Since the authors name is not disclosed, the views expressed therein can be attributed to the Editorial Board of USA Today.
In the immediate aftermath of the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Obama Adminstration issued a moratorium banning all drilling activity in the region for the next six months. This meant that all 33 oil rigs in the Gulf will remain idle, along with tens of thousands of oil-rig workers. The moratorium elicited mixed reactions from different sections of society and body politic. The republicans accuse President Obama of pandering to the insecurities and fears of the masses, whereas public opinion is fairly supportive of this decision.
The editorials central argument is that the moratorium is too arbitrary a measure; and that the Obama Adminstration could have drawn up more specific set of criteria for the reopening of rigs. The author goes one step ahead and enlists three specific criterions for the eventual reopening of rigs. These are: “Is it safe to drill?, Is there a credible plan for plugging a blowout?, and Is the industry capable of cleaning up a catastrophic spill?”. He further explains the rationale behind these questions. To this extent there seems to be no editorial bias one way or the other. Major newspapers in the United States are classified as either liberal or conservative; and it appears that the author takes up neither position in the article. Hence it is easy to come to the conclusion that the editorial is not ideologically slanted, and that it espouses neither the right-wing nor the left-wing perspective.
But a closer examination reveals more fundamental deficiencies. Beneath the veneer of being objective and critical, one could detect the soft stance toward major oil corporations. Given the sheer scale of the oil-spill catastrophe, one would expect a