Está en la página 1de 106


A Comparison of New Rhetoric and Its Influence on Our
Perception of Environmental Issues

Community, Environment, and Planning
University of Washington, 2018

Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4
Context ............................................................................................................................. 6
Case Studies: Fox News and MSNBC ...................................................................................... 6
Paris Climate Agreement.......................................................................................................... 7
Dakota Access Pipeline ............................................................................................................ 8

Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 10

News Media Influence and Evolution ..................................................................................... 10
Foundations of Ideological Values ......................................................................................... 13
Issue Framing in the Environmental Context ......................................................................... 16

Methods ......................................................................................................................... 21
Procedure ............................................................................................................................... 21

Results ............................................................................................................................ 23
MSNBC Dakota Access Pipeline ............................................................................................ 23
Fox News DAPL ...................................................................................................................... 25
MSNBC, Paris Climate Agreement ......................................................................................... 27
Fox News, Paris Climate Agreement ...................................................................................... 28

Videos Cited ................................................................................................................... 31

Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 34
Reflection........................................................................................................................ 36
Appendices .................................................................................................................... 38
Appendix 1: News Audience Demographics ......................................................................... 38
Appendix 2: Transcripts.......................................................................................................... 39
Appendix 3: Analysis Results ................................................................................................ 103
Works Cited .................................................................................................................. 105

Over the last decade, the American news media landscape has changed in conjunction
with the growing variety and number of news sources. Traditional news outlets, with higher
expectations of journalistic standards, are challenged for viewership by news sources with
significantly more ideological spin and less accountability. The implications of this
transformation are debated, but some researchers argue that it has resulted in an increasingly
polarized public. One prominent example of political polarization is the case of the
environmental movement, in which environmental issues—from renewable energy to climate
change action and conservation—have come to be viewed by many as reflecting a liberal agenda.
To better understand how issues become polarized through news media, this research draws on
the latest literature and a case study analysis to examine how ideological values, issue
frameworks, and rhetoric are constructed in television news reports of the same environmental
events. The case study analysis compares news coverage of the Paris Climate Agreement and
Dakota Access Pipeline from two ideologically-opposed networks: Fox News and MSNBC. The
results of this study demonstrate the significance of language and communication in constructing
ideological opinions and underscore the influence that news has on the polarization of society.
The insights provided by this study encourage critical forethought among news viewers when
consuming media information.

Within the last five years, the United States has become more politically divided than the

previous two decades. According to study published by the Pew Research Center in 2014, the

beliefs of the median Democrat and median Republican have become more consistently polar

from 1994 to 2014 (Pew Research Center). In a democracy, the role of journalism is significant

in shaping public opinion on issues or events, holding public figures responsible for their actions,

and establishing standards of what is moral and just (Bennett 11) (Flaxman, Goel and Rao 299).

Taking this into consideration, I was interested in examining the differences of how the news is

constructed between a conservative and equivalent liberal media outlet in order to understand

how ideological values are portrayed in the news.

I began by selecting two ideologically opposed news networks, Fox News as a

conservative outlet and MSNBC as a liberal outlet, based on Pew Research Center data revealing

the ideological composition of each network’s audience (2012). As I began collecting research

for my literature review, I came across a study conducted by team of social psychologists who

created a survey focusing on the link between moral foundations and political ideology. From

their initial research, they identified five moral foundations commonly shared among all

humans—fairness, loyalty, care, sanctity, and authority. After collecting over 300,000 survey

results, they concluded that the values of fairness and care are more highly endorsed by political

liberals, while the values of loyalty, sanctity, and authority are more highly endorsed by political

conservatives (Haidt, 2008). Using this study as a basis for my comparison of Fox News and

MSNBC, I wanted to select two politically-charged, widely covered news events in the realm of

environmental issues, to see how these moral foundations are revealed in news coverage. Based

on these criteria, I decided to analyze the Dakota Access Pipeline protests and the US withdrawal

from Paris Climate Accord.

In the following sections, I will provide context, literature review, methods, results and

discussion of my research findings. First, I’ll explain the events I chose for my case study

analysis and provide a socio-economic breakdown of Fox News viewers and MSNBC viewers. In

my literature review, I explain the influence and evolution of news overtime—and academic

theories as to how this has impacted public opinion. I also address research about the differences

in moral foundations between liberal and conservative ideologies, and how environmental

frameworks target particular ideological values, exacerbating polarization on this issue. The

information gathered in my literature review was used to inform the data I collected for my

content analysis. The methods section provides an explanation of how I sampled videos, the

frameworks and themes I focused on for my analysis, and the procedure I conducted to examine

videos and collect data. In the concluding sections of this report, I discuss the results of my

rhetorical analysis, the implications of this research, and provide a self-assessment of my project


Case Studies: Fox News and MSNBC
For this analysis, I focused on coverage from Fox News and MSNBC—two cable news

networks that represent relatively equally-opposed sides of the political spectrum. In a 2012

report by the Pew Research Center, audiences for Fox News was 60% Republican overall, with

network shows hosted by Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly drawing audiences that are 78% and

69% Republican, respectively (Pew Research Center). The same report shows MSNBC had an

audience that is 36% Democratic—the largest among 24/7 cable news networks— with hosts

Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews holding audiences that are 57% and 48% Democratic (Pew

Research Center). By narrowing my focus to these two networks, I was able to create a more

substantial qualitative comparison.

To understand the audience reach of Fox News and MSNBC, I collected corresponding

information on audience demographics. The Pew Research Center’s “Annual State of the News

Report” from 2012 provided information on age, gender, income, and other factors of the cable

news audiences (see Appendix 1). The data was collected through a combination of landline and

randomized digit dial sample for cell phones, designed to be “representative both geographically

and by large and small wireless carriers” (Pew Research Center). In Appendix 1 is a summary of

the statistics for MSNBC and its anchors, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews, and Fox News

and its anchors, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly.

Directly comparing these two networks, a few key observations are notable. Firstly, the

age of audience members watching TV news programming is skewed towards older individuals

overall, but is especially notable among viewers of Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly (Pew

Research Center). Fox News has the greatest percentage of viewers in the lowest age group of

18-29 at 19%, but Hannity and O’Reilly have a significantly greater percentage of viewers aged
65+ (Pew Research Center). Viewers of MSNBC are majority women, while viewers of Hannity

and O’Reilly are majority men (Pew Research Center). There are more college-graduated

viewers of Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews, while the majority of viewers of Hannity and

O’Reilly have a High School Diploma or less (Pew Research Center). Rachel Maddow has the

greatest percentage of viewers making the highest salary bracket of $75,000 by ten points, with

Chris Matthews, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity trailing evenly behind. Viewers of MSNBC and

Fox News are relatively evenly split between viewers that want news with no point of view—

50% and 53%—and viewers who want news with a shared point of view—39% and 37% (Pew

Research Center). Maddow’s viewers answered the most questions about current political topics

correctly at 38%, while both MSNBC and Fox News each had 10% of their viewers answer all

topics incorrectly. These demographic factors reinforce some perceptions of these media outlets,

but also provide some insight to factors that differentiate these networks from one another.

To further focus my study, I chose two topics about environmental-related issues—both

taking place within the relevant timeframe of political polarity, both receiving widespread news

coverage and recognition, and both demonstrating a politically charged issue. The topics I chose

were the Dakota Access Pipeline protests and when the US withdrew from the Paris Climate

Agreement. Below is a brief description of each case study event.

Paris Climate Agreement

In June of 2017, President Trump announced that the United States would pull out of the

Paris Climate Agreement (PCA), a campaign promise he made during his run for president

(Rice). Trump cited the US’s withdrawal from the agreement as a matter of economic

disadvantage and proposed rejoining through renegotiation with a “balanced approach,” on terms

that are more agreeable to American citizens, businesses, and the economy (Volcovici). The

PCA is recognized as the most comprehensive international treaty with 176 nations signing the
agreement. It was organized by the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate

Change, and set a cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to limit global average temperature

increase to no higher than 2 degrees Celsius (UNFCCC). The US initially signed on to the

agreement in December 2015 under the Obama Administration—which took on a significant role

in negotiating the ambitious goals outlined. Proponents of the agreement emphasize the

importance of the PCA because unregulated global warming is linked to more extreme drought,

flooding, sea level rise, and intense storms. The importance of the agreement was emphasized by

the UN’s World Meteorological Organization report citing 2017 as the third hottest year on

record, behind 2016 and 2015 (Rice).

Dakota Access Pipeline

The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is a nearly 1,200-mile-long conduit designed to

carry 570,000 barrels of crude oil daily from the Bakken Oil Fields in northwest North Dakota to

its final terminal in Illinois (Hersher). The project was proposed in 2014 with a budget of $4

billion (Worland). The main controversy of the DAPL is centered at the intersection of the line

under Lake Oahe, near a Missouri River crossing north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation

(Hersher). The Sioux Tribe argued that they were not adequately consulted by project

developers. Their main concerns about the DAPL was the potential for an oil leak, which would

jeopardize their water supply, and further, that the construction would destroy significant cultural

sites—violating tribal Treaty Rights (Hersher) (Worland). Environmental groups also opposed

the pipeline, arguing that it would further encourage national reliance on greenhouse gas, while

supporters argue that the oil would still be used, but alternatively be shipped by rail (Worland).

In August of 2016, the Sioux Tribe sued the US Army Core of Engineers (USACE) on the

grounds that the Corps did not consult the tribe and address their concerns. Protests at the site

ensued, and the USACE countersued a week later for the disruption of construction activities
(Hersher). After 6 months of back-and-forth litigation, intensifying protests, stop-and-go-

construction, and increased national media attention, President Trump reversed a decision by the

Obama Administration to allow the Pipeline developers to continue drilling under Lake Oahe

and finish building the last contested section (Hersher). As of June 1 , 2017, the DAP is

operational (Kennedy).

Literature Review
News Media Influence and Evolution
Several academics cite a news media as a pillar of democracy because of its power to

influence civic opinion, provide citizens with pertinent information of issues and events, and

establish checks-and-balances on public officials (Bennett 11) (Flaxman, Goel and Rao 299).

However, journalism faces the challenge of adapting to an ever-evolving media environment

while maintaining standards of reliability and relating to increasingly polar and politically

uninformed segments of the population (Prior) (Nyhan and Reifer) (Flaxman, Goel and Rao).

Political science Professor Emeritus Doris A. Graber of the University of Illinois asserts

that media is a model of acceptable attitudes and behaviors—deeming what is or is not

important, praiseworthy, outside the mainstream, or conforming to the “…prevailing standards of

justice and morality” (Graber and Dunaway 3, 5). In essence, it is the source of the American’s

views of the world (Graber and Dunaway 3). These claims are reinforced by a study conducted

by Harvard Professor Gary King, who evaluated the influence of small news outlets by

examining social media discussion and webpage visits following the publication of politically-

charged articles. Overall, there was 62.7% increase in online discussion of associated “broad

policy areas” and news website page views in the week following the articles’ publication (King,

Schneer and White 776). From this study, King asserts that media outlets have a “…tremendous

power to set the agenda for public discussion,” and that the “ideology and policy perspective” of

the owners of media outlets play a significant role in American democracy by wielding this

power (King, Schneer and White 779). Regardless, the role of the journalist in news organization

is expected to transcend these information power dynamics.

Communications Professors Sandra Borden and Chad Tew emphasize that journalists are

held to a certain standard of excellence and integrity, delivering “knowledge through


verification” to the public and establishing reliable, truthful, and independent news reporting

(302-303). However, these characteristics of journalism are increasingly contested by politicians

and citizens alike, and the significance of opinion hosts versus journalists are increasingly

blurred (Maza). Since the rise of TV journalism in the 1990’s, newscasters have shifted from

upholding traditional characteristics of gatekeeping, factuality, and objectivity, towards attracting

larger audiences for higher ratings—creating a more “…sensationalist, ego-driven, trivial,

entertaining, and manipulative” news (Borden and Tew 306). Reliability is exercised through the

practice of gatekeeping, where material is filtered and concentrated into the most important

components while avoiding sensationalism—however, news programming tends to use short

soundbites without context, which can cause mislead coherence of a statement, and frequently

resorts to theatrical productions to maintain viewership (Borden and Tew 304, 309) (Bennett 6)

(Prior 577). University of Washington Communications Professor Lance Bennet notes that the

compulsion to sustain high ratings is driven by the unique business of news organizations in the

US, which produce a public good—the news—paid for by advertiser transactions for

commercials between segments. With internet advertising providing more individualized ads to

audiences, TV news is struggling to compete (Bennett 5). Further, fewer younger people are

consuming traditional news formats like TV news channels and print journalism. Over the last 40

years, each new generation has significantly reduced TV news consumption, parallel to declines

in newspaper consumption in the 1930’s when 70% of citizens read the newspaper daily by the

age of 20, to only 20% in the 1980’s (Bennett 8).

This need to maintain viewership is problematic when considering the expectation of

journalistic factuality and objectivity. Borden and Tew identify that journalistic factuality is

driven by a “…fidelity to evidence,” verified by multiple other sources. This is a challenge in

news programing, especially when 24/7 live programming rushes to get the story out first using

piecemeal information from unconventional sources (304). Further, competition from

entertainment media has changed the performance of news programming, where controversial

talking heads, adversarial contests, and demands to create visually compelling contexts obscure

useful information for drama (Borden and Tew 309) (Bennett 6) (Prior 577). Lastly, the demand

for “dispassionate” and “unbiased” news compels journalists to withhold judgements,

“…reproduce official pronouncements that distort or hide pertinent information,” and equally

regard competing claims of the truth (Borden and Tew 305). The implications of reporting

misleading or false information can be substantial. In a study led by Dartmouth Professor

Brendan Nyhan, researchers compared the responsiveness of readers to corrections of false or

unsubstantiated beliefs in mock news articles. His results show that corrections most often fail to

reduce misperceptions and can strengthen beliefs among ideological subgroups—known as the

‘backfire effect’ (Nyhan and Reifer 323). Beyond the challenges to journalistic integrity and

commitment to ideological beliefs, it is important to examine how the changing landscape of

news reporting plays a role in fostering a knowledge-gap and increasingly polar segments among

the electorate.

Among news information researchers, there are two prevailing theories of how the

growing number and formats of news sources impacts the ideological disposition of society.

Several researchers have suggested that a greater choice in media consumption causes voluntary

segmentation among the electorate in ideological values and knowledge (Prior 578) (Flaxman,

Goel and Rao 299) (Nyhan and Reifer 304). With a greater choice in entertainment, people more

likely choose to tune out politics completely (Prior 578). The opposing view is that citizens are

more exposed now than ever to diverse ideas, and can use “information shortcuts” to substitute

detailed information (Nyhan and Reifer 304). The consequences of either theory are significant,

Princeton Professor Markus Prior writes, because individuals who seek comprehensive news

information are more politically knowledgeable and vote at higher rates (Prior 578). Further, the

ideological spectrum in news sharing platforms is problematic, especially among non-traditional

new sites, because of few-to-none standards in reporting—such as reliability, factuality, and

objectivity outlined by Borden and Tew. In a study of the web-browsing histories of 50,000 US-

located users, Imperial College of London Mathematics Professor Seth Flaxman found that

social networks and search engines increase the mean ideological distance between individuals,

but also increases exposure to material from the less preferred ideological side of politics.

However, the majority of information came from the webpage of a favorite, mainstream news

outlet, and evidence that technology both increases and decreases aspects of the partisan divide

(Flaxman, Goel and Rao 298). Nowadays, algorithms can inadvertently amplify ideological

segregation based on user preference, as evidenced on through Google searches or Facebook

timeline feed content (Flaxman, Goel and Rao 299). Regardless, it is important to understand

that echo-chambers and filter bubbles of ideological knowledge can assist in creating an

increasingly polarized society.

Foundations of Ideological Values

Behind the liberal and conservative political position lies a set of fundamental moral

values, which carry different weights depending on one’s political leaning. These moral values

are important to communications, as Northeastern University Professor Matthew Nisbet (2012)

argues, because utilizing this as a basis within the framing of an issue “compels greater

participation” among individuals who resonate with those values (Nisbet, Markowitz and

Krotcher 11). A group of eight social and political psychologists identified six moral foundations

commonly held among all individuals—care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty

(Nisbet, Markowitz and Krotcher 18) (Fienberg and Willer 2) (Haidt). The care foundation

originates from our ability to understand and dislike the pain of others, and underscores acts that

care for or protect others (Dritto, Graham and Haidt). Fairness underlies the ways we think we

should treat others and be treated, and upholds the virtues of justice, rights, and autonomy. For

conservatives, fairness correlates strongly with proportionality, whereas for liberals, fairness

correlates with ideas of equality (Dritto, Graham and Haidt). The loyalty foundation comes from

our history of group membership and our ability to form shifting coalitions. It underscores

virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group (Dritto, Graham and Haidt). Authority

comes from our long-established hierarchical social interactions, and underlies virtues of

leadership, followership, and deference for legitimate authority (Dritto, Graham and Haidt).

Sanctity has some religious association—to live a more noble, less carnal life, and the belief that

one can achieve virtue by controlling what one does with their body (Dritto, Graham and Haidt).

Liberty underscores the libertarian ideology, and those who endorse this value conjure feelings

of reactance and resentment towards those who they feel try to restrict or control their freedoms

(Dritto, Graham and Haidt). These foundations were tested against ideology in an online survey

with nearly 300,00 respondents, except for the liberty value, as it was identified after the survey

was already released.

The key discrepancy between liberal and conservative beliefs is the conceptual weight

placed on each of these values. The results of this research show that the values of care and

fairness are more highly endorsed among liberal individuals, while conservatives place superior

value on loyalty, authority, and sanctity, but have a more balanced endorsement of the five moral

foundations tested (Haidt) (Dritto, Graham and Haidt). These differences are likely attributed to

a division between reference points of morality. Associate Marketing Professor Blair Kidwell of

the University of North Texas writes that liberals tend to “individualize” their understanding of

morality, based upon personal feelings and experiences of moral behavior. As a result, they tend

to seek to protect these rights by advocating for the equitable treatment of all individuals to

“maximize autonomy and welfare” (Kidwell, Farmer and Hardesty 351). This is opposed the

conservative standard of morality, prescribed by a “binding group.” This group could be a

community, church, family, political association, or so on, which would explain the enhanced

value placed on loyalty and authority (Kidwell, Farmer and Hardesty 351).

The divergence of these values is the essential basis of disagreement between each side of

the political spectrum. The presentation of these values also effects one’s immediate

understanding and categorization of information, which is why they manifest in campaigns led

by political proponents on either side. In a study conducted by Professor Kidwell, Marketing

Professor Adam Farmer of Mississippi State, and Marketing Department Chair David Hardesty

of Gatton College (2013), they found that individuals more easily comprehended information

consistent with their beliefs, values, or opinions—causing one to understand the message to be

more genuine and reinforcing one’s “personal valuation of the quality in the message” (362). In

campaigns, these values may manifest for liberals in phrases like ‘celebrate diversity’ to support

LGBTQ rights or ethnic minorities, ‘keep your laws off my body’ to protest the pro-life

movement and access to reproductive services, and ‘question authority’ to criticize government

resolutions. On the other hand, the right would more likely defend these institutions and

traditions, wanting to maintain order and stability, often at the cost of minority groups or those at

the bottom (Haidt). It is important to recognize and acknowledge these distinctions because each

informs a particular worldview and has a valuable perspective to offer (Kidwell, Farmer and

Hardesty 362) (Haidt).

The implications of these values in the environmental movement are particularly pointed.

Climate change and environmental degradation are politically polarized issues, which dissidents

ignore entirely, attribute to liberalism, left-wing candidates, and or self-interest (M. C. Nisbet

14). Evaluations of the moral rhetoric used in environmental campaigns primarily includes

appeals towards the liberal moral domain, especially with the values of harm and care (Fienberg

and Willer 4). These findings suggest that polarization regarding environmental issues is not an

inevitable outcome, but rather, communications towards conservative individuals need to be

reframed in order to “present arguments in ways that resonate with American conservatives”

(Fienberg and Willer 6) (Nisbet, Markowitz and Krotcher 18).

