

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
As the United States examines the
origins of the environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, one
factor that should not be overlooked is media coverage that served to
cover up dangers rather than expose them. When President Barack Obama
declared a new push for offshore drilling (3/31/10), asserting that
"oil rigs today generally don't cause spills" (4/2/10), corporate news outlets echoed such
pollyanna sentiments:
You know, there are a lot of serious people
looking at, "Are there ways that we can do drilling and we can do
nuclear that are--that are nowhere near as risky as what they were 10 or
15 or 20 years ago?" Offshore drilling today is a lot more safer, in
many ways, environmentally, today than it was 20 years ago.
--David Gergen, CNN's Situation
Room (3/31/10)Some Americans have an opinion of offshore drilling
that was first formed decades ago with those pictures of oil on the
beaches in Santa Barbara, California. Others see it differently. They
say time and technology have changed things. They say in order to
lessen our dependence on foreign oil and keep gas prices low, we've got
to bring more of it out of the ground and from under the sea.
--Brian Williams, NBC Nightly News
(3/31/10)The technology of oil drilling has made huge
advances.... The time has come for my fellow environmentalists to
reassess their stand on offshore oil. It is not clear that the risks of
offshore oil drilling still outweigh the benefits. The risk of oil
spills in the United States is quite low.
--Eric Smith, Washington Post
op-ed (4/2/10)Some of the most ironic objections come from those
who say offshore exploration will destroy beaches and coastlines,
citing the devastating 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska as an
example. The last serious spill from a drilling accident in U.S. waters
was in 1969, off Santa Barbara, California.
--USA Today editorial (4/2/10)Since the big spill off the coast of California
about three decades ago, the big oil companies have really put a lot of
time, money and resources into making sure that their drilling is a
lot more safe and environmentally sound.
--Monica Crowley, Fox Business Happy Hour
(3/31/10)Drilling could be conducted in an environmentally
sensitive manner. We already drill in an environmentally sensitive
manner.
--Sean Hannity, Fox News' Hannity
(4/1/10)And even in terms of the environment, we're going to
consume oil one way or the other. It's safer for the planet if it's
done under our strict controls and high technology in America as
opposed to Nigeria.... We've got a ton of drilling happening every day
today in the Gulf of Mexico in a hurricane area and it's successful.
--Charles Krauthammer, WJLA's Inside
Washington (4/4/10)We had a hurricane on the Gulf Coast and there was
no oil spill. If Katrina didn't cause an oil spill with all those oil
wells in the Gulf....
--Dick Morris, Fox News' O'Reilly
Factor (3/31/10)The two main reasons oil and other fossil fuels
became environmentally incorrect in the 1970s--air pollution and risk
of oil spills--are largely obsolete. Improvements in drilling
technology have greatly reduced the risk of the kind of offshore spill
that occurred off Santa Barbara in 1969.... To fear oil spills from
offshore rigs today is analogous to fearing air travel now because of
prop plane crashes.
--Steven F. Hayward, Weekly Standard
(4/26/10)
And these messages didn't entirely disappear after
the Gulf of Mexico disaster unfolded. In its May 10 issue, Time
magazine had a small box headlined, "Offshore-Drilling Disasters:
Rare But Deadly," which listed a mere four incidents--the most recent
in 1988. But it doesn't take too much research to turn up a slew of
other incidents that raise concerns: the Unocal-owned Seacrest
drillship that capsized in 1989, killing 91 people; Phillips
Petroleum's Alexander Kielland rig that collapsed in 1980, killing 123,
and more. The list managed to overlook at least three well disasters
in the Gulf of Mexico that resulted in oil spills--two incidents off
the Louisiana coast in 1999, and the Usumacinta spill in Mexican waters
in 2007.
A previous Time.com story (4/24/10) had noted that the Minerals Management
Service, which oversees offshore drilling, reported 39 fires or
explosions in the first five months of 2009 alone; though the magazine
said the "good news" is that "most of these" did not result in death.
The website Oil Rig Disasters tallies 184 incidents,
dozens of which involved fatalities--and 73 of which occurred after
1988.
Clearly there are different ways to measure such
things, but it's hard not to feel that Time's point
was to suggest that drilling disasters are really too rare to worry
about.
Since the BP/Deepwater disaster, many news outlets
have run investigative pieces detailing the long history of negligent
oversight of the offshore drilling industry. But when the New
York Times tells readers (5/25/10) about the "enduring laxity of federal
regulation of offshore operations," one can't help but wonder why this
apparently well-known problem got so little attention before the
environmental catastrophe.
