A few days ago, a small "organization" no one had ever heard of got their hands on Al Gore's utility bill. And, not surprising for a man who lives in a large home, Gore's bill was a lot of money. The "organization" claimed that Gore was a hypocrite for proclaiming the need to address Global Warming while living in a 20-room home.
Huh?
Since when was it a crime, or even in poor taste, in America to do well and live in a nice home - and since when did Al Gore lecture anyone on the need to buy smaller homes? (Sure, it fits into the conservative smear about rich liberals being hypocrites, because somehow we're all supposed to be poor Capuchin monks, but that's neither true nor news.) But, no one was claiming that Gore was wasteful with his energy use. No one was claiming that Gore didn't try to "greenify" his home (he did). What they were claiming was that Al Gore lived in a large home and thus had a high energy bill. Uh, yeah. And?
So how exactly is this story news? Simply because some out-of-nowhere "organization" just happens to attack Al Gore a few days after his documentary gets the Oscar? Gee, some conicidence there. And in fact, contrary to the implication that Gore was sloppy with his own energy use - which would be news - Gore has been doing exactly what he preached:
The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program -- electricity generated through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. "In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Kreider added. "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."Now, ABC will argue that there is a controversy here and they're simply reporting both sides. Gee, thanks. But the first rule of journalism, in my book at least, isn't whether there's a controversy, it's whether there's a story. You can't legitimiately do a he-said-she-said when you know that there's no there-there. In this story, the complaint on its face, that Al Gore lives in a 20-room house, is bogus, unless Al Gore has been lecturing people about the need to live in smaller houses - and he hasn't, to my knowledge, nor do the stories say otherwise.
To reiterate a point made by ABC's own Mark Halperin a few years back:
We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.The attack on Al Gore is the equivalent of the "have you stopped beating your wife" allegation. It's not news, and it's not fair and balanced, simply because you report the views of the slanderer and the victim, especially when you know that the only thing people in the middle will take away from the story is a scent of scandal that blackens Gore's good name.
You can read ABC's piece on this here.
