reporters and supervisors on the validity of such information.

Responsibility for reporting what an anonymous source says resides solely with Reuters and the reporter. There is no liability or potential reputational damage to the source, making this the least watertight form of sourcing. We should convey to readers as clearly as possible why we believe the source is reliable, and what steps we have taken to ensure we are not being manipulated. This is done most effectively by the way we describe the source. The more removed the source is from a subject, the less reliable the source is likely to be. Reporters and editors should question the validity of information from a source remote from the action....

Stories based on a single, anonymous source should be the exception and require approval by an immediate supervisor – a bureau chief, head of reporting unit in a large centre, or editor in charge. The supervisor must satisfy himself or herself that the source is authoritative. Supervisors may pre-delegate approval to experienced senior correspondents working with authoritative sources to ensure we remain competitive on timings.

Factors to be taken into account include the source’s track record and the reporter’s track record. The supervisor may decide to hold the story for further checks if the sourcing is unsatisfactory. For a single source story, the informant must be an actual policymaker or participant involved in the action or negotiation with first-hand knowledge, or an official representative or spokesperson speaking on background. Such information should be subject to particular scrutiny to ensure we are not being manipulated.

The supervisor’s approval should be noted on the outgoing copy (in the “edited by” sign-off) so that editing desks and editors in charge have confidence that a senior journalist in a position of authority has authorised the story. If desks still have doubts, they should contact the supervisor concerned.