politics

Seven Newspapers Grapple With Bush’s Flip-Flop on Oil

How well did the press explain the context of the president’s unexpected and seemingly grandiose announcement about America’s dependence on oil?

February 1, 2006

“America is addicted to oil,” President Bush declared in the State of the Union last night, proposing the country develop new energy sources to reduce its consumption of Middle East oil by three-quarters by 2025. So how well did the press explain the context surrounding this unexpected and seemingly grandiose announcement by a president whose fortune was built on black gold?

“America is drunk on oil,” the New York Post screamed on its front page today, relaying the president’s message that “it’s time to kick the habit.”

“[Bush] called for ‘cutting-edge research’ on how to use sugar cane, wood chips and even weeds to fuel cars as he delivered the annual State of the Union Address and sought to revitalize his presidency,” reported the Post, noting the call came at a time “when oil is edging toward $70 a barrel and gasoline prices are a hot topic.” The paper listed Bush’s goal of “making new forms of ethanol ‘practical and competitive’ within six years,” his proposal to up federal energy research funding by 22 percent, and his push “for new nuclear-power plants, more wind and solar power, clean-coal technologies and hydrogen-fuel cells as alternatives to oil.” But the Post had little time for reflection on Bush’s oil call to arms, noting only that “most oil imports don’t come from the Mideast.”

In its analysis of the president’s speech, USA Today wrote that “it was Bush’s oil declaration that stood out the most. It was one of his strongest statements on the need for the United States to wean itself from an oil-based economy, made all the more notable because of Bush’s personal, professional and political ties to the Texas oil industry.” In comparison with last year, said the paper, “Bush was far more direct in tying energy independence to the nation’s economic and physical security.” That signals the broad implications of our oil consumption — but USA Today, which posted its story within minutes of the end of Bush’s speech and updated it within the hour, didn’t give itself time to analyze much of anything.

Some papers did some drilling of their own, however. In its State of the Union recap, the St. Petersburg Times found much to analyze — and criticize.

“The oil man says the nation is hooked on oil,” remarked the Times, hastening to add that “The image of wood chips powering the family minivan was a convenient distraction from congressional scandals, Hurricane Katrina, the body count in Iraq and the prospect of nukes in Iran.”

Sign up for CJR's daily email

“But talk is cheap. Will Bush put the force of his personality behind the energy proposals?” wondered the Times. “His comments about oil addiction may ring hollow with many Americans. Bush not only comes from an oil family (his White House bio boasts that he owned an oil and gas company), but his administration has boosted the oil industry at every turn. With Exxon reporting a $36 billion profit for last year, many people will wonder if he sincerely wants to break an addiction that puts food on the Bush dinner table.”

“A breakthrough on alternative fuels could be a signature issue for a presidency that has gone adrift,” the Times concluded. “But Bush has to convince the nation that he, too, has ended his own dependence on oil.”

In the pages of the Boston Globe, the paper noted that Bush “joined a series of Oval Office occupants who have planted rhetorical flags in the sands of energy independence,” and gave voice to conservationists who said “Bush’s financial commitment is far too little to spark the breakthrough that would be necessary to meet his ambitious goals.” Moreover, the president “made no mention of increasing passenger car fuel-efficiency standards, which the automobile industry has resisted.” The Sierra Club’s Dave Hamilton told the Globe: ”One would think if you had an addiction, you wouldn’t say, ‘I’ll wait 20 years to do something about it.'”

Solid efforts, too, were made by the Chicago Tribune and Washington Post. In a fact check, the Tribune said Bush’s “treatment plan” for America’s oil addiction “is likely to be long and costly. And even if the country achieves the goals Bush set in his speech, the U.S. would remain heavily dependent on oil imports from volatile regions for years to come,” as we get far more of our oil from Africa and Venezuela, “where governments also are either unstable or unfriendly to the U.S.,” than we do from the Middle East. The Post, meanwhile, contributed the crucial point that “after years of cuts, Bush’s proposals would barely get renewable-energy funding back to where it was at the end of his predecessor’s administration, said Dan Reicher, an assistant energy secretary for renewable fuels and conservation under Bill Clinton.”

But our first-place certificate for giving the fullest explanation of what Bush’s oil words really mean goes to the New York Times for its story, “Call to Cut Foreign Oil Is a Refrain 35 Years Old.”

Despite the promises of presidents before Bush and even his own calls “in each of his past four State of the Union addresses for a reduction in the dependence on foreign oil,” reported the Times, the nation’s “dependence on oil imports is at a record level.” In 1995 the United States imported 44.5 percent of its oil, with that figure rising to about 60 percent last year.

The Times also pointed out that it was not exactly clear “how Mr. Bush was defining his goal” of drawing down imports of Middle Eastern oil by 75 percent over the next two decades: “There is a big difference between reducing such imports 75 percent below today’s levels and reducing such imports 75 percent below what they would otherwise be if American supply and demand continued on their present course.”

The story was wonky, its tone rather dry (no allusions to drunkenness here), but overall the Times‘ examination of the issue rounded out the picture: Bush’s call to action is an important first step, but not much more.

If only the national press paid such rapt attention and parsed politicians’ statements so closely every day of the year.

Edward B. Colby was a writer at CJR Daily.