Issue Framing in the Environmental Context

“Across history of science debates, power has turned on the ability to not only
control attention to an issue across policy arenas, but simultaneously define nature
of the problem and what should be done” (M. C. Nisbet 7-8).
To comprehend how the environmental movement has manifested as a liberal concern, it

is important to examine how these issues are framed. Technical communication to the public is a

significant challenge for scientists overcome, but more importantly, it is the politicization of the

environmental discourse that has weighed heavily against productive political action. However,

this is not an inevitable outcome, but rather, a calculated framework to pit individuals across the

political spectrum against one another. As a result, environmental regulation is met with

resistance, when it should be universally agreed upon necessity to address.

Over the last 60 years, ‘popular science’ has ignored research in framing and

communication, instead opting for ignorance as the root of all environmental disputes.

Historically, most significant findings about environmental issues or climate change are

presented in technical terms that scientists understand and transmit to the public through ‘popular

science’ media outlets, including news sources, shows hosted by ‘celebrity’ scientists, or

documentaries (M. C. Nisbet 4). Essentially, it was thought that the facts would speak for

themselves and that everyone would come to the same scientific conclusion as a result. However,

despite unequivocal evidence and consensus, global warming and climate change consistently

score the lowest among political issues prioritized from the most to least important and the

distinction between party lines is especially pronounced. From 2006 to 2008, 85% of Democrats

and 50% of Republicans worried about global warming, with 75% of college-educated

Democrats and less than 25% of college-educated Republicans agreeing that warming is human-

caused (M.C. Nisbet 21). It was believed that if the public did not care about environmental

issues or understand the science behind it, the blame would lie with journalists, irrational beliefs,

or both (M. C. Nisbet 4). However, studies in the field of communication show the substantial

impact of social values on the way that people pick and choose “ideologically-friendly”

interpretations of news coverage. As a result, people select media outlets that share their own

ideology, religious views, preference for public affairs, and interest in science-related

information (M. C. Nisbet 5). This is where framing comes into play.

Framing is a communication strategy that gives context, meaning, and significance to

issues we encounter every day, shaping our interpretations of the world (Gray 11-12). This is an

influential tool that is used to explain how and why events occur, who is responsible, the

motivations of parties involved, and galvanize action by relating information to things that

people already know (Gray 11-12). The latent meaning of a frame is translated instantly by

symbols, catchphrases, metaphors, sound bites, graphics, or allusions to history, literature, and

culture (M.C. Nisbet 8). In the field of science and environmentalism, frames are used all the

time to convey information to the public, albeit in very positive and negative ways.

There are certain common frames that are used to discredit, politicize, and embellish the

environmental discourse. The underlying conviction of these frameworks is largely driven by

the “dominant societal” paradigm, emphasizing that humans are superior and separate from

nature and that non-human lifeforms only have instrumental value (non-human life forms only to

support human life forms) (Gray 14-15).


A common narrative against sustainable policy or environmental regulation emphasizes

‘scientific uncertainty’ about the effects of climate change, using arguments that invoke or

challenge expert opinions and undermine the validity of the scientific knowledge or the scientists

themselves (Nisbet and Newman). Identified as “paralysis by analysis,” this framework

positions environmental regulation as a threat to financial stability based on unreliable science, a

position which was successfully implemented by conservative think-tanks to convince

congressional members to vote against the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in the US (M.C.

Nisbet 21). Often, environmental opponents attach these issues to larger debates about the

economy, spending, domestic security, and so on—all of which cultivates the idea that science is

political, therefore choosing not to ‘believe’ it. Overall, this fosters a culture where facts are

based on ideological opinions (M.C. Nisbet 23).

A ‘conflict and strategy’ framework is commonly used by news reporters or in media

outlets, giving a false balance to both sides of a debate. Most notably, climate change has been

portrayed this way frequently, with talking heads debating about science versus the certainty of

science. Often, discussions focus on who is winning or losing the debate, what public opinion

polls reveal, discuss tactics and strategies used by either side, and how the conflict will play out

politically for each side. This undermines the quality of news coverage and instead focuses on

boosting ratings by making news into a sport (M.C, Nisbet 21).

A framework used by both sides of the environmental discourse examines the motives of

involved parties, criticizing either side for taking the role of representing private interests—like

energy companies, lobbyists, and the like—versus the interests of the public. This strategy

emphasizes fairness, ownership, and control, including responsible use or abuse of expertise in

decision-making (Nisbet and Newman).


There are also several common frames used to advocate for environmental policy and

action by invoking fear, personalizing issues, and calling on people to value the intrinsic features

of nature. The paradigm underlying care for the environmental calls upon a ‘deep ecological’

connection, oneness and appreciation towards nature to preserve and protect it (Gray 14-15).

In the early 2000’s, the frame of impending disaster, a “Pandora’s box” of unknown

consequences, if nothing is done to stop climate change was used frequently, hoping to invoke

immediate action. However, opponents labeled this as “liberal alarmism,” switching scientific

certainty back to a political debate (M.C. Nisbet 23) (Nisbet and Newman). Other frames have

utilized visuals that instantly translate, like hurricane devastation, polar bears on melting ice,

blazing wildfires, and sea level rise flooding entire cities or important landmarks (M.C. Nisbet

23). This discourse presents distressing scenarios, leading many to feel that their individual

actions are insignificant to stop the imminent doom.

In the last few decades, the framework of justice or entitlement has spurred the

environmental debate, often in reference to a disproportionate burden of toxins or pollutants

among poor or minority communities, or claims to the right to extract resources on privately-

owned property (Gray 16).

To engage a wider public and catalyze a more comprehensive environmental movement,

diversifying frameworks to appeal to conservative ideologies is essential. Nisbet argues that to

activate support among the conservative coalition, issues should be framed predominantly in

terms of market growth and stimulation—such as job creation, local economic stability, and

prosperity. This could be used to promote green infrastructure (M.C. Nisbet 24). It is important

to avoid framing may be perceived as having a political agenda, because it can easily be

reinterpreted in partisan lenses (M.C. Nisbet 25). On this note, the environmental discourse

needs to move away from politicization, and in some cases, science. It is important to recognize

that not every person defers to science, but among climate change advocates, these points of

reference continue to dominate (M.C. Nisbet 23). A shift needs to take place from frameworks of

uncertain science, economic burden, and a “Pandora’s box” of disaster, towards a perceptual

context that resonates with values that conservatives already understand (M.C. Nisbet 23).

“Middle-ways” or alternative paths should be encouraged to find a practical compromise

between conflicting and polarizing views, like that of science and religion or conservative and

liberal (Nisbet and Newman) (M.C. Nisbet 18). Similarly, the frame of “social progress” has

been used successfully in other scientific campaigns, successfully galvanizing support among

swing publics typically opposed to the teaching of this view of human biology and evolution.

Further, making environmental issues about improving quality of life or finding solutions to

problems has fostered promising results (Nisbet and Newman). Changing the course of

communication regarding environmental topics is no easy task, especially because of the breadth

and complexity of these issues. However, taking into account the historical discourse of

environmental frameworks, it is possible to galvanize a larger public to be proactive


To examine how news rhetoric underpins ideological beliefs, I used content analysis to

establish replicable and valid inferences from my communication data to its context

(Krippendorff 403). This method allows for both qualitative and quantitative analysis of content

in news programs—something I wanted to account for in the data I collected.

Content analysis was applied to evaluate the construction of ideology in news coverage

on Fox News and MSNBC—two widely-viewed, 24/7, ideologically-opposed news networks. To

establish a manageable and relevant scope for this analysis, I chose to evaluate two events and

the aforementioned networks’ coverage of them. These events were the US’s withdrawal from

the Paris Climate Agreement and Dakota Access Pipeline controversy—two widely reported and

politically-charged environmental events. In the following paragraphs, I provide a framework of

the content analysis I conducted.

To collect my sample of news clips for analysis, I selected videos from the YouTube

page for each news channel. I searched for videos by the name of the event, and from the results,

I selected the top 10 most-viewed videos. In total, I sampled 40 videos—10 for each channel and

event. For each video, I watched it, transcribed the audio, and then analyzed the content for issue

frameworks that related to ideological values outlined in the Dritto et. al. study. In total, I had

approximately 120 minutes of video content, which produced 66 pages of transcribed audio.

As I watched, transcribed, and analyzed the news videos, I highlighted frameworks that

related to each of the following moral values using the colors that correspond to each item listed

below. I reiterate each moral theme and explain indicators I used to identify relevant issue-

• Fairness: / Fairness-opposing side’s argument
o Reciprocal altruism
o Upholding justice and rights
o Virtues of equality and proportionality
• Care: / Care-opposing side’s argument
o Caring for and protecting others
o Virtues of care, gentleness, kindness
• Loyalty: / Loyalty-opposing side’s argument
o Self-sacrifice for the group
o Express patriotism, or loyalty to nation
• Authority: / Authority-opposing side’s argument
o Emphasize leadership and followership
o Deference for legitimate authority and respect for tradition
• Sanctity: / Sanctity-opposing side’s argument
o Religious qualities—live noble, elevated life
o Reinforced by psychology of disgust, idea of contamination
• Liberty: / Liberty-opposing side’s argument
o Reactance and resentment towards dominators
o Conflict with institutions of authority

The video samples exemplified a wide range of ideological values in the issue-

frameworks presented, however, the most commonly articulated value across both networks for

both news events was fairness. This section will provide a summary of frameworks and

corresponding ideological values utilized on each network, for each event. A transcription of all

video samples is attached in Appendix 2, where ideological frameworks identified and coded.

MSNBC Dakota Access Pipeline

In MSNBC’s coverage of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), they principally alluded to

issue frames that demonstrated the liberal idea of fairness. They incorporated commentary and

guests who discussed the DAPL as issue of equal rights for indigenous peoples, and that the

protesters were there to defend those rights. In several news segments, reporters and interviewees

discuss the US government’s disregard of indigenous treaty rights, and say that the construction

of the DAPL is another example of this injustice [1,3,5,6,8]

. In one segment, MSNBC’s The Last Word

anchor Lawrence O’Donnell talks about the history of the Native Dakota people, and how they

have been mistreated, displaced, and marginalized by the US government. He states,

“When we finally stopped actively killing Native Americans for the crime of

living here before us, we then proceeded to violate every treaty we made with the

tribes…We piled crime, on top of crime, on top of crime against the people whose

offense against us was simply that they lived where we wanted to live” . (5)

Beyond treaty rights, MSNBC DAPL news anchors and guests explain that the pipeline

threatens access to clean drinking water, a “human right,” because it could likely leak and

contaminate the water supply of not only the Sioux tribe, but also millions of people downstream

[4, 6]
. Other speakers suggest that the decision to allow the construction of the pipeline was based

corporate power and money, instead of laws meant to protect people—leading to immoral

actions and reinforcing the idea that free-market capitalism needs to be controlled [4,6,7,10]
. In an

excerpt from an interview with an independent field reporter placed with the Sioux tribe, she

reads a statement from tribal leaders, which says, “Everyone should fear the new rule of law

which is based on money not on precedent” . In an interview with David Archambault, a Sioux

tribe representative, he says the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) was created

because, “…the corporate world was contaminating water, the corporate world was

contaminating our air, corporate world was contaminating our lands . [10]

Another aspect of fairness that was addressed on MSNBC’s DAPL coverage was police

militarization and their overzealous force directed towards protesters [2,3,6,8]

. In a pointed interview,

field reporter Cal Perry first explained the “optics” of the police presence on the protest site

making officers look “bad,” and then asks an attending police officer the question, “What is the

priority for law enforcement: is it the protesters, is it the pipeline?” . It is clear from this

interview that the reporter is challenging the motivations of police officers, through references to

protesters being hosed in cold sub-zero temperatures, attacked by dogs, and shot with rubber

bullets, all at the hands of police officers [2,3,6,8]


The next, most frequently cited moral foundation was the value of loyalty. In the Dritto

et. al. survey, this moral foundation was more highly endorsed by conservative individuals.

However, MSNBC’s coverage appealed to this value with goal of turning the conservative

argument on its head in order to discredit it. For example, one issue frame explained that the

pipeline would generate a negligible amount of permanent jobs [4,6,7]

and wouldn’t reinforce energy

independence . Alternatively, they argue, the US should instead be encouraging and investing in

renewable energy production to accomplish these goals . In these ways, MSNBC’s commentary

on the topic undermines the proponents’ argument that the pipeline is good for the United States.

Lastly, the value of care was advocated in a news segment by Lawrence O’Donnell, who

opened by saying the name Dakota means “friendly,” but the Dakota people have never been

treated as friends . Further, he addresses the idea of sanctity, saying that they were the first

environmentalists, “…The only people who through that land and rivers should be preserved in

their natural state. The only people who thought a mountain or prairie or river should be a sacred

place. The people who have always known what is truly sacred in this world . Here, he refers to [5]

a common environmental frame, idealizing the natural state of untouched nature.

Fox News DAPL

In Fox News’s DAPL coverage, they largely drew from the value of authority.

Furthermore, they touched on the values of loyalty, sanctity, and fairness. Several video

segments discussed DAPL protesters’ disrespect and contempt directed towards police officers,

the pipeline company, and President Trump for approving the pipeline [11,12,13,15,17,19]
. In one excerpt,

William La Jeunesse reports on protesters inciting violence, saying, “…Just in the last hour,

about several dozen protesters confronted police, taunted them, according to a spokesperson.

And when they were asked to back off and failed, nine were arrested . Reporters also discussed

the destruction of private property , defiance of official orders

[19] [11,15,16,17]
, and police attempts to

bring peace and stability to the protest site [11,19]

. Overall, their coverage tended to label protesters

as disruptive and disrespectful, and authority figures as composed and rational.

To this point, Fox’s overage of DAPL protesters tended to emphasize the lowliness of

protesters. Reporters discussed the dirty-ness of the protest campsite, and included clips and

commentary suggesting protesters were apathetic and broke. For example, one reporter

commented, “Police moved in under emergency order, declaring the camps as a potential health

hazard, as abandoned tents, kerosene tanks, cars, and human waste could soon be underwater

from spring flooding” . In another segment, called the site a “dump” . In one clip, the reporter
[13] [17]

described protesters as “…frankly, broke” . Interviews with protesters took place after an

official decision was given out to complete the DAPL construction, and Fox reports cut to clips

of defeated protesters, saying, “…I am a bit solemn. I’m not sad. I’m not upset. I am trying my

best to figure out how to move forward…” , and “I’m terribly sad, you know? It’s not just the

pipeline thing. Those people have been pushed around for centuries” . [17]

In regard to the loyalty foundation, coverage tended to be in either one of two forms—

either discussing the role of US veterans attending the protest site as a part of their duty to the

country , or that the decision to build the pipeline is one that is good for the country
[14] [19, 20]
. One

video, similar in format to a political advertisement, states, “…veterans who have fought for

American’s freedoms abroad have answered the call at home. Ready to stand for Standing Rock”

. This video demonstrated the frame that veterans attending the protests are performing a duty

to the country, and are in that way, loyal to the US, not the protesters. In regard to President

Trump’s decision to continue building the pipeline, they include quotes from the President,

saying “We are going to renegotiate some of the terms, and if they’d like, we will see if we can

get that pipeline built. A lot of jobs. 2800 jobs. Great construction jobs” . This reinforces the

idea that the pipeline is good for the US economy and American workers.

For the fairness value, they discuss that review of the pipeline construction by the US

Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) would “…ensure [that] there will be an in-depth evaluation of

other possible routes . Further, they say state, “The [Army Corps of Engineers] conducted 360

meetings with about 55 different tribes, the Standing Rock Sioux chose not to participate. The

Corps made multiple attempts to contact them, to make sure their opinions were considered . [11]

This essentially disputes the argument of the liberal side, as discussed on MSNBC—and flips it to

argue that the pipeline company adequately reached out to and addressed the concerns of native

American groups, and thus, this decision is fair.


MSNBC, Paris Climate Agreement

In MSNBC’s coverage, they draw heavily on the moral foundations of fairness, loyalty,

and authority from a liberal perspective. In regard to fairness, MSNBC’s anchors and reporters

discuss that the emissions targets set in the Paris Climate Agreement were voluntary [21,28,30]
and that

the Agreement is about an issue greater than doing what is best for the US [22,23,24,26,28]
. In response to a

statement that the PCA was oppressive to the US, Joe Scarborough retorts, “What's going to

force? This is largely voluntary though” . In an interview with MSNBC host Ari Melber,

governor Jerry Brown comments on President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the

agreement, saying “This is an existential threat to the long-term future of humanity. It's not a

game. Millions of people will die if we don't handle climate change in the right way” . [22]

In regard to the loyalty foundations, MSNBC coverage often took the conservative

argument for loyalty in the President’s PCA decision, flipped it on its head, and used that to

discredit the other side. Anchors and correspondents frequently commented that President Trump

and his decision to withdraw the US from the PCA are against US interests [21,22,23,24,26,29,30]
. For

example, one panel guest says,

“So, as far as Americans are concerned, hundreds of thousands of jobs could be

created. Some jobs like in coal could be replaced with clean energy jobs which

are much more pleasant for the coal miners, and a new revolution in business

would be created in the States. Instead, a lot of that will go to China, to India, to

Europe and you know I just feel very sad for Americans who could have benefited

enormously .” [24]

Beyond a potential edge in job creation, there was discussion of President Trump doing

this for political reasons, to reinforce support from his base, showing loyalty towards them and

not towards the US [21,22,23,29,30]

. In one segment, Scarborough says, “…this proves that Donald Trump

does not give a damn about the world. He does not give a damn about the United States as a

whole. He cares about his core 38% and this is the Steve Bannon effect: the short-sighted

stupidity that you are going to focus on your 38% to the exclusion of rest of the country” . [21]

For authority, they largely discussed that by withdrawing the US from the PCA, President

Trump was abdicating US leadership abroad, and that American diplomacy would dissolve as a

result [21,22,23,24,26,28]
. For example, in an interview, Dan Rather says, “Well, it's momentous moment and

a very ominous moment because depending how far President Trump can go...this can make the

United States second tier in terms of world leadership, at least on this subject . [26]

The care foundation was alluded to the health of children from pollution. In one segment,

a field reporter visited a coal-fired power plant in southern Indiana, where he addressed the issue

of extreme air pollution causing respiratory illness in children in the surrounding area . [25]

Fox News, Paris Climate Agreement

In Fox News’s coverage of the Paris Climate Accord (PCA), they included a more broad

and balanced appeal to the moral foundations of fairness, loyalty, liberty, and authority—but

more heavily emphasized the values of fairness and loyalty. For fairness, Fox’s coverage

asserted that the PCA would put a greater burden on the US, financially, economically, and in

terms of cutting greenhouse gas emissions—while other countries can continue [31,32,33,34,35,36,38,39,40]
. In one

excerpt, show host Tucker Carlson states, “…if the US were to stick with this accord, we would

be pledging to cut our greenhouse gas production by 26% from the levels in 2005. That’s a big

reduction. And it’s not expected of China, India, or other huge polluting countries… . These [31]

assertions bring up the idea of proportionality, that the PCA puts an unequal burden on American

workers, taxpayers, and the economy, while other countries don’t have to make the same


For loyalty, Fox’s coverage repeats the slogan of the Trump campaign, that the President

puts ‘America First’ by withdrawing from the PCA [32,33,35,36,38,39,40]

. In an interview with Vice President

Mike Pence, he commented, “…this is a man who gets up every day to keep the promises he

made to the American people. And by withdrawing today, from the PCA, the president has

demonstrated his commitment, not just to keep his word, but to put American workers, American

consumers, American energy, and the American people first” . In this way, they say [35]

withdrawing from the deal is the best decision for the US, and the President is taking this action

with American interests at the forefront.

On the flipside of loyalty, the argument was made several times that Democrats were

hysterical and irrational in their beliefs about the PCA, and as such, did not have Americans’

interests at heart [31,32,33,34,38,40]

. In one discussion among pundits on the “The Five”, commentator Jesse

Watters says in response to the backlash from proponents of the PCA, “Democrats can’t even

control their emotions let along the temperature in a hundred years. The same people that were

saying Hillary was going to be elected in November are telling us what the weather is going to be

like? I don’t think so” . [38]

For liberty foundation, Fox News commentators identified the PCA an oppressive

agreement for the US, and by agreeing to it, the US would be allowing the international

community to make decisions on behalf of the US, relinquishing our ability to make sovereign

decisions [37,38,40]
. During an interview, former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton commented,

“To me the overarching, ultimately most important, more than any constitutional question was,

do we govern ourselves here, or are we going to seed governance authority to international

organizations? That’s what’s been rejected . Network commentators also discussed that the

PCA agreement was never debated in the sphere of American politics, and that the decision to

abide by the agreement was undemocratic [31,32,34,35,38]


Lastly, among the frameworks appealing to the authority value, Fox News anchors and

guests largely show reverence for the President and respect for his role as a leader [36,40]
. Geraldo

Rivera, a commentator on Fox who disagreed with the President’s move to withdraw from the

PCA, says, “I think [withdrawing] is unnecessary, a self-inflicted wound on the President,

because I love the president. I like the VP, I love the president. I want him to succeed and I think

this is terrible” .

