CNN Tries, Fails to Cover Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


It’s not often that cable news covers complex environmental or labor issues, so I was hopeful when I heard that CNN’s Soledad O’Brien was doing a piece on the battle over Blair Mountain for the CNN In America series. I wrote about this site of a historic labor battle that coal companies are seeking to blow up in a piece last November, and the fight still rages on. Unfortunately, though, the CNN piece starts from the same tired tropes to talk about the issue and misses the bigger questions about mountain top removal coal mining.

The headline on the web piece is your first sign that the piece needs some help: “Steady job or healthy environment: What would you choose?” The story, posted in short clips online, has a number of flaws. Here are the top three:

1. The “jobs versus the environment” frame. The problems with this are numerous. First of all, mountaintop removal creates/sustains a whole lot fewer jobs than underground coal mining. Once you remove the coal, there are no more jobs there. The headline reference to a “steady job” must be some kind of dark humor, given the decline in coal jobs in this country.

Then, once you have created a monoeconomy based on coal, the disappearance of those jobs devastates the surrounding community—especially now that you’ve destroyed the mountains and polluted the surrounding areas, ruining property values and any potential for tourism. And then there’s the health factor…but I’ll get to that in my next point. In the meantime, here’s what poverty rates look like in central Appalachia near surface mining sites, via Appalachian Voices:

2. Human health impacts are ignored. The “enviros vs. jobs” frame ignores that this isn’t just an environmental question, it’s a health issue. Areas near MTR sites have been found to have higher rates of cancer, more birth defects, and additional lung and kidney problems. Unfortunately, this gets short shrift in the film.

3. It’s not just about “how a mountain looks.” That’s actually a direct quote from one of O’Brien’s questions in the segment. Yikes. Yes, topless mountains do look bad, aesthetically. But the real problem issue is that you destroy the ecosystem on those mountains, and then ruin the nearby waterways when you dump in the toxic debris. And while mining advocates in the segment claim that reclaimed MTR sites look just like they did before the mining, that’s far from the truth at many sites.

One last point is that it takes a while in the piece to get to the history of Blair Mountain, which is regrettable. It was the site of the largest labor uprising in US history, one that pitted coal miners against tyrannical coal barons and the state and national government. While the miners didn’t win this battle, it was seen as a significant step in the long-term struggle to gain rights for workers in this country. I don’t think it’s some grand coincidence that coal companies now want to blow it off the map. That’s clear from the shenanigans undertaken at the behest of coal companies to get the site removed from the National Register of Historic Places. So there’s a layer of significance to this site beyond the broader conversation about MTR in this country.

Jeff Biggers has compiled some responses from area residents on Alternet that are worth a read. Even though the segment falls short of what I hoped for, I guess I am glad to see MTR getting any coverage on cable television. I just wish they’d done a better job of it.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate