Tale of 2 flicks
Mainstream media's leftist bias is evident regarding two movies filmed in the Pittsburgh area — an anti-fracking environmentalist diatribe and a tale of parents overcoming the shortcomings of union-controlled public education.
The forthcoming “Promised Land” — starring and co-written by Matt Damon and shot in the Alle-Kiski Valley — predictably and inaccurately portrays U.S. energy companies as evil, polluting destroyers of small towns. Breitbart's Big Hollywood says it even “suggests they might be planting ‘doom-saying' environmentalists ... to undercut the legitimacy of environmental voices all-together.”
But there's more to this movie's agenda. It's financed in part by a company wholly owned by the government of Abu Dhabi — which produces 2.7 million barrels of oil a day and ranks sixth globally in natural gas reserves. Yet mainstream media have little, if anything, to say about Abu Dhabi's vested interest — and Hollywood leftists' complicity — in trashing a U.S. industry operating safely and reducing America's energy dependency on OPEC.
Instead, leftist mainstream media, such as National Public Radio, attack the recently released, Hill District-shot “Won't Back Down” as “propaganda ... from a conservative mogul” — financial backer Phil Anschutz.
So, it's fine for liberals (and their anti-American bedfellows behind the scenes), but not for conservatives, to promote their views? That old mainstream-media double standard is as off base today as it always has been.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.