Videos Cited
MSNBC, Dakota Access Pipeline
1. “Fires Break Out at Dakota Access Pipeline Site | MSNBC.” YouTube, uploaded by
MSNBC, 22 Feb. 2017.
2. “Veterans Take Action to Protest Dakota Access Pipeline | MSNBC.” YouTube, uploaded
by MSNBC, 2 Dec 2016.
3. “Protests Continue Despite Halt to Dakota Access Pipeline.” YouTube, uploaded by
MSNBC, 5 Dec 2016.
4. “Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters Celebrate Victory | MSNBC.” YouTube, uploaded by
MSNBC, 5 Dec 2016.
5. “Rewrite: The Protests at Standing Rock | The Last Word | MSNBC.” YouTube, uploaded
by MSNBC, 26 Aug 2016.
6. “Shailene Woodley On Possibility of Pipeline Construction | MSNBC.” YouTube,
uploaded by MSNBC, 24 Jan 2017.
7. “President Trump Signs Executive Orders to Advance Keystone XL, Dakota Access
Pipelines | MSNBC.” YouTube, uploaded by MSNBC, 24 Jan 2017.
8. “Dakota Pipeline Protesters Pledge to Stay Put| AM Joy | Am Joy | MSNBC” YouTube,
uploaded by MSNBC, 3 Dec 2016.
9. “DAPL Greenlit Without Input from Standing Rock Sioux | AM Joy | MSNBC”
YouTube, uploaded by MSNBC, 12 Feb 2017.
10. “Tribe Pledges to Stop President Donald Trump on Pipelines | MSNBC.” YouTube,
uploaded by MSNBC, 25 Jan 2017.

Fox News, Dakota Access Pipeline

11. “Dakota Access Pipeline gets green light.” YouTube, uploaded by Fox News, 8 Feb 2017.
12. “US Army Corps of Engineers blocks route of Dakota Access pipeline.” YouTube,
uploaded by Fox News, 4 Dec 2016.
13. “Deadline passes for Dakota pipeline protesters to evacuate.” YouTube, uploaded by Fox
News, 22 Feb 2017.
14. “Veterans to stand with Standing Rock protesters.” YouTube, uploaded by Fox News, 25
Nov 2016.
15. “Stein on SCOTUS, domestic policy, Dakota Access pipeline.” YouTube, uploaded by
Fox News, 15 Sep 2016.
16. “Army Corps shutting down DAPL protest camp.” YouTube, uploaded by Fox News, 22
Feb 2017.
17. “Activists set fires at pipeline protest camp.” YouTube, uploaded by Fox News, 22 Feb
18. “Driver in Los Angeles rams through pipeline protest.” YouTube, uploaded by Fox News,
15 Feb 2017.
19. “More than 140 arrested at North Dakota pipeline protest.” YouTube, uploaded by Fox
News, 28 Oct 2016.

20. “Trump takes steps to resurrect Keystone, Dakota pipelines.” YouTube, uploaded by Fox
News, 24 Jan 2017.

MSNBC, Paris Climate Accord

21. “Joe: President Trump’s Climate Decision Has Done Grave Damage Diplomatically |
Morning Joe | MSNBC.” YouTube, uploaded by MSNBC, 2 Jun 2017.
22. “California Set to Leave Donald Trump Behind on Climate Policy | Rachel Maddow |
MSNBC.” YouTube, uploaded by MSNBC, 1 Jun 2017.
23. “Joe: Why Would We Exit the Paris Agreement? | Morning Joe | MSNBC” YouTube,
uploaded by MSNBC, 17 Apr 2017.
24. “Branson: Paris Exit Cements Donald Trump as Worst President in U.S. History | For the
Record | MSNBC.” YouTube, uploaded by MSNBC, 2 Jun 2017.
25. “Coal-Fired Power Plants in Jeopardy as President Trump Considers Leaving Paris
Climate Deal | MSNBC.” YouTube, uploaded by MSNBC, 31 May 2017.
26. “Dan Rather: Donald Trump Most ‘Psychologically Troubled’ POTUS Since Nixon | The
Last Word | MSNBC.” YouTube, uploaded by MSNBC, 1 Jun 2017.
27. “Keith Ellison: Democrats Are ‘Coming Out Strong’ For 2018 | Morning Joe | MSNBC.”
YouTube, uploaded by MSNBC, 2 Jun 2017.
28. “Senator Mike Lee Lays Out Case for US Exiting Paris Deal | Morning Joe | MSNBC.”
YouTube, uploaded by MSNBC, 31 May 2017.
29. “Donald Trump Believes Climate Change is a Hoax | All In | MSNBC.” YouTube,
uploaded by MSNBC, 2 Jun 2017.
30. “Joe and Will Press Scott Pruitt On Climate Change and Human Impact | Morning Joe |
MSNBC.” YouTube, uploaded by MSNBC, 6 Jun 2017.

Fox News, Paris Climate Accord

31. “Tucker: Trump gets US out of bad deal and left melts down.” YouTube, uploaded by
Fox News, 1 Jun 2017.
32. “Trump announces he will pull out of Paris Climate Accord.” YouTube, uploaded by Fox
News, 2 Jun 2017.
33. “Gutfeld: Why the Paris accord is a terrible idea.” YouTube, uploaded by Fox News, 31
May 2017.
34. “Pruitt on withdrawing from the Paris climate deal.” YouTube, uploaded by Fox News, 1
Jun 2017.
35. “Pence: Paris Climate Accord put enormous burden on Americans.” YouTube, uploaded
by Fox News, 1 Jun 2017.

36. “Trump’s decision to leave Paris deal enrages global leaders.” YouTube, uploaded by Fox
News, 1 Jun 2017.
37. “Amb. Bolton: Leaving Paris Climate accord is an ‘excellent decision.’” YouTube,
uploaded by Fox News, 1 Jun 2017.
38. “President Trump seeks climate deal that’s fair to the US.” YouTube, uploaded by Fox
News, 1 Jun 2017.
39. “Miner who confronted Clinton reacts to Paris accord decision.” YouTube, uploaded by
Fox News, 1 Jun 2017.
40. “Geraldo ‘absolutely appalled’ by Trump’s climate deal exit.” YouTube, uploaded by Fox
News, 2 Jun 2017.

Overall, in coverage on Fox News, appeals were made to a broader collection of moral

foundations, while on MSNBC, their coverage focused largely on the fairness foundation (see

Appendix 3). This is consistent with the findings from the Dritto et. al. study, which concluded

that liberals more strictly endorse the values of fairness and care, while conservatives have a

more balanced endorsement of all five moral foundations tested, but emphasized values of

authority, loyalty, and sanctity. In all coverage, regardless of network, the idea of fairness was

frequently addressed—and a clear delineation was made between the liberal and conservative

interpretation of fairness. On MSNBC’s coverage of the DAPL, they frequently brought up the

framework that the protests surrounded the idea of standing up for the oppressed—Native

Americans—and that throughout US history, the government has repeatedly taken advantage of

indigenous people, not recognizing their treaty rights, and have overall marginalized these

sovereign nations. Further, in MSNBC’s coverage of the PCA, network hosts, guests, and

panelists repeated that the PCA is the right thing to do, because it concerns people all around the

world, alluding to the belief that we should be global citizens, not just concerned with our own

country and its success, but that of all people regardless of what nationality. While Fox’s

coverage of the DAPL did not strongly draw from the fairness value, their coverage of the PCA

showed a clear appeal to fairness in terms of proportionality. They chiefly discussed the unequal

terms the US would abide by in the agreement, including greater taxes, more strict emissions

targets, and monetary support for developing countries. From these findings, it would be

interesting to see if a similar analysis of a broader range of news topics and media outlets

showed the fairness value as a principle framework in political interpretation.

One unexpected finding was the use of ideological values from the opposing political

side’s argument. For example, MSNBC made appeals to the loyalty and authority foundations in

their coverage, but this was largely used in the context of discrediting the conservative argument

in the DAPL and PCA coverage. This happened for the loyalty argument in MSNBC’s coverage

of the DAPL and for the loyalty and authority arguments in MSNBC’s coverage of the PCA.

The purpose of this project was to analyze and compare news coverage between

ideologically polar, television news sources, and only evaluated two environmental-related

events. For these reasons, the methodological approach conducted in this research could be

further expanded to analyze coverage among politically ‘neutral’ news outlets, in different media

forms—including social networks, newspapers, magazines, and phone applications, and compare

coverage of different types of news events. In particular, the results from this research project

could be interesting to compare with neutral news source and coverage of these news events, the

DAPL and PCA. By identifying ideological appeals to moral foundations, this research intends

to unveil the intentionality of media outlets in their construction of news stories. This research is

meant to expose these moral foundations in order to present a deeper understanding of opposing

political points of view, not to change people’s minds about political events or policies.
From conducting this senior project, I now understand a deeper meaning behind political

beliefs, which has encouraged a more analytical understanding of politically contentious issues,

and has allowed me to begin to step outside of my own ‘moral matrix’. Beyond these more direct

learning experiences, I also learned to be open to new avenues, changing my project topic, goals,

and deliverables as my project ideas evolved. I also reinforced my ability to stay organized and

on top of time constraints and deadlines for the project, and learned how to work independently

on a large scale, long term project.

When I began planning my capstone, I based the topic off my study abroad experience in

Rome this past fall. I was learning about food systems and the politics that surround food

production, trade, and policy, and was fascinated by it. However, at the beginning of Winter

quarter back at the University of Washington, I decided to change directions and return to an

idea I had at the end of my junior year during CEP Spring Retreat. I had always felt that I could

improve my confidence and ability to persuasively communicate ideas to people, especially

those who disagree with my political points of view. I wanted to take this concept and turn it into

a project. When I realized I wanted to change topics, I needed to come up with a manageable

scope, especially because of the limited timeframe left.

I learned to how pivot, refocus, and stay on target while still remaining ambitious in my

project goals. I spent many hours watching and re-watching videos that I used as my sample,

organizing notes from my analysis, discussing conclusions with my mentor, and devising ways

to present a compelling conclusion from my analysis. I believe that the most important outcome

from my work was to create an engaging and eye-opening presentation for senior project night,

and I feel successful in accomplishing that goal. I prepared myself the best that I could, seeking

feedback from classmates, roommates, friends, and advisors, and I know my presentation

improved greatly because of it. I was dedicated to this project, and I am very satisfied with the


If I would do anything differently, it would have been to stick with my initial project

idea—focusing on persuasive communication. Also, I would begin my content analysis sooner so

I could have added another, more neutral news outlet into my comparison. I would have given

myself more time to watch over videos first, before collecting information. I ended unnecessary

notes about word choice, tone, backgrounds of speakers, visuals, and more, that I didn’t use for

my analysis. However, because this was the first time I have ever completed an analysis like this,

I learned strategies that will make me more efficient and effective in the future. Ultimately, I

hope that this research opens a chapter for a new, more constructive dialogue in the political

discourse, and inspires future researchers to continue similar work.



Appendix 1: News Audience Demographics

MSNBC Rachel Chris Fox News Sean Hannity Bill

Maddow Matthews O’Reilly
Age 18-29 16% 18-29 12% 18-29 7% 18-29 19% 18-29 3% 18-29 12%
30-49 25% 30-49 28% 30-49 32% 30-49 27% 30-49 27% 30-49 20%
50-64 34% 50-64 32% 50-64 31% 50-64 29% 50-64 24% 50-64 24%
65+ 23% 65+ 25% 65+ 28% 65+ 24% 65+ 42% 65+ 40%

Gender M: 40% M: 52% M: 53% M: 48% M: 57% M: 56%

F: 60% F: 48% F: 47% F: 52% F: 43% F: 44%

Education Col 26% Col 35% Col 37% Col 24% Col 27% Col 31%
Some col. Some col 28% Some col 34% Some col Some col 35% Some col 32%
35% HS or > 34% HS or > 28% 33% HS or > 36% HS or > 35%
HS or > 38% HS or > 43%

Income Profile 75k+ 25% 75k+ 37% 75k+ 29% 75k+ 23% 75k+ 28% 75k+ 29%
30-75k 34% 30-75k 25% 30-75k 25% 30-75k 31% 30-75k 33% 30-75k 32%
30k> 32% 30k> 29% 30k> 38% 30k> 33% 30k> 24% 30k> 25%

Preference for No POV 50% No POV 43% No POV 37% No POV No POV 41% No POV 51%
News w/o Share POV Share POV Share POV 53% Share POV 48% Share POV 39%
Political POV 39% 46% 49% Share POV
# of Correct 4 21% 4 38% 4 32% 4 16% 4 23% 4 26%
Answers: 3 30% 3 33% 3 28% 3 29% 3 40% 3 33%
Current Events 2 21% 2 10% 2 14% 2 22% 2 26% 2 21%
1 19% 1 16% 1 20% 1 23% 1 8% 1 15%
0 10% 0 3% 0 5% 0 10% 0 3% 0 5%

Appendix 2: Transcripts

MSNBC Dakota Access Pipeline

1. Fires Break Out at Dakota Access Pipeline Site | MSNBC
Time is nearly up for Dakota access pipeline protesters. Multiple fires have broken out at the
camp this morning just a few hours before the Army Corps of Engineers is scheduled to shut it
down. The evacuation order comes more than six months after protesters first set up camp to
oppose the pipeline. Now there are only a few hundred-people left there but at times there were
thousands. MSNBC's Cal Perry is on the ground there for us this morning. Cal first let's talk
about these fires. What's going on with the fires and the protesters have been offered an
ultimatum. What are they going to do?

Yeah there's a fresh one burning. I'll get out of the way and we'll show you the camp as it is right
now. Less than four hours to the deadline as you sort of laid out now. The authorities are giving
people a choice: there's going to be two buses that are going to come in the next few hours. One
bus will go to Bismarck where there will be an out-processing center if people need help getting
home, if they need a bus ticket authorities say they'll be given one there'll be a second bus and
that bus is going to go to the jail. They're going to let people make a decision; they say before
2pm anyone in the camp after 2 p.m. local time 3 p.m. eastern. Alley, anyone in the camp after
that stage is subject to arrest as the authorities put it. I think that's probably about a hundred
people in that camp I think some will probably stay. We know there's about a dozen hardcore
supporters, “water protectors,” as they call themselves here. They say they're going to get
arrested they want that to be on the record. I think everybody else is likely to leave in the coming

Cal, constructions begun a lot of people may not know this but most of the pipeline is done.
There's a there's a last part to be done, but they're still actually a court fight about that last piece
of construction. What can you tell us?

Yeah there's two things that the tribe is going to challenge the executive order on. The first is
they want an environmental impact study. They think that maybe even after the oil starts
flowing, and you're right this pipeline is almost complete in the next 30 days oil is going to start
flowing through it. They think maybe an environmental impact study could stop the pipeline.
The other thing they're going to challenge is on the grounds of treaties this the Standing Rock
Sioux believe that this is in violation of in the 19th century that they say the government has
continuously rolled back. So, they're going to be challenging in on those two things specifically:
the environmental impact study, and then more broadly these treaties that they have with the US

Cal thanks for your report from their Cal Perry for us in North Dakota. I'm Chris Hayes from

2. Veterans Take Action to Protest Dakota Access Pipeline | MSNBC

Thousands of military veterans across this country are converging on North Dakota to back the
scores of activists that are protesting the Dakota access pipeline. For months, the grasslands have
been the site of violent clashes between police and protesters, but it's all coming to a head now

after state officials ordered demonstrators to vacate their campsite by Monday. Protest organizers
now calling for a human shield at that site. MSNBC's Cal Perry has made his way across country
is live this morning in Fort Rice North Dakota with some exclusive access to police frontlines
there. Cal, good morning to you. What are you seeing and tell us why so many veterans are
taking action now?

Yeah good morning Craig. So, this is Fort Rice, it's sort of been nicknamed the FOB. We'll give
you a look around the FOB, being the Forward Operating Base, and what you're seeing here is a
staging area that sort of half a dozen agencies are using to keep themselves resupplied to become
ready or more prepared for what is to come in the following days. They're about half a dozen
checkpoints in this area and the conditions are very difficult. Keeping the authorities resupplied
is very difficult. That's why they're using this base. We're about five miles north of the camp the
Standing Rock camp, that major demonstration area. You mentioned these veterans they're on
their way--I saw some at the airport. I want to bring in Lieutenant Iverson from the North Dakota
Highway Patrol to speak a little bit about this. Does the influx of veterans, and we're hearing
maybe a thousand maybe two thousand veterans, does that concern law enforcement?

You know what? It is very concerning. Law enforcement's’ role is very simple. It's providing for
public safety. We're keeping North Dakota citizens our visitors in North Dakota safe, while at the
same time while imposing the rule of law and when we have people coming in a North Dakota
with an intent of not abiding by the law then that is something that we are very concerned with.

What is the priority for a law enforcement: is it the protesters, is it the pipeline?

You know what our priority is above all that we are protecting the citizens, we're protecting
protesters, and at the same time upholding the rule of law. Sometimes that can conflict with one
another. A lot of them, a lot of the protesters are trying to justify their ideology and allowing
themselves to break the law and that's unacceptable. That's not what the citizens of North Dakota
expect to occur here and…

Yes, I mean you're from here we were speaking earlier this morning in our Craig Melvin just sort
of mentioned it off the top we've seen violent clashes. The optics of this cannot be good for law
enforcement. Does that concern you going forward in the coming days?

It is concerning being from North Dakota, we take pride in our state. We have a great
relationship with our friends, family, neighbors of Standing Rock and when all the out-of-state
factions leave and go home we will still be here in North Dakota and we're committed to the
relationships and we will be committed to rebuilding the relationships with our neighbors, and on
top of it we're just extremely thankful for the support and the really the outpouring of support
from all of our state and local citizens of North Dakota that have really gotten behind law
enforcement and really has been a great example of how tired they are of the lawlessness that has
been occurring in North Dakota.

Thank you for your time sir, I appreciate it very much.

Craig it'll be interesting in the coming days we know the veterans are making their way here. We
understand there will also be some high-profile visitors, maybe Tulsi Gabbard from the state of

Hawaii. It's all building up to Monday. We’re seeing an influx of these protesters. The question
on Monday will be, will the authorities actually move on the camp? Probably not likely. One
more note of interest on Tuesday the temperatures will drop well below zero -20 with the sort of
wind conditions that might have an effect on the people who are here.

All right Cal Perry, you stay warm out there my friend. Cal Perry from Fort Rice North Dakota
there. Cal thank you, we will be checking in with you throughout the day here.

3. Protests Continue Despite Halt to Dakota Access Pipeline

After months of protests a major victory for thousands of demonstrators in the battle over the
Dakota access pipeline. The government says it will not permit construction of an oil pipeline in
North Dakota that Native Americans consider sacred but several questions here still remain.
MSNBC's Cal Perry, a frigid one, at Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. He is there keeping a
close eye on the very latest. So, Cal, some protesters have said they were going to stay, why?

Well they're going to stay partly because they're worried that people are going to go back on their
word. We have this statement from the energy company that came out about midnight last night
saying they're not going to stop construction. Word has sort of spread around the camp
throughout the morning. I'm joined here by Abraham--I wanted to bring him in. You got here
how long ago?

We got here one day ago.

One day go, and how long will you stay and what are you trying to achieve?

I believe we're staying till the 8th. We are standing with Standing Rock and our goal is to let the
world know that the Sioux Nation will not be moved nor will we be moved and that our oath and
our defense of them will continue as long as they need us. We intend to continue running
deployments out here.

Were you surprised that the energy company came out and said we're not gonna honor the Army
Corps of Engineers decision?

I am impressed that the people were able to achieve a small victory in a public relations
statement by the energy company. However, I do not feel that the that the energy company
intends to keep that promise. So, I I'm not surprised that they made a PR statement.

Peter, I want to show you the flag here, you flipped it upside down which is a sign of…?

It's a sign of the stress. It is an authorized proper use of the uniform in which the country is under
distress or in an instance in which a soldier is under stress distress and they need to notify others
that they are in danger and that the country is in danger.

