While looking through this week’s readings, I noticed a difference in representation of the EPA between articles. Both this article from the Detroit Free Press and this piece from the Ann Arbor Observer discuss the work researchers at the Ann Arbor EPA lab are doing to investigate fuel economy claims of various cars. Both articles make it seem like the EPA is doing a great job of keeping car manufacturers in check and giving honest information to consumers. With several sources from inside the EPA, the organization comes across as an open government agency that does its best to work for the people.
However, the blog posts show a different side of the story. This one by reporter Janet Raloff comments on the unusually restricted access to information at an EPA press conference. The other post from the blog of the International Council on Clean Transportation mentions that it took the EPA one year to identify some of the problematic fuel economy claims and start testing cars to find the truth. Neither blog post is against the EPA; the second one does support the agency for the research it has done and its enforcement of car manufacturer regulations. Still, these posts bring up important information that the public does not seem to be getting from mainstream news sources.
After reading the news stories and blog posts, do you think the traditional, “objective” journalism is telling the full story? How does this compare to the opinion pieces, which do not rely as heavily on EPA sources?