It’s been a while since I’ve written anything political…

By day three of the Utah coal mine collapse (and as of this writing), we don’t yet know whether the miners are alive or dead. We don’t know the reason for the collapse. We do, however, know where the mine owner stands on the only issue that matters: Global Warming.

While the headline on the ABCNEWS.com article page itself reads: “Mine Owner Faces Old Foes After Collapse”, what the browser banner proclaims is “Utah Mine Owner Opposed Safety Measures, Refutes Global Warming”.

Maybe I’ll just rewrite that headline for them: “Capitalist, Climate Change Heretic, Knowingly Endangers Workers.” If you look at the obligatory “crazy guy” picture included with the article (who says AP has an agenda?), add a handlebar mustache, and use photoshop to drop the fingers down from the eyes so they look like they’re curling the ends maniacally, you’ve got the gist of the article.

In getting through the first two pages, you’d assume that the mine is a deathtrap, what with the owner’s resistance to unionizing his employees and the crippling costs leading to a mine shutdow…er…enhanced safety at lower cost that would ensue, but you have to get to page three to discover:

Despite criticism from the union and hundreds of safety complaints filed with the federal government, experts said the mine had received fewer complaints than most mines of the same size across the country.

I wonder how many of those same-sized mines with more complaints are organized by the union making these criticisms? It appears that ABC does not, as they helpfully omit such info.

Within the first few paragraphs of the article, we’re told,

Murray, a former miner who survived two accidents on the job before mortgaging his home to found his company, has in the past taken on politicians pushing for more stringent safety measures, the environmental lobby and labor unions.”

In the aftermath of Monday’s collapse at Crandall Canyon mine in Emery County, Utah, some of those old foes, including a U.S. senator, have offered new rebukes.”

“Instead of actively fighting those working for cleaner coal, the one thing Murray should now focus on is workers’ safety. That should be his only priority,” Boxer told ABCNEWS.com.

And why is Senator Boxer talking about “cleaner coal”, while helpfully setting Mr. Murray’s priorities for him, in the middle of a rescue operation? Because, “‘The science of global warming is suspect,’ Murray told the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in June… At the hearing, Murray had a heated exchange with Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., over clean coal technology.”

So according to this article, the first thing Senator Boxer does when hearing about a mine collapse, where the state of the miners lives is still unsure, is to use the opportunity to get the last word in on an argument over “clean coal technology” with the mine owner.

To hell with the emotions of the miners’ families. There are political points to be won, by Senator Boxer, the AP, and ABC news, for whom this is not the first instance of “advocacy journalism” in the service of the environmental cause.

Apparently, one can avoid the labels “insensitive” and “ghoulish opportunist” so long as one’s exploitation of tragedy is in the service of a just cause, however unrelated.