Thank you for your service thank you for letting us use your fire. Peter I'll just add that there's
two issues happening here simultaneously you have the issue of the pipeline and then you have
the issue of the Sioux Nation, which by their accounts is something that the American

government has gone back on these treaties from the eighteen hundred’s and they're trying to
balance both of those issues.

Cal, I want to this break down with you a little bit more about where we go on this issue next.
The thought really is that things could change in a Trump Administration. There was a
conference call with some of the top advisors to Donald Trump today saying they have a
different position on this. They say it is something we support construction of, that they'll review
this issue once in the White House and make an appropriate decision at that time. You're hearing
that. Paul Ryan also weighing in on this topic as well how does that way into the considerations
for so many of those people there as we look at Paul Ryan's tweet saying, “This most recent
decision this is big government decision-making at its worst”

Yeah, when you when you talk to the elders of the Sioux tribe and when that news came out
yesterday there was jubilation around the camp, but then there was an immediate reality check
from a lot of the elders. I know Abraham was saying to me earlier know these people have been
here for thousands of years and they have felt betrayed in the past and they were expecting as
they put to us, they said we expect that this is going to be a betrayal down the road. It really sort
of is counterproductive when you look at the big picture of how these people sort of see
themselves and their relationship with the federal government. I don't think there's a lot of
surprise now that we're talking about a Trump Administration that's going to flip it. That was
going on here yesterday. A lot of people were talking about President-elect Trump and his
energy policies.

Peter some stunning scenery out there in the plains of North Dakota. Cal nice to be with you.
Thanks very much, we appreciate your time.

4. Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters Celebrate Victory | MSNBC

Joining me now is environmentalist Robert Kennedy Jr., president and founder of the
Waterkeeper Alliance. Good to see you.

Thanks for having me.

You've been there several times, tell me what your thoughts are.

Well on the Corp denials, it's not actually a denial of crossing permit. It's a requirement at the
company do a full environmental impact. What the company was trying to do is illegal. The
NEPA the National Environmental Policy Act requires that to get a federal permit you have to do
an environmental impact assessment to see if there's going to be significant environmental
impacts or if the impacts are going to impact an area of land greater than one half an acre. So,
this company was trying to pretend that this 1200 pipeline qualified for that half acre exemption.
What it was doing is illegal. The core finally said no, you have to do a full environmental impact

Why do companies do this, though? In 2016, when you know there is going to be opposition to
this, or any other pipeline, and I get the argument of a business journalist. I get the argument
there millions of miles of pipeline already in this country, but why not do this the right way?

The reason I think is that one, it is time consuming. The second most important reason is that's
how the XL pipeline got killed, when they actually had to do a cost-benefit analysis and show
that the pipeline was only good create 35 jobs in America, that it was going to impose huge risk
on American people. In this this pipeline has very meager job creation and a huge environmental

Which is the nature of pipelines--there's some job creation involved in the construction of it and
then virtually none as they operate.

Then, you know, the company has been claiming for a long time that all of this oil would be used
America that would bring benefits for our country, and as it turns out they've been telling
internally their shareholders now were going to ship this to Asia. So, I think when the American
people see the cost-benefit analysis and understand there's almost no benefit for the American
people and that there's huge costs for our country as in the water supply for 18 million people
and really displacing potentially displacing the Sioux from their land. If Lake Oahe is
contaminated, the entire Sioux Reservation becomes uninhabitable.

Well the Company has issued a statement I want to just put it up here that they fully expect to
complete construction of the pipeline without any additional reroute in and around Lake Oahe.
Nothing this administration has done today changes that in any way. Are they right?

Well, they could be. The Corp did not deny the crossing permit. What the Corp said is before
you do that you have to do the full EIS and that means looking at alternative routes. As you
know, the pipeline was originally routed through the water supply of Bismarck. You had white
people, at that point, who protested so the company moved the project onto Indian land.

Exactly, and so you know I think at this what the EIS process requires is that they look at all the
alternatives. It is not a denial, and that's one of the reasons is that a lot of the people were
protesting out there are not going to leave the camp.

5. Rewrite: The Protests at Standing Rock | The Last Word | MSNBC

Dakota means friend, friendly. The people who gave that name to the Dakotas have sadly never
been treated as friends. The people whose language was used to name the Dakotas and
Minnesota and Iowa, Oklahoma, Ohio, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and other states. The Native
American tribes the people who were here before us, long before us, have never been treated as

They have been treated as enemies and dealt with more harshly than any other enemy in any of
this country's Wars. After all of our major Wars we signed peace treaties and lived by those
treaties after World War II. When we made peace with Germany we then did everything we

possibly could to rebuild Germany. No Native American tribe has ever been treated as well as
we treated Germans after World War II.

Donald Trump and his supporters now fear the country being invaded by foreigners who want to
change our way of life, a fear that Native Americans have lived with every day for over 500
years. The original sin of this country is that we invaders shot and murdered our way across the
land, killing every Native American we could and making treaties with the rest. This country was
founded on genocide before the word genocide was invented, before there was a war crimes
tribunal in The Hague.

When we finally stopped actively killing Native Americans for the crime of living here before
us, we then proceeded to violate every treaty we made with the tribes. Every single treaty. We
piled crime, on top of crime, on top of crime against the people whose offense against us was
simply that they lived where we wanted to live. We don't feel the guilt of those crimes because
we pretend they happened a very long time ago in ancient history and we actively suppress the
memories of those crimes but there are people alive today whose grandparents were in the
business of killing Native Americans. That's how recent these crimes are.

Every once in a while, there is a painful and morally embarrassing reminder as there is this week
in North Dakota near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation where hundreds of people have
gathered and camped out in opposition to an interstate pipeline being built from North Dakota to
Illinois. The protest is being led by this country's original environmentalists, Native Americans.
For hundreds of years they were our only environmentalists. The only people who thought that
land and rivers should be preserved in their natural state the only people who thought a mountain
or a prairie or a river could be a sacred place.

Yesterday, a federal judge heard arguments from the tribes against the federal government's
approval of the pipeline and said he will deliver his decision on whether the pipeline can proceed
next month. There are now over 90 tribes gathered in the protest of that pipeline. That protest
will surely continue even if the judge allows construction to proceed, and so we face the prospect
next month of the descendants of the first people to ever set foot on that land being arrested by
the descendants of the invaders who seized that land, arrested for trespassing. That we still have
Native Americans left in this country to be arrested for trespassing on their own land is testament
not to the mercy of the genocidal invaders who seized and occupied their land but to the stunning
strength and the 500 years of endurance and the undying dignity of the people who were here
long before us. The people who have always known what is truly sacred in this world.

6. Shailene Woodley On Possibility of Pipeline Construction | MSNBC

Trump: We're going to renegotiate some of the terms and, if they'd like, we'll see if we can get
that pipeline built. Lot of jobs, 2800 jobs.

Anchor: That right there, the president earlier today as he signed executive orders to advance the
construction of the controversial Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines. The Dakota
pipeline prompted weeks of protests in North Dakota, last fall. Among the opponents the

Standing Rock Sioux who tell NBC News they will file an immediate challenge. Joining me now
actress Shailene Woodley a board member of Our Revolution. She's opposed to Dakota pipeline
construction and was arrested in last year's protests at Standing Rock. Shailene thank you so
much for joining us.

Shailene: Thank you for having me.

Anchor: Tell me, what do you do now that Donald Trump is essentially making way for this
pipeline to start construction once again?

Shalane: We mobilize. You know I was on the ground at Standing Rock starting from September
of last year and we saw all of these protests, we saw people being shot with rubber bullets, I was
arrested, hundreds were arrested, people being sprayed with water cannons in sub-zero degree
temperatures, trying to protect not only the earth but also indigenous sovereignty and indigenous
rights and to protect those things. So, what we can do now as a population, as a society, is to hold
our corporations accountable and hold our banks accountable because there are a lot of banks
that are invested in this pipeline. A you know if regardless of any executive order or what our
politicians want to do if there's no money invested in the pipelines and they can't be built. So, I
think it's about spreading education and really honoring the fact that one of the biggest things
about this particular pipeline is protecting indigenous rights, something that has been overlooked
in our country for far too long.

Anchor: Well bring our viewers up to speed on this give them a little bit of a reminder if they
weren't watching over the December holiday break. In addition to the indigenous rights what else
were you and your group protesting? What were the dangers that you believe are being posed
with this pipeline?

Shailene: So, this pipeline would be built underneath the Missouri River. As we know it's not a
matter of if pipelines leak it's a matter of when pipe lights leak. If this one is to leak it affects the
drinking water of 18 million people--not only Standing Rock Sioux tribe in North Dakota and
South Dakota but millions of people down river as well.

Drinking water is not something that should be a luxury, it's not something that should be limited
to privilege, it's a human right. It's something that we all must start standing for and recognizing.
Doesn't matter how much money you're in the bank, whether you're conservative, or you're
progressive, you require drinking water to survive and that's the basic essence of what we're

Anchor: Shailene, I don't need to tell you that Donald Trump campaign on creating jobs. Jobs
would be created with this pipeline a few thousand of them, not quite as many permanent jobs
but a few dozen permanent jobs, but there are people out there that say this country needs to get
back to work. Are there any conditions under which you and your group would say that it's okay
to build this pipeline?

Shailene: I agree that it is time to bring more jobs to this country but that's why I think we need
to start investing in renewable energy because that is not a temporary job situation, that is
something that would be permanent. It's something that would require actually implement energy

independence in our country. There's a lot of rhetoric and narratives out there that oil and in this
country these particular pipelines are going to encourage energy independence, but it's not true.
We know that this oil is going to be exported, so there's a lot of false narratives, a lot of lies and
if we're talking about creating jobs, renewable energy is the way to go. Its untapped territory and
it would create millions of jobs.

Anchor: Thank you very much for joining me, appreciate your time.

Shailene: Thank you so much

7. President Trump Signs Executive Orders to Advance Keystone XL, Dakota

Access Pipelines
Taken moments ago, president Trump signing new executive orders. Let's take a listen.

Trump: This is with regard to the construction of the Keystone pipeline something that's been in
dispute, and it's subject to a renegotiation of terms by us. We're going to renegotiate some of the
terms and if they'd like we'll see if we can get that pipeline built. A lot of jobs. Twenty-eight
thousand jobs. Great construction jobs. Ok, Keystone Pipeline. This is with respect to the
construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Dakota Access Pipeline. Again, subject to terms and
conditions to be negotiated by us. Okay. This is construction of pipelines in this country. We are,
and I am, very insistent that if we're going to build pipelines in the United States the pipe should
be made in the United States. So, unless there is difficulty with that because companies are going
to have to say to gear up, much pipeline is bought from other countries, from now on we're going
to start making pipeline in the United States. We build it in the United States, we build the
pipeline's, we want to build the pipe. Its gonna put a lot of workers, a lot of steel workers back to
work. Okay.

We will build our own pipeline we will build our own pipes that's what it has to do with like we
used to, in the old days. This is about streamlining the incredibly cumbersome, long, horrible
permitting process and reducing regulatory burdens for domestic manufacturing. Many of the
people that we've been meeting with over the last, long period of time, but yesterday and others,
the process is so long and cumbersome that they give up before the end. Sometimes it takes
many, many years and we don't want that to happen. If it's a no we'll give them a quick no and if
it's a yes, it's like let's start building. The regulatory process in this country has become a
tangled-up mess and very unfair to people. That's a big one.

This is the expediting of environmental reviews and approvals for high-priority infrastructure
projects. We intend to fix our country, our bridges, our roadways, we can't be in an
environmental process for 15 years of a bridge is going to be falling down, or of a highway is
crumbling. So, we're expediting environmental reviews and approvals. Okay. Thank you very

Reporter off screen: Do you have any comment to the Standing Rock the protesters out there?

Women off screen: Thank you press.


Trump: Sometime next week, I'll be making my decision. This week will be announcing, next
week we have outstanding candidates and we will pick a truly great Supreme Court justice. But
I'll be announcing it sometime next week. Thank you all very much.

So again, these are images coming in from the oval office of President Trump signing several
executive orders. We will have to dig deeper into what some of these mean, for example, when
he talked about the Dakota pipeline and the Keystone XL, saying that these are orders subject to
negotiations, which is similar to what he said on the campaign trail. That he feels that the
Keystone pipeline deal is a “bad deal” and needed to be renegotiated. The specifics of that we do
not know. We also heard a reference to using pipes made in the United States, something that's
come up on the campaign trail related to his own businesses and buildings which use steel from
China. So, we're piecing together a lot of this at the very tail and you heard though the President
say that there will be several candidates for the Supreme Court and that an announcement would
be made sometime next week. We may see a similar scene that we saw with some of his cabinet
nominees play out where several names were floated out and ultimately, we heard the name of
the eventual nominee.
MSNBC chief legal correspondent Ari Melber joins us.

The other headline Tamarin as you say the fact that he signed these two executive orders that
will effectively allow the Keystone XL pipeline and the Dakota access pipeline to move forward.
They have been widely criticized. Protesters say they will ultimately harm the environment. The
Obama administration blocking both of those projects and part of the argument being that despite
the fact that it will create some temporary jobs, thousands of them, ultimately it will only create a
handful of permanent jobs. Let me read you some of the figures Tamron. This is about the
Dakota access pipeline. According to the fact sheet that comes from the company that would
construct the pipeline, it would create about eight to twelve thousand construction jobs, but when
you look at those permanent jobs, Tamarin, the number drops to about 40. Very similar case for
the Keystone Pipeline according to a State Department review. The State Department found that
it would create about 3,000 jobs, but in terms of permanent jobs you're looking at about 50
permanent jobs. So that was always the counter-argument, so, I anticipate that those will be some
of the numbers and some of the ideas that are bandied-about when we get to ask press secretary
Sean Spicer some questions this afternoon.

We need clarity on negotiating, the president saying both of those pipelines subject to
negotiations. The specific thing that he did note was, you know, the pipes would have to be made
in the United States and his reference was that they “used to be.”

That's right, and I think that that wording they're very important, specific to their negotiations
here at the White House. So, will these projects in fact move forward? When will they move
forward? How many jobs are we actually talking about? There are so many unanswered
questions, but the optics of this quite significant because these are campaign promises that then
candidate Trump made on the campaign trail. These are part of the reasons why you had
working-class voters who backed him because they back projects like this. They do see them as
job creators, whether you're talking about temporary or permanent jobs they say hey, it's going to
put people back to work. There is a significance in that so the optics certainly significant.
Tamron on this second day of his first official week in the White House.

All right Kristen thank you. Joining me now via Skype from North Dakota is the freelance writer
who covered this the protest significantly Jenni Monet. Jenny thank you so much for joining me.
So, let's get your reaction here. You have the president keeping a campaign pledge to move
forward with the Keystone pipeline as well as the Dakota pipeline, saying this is subject to
negotiations but we didn't hear anything about subject to negotiations based on environmental
concerns or some of the things that you and others brought up during the protests there.

Right. I'm not even sure if you heard in the room that there was actually a question raised about
the DAPL protests happening here at Standing Rock which went unanswered as he was signing
those orders. But, definitely these protests are ongoing and there's already reaction on the ground
coming from Standing Rock as we were listening to this very potential executive order coming

At this point you know what are the options available to the protesters who, as you rightfully
note, are still there. They received a very little media coverage toward the end of the year until
you had veterans who came out and supported in the scene until it got to the point where it could
not be ignored. But where do things stand now? How do they move forward?

Exactly. Well from that start there was there still is this open environmental impact study process
that is in effect. That's what happened on December 4th, when you saw that groundswell of
support gathering here at Standing Rock, and having communicated with the Standing Rock
Sioux tribe today, you know, their concern is that this process is in effect and that everyone
should have legitimate questions about a President, the presidency questioning that EIS process.
From the tribe themselves, and I'm quoting here, it said “everyone should fear the new rule of
law which is based on money not on precedent,” and that's coming from the Standing Rock
Sioux tribe who is diligently working forward through its EIS process which it's wanted all along
throughout this battle.

When the protesters here the criticism that yes, there are environmental concerns but those
concerns are outweighed by the jobs whether they are temporary or permanent that can be
created whether it's a dozen or more, what's their reply to this argument of environment versus
potential jobs?

Right now, what you're hearing among the water protectors who remain and as you had even
mentioned earlier, who have withstood freezing temperatures out here in the North Dakota
Prairie to stand and fight this pipeline, it is about protecting that water supply, the Missouri
River. Mani witch oni, “water is life” has been the rallying cry here all along, and today what
lead organizers known as headsman who have spoken to leading up to this decision they are
calling for renewed solidarity for Standing Rock for people to act in civil disobedience where
they are in cities around the country, and the world, to show their solidarity for Standing Rock
and to say that this environmental struggle, this battle over the Dakota access pipeline is still in

Jenny, thank you so much for your time we'd greatly appreciate you joining me today thank you

8. Dakota Pipeline Protesters Pledge to Stay Put| AM Joy | Am Joy | MSNBC

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is deploying federal mediators to North Dakota to try and defuse
tensions between law enforcement and members of a Native American tribe protesting the
Dakota Access Pipeline. The protesters who prefer to be known as water protectors are vowing
to continue their fight despite a Monday deadline to clear their camp.

The Standing Rock Sioux tribe have stood their ground for months facing dogs and police water
cannons. They say the pipeline threatens their drinking water and disturbed sacred land. In a
statement, pipeline builders Energy Transfer Partners said the protest is no longer about Native
American rights. They say, “it is a protest being orchestrated and led by extreme
environmentalists who are committed to the elimination of fossil fuels from the American
economy. This movement dishonors the tens and thousands of brave men and women who
fought and died in furtherance of American energy security.”
Let's bring in Chas Jewett for the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe and MSNBC's Cal Perry. Give us
the latest. It looks very cold there, have people begun to leave the camp? We know this Monday
deadline is looming. Tell us, what's going on?

You know nobody is leaving. Everybody that I've spoken to has said they're gonna stay
regardless of the weather. They say that there's a cold front coming on Tuesday, but haha, it's
already cold. But apparently, it's supposed to go into the single digits, minus 20 with the wind-
chill. I'm already freezing so I can't imagine what that's going to be like, but people here they say
they're gonna stay no matter what the other buzz of the day. Potentially up to two thousand
veterans on their way. We're also waiting on Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii--she's on her way here
as well as you mentioned. Chaz was nice enough to join us. Let me start by just asking you've
been here for months and it seems like we're sort of building up to this day on Monday. Are you
worried about what could happen Monday?

I'm not at all. I think the governor has even backed off on his on his earlier the rhetoric to get us
out and I think that things are not gonna happen. He wants them to play out and no one's leaving.
We're all here for the long haul.

Seems like the authorities, in sort of my conversations with them yesterday, they understand that
the optics of what's happened in the past were very poor and now we have an influx of veterans
coming in. Do you think that's gonna help? Do you think that's gonna be a negative? What are
you what's your thoughts on that?

Well, you know, I think that we here for a reason. We're here because we're united in prayer and
I think the veterans are coming in to help support that in a peaceful way. You know we've been
peaceful and patient and this whole time under direction from the Standing Rock chairman and
everyone else, that that's our agenda. We want to just convince the hearts and minds of folks.
The veterans are here to help us with that.

Cal, would you mind asking Chas if she and other protesters, water protectors, are happy thus far
with the federal response? With the Obama administration's response?

No, not at all. I think there's a lot a lot more that the Obama administration could do. I think that
they could scrap the whole permit right now as it is and have them re-apply. That would be an
excellent way for them to help and I think the Obama administration has done what they could to
deal with this climate change thing, which a lot of us are here for and but not enough. I mean
we're in a crisis point as humans. This is a huge time for us as a species and we need to be having
a real conversation and we're not. They could start having a real conversation based on science
and instead of politics. That would be something that everyone could do to make us happy. Also,
we've been doing this consultation process for a long time now. 500 years. People come to us
and we say no and it doesn't matter. So, I think you know that's an issue here too. We said no to
this pipeline two years ago and still we're here. We're still here saying no.

How do you balance the need to raise awareness about the issue of the pipeline but at the same
time, you see all these flags behind us, of all the different tribes? This is an issue of a promise
national sovereignty. This is an issue of promises made by the US government that were then
rolled back. How do you focus on sort of both at the same time?

Well it's complicated. It's hard. There's a lot of different agendas, there's a lot of different reasons
why folks are here. I'm here as a tribal person and for what I said just now is that you know
we've been saying no to these projects since time began. No one is ever hearing our voice and
now for whatever reason are no got amplified by the response of all the other tribes and all the
other organizations that are coming to support us. But we've been saying no to these things and
we're saying no to climate destruction. That's what we're saying no to. We're saying yes to our
future and yet we're here getting bombarded by rubber bullets and water cannons because we
want a future for our children. Come on, this is 2016.

One more question of you, Chas. Does it concern you that the incoming president, the next
president, was invested in the company that's building that pipeline? Are you concerned that you
won't have an administration that's listening to you after January twentieth?

Well it doesn't really feel like we've had an administration that's been listening to us now. I don't
think things are really going to change once we come in at the head of the snake is has changed,
maybe or what have you. But we've been out here for four months and we haven't had any help
from this administration. Right now, I mean literally our people are being attacked by dogs and
no one is helping us because we want water. I mean fresh water. That's it's kind of ridiculous
when you think about it. But I don't think that the incoming administration is going to be any
more helpful than the one right now.

Cal thank you very much, Chaz thank you very much for talking with us we will continue to
follow up on this story.

9. DAPL Greenlit Without Input from Standing Rock Sioux | AM Joy |

Trump: As you know I approved two pipelines that were stuck in limbo forever. I don't even
think were controversial. You know, I approved him, I haven't even heard one call from anybody
saying, ‘oh, that was a terrible thing you did.’ I haven't had to one call. Usually, if I do
something that's like, bedroom, right? I haven't had one call from anybody.

So, there's a really good reason for that. When you call the White House comment line this is
what you get:

Thank you for calling the White House comment line. The comment line is currently closed.

See, he hasn't gotten one comment. The White House promised that it would seek input from
everyone affected by the Dakota access pipeline and come up with a deal to benefit at all parties.
But on Wednesday, when the Army issued a permit to resume construction of the pipeline, one
interested party had still not been consulted: the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. In fact, it’s
Chairman was at that very moment flying to DC to meet with Trump administration officials. A
meeting that never in fact happened. The White House did not respond to our request for
comment. Joining me now by phone from Cannonball, North Dakota is chairman Dave
Archambault of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for being here.
Let's talk about that meeting that was supposed to take place between yourself and the Trump
administration over the pipeline. What happened?

Thank you. You know I was trying to meet with anybody in the White House, anybody under the
Trump administration, just to hear our side before any decisions were made and I think that's
important for any leader is to be rounded and it around well informed on any issue any matter. I
finally got through once somebody from the Department of the Interior was a place and I said I
need to meet with somebody in the White House and it was with William Kirkland of
intergovernmental affairs. He said let's get to a meeting for the following week and he said what
days would work, time available Monday to Wednesday and I said it needed to be as soon as
possible and Monday is perfect. So, we set up a meeting and I started scheduling my flight and
then he calls me back and says, ‘I can't meet with you Monday, Wednesday is the only day that
works.’ On that Monday, we had a status conference call with the judge and the judge had asked
the Department of Justice when the they were going to make a decision on the presidential
memorandum to push the easements through and they said they won't they won't decide at
earliest maybe Friday. This is all this tax weekend, and so Friday I figured I had time if I got to
meet with them I one last push to meet with anybody that would listen to me. I would meet on
Wednesday. As soon as I landed I got information on Tuesday that the decision has been
rendered. This was the day after the status conference call, so I felt like I was slighted. It wasn't

Sir, we know that there has been a lawsuit filed by the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe who saw the
legal challenge to try to stall the pipeline again. They were hearing on the request for a
temporary injunction on Monday. This is the statement from Energy Transfer Partners on the
legal challenges to the pipeline and they made the statement on Thursday. They said, “We've
started the drill to go beneath Lake Oahe. We look forward to having the pipeline and service in
approximately eighty-three days.” What is the status of your legal challenge and is it connected
to or joined to the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe?

Soon. So, we have to be really cautious and careful. This is without hearing our side, the
administration not knowing really what's going on. The Corps of Engineers knew exactly what
they were doing, the department army they started drafting a 110-page memo in response to our
and anticipate some temporary restraining orders coming forward. So, they submitted that to the

judge and this 110-page memo outlines what they've done and they anticipated our
argument. What the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe done was they filed a temporary restraining
order on the basis of freedom of religion which doesn't take away from what [we’re doing]. What
we're going to do is follow summary judgment on right off of the environmental review and our
treaty rights so we are going to join Cheyenne River Sioux tribe and I'm pretty sure they will join
us with the summary judgment but we're looking for an expedited schedule so that it would
resolve these all these issues before plan goes through. It's unfortunate that no one wants to hear
us and we have to try to use a judicial system when the history shows the judicial system is never
favorable when it comes to Indian country.

Yeah, absolutely. Very quickly, last question: there was a statement that was issued by the
Standing Rock Sioux asking people not to come to Standing Rock and instead exercise your First
Amendment right to take the fight to your respective state capitols or into Washington DC. So,
are you saying you do not want more protesters to come to Standing Rock?

Right now, where the camp is it's in a floodplain and we're concerned about safety of people. As
people come it's going to be very hard to clean the area. We do not want to be the contaminators
of the river, so we're working very hard to clean where the camp was and it will complicate
things that people start moving in that same space again especially with the threat of yellow for

Yeah, absolutely. Well, sir, thank you very much. Chairman David Archambault we're gonna
keep up with you and keep up and stay on this story. Thank you very much and good luck in
your legal challenges.

Thank you.

10. Tribe Pledges to Stop President Donald Trump on Pipelines | MSNBC

During this hour yesterday now, the Secretary of State which would be former Exxon Mobil
CEO Rex Tillerson. If he's confirmed next week, he would have to decide on an application for a
permit to complete the Keystone pipeline within 60 days and the Army Corps of Engineers has
been directed to “review and approve the Dakota access pipeline in an expedited manner to the
extent permitted by law.” MSNBC's Cal Perry joins me now from Bismarck, North Dakota by
phone with the very latest on not only the latest developments yesterday, but also the President
saying this is still negotiating, particularly where the pipes are made.

Yeah, that seems to be a big part of his sort his business acumen about not only that Dakota
Pipeline, but also the Keystone Pipeline. If you take a look at the Dakota Pipeline and we've got
an excellent map that sort of shows you where it's cutting through the country, and how much of
it is already completed. We're talking about a pipeline that runs for over a thousand miles but
only has about a thousand feet left to be completed. It really is just that section by the Missouri
River that's lending weight to the argument that this should just be finished, that the investments
already been made, that the pipe has already been laid, that the pipeline is almost completed. So,
the argument not only on behalf of the President but also of Energy Transfer Partners which is
the company that's building this pipeline, is we should just be allowed to complete it. It was on

track under President Obama until he rescinded that permission to finish, that final piece, so
that's the argument that people are putting forward to just finish this pipeline, Tamron.

Then I'm sure you saw how the markets are responding, it seems in a positive way to there being
some movement forward. A different direction than the Obama administration, but movement
forward, as it relates to this executive order here. The timeline here, what are we looking at here
for progress if it is to move forward?

So, you mentioned the process that the Army Corps of Engineers will now go back to in order to
approve the pipeline. The thing that many people in environmentalists and the tribe are looking
for is an environmental impact study. There hasn't been a good environmental impact study done
yet and the concern is that this could potentially pollute the water supply. We're talking about 17
million people living downriver from where this pipeline will be complete, but again there's this
reality on the ground and it's certainly true here in Bismarck. I should mention the pipeline was
originally supposed to run through Bismarck. When you talk to people here they're exhausted,
they're exhausted from the protest. They're exhausted from the media. Yesterday, the post office
in downtown Bismarck was shut down by riot police and protesters so there are certainly people
here who want this to be to be completed, Tamara.

All right, Cal thank you. Hundreds of people gathered near the White House yesterday to protest
president Trump's executive orders on those pipelines and more protests took place around the
country including a large rally in Seattle. And back at the Standing Rock reservation--the center
of the Dakota pipeline resistance, some tribal leaders say they were prepared for president
Trump's orders.

“It wasn't a surprise. I mean we knew this was going to happen and we've been preparing for it.
You take historical perspective though of who we are. You know as Lakota, Dakota people,
we've been resisting since point-of-contact.” (unidentified tribal leader)

Joining me now the tribal chairman of Standing Rock reservation, David Archambault. Thank
you so much David for your time.

Thank you.

So, I know that you're looking into limits of the executive order. It's been less than 24 hours
since the President signed that executive order, but as you stated and others you were prepared
for this. So, the question is what next?

We were prepared for president Trump to take a run at everything that we had accomplished over
the past two years. We had asked for an environmental impact statement because we had
concerns and the troubling thing is that this president is circumventing federal law. We don't
have treaty rights, we have water rights with our winter is darker. We have NEPA and the
Environmental Protection Agency was put in place for a reason. It was because corporate world
was contaminating water, the corporate world was contaminating our air, corporate world was
contaminating our lands. So, for this president could come in and say we're gonna streamline
everything. Forget the Environmental Protection Agency, forget all the federal agencies that are
making sure that the things that are important to this world are protected. He's coming in just

trying to streamline everything for where money and greed, and there's a huge conflict of interest
with this. You know, he received a lot of money--a hundred thousand dollars--from an executive
of Energy Transport for Energy PD and his Jasper partners for his campaign. He also has
investments at Phillips 66 where they were this crude oils gonna be shipped and get refined. So,
he's gonna benefit and a lot of the lawmakers get contributions from the industry. So, the federal
laws are in place to try to facilitate the fossil fuel development, keeping in mind that these laws
are being created by people who receive money. So, this is not about protecting people. We are
complying with law. It's about money and greed and this president, this nation better start
bracing itself for what's to come. If the Florida was starting to witness in the first four days him
using an executive order to circumvent federal law it's not right. It's something that we better get
ready for. I was disappointed that it came this soon because we had worked so hard for the last
two years and the president didn't even reach out to try to hear our side or understand the
concerns. There are local issues that are taking place and we've been working with the state
government to try to adjust these issues now. This just stifles all the work that we've been trying
to get accomplished in the last few months.

I know that you've had continuous talks with the congressional delegation looking for some
assistance from members of Congress. The delegation all support the pipeline here. Not to paint
this as a battle that is over, but your legal and political remedies at this point. What do you see as
your next best chance?

You know we're gonna continue to look at the validity of this action and we're gonna continue to
talk to anyone that would be willing to listen to us as a minister to try to understand why there is
resistance. We thought we're gonna continue to try to get support from Congress who are not fed
by the industry and really opened the America's eyes on what's happening here. This is scary
times especially if the EPA is given a gag order and not to comment on anything, not to put
anything out on media, or not to discuss this issue. This is a scary time for America, and this is
not about making America great, it's make America bad again and it's about abuse at American
Indians, again.

David thank you so much a greatly appreciate you joining me.

Fox News Dakota Access Pipeline

11. Dakota Access Pipeline gets green light
Bill (Fox News Reporter): We are now learning the Dakota Access Pipeline looong debated
now getting a green light. The Army Corps of Engineers clearing the way for the final segment,
work could begin as early as today but this might not be the end of it.
Alicia Couning explains why live in Denver now. Could it be stopped yet again Alicia?

Alicia (Fox News Reporter): It’s possible opponents could always try some last minute
maneuver but, Bill, right now, we’re being told that later today, the Army Corp of Engineers will
issue its official word. Once that happens work can begin but as you can imagine reaction came
pretty quickly. Earthjustice, the environmental law group issued a statement saying this decision
“...continues a historic pattern of broken promises to Indian Tribes...” “Trump and his
administration will be held accountable in court.”

The 1,200 mile DAP is 99.7% complete. The final portion was in dispute as the Standing Rock
Sioux Tribe fought the link that will run underneath the Missouri River. (Show map of the
pipeline route) They claim, it could impact their water quality. The tribe managed to stall things
through the Obama administration, something President Trump Changed.
Clip--Kathleen Sgamma, Western Energy Alliance: The Corp conducted 360 meetings with
about 55 different tribes, the Standing Rock Sioux chose not to participate. The Corp made
multiple attempts to contact them, to make sure their opinions were considered.
Alicia: The Pipeline has been rerouted 140 times.
In an email to supporters to Standing Rock Sioux said in part, “Today, the Trump administration
threw down the gauntlet. Today, our movement must hold together and strengthen itself in the
face of the president’s onslaught. We will not be silenced!”
Alicia: And throughout this fight as you know Bill, the Protest encampment has been held
outside the reservation. Their vigil continues right now.
Bill: It is February, it can be wicked out there. What about those Protests?
Alicia: Well, you know, they have been very violent at times. In fact, law enforcement has been
targeted by those angered by pipeline construction. North Dakota’s governor says he’s requested
more federal and state officers to help keep the peace. (Images of tents and teepees of protesters
in sandy area)
Clip--John Hoeven (R) , North Dakota Senator: We need to bring this to a conclusion not only
because we need the energy infrastructure, but also because it’s been difficult for the people who
live and work in the region.
Alicia: But opponents say it's not over.
Bill: Thank you Alicia. Not over.

12. US Army Corps of Engineers blocks route of Dakota Access pipeline

Huge development tonight affecting thousands of people working to stop an oil pipeline in North
Dakota. The Army Corp of Engineers has hit the pause button on the Dakota Access Pipeline. As
you know it has been in the headlines for some time, heating up in recent weeks with protesters
clashing with authorities. And just today, thousands of US military veterans joining the cause to
stop the Pipeline route. At this hour, a victory for them, for now. The Army Corp says it will
deny a permit to continue the route of that pipeline. A statement came a short time ago as well
from the US Interior Secretary supporting this decision. It is unclear if this is a temporary move,
but officials say this ensures there will be an in depth evaluation of other possible routes, an
alternative to the one you see on your screen.

Demonstrators have been protesting at what they call Standing Rock, that tribal ground, for
months now. Building the pipeline calls for running under a lake, and they say that would
threaten their reservation’s water source and sacred burial ground. More on this story as we learn

13. Deadline passes for Dakota pipeline protesters to evacuate

Brett: The deadline has just past for protestors to leave federal land near the DAP but many
demonstrators say they are refusing to go. Correspondent William La Jeunesse is in Cannonball
ND live with some breaking details. William.

William: Well Brett, you are right, just in the last hour, about several dozen protesters confronted
police, taunted them, according to a spokesperson. And when they were given a warning to back
off and failed, 9 were arrested.

Protester: I am terribly sad. I am terribly sad, you know. It’s um, its nots just the pipeline thing.

But that thing is how it all began. David Cooley arrived here in Dec to protest the North DAP.
Today, he was cleaning up and preparing, under government order, to leave.

Cooley: We’re not particularly interested in getting arrested, if we can help it.

Police are shutting down campsites, once occupied by 10s of thousands of environmentalists and
Native Americans fighting the pipeline.

Police officer: The camp is considered closed.

North Dakota spent $33 million mostly on law enforcement overtime to protect the pipeline that
Pres. Obama stopped, in part because of pressure by the protestors.

Trump: Dakota Access Pipeline (White house oval office, signing document)

President Trump reversed the decision

Protester with bandana: Right now, I am a bit solemn. I’m not sad. I’m not upset. I am just
watching what is going on, and trying my best to figure out how to move forward.

Police moved in under and emergency order declaring the camps as a potential health hazard, as
abandoned tents, stoves, kerosene tanks, cars, and human waste that could soon be underwater
from spring flooding. To get protesters out, police offered a hotel voucher and bus ticket to any
city in the US. Others were offered a ceremonial arrest so protestors could enjoy a unique photo
op for their social media pages. But none took the offer.

Police: It’s a pretty darn good deal and I think North Dakota, we are doing the right thing, we are
bending over backward a little bit. But at the end of the day, we can say that we are taking the
moral high ground here.

And while it isn’t the ending many here hoped, most to not regret the fight.

Protester: I’d like people who see this not to be apathetic. To feel that it means something. These
are real people.

Now there about 50-75 individuals left in those camps. Clearly there are declining. Police will
not go in at nightfall, Brett. As for the pipeline itself, drilling does continue under the Missouri
river. I am told they are about 30-40 days until completing. The rest of the pipeline is done. And
they may begin pumping 1-2 weeks after then.

William live in North Dakota. William, thank you.


14. Veterans to stand with Standing Rock protesters

Veterans who have fought for America's freedoms abroad have answered the call at home. Ready
to stand for Standing Rock.

Hundreds of America’s bravest men and women are set to deploy to the Standing Rock Indian
Reservation in North Dakota, joining in protests against the DAP.

In a planned event in the coming week, service members from all 5 branches of the US Military
are calling upon fellow veterans to exercise their constitutional right, as a peaceful, un armed

Those who join to movement plan to defend the water protectors from assault at the hands of
militarized police force and DAP security.

Veterans Wesley Clark junior and Michael Wood junior are helping lead the initiative. Clark
says they are hoping for a turnout of 500 veterans. But if they only have 20-30, then that’s what
god will have provided.

Wood, who is also a retired police officer, says that they must stand up for the oppressed. Adding
that “it doesn’t matter if you are a libertarian, conservative, or progressive. This is everyone’s

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and its supporters, including hundreds of other Native
Americans, have been protesting against the construction of the oil pipeline for months. The $3.8
billion project, which is nearly complete would carry 470,000 barrels of oil a day across the
Dakotas and Iowa, to Illinois.
Proponents say the pipeline would significantly decrease US reliance on foreign oil. Opponents
say it would destroy native American land, having irreversible environmental implications,
contaminating drinking water, and releasing harmful greenhouse gas emissions.

The peaceful protests have turned violent in recent days. Protests were shot with water cannons,
pepper spray, tear gas, and rubber bullets. More than 300 people were reportedly injured in the

Soaked by water, a number of protestors were treated for hypothermia in the sub-freezing

Jade Emillio Snell, a veteran of the Marine Corp. says that he's watched people attacked, fighting
for what they believe in. He says that as a veteran, he took an oath, to not just protect Americans
in foreign countries, but inside of it too.

15. Stein on SCOTUS, domestic policy, Dakota Access pipeline

Brett: Welcome back joining us now in our center seat Green Party President nominee Jill Stein.
Thanks so much for being here.

Stein: Great to be here, Brett.


...Later on in question session.

Brett: There aren’t too many candidates who have had warrants for their arrest. The Morton
County Sheriff’s Dept. says they issued an arrest warrant for you and your VP nominee, charged
with criminal trespass and criminal mischief. Class B misdemeanors after this spray painting of
construction equipment on the pipeline. Um, what about that? Why do it, and it is against the

Stein: It is indeed. I think we are in a crisis situation which I do not take lightly. You had here a
pipeline company that had just bulldozed the grave sites of the Standing Rock Sioux People the
day before that had loosed the attack dogs on peaceful protests, which are putting at risk the
water supply, not just for the Standing Rock Sioux, but for 17 million people downstream on the
Missouri river, also at a time when we cannot afford another major pipeline project. This is like
the keystone XL pipeline which we stopped with public pressure. Right now, in spite of the
President’s directive that the pipeline company stop on federal land and that they voluntarily stop
in other areas, they are not, they are going full speed ahead, in a way that puts us all very
seriously at risk. The indigenous people are putting themselves at grave risk. I did not go there
intending to participate in civil disobedience. And when they asked me, I felt like, here they are,
perhaps the most vulnerable people on the planet, they are standing up for us, I wanted to support

16. Army Corps shutting down DAPL protest camp

Also this morning, protesters still calling the Dakota Pipeline site their home are getting the boot.
They’re getting the boot. The ACE is shutting down the camp this afternoon concerned about
flooding as the snow melts. Last month the President signed executive actions to approve the
pipeline. The protesters who have been camped out there since August, they worry about
contaminating the water on Native American land.

17. Activists set fires at pipeline protest camp

Abby: Tensions running high at the pipeline protest camp in North Dakota. Activists setting a
huge fire as they fight to stay with a deadline to clear the site just hours away. National
correspondent William La Jeunesse is live for us in Cannonball, North Dakota. William, what is
going on here?

William: Well, Abby let me tell you, the fires you see in the distance where intentionally set with
the idea being that it will be easier to take those things out as ash than a bulldozer or a dump
truck. The protesters here lost when Donald Trump won. Donald Trump approved the pipeline
that President Obama had halted. That means for all intents and purposes, the protests are over.
And both the governor as well as the Standing Rock Sioux tribe have told the protesters to go
home, it is over.