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints.
"The truth is, there are not enough factories, or skilled workers, or materials to effectively spend such a huge increase," said one expert. "It will be a recipe for waste, fraud, and abuse."
The budget document that President Donald Trump's White House is set to release Friday calls for $1.5 trillion in military spending for the coming fiscal year, an unprecedented sum that—if approved by Congress—would add nearly $7 trillion to the US national debt over the next decade.
The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, which got an early look at the president's fiscal year 2027 budget, reported that the plan includes roughly $1.15 trillion in baseline US military spending as well as $350 billion in supplemental funding "that Republicans could pass in a party-line budget reconciliation bill." The Journal doesn't specify the purpose of the proposed supplemental funding, but the Pentagon has asked Congress for at least $200 billion for the Iran war.
The budget, which would boost total US military spending by more than 40% compared to the current fiscal year, also reportedly calls for investments in Trump's so-called Golden Dome missile defense system, a project that critics have derided as an absurd boondoggle.
Earlier this week, Trump suggested the US federal government can't afford to fund childcare and other domestic social programs because it is "fighting wars."
William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote in an analysis of the budget proposal ahead of its official release that "whatever vehicles the administration chooses to promote this huge increase, it will be doubling down on a failed budgetary and national security strategy."
"If passed as requested, $1.5 trillion in Pentagon spending—in a single year–will make America weaker by underwriting a misguided strategy, funding outmoded weapons programs, and crowding out other essential public investments," Hartung argued. "The Pentagon doesn’t need more spending, it needs more spending discipline. Spending billions of dollars on a Golden Dome system that can never achieve the President’s dream of a leak-proof missile defense system is sheer waste, as is continuing to lavish funds on overpriced, underperforming combat aircraft like the F-35, or multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers that are vulnerable to modern high-speed missiles."
"The truth is, there are not enough factories, or skilled workers, or materials to effectively spend such a huge increase," he added. "It will be a recipe for waste, fraud, and abuse."
In anticipation of the White House proposal, a broad coalition of nearly 300 advocacy organizations sent a letter to members of Congress on Thursday demanding that they reject Trump's request and any other proposed budget increases for the Pentagon, which recently failed its eighth consecutive audit.
"We must invest in critical human needs programs in our communities. Instead, we have cut those programs massively," the groups wrote, pointing to the record Medicaid and nutrition assistance cuts that Trump and congressional Republicans approved last year.
"The Pentagon is unaccountable to American taxpayers, having never passed an audit, while more than half of its budget (54 percent) is paid to corporate military contractors, whose profits are rising. Further gigantic increases would be grossly irresponsible," the groups continued. "Funding an unaccountable Pentagon by more than $1 trillion while underfunding human needs programs undermines our security by preventing us from investing in the shared prosperity that comes from more housing, health care, climate and public health protections, ending hunger, and providing quality public education."
"Just pointless forever war, death and destruction—a flailing, furious, rapidly declining superpower," one analyst wrote of the Trump administration's assault.
US President Donald Trump late Thursday threatened more illegal attacks on Iranian civilian infrastructure, including bridges and power plants, as Iran's military said it shot down an American fighter jet over Tehran, with state-affiliated media publishing apparent photos from the scene.
An Iranian official told Drop Site's Jeremy Scahill that Iran's forces hit an F-15 warplane, causing the jet to crash and sparking "an intense fire." The unnamed Iranian official said the pilot could not have evacuated due to the "nature of the strike," but "no remains have yet been found."
The US Central Command had not commented on the purported downing of an American fighter jet as of this writing. Last month, a US F-35 was forced to make an emergency landing at an air base in the Middle East after reportedly being struck by Iranian fire.
🚨 BREAKING | An Iranian official told Drop Site News that a U.S. F-15 warplane struck by Iranian forces went down over southern Tehran Province, with intense fire reported at the crash site.
The official said the nature of the strike prevented the pilot[s] from ejecting before… https://t.co/iUKD0AqRQQ pic.twitter.com/BI4TzolmZY
— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) April 3, 2026
Iran's claim on Friday came as Trump issued more belligerent threats on his social media platform, declaring that the US military "hasn’t even started destroying what’s left in Iran."
"Bridges next, then Electric Power Plants!" the president wrote, shortly after bragging about the US military's destruction of an Iranian highway bridge. "New Regime leadership knows what has to be done, and has to be done, FAST!"
Brian Finucane, senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, characterized Trump's message as "more threats of war crimes as POTUS flails and seeks to coerce an exit to his own self-inflicted, unnecessary, and ill-conceived war."
Trump's renewed threats came amid reports of US-Israeli attacks on a century-old Iranian medical research center, pharmaceutical facilities, residential buildings, and other civilian infrastructure—and on emergency responders aiding those wounded by the attacks.
"War crime after war crime after war crime," US Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), the lone Iranian American member of Congress, wrote early Friday. "Now’s the time to speak up if you’re against this reckless war of choice. The consequences will be vast and catastrophic."
Ben Rhodes, a political analyst who worked in the Obama administration, wrote that the US military's recent actions have "nothing to do with nuclear or helping Iranians."
"Just pointless forever war, death and destruction—a flailing, furious, rapidly declining superpower," Rhodes added.
One campaigner urged the administration to "focus on real solutions to support more transparent and diverse supply sources and make targeted investments for the supply of key medicines."
On Thursday, the one-year anniversary of President Donald Trump's so-called Liberation Day, US advocacy groups sounded the alarm about his new tariffs targeting "patented pharmaceuticals and their ingredients under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to bolster American national security and public health."
The administration announced a year ago that the US Department of Commerce would conduct a related investigation under that law. The resulting report was recently sent to the president, and although the findings have not been made public, Trump's executive order summarizes key takeaways and Secretary Howard Lutnick's recommended actions.
According to the order, the secretary's recommendations included "continuing to negotiate onshoring agreements related to most favored nation (MFN) pharmaceutical pricing agreements; imposing significant tariffs on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients, so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security of the United States; and granting preferential treatment to those companies that commit to onshore production of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients."
Citing an unnamed Trump administration official, The Washington Post reported Thursday that "the White House has reached agreements with 13 drugmakers and expects to soon conclude an additional four." As part of these deals, companies are planning to invest at least $400 billion in new US plants.
The Post also pointed out that "some imported drugs will face much lower tariffs under trade deals Trump negotiated with five US trading partners. Goods from the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and Switzerland will face 15% levies, while drugs from the United Kingdom, which was the first to sign a deal with Trump, will be hit with a 10% tariff."
Thanks to Trump's new order, brand-name pharmaceuticals made in other countries could be hit with tariffs as high as 100%.
Merith Basey, CEO of Patients for Affordable Drugs, warned in a statement that "while these tariffs aim to pressure pharmaceutical corporations into US manufacturing and most favored nation agreements, the current MFN deals remain opaque and voluntary, and have not delivered meaningful savings for the vast majority of American patients. There's a real risk these tariffs will drive up costs and create more uncertainty for millions of patients already struggling to afford their medications."
Experts at Public Citizen, another advocacy group that has sued to expose the secretive MFN agreements, were similarly critical.
"By announcing these tariffs without even producing the evidence from the investigation that supposedly justifies them, Trump is continuing his pattern of grabbing headlines by using the word 'tariff' while engaging in secretive ongoing negotiations and opaque exemptions processes that are ripe for corporate corruption," said Public Citizen Global Trade Watch director Melinda St. Louis—who also wrote a broader takedown of Trump's trade policy published Thursday by Common Dreams.
"While strategic tariffs can be used to support domestic manufacturing and good jobs, they must be paired with real public investments and support for workers' rights, which Trump has systematically undermined," she said. "Instead, he's bullying other countries like the UK into paying more for medicines, which will lead to windfall profits for Big Pharma and do nothing to reduce US prices."
Peter Maybarduk, director of Access to Medicines at Public Citizen, stressed that "Trump's tariffs will be either ineffective or harmful for what people need, which is a reliable, plentiful, affordable supply of medicine."
Also taking aim at the "secretive arrangements that allow Trump to claim specious victories on manufacturing and high drug prices," Maybarduk explained that "in reality, many manufacturing commitments claimed under the deals were part of previously planned projects and the drug pricing commitments appear designed to largely spare drug company profits rather than earnestly address affordability concerns."
"Meanwhile the administration has given drugmakers perks like lucrative vouchers to accelerate FDA review of their medicines and a promise from the Trump administration that it will bully other countries into adopting higher prescription drug prices, using tariffs as leverage," he continued, referring to the Food and Drug administration.
"If the administration wants to fix problems like medicines shortages and fragile supply chains," he argued, "it should focus on real solutions to support more transparent and diverse supply sources and make targeted investments for the supply of key medicines."