The governor has an emergency evacuation order that takes effect today at 2pm. Now, two
interesting caveats. There is going to be an amnesty bus, so protesters will be offered to get on
that bus to go to a transition center, where they will get a voucher for a hotel night, and a bus
ticket anywhere in the US. Secondly, there will be a ceremonial arrest for those individuals who
want to be able to tell their friends that they were arrested, get a photo taken, and put it on their

social media sites. The cops will accommodate them for the next several days. Now for the
hardcore guys who want to be charged for the crime, we spoke to some of them. They said, well,
we lost the war, but we don’t regret the fight.

Protester wearing bandana: I’m terribly sad. I’m terribly sad, you know it’s um, it’s not just the
pipeline thing. These people have been pushed around for centuries. They have been trampled,
you know.

William: Officials say that a lot of the protesters are frankly broke. So they think it’s the humane
thing to do to give them the night and a hotel the bus ticket. And they let them out. After all,
Abby, this is North Dakota. People here are really nice.

Abby: Yea, they are asking them to leave because all that snow as we can see behind you, it
could melt saying that it could cause flooding How bad are those conditions.

William: Well, right now it’s cold and snowy, and it looks probably better than it is. That place
down there is a dump, it was basically a small city with 10,000 people at any one time over the
course of the last seven months. But the waters are rising and the snow is melting. It has been an
unusually warm winter and these campsites are literally in the floodplain.

What do you got down there? You’ve got propane, kerosene heaters, diesel and gas generators,
you’ve got teepee yurts bunkhouses, and of course mountains of human waste. And that bacteria
they fear is going to get into the river. If you look at that graphic, you’ll see that those campsites
are literally built in the floodplain and when the Cannonball River rises, that bacteria will go in
the river that’s what they don’t want to occur. Back to you.

Yea, tents are not built for flooding. William La Jeunesse live for us. Thank you William.

18. Driver in Los Angeles rams through pipeline protest

Well this driver has no time for protestors. Watch as this car refuses to divert traffic for a
pipeline protest in downtown Los Angeles. Instead of going around the crowd they go right into
it. When the people don’t move, the driver takes it a step further, pushing through the rally, one
of the protesters riding on the hood for a good 30 second before falling off.

19. More than 140 arrested at North Dakota pipeline protest

Bill: The protest over an oil pipeline descending into chaos. Officers in riot gear spent 6 hours
breaking this up, 140 people arrested. And Will Carr has more on that story now. What happened
and how did it happen Will.

Will: Well good morning Bill. Tensions have been building over this pipeline for months and
yesterday the protestors made a literal line at the highway that runs next to this pipeline. They
started burning cars and tires and it was all on private property owned by the oil company.
Authorities have warned over and over that they need to get off the property or they would be
arrested. But that didn’t stop hundreds, many with their faces covered from making their stand
Thursday. Some were shouting hands up don’t shoot. Others threw firebombs at officers. And it
lead to members of law enforcement responding in full riot gear. During the chaos, a local sheriff
says that one women fired 3 shots at the police. Thankfully no one was hit.

Police officer clip: Our emphasis here is that we don’t want a confrontation. The last thing North
Dakota law enforcement wants is a confrontation, the last thing the state of ND is a
confrontation. But we are having our hand forced at some point, when you take over someone
else’s property or home, who do you call? The cops.

Pipeline protesters also flooded Hillary Clinton's headquarters in Brooklyn yesterday. Those that
opposing the pipeline say it will ruin ancient sites and pollute the Standing Rock Sioux tribal
water although there is no evidence of that. Supporters say it will be an economic boom for the
area and for the United States. Bill.

Bill: Oh what a mess, Will Carr, thank you with more on that. Thanks Will.

20. Trump takes steps to resurrect Keystone, Dakota pipelines

Work day two for president Trump brought more executive actions, more meetings with business
leaders, and word that a new supreme court nominee is days away. The decision to jumpstart
work on the Keystone XL and DAP projects is both a shot across the bow for environmentalists
and another major reversal of an Obama Administration policy. All that plus another comment
from the president that sets off another afternoon of media fact-checking and heated reaction.
Chief White House correspondent John Roberts has all the news tonight from the White House
Good evening John.

Bret, good evening to you. The sheer volume of news coming out of this White House just the
first couple of days dwarfs anything we have seen in recent memory. But the president has still
not shaken his campaign-era propensity to step on his own message.

President Trump took major steps to resurrect the Keystone XL and DA pipelines. Another
opportunity for the president to undo Obama-era actions.

We are going to renegotiate some of the terms, and if they’d like, we will see if we can get that
pipeline built. A lot of jobs. 2800 jobs. Great construction jobs. The Twittersphere lit up with
protest from environmental groups.

“Earthjustice condemns president Trump’s executive order on Keystone XL and DA oil

But from House Speaker Paul Ryan, praise. Thanks to President Trump’s executive order, the
Keystone pipeline and the Dakota Access pipeline can finally be built. It’s about time.
The president also signed order to streamline the permitting and manufacturing process for
pipelines and other infrastructure projects and took steps to ensure that when they are built, they
are built with American steel.
“We will build our own pipeline, we will build our own pipes, like we used to, in the old days.”

The President began his day promoting the automobile industry, hosting leaders from the big
three and others for breakfast. Another listening session to find ways of keeping jobs at home.
“I’m going to make the process much more simple for the auto companies and for everybody
else that wants to do business in the US. I think you going to find this to be from very
inhospitable to extremely hospitable.”

Amid all the talks of jobs and infrastructure, the president today revealed he is very close to
naming his choice to fill the supreme court seat left vacant by the death of Antonin Scalia.
Appeals court judges Neil Gorsuch, Thomas Hardeman, and William Prior are said to be the
front runners.

“Sometime next week I’ll be making my decision. This week we will be announcing. Next week
we have outstanding candidates and we will pick a truly great Supreme Court justice. But I will
be announcing sometime next week.”

Despite the magnitude of news coming out of the White House today, it was again overshadowed
by a message-robbing remark by the President. Meeting with congressional leaders last night,
President Trump insisted he would have won the popular vote if 3.5 million people had not voted

This morning, the House Speaker said he didn’t see nothing to back that up.
“Look, I’ve already commented on that. I have seen no evidence to that effect. I’ve made that
very very clear.”-- Paul Ryan

In the daily briefing today, citing no evidence to support President Trump’s claim, the press
secretary said that the President firmly believes what he said.

“The president does believe that. He stated that before. I think he stated his concerns about voter
fraud and people voting illegally during the campaign.”

But when asked if the white house would seek an investigation into what would amount to
massive voter fraud, the press secretary deferred.

“I think that he won very, very handily with 306 electoral votes, 33 states. He is very
comfortable with this win.”

As a candidate Donald Trump seemed to take himself off message just about every week, until
he finally developed message discipline. He is quickly learning that as President in Washington,
even a casual aside in a private conversation can quickly become the headline of the day. Brett.
Democrats jumped on that John. What percentage of the briefing do you think dealt with that

I would say it was probably about 20%, but still, that’s more than he would want.

Yea, John Roberts, live on the north lawn, thank you.

MSNBC Paris Climate Accord

21. “Joe: President Trump’s Climate Decision Has Done Grave Damage
Diplomatically | Morning Joe | MSNBC”
Trump: In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States
will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord. Thus as of today, the United States will cease all
implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic

burdens the agreement imposes on our country...but begin negotiations to re-enter either the
Paris Accord, or in really entirely new transaction, when terms that are fair to the United States
its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers. So we're getting out, but we will start to
negotiate and we will see if we can make a deal that's fair, and if we can, that's great, and if we
can't that's fine. The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have
collectively cost America trillions of dollars through tough trade practices. You see ,what's
happening. It's pretty obvious to those that want to keep an open mind. At what point does
America get demeaned? At what point do they start laughing at us? As a country we don't want
other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore, and they won't be. I was elected to
represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.

John: You know actually, I mean the great irony is that they are laughing. They're not laughing at
America, they're laughing at Donald Trump. The world is shocked, is in hysterics.

Katy: I actually think they're laughing. I think a lot of people in Europe who, course when Trump
was elected, thought the whole thing was a joke. Now, think it's not so much scary as sad, that
people are dismayed at the lack of American leadership on what is probably the most
fundamental issue of our time: climate change. There's a sense of a real sadness in Europe about
what is happening to America globally.

Mika: We were speaking at the German Embassy last night and I remember this came up and the
audience of really you know accomplished women. They were all shaking their heads and they
had a look of a mixture between horror and disgust on their face, as it pertains to Trump.

John: So this and everything, let's put it in perspective and then we'll get through door I mean.
Again, a lot of people may disagree with me, there was it so much hyperbole flying around,
yesterday on the right, for right on Donald Trump, in Trump land. The hyperbole that it was
taking away our sovereignty, he was going to destroy our sovereignty.

John: (Raised voice) It's voluntary! We set the goals for ourselves! It was a device to try to get
countries like China and India who are now developing countries, to actually also set guidelines.
Its voluntary! There was no sovereignty loss by this, that's why it was stupid to get out! Because
it was voluntary, the United States has already started making great strides towards reducing
carbon emissions. That's the first thing. The second thing is, the suggestion that this was going to
hurt the United States economy, is just another lie. it’s It's voluntary. There's a reason why Gary
Cohen on the inside, the guy that ran Goldman Sachs says ‘let's stay in.’ There's a reason why
GE, Jeff Bennett said ‘let's stay in.’ There's a reason why CEOs from Exxon said ‘let’s stay in.’
There's a reason why most of Silicon Valley's leaders said ‘let's stay in.’ Because it's not bad in
the long run for the economy, it's actually good in the long run for the economy.
First tweet ever, Lloyd Blankfein at Goldman Sachs. This is not hard. I'm going to say though, if
you want to strip it down, and what the hyperbole on the left, (impersonation) “This is the day
that the world came to an end”

Mika: That’s the overreach that people need to watch.

John: It's hyperbole. You need to go back if you want to understand what hyperbole that is, to
see what some of the most progressive thought leaders were saying about the Paris Accords

when they were first passed that [the PCA guidelines] are toothless, that they're not going to
make a difference, that it's really symbolism more than anything else. The person, Willie Geist
talks about this all the time--a friend of his who actually was one of the foremost climate
scientists who came up with the theory of greenhouse gases--I remember him showing me the
email the morning after Paris was signed--he said this is a bunch of BS, except he didn't say BS,
he said it was absolute garbage. These were voluntary guidelines set.

John: So Gene, the impact of this at least as far as I'm concerned, maybe people believe it's going
to be the day after tomorrow, and Florida's gonna disappear in a couple weeks--they don't help
their cause they're exaggerating. But there are two huge takeaways I believe from this, number
one: the damage it's done to us is grave diplomatically across Europe, especially diplomatically,
its grave. Europeans do believe that this is the United States withdrawing from the world. They
are very concerned and they're going to follow put on what Merkel said last week which is
they're going to have to look elsewhere for leadership.

John: Secondly, and I think more disturbingly, even if you can believe it--this proves that Donald
Trump does not give a damn about the world. He does not give a damn about the United States
as a whole. He cares about his core 38 percent and this is the Steve Bannon effect: the short-
sighted stupidity that you are going to focus on your 38 percent to the exclusion of rest of the

Yeah, welcome to the bizarre new normal.

John: By the way, and welcome to Nancy Pelosi being Speaker the house.

In terms of the actual impact on carbon emissions of what happened yesterday, it's nil. We were
never going to make the Paris targets under Donald Trump to begin with. Because he's trying to
revive coal, he's trying to pump more oil and gas. But the abdication of American leadership I
think is a huge deal, and I think we'll look back on yesterday as a very big deal. In terms of
American leadership, the withdrawal, it means somebody's got to step up.

Mika: So Jeremy, hold on we have the leaders of France and Germany, and Italy issuing a joint
statement saying the path laid out in the Accord is “irreversible” and firmly believe that the Paris
agreement cannot be renegotiated.

Macron: I reaffirmed clearly, that the Paris agreement remains irreversible and will be
implemented, not just my France, but my all the other nations. We will succeed because we are
fully committed, because wherever we leave, whoever we are, we all share the same
responsibility: make our planet great again.

Mika: Also reacting yesterday to Trump's decision was German Chancellor Angela Merkel's
main competitor in the upcoming election, Martin Schulz, who has been outspoken in his distaste
for Trump, tweeting “you can withdraw from a climate agreement but not from climate change
Mr. Trump. Reality isn't just another statesman you shove away.” There's that.

Jeremy Peters, The New York Times: Well if you think about this as a mini Brexit for Trump, I
think that's how they see this in the White House. This is another spoke out of the wheel of the

international community. I mean they see this as a way of dismantling the post-world War two
order in which there was a global community and there were global citizens that were a part of
that community that have a moral responsibility to lead. That's just not how they see the world. I
mean but the problem that that is of course it allows France and Germany and other European
leaders to step into that vacuum.

And more important in China, which is stepping up

China is stepping up and saying okay if the US won't lead on climate we will. They have the
biggest solar panel industry in the world, by far, already. They're going to take the lead in clean
energy technology and we're not.

It's more than just climate, I think climate was the third place where China has got a huge
opening now. First was trade, second was security, and the president comes home from his trip
and basically sends the message to Europe that security orders are going to be different. Those
three are the three pillars of the post-world War Internet, where to international order, where the
United States was first among equals in the West. The president does not want that kind of
world, and is it going to make the life better for people in the United States? Today it does not
look like that to the rest of the world and to a lot of people.

Katy, to follow up on what you said there is in Europe, there is a great fear and an almost a
mourning that the United States is withdrawing. That Donald Trump is not just not from Paris
but from Europe from maybe the relationship we've had for over 50 years.

Katy Kay, BBC World News America: I think there is a real realization in Europe now that the
bombing in Syria was a kind of aberration in Trump's foreign policy that people might have
thought that was a moment of intervention. That actually, Trump was not going to be the
isolationist president that he had said he was going to be. That he kind of rode back from the
inaugural ‘America first’ type tone. And then the combination of the trip to Europe, as Mark was
saying, and withdrawing immediately from the Paris Accord and not just withdrawing from it but
the language that he used yesterday smacked so much of that inaugural address. We were way
back in those dark days where the rest of the world is out to get America, is taking advantage of
America, and ‘I will never let them on, I am going to stop them from laughing at us.’

John: Steve Bannon is back in power at the White House and Bannon, Jarod being under
scrutiny, and Bannon is hell-bent on making sure that 38% of Americans love Donald Trump. He
is going to get his wish: 38% of Americans will love Donald Trump, and Nancy Pelosi will be
Speaker of the House. If Donald Trump runs for reelection he will get wiped off.

Richard Haass tweeted about the Paris news that abandoning the global climate Accord and he
says this: “with TPP and the Paris withdrawal and NATO uncertainty US foreign policy and
health care policy increasingly one in the same: repeal without replace.”

Mike Barnicle, the president's foreign policy team wouldn't they have some concerns about the
symbolism of the past 24 hours?

Mike Barnicle: Mikey, yesterday was sad, it was depressing, it was cynical, it was a verbal
portrait filled with half-truths and no truths a verbal portrait of America in retreat, played out by
a man with little understanding of history or our role in the world stage, and for that 38%? All I
can say is, get ready 38% Trump supporters to buy solar panels made in China at Home Depot in
about ten years. That's what we're looking forward to.

22. “California Set To Leave Donald Trump Behind On Climate Policy |

Rachel Maddow | MSNBC”
If you want a car on the price is right in the 1980's it went a little something like this:
Video Clip of old game show: Now let's show Diane some more prizes, a new car! [Applause]
The Chevrolet Monte Carlo ALS group with California emission all the other standard features,
plus these options custom interior, tinted glass, deluxe body side moldings, floor mats, door
ends, guard air conditioning, 20 errs body pin striping, sports suspension cruise control, 5.0 v8
engine, automatic transmission with overdrive, and if you win this car, you will also receive a car

Anchor: A car telephone. Now we're not just playing this clip to reminisce about the deluxe body
side moldings and the automatic transmission with overdrive, which does sound nice. The very
special California detail there was a car with California emission, and that isn't one of those
trendy terms that car dealers just make up to juice the sticker price--it is a real thing set by actual
environmental policy, because as a state California has set its own environmental emission
standards for any cars that want to cruise through the Golden State. Those requirements are
greener than federal guidelines, showing that California was not only the first in the nation on
many environmental policies for the state level, but that it was also willing to set a higher bar
even when there was some federal action. California is a long way however from Washington,
and Paris is even farther away.

Trump: The United States will withdraw from the Paris climate Accord. As of today, the United
States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord, and the draconian financial
and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.

The president pulling the US out of the Paris climate Accord leaving behind over 190 countries
who join that pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So there are now just three countries on
the whole planet that don't belong to this Agreement: Syria Nicaragua and us, the United States
of America. By making good on his campaign promise to get out of the Accord the president
signaled to the world today the US is no longer interested in being any kind of leader on climate
change out of the environmental or diplomatic cost. This announcement drew rebukes from
around the world and vows to fight on from American businesses, health advocates, and
environmental leaders. No surprise that California is already leading the pack, and it has some
muscle as the sixth largest economy in the world.

Jerry Brown is the Governor of California, a job he held in the 1970s, and which he now holds
again. Brown signed a bill to slash greenhouse gas emissions, funded a statewide cap-and-trade
program, and he took California’s fight global, working with officials around the world on a
pledge to cut greenhouse gas--an interesting framework considering the Trump administration's
new posture today.

Joining us now for the interview is California Governor Jerry Brown. Governor, thanks for
joining us on this busy day for you. How are you going to combat this move from president

Brown: Stay the course. California has a very imaginative and aggressive climate action policy.
We have a goal of 50% renewable electricity by 2030. We're only about 27% now and we'll even
go beyond that. We have zero emission mandates for automobiles, we have energy and appliance
regulatory standards, we also have a cap-and-trade program, so we're all in in decarbonizing our
economy. Of course, I have to admit we've got a long, long way to go, but we're moving in that
direction, and the economy has rewarded these policies with a growth 40% faster than the
national average. 2.3 million jobs just since the last recession. So we're on the move, we'll keep
going. A more specific action: I'm leaving tomorrow for China. I'll meet with high officials there
to forge new China-California climate agreements. I'll also work with New York and
Washington and several other states, in what I call the under-2 coalition--a group of 175 different
partners Canada Mexico Quebec New York Massachusetts California-- representing a billion
people, and almost 30 percent of the world's economic output. We are agreed on a climate set of
goals very similar to the Paris agreement. We are moving forward and will continue. I would say
this action very misguided action by President Trump will act as a catalyst to galvanize the
people of California, and I would say the whole world to do the right thing in getting us on the
path of sustainability.

Anchor: So you lay out there a lot of things, and you and your predecessors have passed laws
and programs as you mentioned that have made California the leader here on that sort of
international collaboration front. As you know, the Senate Democrats have a new letter out in
your state--they're asking you to consider convening a special climate summit to “partner with
Mexico and Canada and invite other states to ensure that you continue charging ahead.” Is that
something specifically you would also do?

Brown: Well, it just came out an hour ago and I have talked to the Senate leadership on that so it
sounds like a good idea. Can we pull it off? If we can, yeah, I want to talk to the prime minister
in Canada, to the President of Mexico and if we can get them and others, that's an idea I will give
very serious consideration.

Anchor: Very interesting, so you that that kind of sort of quasi foreign policy, or that role for
California as a leader.

Brown: Not, just that, we are harmonizing our standards with China. China has a very powerful
mandate for zero emission cars. They are developing their own cap-and-trade program.
California is refining our cap-and-trade program. There are areas of collaboration. California
right now has as much clean-tech capital investment, entrepreneurial venture, capital investment
as China and the rest of Europe combined. So we're doing a lot, we're going to do more with
China, and we're going to link closer together because it used to be China and the United States
as the pillar. Now, China is that pillar and California is very much going to be working with
them to achieve our mutual goals.

Anchor: So governor, given all that you're doing is this sort of a placeholder or a mechanism
where you hope that even if the United States under the Trump administration is not involved,

that California, as the sixth largest economy, is part of basically US participation in these
Accords? Or these goals over time so that one day the US might be able to re-enter the Paris
Accord? Or how do you look at the future of this?

Anchor: Well I certainly don't think Trump in a statement today is the last word--far from it.
This is a temporary deviation from the norm, the world norm. It will be corrected. How soon? I
don't know, I can't say that today. But I'm going to do everything I can to correct it. In the
meantime we're not treading water, we're on the field of battle and we're going to do everything
we can to win the minds and hearts of the people of California, of America, of the world. This is
not some extra little political game or one issue among many. This is an existential threat to the
long-term future of humanity. It's not a game. Millions of people will die if we don't handle
climate change in the right way. We have to make the investments, we have to make the change.
Of course in the way the economy in the world lives, and does things. California is prepared to
do that. I would say that Trump is going to act as the null hypothesis. He's demonstrating that
climate denial has no integrity and no future. The opposite climate activism is the order of the
day and you will see in the coming days and months, and hopefully, in the coming years, that we
really rise to the occasion and do what is needed to keep humanity on a sustainable and
harmonious path with nature.

Anchor: So governor, we've talked policy. My final question for you then would be on public
opinion. As you know the president really emphasized in his remarks today that he was doing
this for “Pittsburgh, not Paris.” What is your view or your response to that the idea that
Americans don't want these kind of Accords?

Brown: I've never seen any survey that would substantiate that. That is truly a junk fact the
majority of people support the Paris agreements and dealing with climate change. Number two,
the whole premise that somehow the Paris agreement loses jobs the exact opposite. So Mr.
Trump is wrong on jobs, wrong on the facts, wrong on science, wrong on public opinion. So with
all that on our side, I believe we will overcome.

Anchor: California Governor Jerry Brown I know you've been working on these issues a long
time. We appreciate you joining us on this busy day.

Brown: My pleasure thank you very much.

23. “Joe: Why Would We Exit The Paris Agreement? | Morning Joe |
Trump's top environmental official is calling for the US to pull out of the Paris climate change
agreement. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is now one of the highest-ranking White House
officials to explicitly reject the agreement which has been endorsed by nearly 200 countries.

(Excerpt from Fox News interview with Scott Pruitt): Paris is something that we need to really
look at closely because it's something we need to exit. In my opinion, it's a bad deal for America.
It was an America's second, third, or fourth kind of approach. China and India had no obligations
under the agreement until 2030. We front-loaded all of our costs.

Mika: Pruitt and president Trump's most senior advisors are reportedly set to gather tomorrow to
discuss the future of the Paris deal.

John: I just, I know Pruitt and Steve Bannon are both against this, Jeff, but this is so stupid, it's
so stupid for America to get out of this because first of all its voluntary. Secondly, the biggest
problem right now is coming from China and India, not from the United States. We finally get
them at the table. This is China and India second, third, fourth, fifth. We're already going through
the process of cutting emissions. Why would we get out of a deal that actually pulls other people

Mika: I know why because Bannon says we should.

John: It's so stupid and counterintuitive.

I don't know about that, but China now is positioning itself as the leader, the global leader, on the
environment after Obama. Basically, this put us ahead. One of the flaws I think in the Trump
administration logic about these collective and green agreements is that somehow bilateral
agreements are better than these collective agreements. I'm telling you negotiating 28 bilateral
agreements around energy policies a lot harder than then coming to the Paris agreements. and By
the way, the Paris Agreements were really done by John Kerry, who just who just was there over
and over and over. It's something he devoutly believed in and it showed our US leadership on
something that Americans actually like.

Elise Jordan, Former Advisor to Senator Rand Paul: I think you make an important point though
about this administration showing favoritism to bilateral agreements that are just quite frankly
imaginary. You remember all the talk about ripping up the Iran Deal, from day one in office?
When has that even been mentioned by the administration? I mean, they realized we have all
these European counterparts who aren't necessarily going to follow us.

John: Somebody, Jeremy needs to explain to somebody in the administration, that we actually
have to make sure that China and India stay at the table, because the United States has already
been cutting carbon emissions. We're doing a better job. That's one of the there's one of hidden
stories of the past decade, we have been doing a better job of cutting our carbon emissions. We
now we get them at stable to do it so why do we walk away?

Jeremy: Why we walk away, and why when there are there is tangible evidence that these
policies work? Remember all those stories about the filthy smog that was hanging over Los
Angeles and how Los Angeles had become this this just heavily polluted city. I mean it still is in
a lot of ways, but because of the reduction of carbon emissions and because of more stringent
fuel economy requirements that we put on cars, it's improved. I mean these things work.

Elise: Isn’t business community overwhelmingly in favor of sticking to Paris?

John: Yes, Trump is separating from the business community on the Paris Accords.

Mika: Well, what Bannon says, goes.


24. “Branson: Paris Exit Cements Donald Trump As Worst President In U.S.
History | For The Record | MSNBC”
What do you think about the fact that President Trump is pulling the United States out of the
Paris climate Accord?

Branson, Founder, Virgin Group: I think it's a very, very, very sad decision and it's rare that you
get every single country in the world coming together to agree on something. The last time this
happened was when we had CFC gases and the ozone layer was threatened, and young people
were getting cancers and everybody came together in Canada and a wonderful agreement was
reached. As a result, we sorted out that problem. This time, even more countries came together
and with one voice everybody said ‘we've got to do something about it,’ ‘we've got to get carbon
neutrality by 2050.’
Many, many American businesses were in Paris. You're talking to the Chinese, talking to the
Indian government, trying to persuade them to sign up. Everybody signed up, and it's just one of
the most disappointing things ever. That Trump is going to renege on an agreement and that was
a global agreement. It could save the world from the calamity, if we don't do something about it.

Anchor: Well, I suspect if President Trump were here, and by the way we can't get out of the
White House whether he believes in climate change or not, but if he were here he would say this,
that he was elected by the population of the United States, and he was elected that he was elected
on the campaign promise that he would pull out of the agreement. He'd probably say that the
agreement is a treaty, and that when it was first signed by the United States it wasn't treated as a
treaty, which would have required two-thirds ratification by the US Senate. But instead, was just
signed by President Obama. Had it been treated as a treaty ,President Trump could even couldn't
even do what he's doing. So I think that's what he would say, that this is a job killer in United
States. How do you answer all that?

Branson: Well, a job killer is what President Trump has done. Clean energy can create millions
of jobs and it's already creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and clean energy can. I mean I've
just come back from Aruba where our not-for-profit organization organized one of the largest
solar parks in Aruba. As a result the people of Aruba are now enjoying a 15% reduction in their
fuel bills and it will come down further. So, as far as Americans are concerned, hundreds of
thousands jobs could be created. Some jobs like in coal could be replaced with clean energy jobs
which are much more pleasant for the coal miners, and a new revolution in business would be
created in the States. Instead, a lot of that will go to China, to India, to Europe and you know I
just feel very sad for Americans who could have benefited enormously.

Anchor: In a bigger picture, listen look at this, what does it do to our standing in the world? Is it
impacted at all? Do other nations look at us differently?

Branson: Course they do. I mean I think that this decision, I'm afraid, on a global basis this
cemented Trump’s position as perhaps the worst and most dangerous president in US history. I'm
afraid it dragged America to a new very, very shameful low. I think we all love America, we all
want America to succeed. For this to happen, I think many of us want to cry. I'm not talking
about small businesses. I'm talking about the big oil companies, they all, with one voice, signed
up for this. There are many of the people actually in Trump's business cabinet. One of them who

hasn't resigned yet, wrote to me and just said three words: disappointing, disgusting, disastrous.
That was the way he summed it up. Others like Elon Musk and the head of Disney have stepped
down in disgust and disappointment. This is it's just too sad for words. I mean with our occasions
in life where you need the president of America to be morally responsible, not morally
irresponsible, and that is what he has done on this occasion, or he has been.

25. “Coal-Fired Power plants In Jeopardy As President Trump Considers

Leaving Paris Climate Deal | MSNBC”
Jacob Soboroff, MSNBC LA: Southwest Indiana is home to four of the worst polluting coal-fired
power plants in the nation, the kind the Paris agreement could push towards retirements. In
cooperation with the Center for Public Integrity, we headed there to check out what it is like to
live among them.

Jacob: We're inside the guts of one of the biggest coal-fired power plants in the nation, some
people would call it a super polluter. What are we looking at?

Plant worker: We're looking at everything from our CO2 emissions, the NOx, SO2, our opacity,
our NO3, our mercury.

Jacob: This is the Rockport coal-fired power plant in southwest Indiana. When the plant was
down for a scheduled outage, plant manager Tim Kern's brought us behind Rockport's highly
secured gates for an exclusive tour.

Jacob: This is where it all starts.

Tim: It is. This is one of our two barge unloaders. This is where we unload coal.

Jacob (narration): Rockport’s constant stream of coal also means a constant stream of pollution
and it's not just them. According to an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity, in 2014,
22 facilities they call super polluters--industrial sites in the top 100 of either greenhouse gas or
toxic air emissions--were on both lists. Of those 22, four, including Rockport, are in southwest
Indiana. Rockport is in the middle of a massive project to reduce its emissions.

What is the reason as a company you all are working to reduce emissions that are coming out of
this plant?

John McManus, AEP: It was a lawsuit by the government that we ultimately resolved in a
consent decree. So a lot of it is driven by regulations. How our plants operate though in which
plants we continue to operate is being changed dramatically by economics as well.

Jacob: You didn't mention a public health. Has that come into your equation at all?

John: It's definitely concern of ours in a plant like Rockport. The employees live in this
community. We want a healthy community here. We want to be in compliance with limits that
are designed to protect public health.

Jacob (narration): Rockport says it's abiding by all relevant regulations and is a good neighbor
but there are some local residents who aren't so sure living near any super polluter is helpful.

Jacob: What brings you guys here today?

Mother: Brantley has been sick with sinus infections and things. He woke up yesterday morning
from his nap around 3:00 with his eyes matted shut and things. So hoping to get that taken care
of today.

Jacob (narration): Brantley’s parents have brought him to this pediatric practice over 50 times
and he's only 2. Dr. Norma Cryline says she sees cases like his every day.

Jacob: So, doctor, what do we got going on here?

Dr. Cryline: Well, Bradley's kind of typical of a lot of kids that I see. Parents in particular would
voice when they moved into the area that they've never been as sick as when they lived here. In
fact, for 20 years, I could give you a geographical boundary of the snot zone. It corresponded
literally to the zone of the concentration of power plants in the Midwest.

Jacob (narration): Studies have made a direct connection between air quality and infant
mortality. Dr. Cryline suspects super polluters contribute to Indiana's infant mortality rate, tied
for 5th highest in the nation and in the county where she practices, the highest in Indiana. But she
can't say what the cause is for sure. That's because this (shows map of air quality monitors in
Indiana) is where the Indiana Department of Environmental Management has placed its air
quality monitors. Around some super polluters, there aren't many.

Jacob: So when you hear people pushback by saying ‘well we don't know for sure if it's the
power plants, or it's the emissions around here, or it's the tractors, and farm equipment’ I mean I
can see you getting just pissed when I'm saying that.

Dr. Cryline: Yes, it's upsetting. They don't have to take care of these kids, and it's not even the
illness, so much because it's the it's the deliberate nature of not putting monitors in the most
polluted part of the country. When you don't have monitoring you don't have data.

Father: I think she's absolutely right. I mean we may be considered moving out of the state
because of pollution. I was born right in southern Indiana and we're ready to leave because we
don't want our children sick.

Jacob (in studio): The Indiana Department of Environmental Management told us the toxic air
quality monitors that used to be in southwest Indiana didn't show high values, so they were
relocated. As for the future of coal-fired power plants with or without the Paris agreement,
industry representatives like the ones we met at Rockport insist that market forces like cheap
natural gas, renewable energy, will lead to the eventual retirement of plants like the ones that we
saw. But critics like Dr. Cryline say that day cannot come soon enough, Katie.

Katie (in studio): Didn't show high values. Jacob you cannot help but feel for that doctor and feel
for that family and that poor child.

Jacob (in studio): It's a tough situation there, Katie.

26. “Dan Rather: Donald Trump Most ‘Psychologically Trouble’ POTUS

Since Nixon | The Last Word | MSNBC”
Trump clip: To fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will
withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, thank you, thank you.

Once again President Trump seems to be trying to fulfill a solemn duty to Russia. The two
biggest beneficiaries of president Trump's action today are Russia, and the very first foreign
country that he visited: Saudi Arabia. Both of those countries have oil dependent economies they
are both now struggling to find ways together to maintain the price of oil at a high enough level
to sustain their economies. There's really only one way to do that that works. The bad way to do,
it is to try to restrict the supply of oil thereby driving up the price, but that's much harder to do
than people think when they try to try to start it as OPEC has discovered many times. The best
way to do, it the very, very best way to do it is to increase demand for oil and to drive up the
price by increased demand. That is classical economics. The Paris Climate Accord is designed to
decrease demand for oil.
Here is what the leader of the free world said tonight about the United States dropping out of the
Paris Climate Accord.
Macron: Tonight, I wish to tell the United States France believes in you, the world believes in
you. I know that you are a great nation. I know you enjoyed our common history. France will not
give up the fight. I reaffirmed clearly that the Paris Agreement remains irreversible and will be
implemented not just my France, but my all the other nations. We will succeed because we are
fully committed, because wherever we leave, whoever we are we all share the same
responsibility: make our planet great again.

We’re joined now by Dan Rather former anchor of CBS Evening News and currently the host of
AXS TV's the big interview. Dan, considering all the presidents you've covered, all of whom
have carried the label with them around the world as leader of the free world, to see this tonight,
to see the president pull the United States out of a worldwide Agreement, see the president of
France then step up specifically speak in English to address the United States of America with a
leadership tone on his part about where our future lies in climate and other things, just an
extraordinary moment.
Dan Rather, Anchor AXS-TV’s “The Big Interview”: Well, it's momentous moment and a very
ominous moment because depending how far President Trump can go and how effective you
may be the rest of the way, this can make the United States second tier in terms of world
leadership, at least on this subject. By the way, I totally agree that Russia and Saudi Arabia are
the big winners here, but also China is a big winner because the Chinese are they seek to spread
their influence particularly in Western Europe to business there. Chinese are big winners, Steve
Bannon is a big winner. Steve Bannon in his back big time in the White House, in the showdown
in the White House between the globalists and the Nationalists. Steve Bannon and the
isolationists won. But I do think of, Lawrence, there's something else at work here with President
Trump. William Marshall wrote some of this on the Internet today, and that is, from the answer
looking in it seems clear that he's mad, he has some rage, he scared. What did he do with the
Russia narrative is closing in on him. Still, the investigation is about his tax returns which you

know a lot of closing in on him. He just came back from this European trip and he was angry
with the leader of Germany, Miss Merkel, and the new leader of France. So what you have here
is a president lashing out in anger. We haven't had a president this psychologically troubled, I'm
trying to use my language, we haven’t had a president this psychological troubled in this way
since Richard Nixon. Remember, we're still very early in the Trump presidency. But this
decision today is, history is going to punish Donald Trump for this decision. The question is how
much will the knowledge our own country now that may depend on how much of a slack that
they can take up, that individual state governments, local governments and people who know,
including corporations, who know this is a bad decision, try to resist it. But you know the
presidency is very strong and when he makes this kind of decision, there are consequences.
Consequences of an election. He was elected. The consequences of these kinds of decisions. I do
think that it's time for us to take a deep breath, be calm, be steady about it. Over the long pull,
we'll probably be alright. That no president is stronger than the whole country. This is not a
popular decision in the country. It is popular with some of the president’s core supporters, and
you can argue that's another reason he did it--that he needs to nourish his core support. Had to
give them something. But, you know, pulling back what we call in television the wide shot, the
president Trump mayor's will be showing up in Oval Office in spats and saying he's going to
increase the manufacturer budget with.

Washington Post reporting as we began talking then, something about the president and president
Macron, White House aides are quoted in the Washington Post tonight as saying, “hearing smack
talk from the Frenchman, 31 years his junior, irritated and bewildered Trump.” So it seems we
may be developing an enemies list in this White House, which we had in the Nixon White
House. But this enemies list is going to have heads of state on it like President Macron and
Angela Merkel

Dan Rather: Well, let's quote the White House here, a “bewildered” president. Here again the
Russians are smiling, the Chinese are smiling when they see this statement. The White House
their smile will broaden because they seek to disrupt these two these historic alliances that have
kept the peace by and large for the better part of a century. It's important to the Russians of the
Chinese that they undermine these alliances. We have in NATO, European Union these various
countries in Europe and elsewhere. To see this kind of talk from the White House when, by the
way, that point the president was speaking English as you pointed at. I would be delighted to see
President Trump speak to the French people in French, but it may be awhile before that.

As these stories develop, we're always taking our Watergate temperature, which is something
that you lived through. It had a rhythm to it, though was it there was a news rhythm to it the with
the way the stories broke. The rhythm to this seems much faster I mean the New York Times and
Washington Post breaking stories by the hour, by the day. This story has changed dramatically
every day.

Well the rhythm, the pace of it is much faster than Watergate. And also remember Watergate
came to a climax during Richard Nixon's second term, and we're still early in the Trump
presidency. But the news business has changed so much, technologies have changed so much.
It's much quicker now. The question that goes on answered, I for one have no idea where this
leads. Because you're quite right, it isn't just a drip, drip. It is almost a steady stream of one story
after another. Thank heaven and other powers that may be for the Washington Post and The New

York Times that other news enterprises that have been breaking these stories. But this is why I
say, and I think the White House has confirmed tonight, the president Trump he's bewildered--
what the old word they used? Irritated. I think he is beginning to realize he's in over his head. He
came in very confident as a business leader but being president is not just being a CEO. For one
thing, when you are CEO, you pick up the phone, call somebody to do something. In a
democratic system, can't do that. Some of the weaknesses that this White House has that the
Nixon White House didn't have is no one ever said a bad word about President Nixon's son-in-
law. Well, I hesitate to laugh about it because it's serious and I think it needs to be said that the
son-in-law has not been proven guilty of anything. But again, when we talk about President
Trump being irritated, bewildered, mad, angry, and rage. Hearing his son-in-law whom he
apparently likes very much, is in very tight, and knows an awful lot--again with the narrative
almost daily. This addition to the narrative--a lot of questions to ask about the son-in-law; what
do you know, when did he know it, with whom he met there? was another development of it
I wouldn't be surprised in my predicting, wouldn't be surprised if president Trump at some point
took the advice of some members of your staff who's been suggesting the son-in-law perhaps or
taking yourself off the line for a while. But all of this is getting very, very serious not just for
President trump and the future of his presidency, but the country as a whole. Now I'll come back
to this decision about pulling out of the Paris Accords. When there's an old saying in court, if
you can't pick up the cadence you better check your own step-- which is a way of saying
everybody in the world is signed on this thing except Syria and Nicaragua, and if the United
States of America is to remain in a leadership role on this and other issues we can't just stand
with Nicaragua in Syria.

Dan Rather: Always pleasure to have you on here.

27. “Keith Ellison: Democrats Are ‘Coming Out Strong’ For 2018 | Morning
Joe | MSNBC”
The complete pullout from the Paris climate agreement wouldn't take place until November 4
2020, one day after the next presidential election. About that timing, former Obama senior
advisor Brian Deese tweeted that Paris will be on the ballot. Joining us now is Deputy Chair of
the Democratic National Committee, congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota. Congressman,
why don't we start there: is that going to be a winning issue for Democrats?
Rep. Ellison: Well for all Americans, I mean all Americans who've been hit by these super
storms like Sandy and Katrina and many others, I mean they're worried about climate change.
Yes it will be on the ballot and our message at the DNC is if you are worried about pre-existing
conditions, worried about climate change, worried about financial reform and control in Wall
Street, the Democratic Party is your party. In the party, we need you to get involved in right now
because these things that have shifted every day because we've been critical of the White House.

John: So help me out here, since the inauguration President Bannon’s inaugural address, but
Donald Trump ran saying he was going to get us out of Paris. Donald Trump ran saying that he
was going to repeal Obamacare. It seems like this guy, when he does things that offend the press
the most, he's actually just following through on campaign promises.

Rep. Ellison: Well you know, he people famously said don't take him literally, take him
seriously. I think what that means is there's a lot of folks who didn't really believe he was gonna

try to take health care away from 24 million people. They didn't really believe he was going to
do some of the things he said. He'd sort of channeled a lot of anger but now the reality of Trump
and Trumpism all over the country is setting in and you know we have a broader, a bigger vision
than just him. We believe we should be active on climate. People do have a right to go to the
doctor. So we're pushing that forward and that is an attractive thing.

28. “Senator Mike Lee Lays Out Case For US Exiting Paris Deal | Morning
Joe | MSNBC”
Bringing right now Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah. He's out with a new book titled
“Written Out of History: The Forgotten Founders Who Fought Big Government. I've got a
feeling you're going to be throwing some shade on Alexander Hamilton.

John: So first of all let's talk about Paris. You wanted us to get out of the Paris Accords, why?

Rep. Lee: When the United States commits to something it abides by the rule of law. When other
countries do the same it doesn't necessarily have the same effect. When we tie ourselves to an
agreement internationally we know that other agreements might not abide by their limits. When
we ourselves tie to them we know that we will. I'd hate to see us harm our own economy by
agreeing to something that other people were agreeing.

John: What's going to force? This is largely voluntary though.

Rep. Lee: Yes but in time this is going to become customary international law, in time it's going
to become a broader.

John: But it’s not now so why get out now, especially we've made a lot of the tough choices, as
you know over the past 20 or 30 years. It's now time for China and Pakistan and India to make a
lot of those tough choices. Don't we have more leverage if we actually stay involved.

Rep Lee: I made it doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to follow nor does it mean that we
need to follow a course that says let's regulate. We've already got two trillion dollars of
regulatory compliance costs put on the American economy. Those costs are not borne by big
wealthy corporate fat cats, they're borne by America's middle class who pay higher prices for
everything they purchase. And yet, through innovation, through technology, through free market
processes, we've managed to reduce emissions. We've managed to build vehicles right put out
fewer emissions.

John: But again, and I want to get to your book, but again these were voluntary. I know Willie, I
remember when the Paris Accords were signed your former football coach, I think you said, who
was a foremost leader in championing regulations to combat climate change, said it was just
garbage because there were there's no teeth to it.

Willie Geist: Dr. Jim Hansen was my little league baseball coach, he invented the GHG effect. I
would ask you, those Center, we heard Angela Merkel a week ago or so giving a domestic
political speech in Germany where she said we're on our own here. A lot of that was based on
conversations she's had at the G7, at NATO, and a lot of it was based on Paris. So diplomatically

if you put the environment to the side for just a second, diplomatically, do you worry what this
does to our relationships in Europe?

Rep. Lee: Look, the United States has great relationships throughout Europe and is going to have
those relationships with or without this agreement. Those relationships are based in part on the
military security that we provide to the world. The leadership that we provide, with regard to the
rule of law, throughout Europe and elsewhere in the world, that's not going to change by virtue
of whether or not we're in disagreement. She seems to think it does, though I completely
disagree. I mean look it's obvious that this is a position she takes. It's obvious that that's a
position she agrees with as a matter of policy, it's not one I happen to share.

(other anchor) Nick I'm just curious of the president you know what in the book Article 5 and
won't talk about Article 5 in NATO. Isn't that a very clear signal that what Merkel is talking
about is true, that the US is not ready to play the same role as it has?

Rep. Lee: Well, look the US is going to continue to play a large role militarily and in every other
respect, nothing about that is going to be changed by this agreement, regardless of what Merkel
might say or any other European leader.

John: I promised we're going to get to the book, but do you think Donald Trump should have
invoked Article 5?

Rep. Lee: No, well not in the circumstance I don't think there's any reason to. I don't think he
needs to, if there is not a need to do it there's no reason for us to.

John: Just to reconfirm that that NATO is still the centerpiece of our diplomatic strategy?

Rep. Lee: It doesn't mean that he has to make that choice every single time. Look my point is
he's the president, somebody's got to be making this judgment call, he made that judgment call
and I support him.

John: Are you not are you not concerned with our relationship with Germany and the rest of
Europe right now?

Lee: Well, sure, I'm concerned with it, but what I'm saying is it's not going to go away. There's
nothing that has happened in the last few days, last few weeks or months that’s gonna change
any of that.

Mika: Is there that's happened in the past few days or weeks that, pertaining to President Trump
and his trip, that gives you any concern at all?

Lee: Well, look, at any given moment there are things that concern anyone. Some people might
just be grateful--like Covfefe. They might be concerned about the president tweeting but the fact
that they might be bothered by that doesn't mean that we're not heading in the right direction
generally. I still take great comfort in something that he said in his inaugural address, something
that I still believe he means, which is that that day represented a transfer, not just from one
political party to another or one presidential administration to another, but a transfer of power

from Washington DC--the nation's capital--back to the American people. I still think that's where
he wants to head and I support him in that.

Mika: Is the Republican Party still intact?

Lee: Yes, it is still intact and it is focused on those things. That doesn't mean we always act in
conformity with that. There is a big difference between saying that and believing it in your heart,
feeling warm and fuzzy feelings, in your heart when you say it and actually doing it. What
remains to be seen is whether we will actually do the things that we need to do?

John: Right, are you concerned with the president seeming a more comfortable with autocratic
leaders in Turkey and the Philippines then, say, democratically elected leaders in Europe?

Lee: I don't know that that's a fair characterization of what he feels, I don't think that is a fair
characterization of what he's done, and I certainly don't think that signals a view that favors
autocratic rule. The president has a million reasons why he might take one action or another, I
don't think there's a whole lot we should reduce.

John: Then let's talk about you. Were you concerned that the leader of Turkey came to the United
States of America and had his thugs go out and beat up American citizens while he stared?

Lee: Absolutely.

John: Should the president spoken out against that in strong terms?

Lee: I don't speak for the president. I spoke out against it, I sent a letter.

John: Should a president? I'm sure that there were things that Barack Obama did that you and I
were both critical of Barack Obama about.

Lee: Sure, sure. Look I spoke out about it. I would encourage anyone else including, but not
limited to, the President to speak out about it any time a foreign head of state comes to the
United States and has his or her security detail beat up people on US soil outside the curtilage of
the embassy, that's a problem. Should we try to arrest anybody that we can arrest that doesn't
have diplomatic immunity? That part of it we should consider as an option but at a minimum we
should demand an apology, an official apology, from the government.

29. “Donald Trump Believes Climate Change is a Hoax | All In | MSNBC”

President Trump believes climate change is a hoax. We know this because he has said it over and
over again.

Video of Trump: So Obama is talking about all of this with the global warming and that. A lot of
it's a hoax, it's a hoax. I mean it's some money-making industry, okay? It's a hoax.

Chris Hayes: The president has tweeted climate change skepticism at least 115 times, including a
claim that the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese. So the president

has very firmly established his position on the issue, and has shown no indication that he's
changed that position. But since the president's views tend to be malleable, let's see what
reporters have been asking the president and his aides: the same question over and over again.

[News clips showing press conferences of Trump/aides]

Clip 1: In light of the Paris decision, does the president still believe climate change is a hoax?
Trump ignoring question: Thank you, everybody. Thank you very much.
Clip 2: Do you see whether or not the President believes that human activity is contributing to
the warming of the climate?
Spicer: Honestly I hadn't asked him. I’ll get back to you.
Clip 3: Yes or no, does the president believe that climate change is real and a threat to the United
Pruitt: You know what's interesting about all the discussions we had through the last several
weeks have been focused on one singular issue: is Paris good or not for this country? That's the
discussions I've had with the president.
Later in same press conference, Clip 4: I'd like to go back to the first question that was asked, the
president believed today that climate change is a hoax?
Pruitt: You know I did answer the question because I said the discussions the president and I
have had over the last several weeks have been focused on one key issue: is Paris good or bad for
this country?
Same press, later Clip 5: Shouldn't you be able to tell the American people whether or not the
president still believes the climate changes a hoax? Where does he stand?

Pruitt: As I indicated several times of the process, there's enough to deal with respect to the Paris
agreement and making an informed decision about this important issue.

Clip 6: What does the president actually believe about climate change? Does he still believe it's a
hoax? Can you clarify that? Apparently nobody else in the White House can.
Spicer: Okay I have NOT had an opportunity to have that discussion.
Report: Would it be possible for you to have that conversation with him and then report back to
us at the next briefing?
Spicer: If I can, I will.

Hayes: I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. In the absence of a new answer, we must alas,
stick with the old one. The President of the United States a noted and consistent peddler of
conspiracy theories about everything, from millions of alleged illegal voters to President
Obama's forged birth certificate and Ted Cruz's dad possibly being involved in the assassination
of JFK, also believes the world's most dangerous and destructive conspiracy theory: the one that
climate change is made up I guess by the Chinese and that all those scientists across the world,
well, they must be in on it. So is that why he pulled the US out of the Paris Accord yesterday, or
did it have something to do with the new president of France besting him in the handshake
Department and then bragging about it? I'm totally serious about that.

30. “Joe and Willie Press Scott Pruitt On Climate Change And Human Impact | Morning
Joe | MSNBC”

Willie: You said just a couple of days ago, and repeated again you haven’t had a chance to talk to
the president of the United States about whether or not he believes climate change is real or
whether or not humans have impacted it. Have you had a chance to talk to him about that?

Pruitt: I said our conversations have been on the merits and demerits of the Paris deal.

Willie: In your conversations you’ve never talk to him about whether climate change is real or
impacted humans?

Pruitt: The focus of our discussions was and has been on the merits and demerits of the Paris
accord. And the reason for that is, look, he took input from a variety of his cabinet, very
informed, thoughtful approach. It took weeks of evaluating this. He put America first with
respect to this decision.

And climate change never came up in those meetings?

Pruitt: I want to say this to you. He also emphasized in his speech Thursday the importance of
engagement. That’s what’s been missed in this. The president exited Paris because it a bad deal
and we’re going to continue engagement on CO2 reduction, part of the CCC as you know. We
led the world with respect to look at the decision made in Paris, Russia, India, China. India did
have to take any steps until they received $2.5 trillion of aid. China did not need to take any steps
until the year 2030. We front loaded all of our costs, costing up to 400,000 jobs in the
manufacturing sector alone.

Willie: So the discussion about Paris, which at its core it’s about climate change and the worlds
impact, the human impact on it.

Pruitt: The focus of the discussion was on the merits and demerits of what Paris sought to
achieve. You know what’s interesting about the whole discussion? When you look at what was

John: Mr. Pruitt, it’s a simple question. Mr. Pruitt, it’s a simple question. Have you ever talked to
the president about whether he believes climate change is real? Does he still believe it was a
hoax launched in China. Wouldn’t you like to know?

Pruitt: I think what’s important, Joe, it that the president has said when you make decisions on
environmental decisions internationally, that we put America’s interests first.

John: I understand that. And I agree with that. I agree with that.

Pruitt: The president said the climate is changing. Confirmation process.

John: I agree with that. We’re just trying to get an answer from you. I agree, we should always
put America first, I disagree with getting out of Paris because voluntary. The goals set were
voluntary. But I just want--it’s important, important for Americans to know, it’s important for
Americans to know whether their president believes that global warming was hatched as a
conspiracy theory in China. Doesn’t that matter to you?

Pruitt: With respect to the voluntary contributions you’re talking about, the 26 to 28%, we, when
you look at domestically third party lawsuits, you’ve heard about the litigation where the EPA
has sued and compels regulatory response. With the framers of the Paris accord understood is
that America would take regulatory steps to carry out that 26 to 28% reduction. When we’re
withdrawing energy independent order, that creates a gap of almost 60%. It created exposure
with respect to obligations creating the Paris illegally---

John: So, I’m sorry, I’m sorry. I’ve got to stop. I want to stop it. This interview has to stop in its
tracks until I just get a yes, no answer from you on whether you believe it’s important that
Americans find out whether their president believes that climate change is a conspiracy theory
based out of China.

Pruitt: The President has indicated, Joe, that the climate is changing. I indicated during my
confirmation process that there’s a warming trend with respect to the climate. And, moreover,
there’s a human contribution to it. Measuring that with precision is very difficult. The real
question is, what do we do about? What we’ve done as a country is lead through innovation and
technology. As I indicated since the year 2000, a reduction of over 18% in that CO2 footprint. So
you see that through hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, you won’t hear that from the
environmental left. We ought to be exporting that to other nations across the world so they can
convert to natural gas, and help their power generation.

Fox News Paris Climate Accord

31. “Tucker: Trump gets US out of bad deal and left melts down”
Good evening and welcome to Tucker Carlson tonight
President Trump announced this afternoon that the US will be pulling out of the Paris agreement.
That’s an international agreement intending to combat global warming by reducing greenhouse
gas emissions

[News clip of White House press conference]

Trump: The US will withdraw from the Paris climate accord….we’re getting out.
I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.

Wow that did it. The left immediately became hysterical, more than usual. Keep in mind that this
is a non-binding, un-enforceable agreement, whose effects, even if every nation involved
followed the agreement to the letter, cannot be known with any precision. It doesn’t matter. The
world just ended, literally, as they say.

Billionaire democratic donor Tom Stire, described Trumps decision as “Assault and battery on
the future of the American people.” CNN warned its viewers to expect mass extinctions, flooding
in the streets of NYC. The ACLU meanwhile, somehow concluded that leaving the agreement
was, “a massive step back for racial justice and an assault on communities of color.” Didn’t
explain how.

Then there was cable news. My gosh. The long faces, the grave intonations. The floored and
outraged proclamations. It was like somebody died. Millions of them actually.

[Clips from other news broadcasts]

On a sunny day in the rose garden, what could be defined and construed as a dark speech.
This will be the day that the United States resigned as the leader of the free world.
I have such rage and sadness. We just watched a dangerous little man give a very, very scary
One of the most bleak depictions of America role in the world as environmental partners.
So he is not helping the forgotten Americans, he is hurting them. Their kids will have worse
asthma in the summer...the president who talked about putting America first, has now put
America last.

Well we are no longer talking about science here. What you are watching is a priesthood
defending its faith. The essence of science is skepticism, that one you’ll see testing what you
think you know, to make certain you actually know it. People who ran the space program didn’t
know everything, and they knew it. That’s not happening here. It’s not allowed. Pressed for
explanations as to what they are talking about, you are attacked as immoral, a denier. The matter
is settled. Every word immutable and holy. Questions equal apostasy. Shut up and believe. The
irony is that almost none of the religious figures you saw sermonizing on television today
actually know much about the Paris agreement, beyond the bullet points they’d been handed to
them by their producers ten minutes before. What in it? Do they have any idea? If so, why
haven’t they told us ‘til now?
Before today, most of the people you just saw spent far more time yammering about clock boy
and transgender than climate accords. So what’s in the agreement? Well there are a lot of things
in the agreement, and a few of them are worth knowing.

First, if the US were to stick with this accord, we would be pledging to cut our greenhouse gas
production by 26% from the levels in 2005. That’s a big reduction. And it’s not expected of
China, India, or other huge polluting countries, by the way who happen to be out chief economic
Under the Paris agreement, rich nations like the US, agree to spend 100B to poor countries every
year starting in 2020, to aid with their transition to green energy. Pres. Obama has pledged $3 B
to this fund. China, meanwhile, has not pledged a cent, the world’s biggest polluter. In fact,
China is likely to receive some of this money. Keep in mind that China’s economy is predicted to
overtake our economy in less than a year from right now, but somehow we are to subsidize their
energy production? That is lunacy, its masochism.

Guess how we are supposed to pay for this? Higher energy costs here. Americans would pay
more for gas, electricity, taxes, all in the name of meeting obligations that other countries don’t
have to meet. If you are wondering how all of this might end, look across the Atlantic. European
electricity, and some people actually care what it costs, there’s costs 3x as much as it does here,
and the prices are rising faster there as well. Despite all of this, even supporters of the agreement,
the ones who actually know what is in it, there aren’t many, that it won’t come close to stopping
global warming, even if everyone abided by the terms.

Now there are counterarguments to this, of course, in favor of the treaty. There always are, and
some of those are legitimate. That’s the point, this is a debate. It’s a big deal. A lot is at stake for
Americans who by and large know nothing about the details. Shouldn’t congress have a chance
to debate this and vote on it like they are supposed to? Actually they already had that chance. It
came in 2009. Pres. Obama had a democratic and a senate supermajority that year. The people
now telling you that global warming is an existential threat to the world, that everyone will die if
we don’t get a handle on it, had more power in that moment than any other time that the new
deal in the 1930s. And they could have done something about global warming, openly and
democratically. Did they? No.

The focused on passing the stimulus package, Obamacare, and Dodd-Frank. Well since that year,
American voters have consistently elected majorities for whom global warming is not a priority.
Because outside of affluent pockets in a relatively small number of zip codes, global warming is
not a top priority for the American public, not even close. Maybe it should be, but it’s not. That’s
how a democracy works, the public gets to decide what is most important. But the people in
charge disagree with it, they don’t care what voters think, they lost interest in democracy a long
time ago, and they are no longer hiding that fact. They don’t believe you should be consulted
before they change your life forever. And they don’t bother to consult you, except today.
For once, they didn’t get their way, and of course they are hysterical about it. Now they have to
make a real argument on behalf of what they believe before imposing it by force, on you. And
that’s the way this system is supposed to work.

Phillip Levine is part of the system. He is a former Hillary Clinton surrogate. He’s the mayor of
Palm beach. Mr. Mayor thanks for coming on.

Levine: Miami beach, I am the mayor of Miami beach. You mean that new water park in the

Tucker: hahaha. Your concerned about rising sea levels, I’m not here to argue that’s not a
concern, or the details of climate science, because I am agnostic about it. I am just wondering
how this specific agreement, sending $3B a year to countries like India and China, who don’t
have to lower their emissions rates, is going to fix the global warming problem in Miami beach?

Levine: Tucker, let me tell you what’s going on in Miami Beach. When I became mayor, we had
streets that are flooding during sunny days, The water levels have gone up dramatically. We have
of course moved forwards to raise our roads, move palms, change our building codes. And it’s
not because we’re so excited to have to do that, but because we have to for the survival of the
city. And it’s not Miami beach, it’s coastal cities all over the world. I heard what you have to
say, but when the world’s leading scientists are telling you, this is what’s going on, and some of
the smartest minds in the world are telling you this is why, at some point you have to listen.

Tucker: Yea, you are actually dodging my question completely. I am not denying the existence
of sea level rise. I am merely asking you a very specific policy question, because this is about
policies, how will the terms of the Paris Agreement, specifically handing $3B a year to China
and India, which do not have to lower their emissions in the rest of this generation, how will that
help what’s going on in Miami beach, the things you just described?

Levine: Tucker, the bottom line is, as the world is getting too hot and too warm, the oceans are
rising, and that is affecting Miami beach and its affecting all coastal cities. We must cool the
globe down and we have to do it together.

Tucker: Ok, I can’t let you dodge it again. Okay? Because...It is dodging and I am asking about a
very specific agreement, that you and everyone else on the left is beating their chests about, and
Trump is destroying the world, ok fine, I am open minded! Tell me how the that specific
agreement, and the financial arrangements in it, will help the problems you’ve described.

Levine: And I’m going to tell you why. First of all, I am not the guy on the left, I’m in that
radical center, I call myself a radical centrist.

Tucker: You are dodging again.

Levine: And the bottom line is rising oceans are not republican or democrat. So what does the
agreement do, an agreement puts the world together, in one, in an alignment, and says, ‘we have
a problem, let’s work together and solve the problem.” I mean Tucker, let’s just say with a slight
chance, all the world’s scientists, and some of these great minds, let’s just say maybe they are
right. If they are, maybe it’s a good idea if we do something about it.

Tucker: What you are saying, what you are describing is religious faith. You’re saying, I don’t
have to bother to learn any of the details about a very specific agreement that we are all mad
about today, because there are people whose names I know, who think it’s a good idea. And my
question to you is, why wouldn’t the average person, say hey, ‘I am open minded, but like, why
wouldn’t you give me specifics, and tell me more, win me over. Don’t force me to participate.
Explain it to me, it’s a democracy after all, right, isn’t it?

Levine: No question it is a democracy. You know what, it’s an American democracy and
truthfully, it’s a world democracy. And as you could imagine that we used to be a leader in that
world, free world democracy, and today, I gotta tell you, what Fareed Zackaria said, and what I
heard you had to say, we gave up leadership.

Tucker: I thought you guys believed in science. Why don’t you tell me why allowing China to
take a pass on reducing Greenhouse emissions, for years, is going to reduce global warming and
its effects. I don’t understand. What’s the answer?

Levine: The fact of the matter, is think about it Tucker. China signed this agreement, Europe
signed it, India signed it. Everyone’s in it together, to make the global a better place. To reduce
these emissions. I mean come on, you talk about going through---

Tucker: Is there a single person who watching this show stupid enough to be convinced about
what you are saying. I am open-minded, I want you to convince me that the Paris agreement is a
good thing. And it will reduce global warming, and you’re not even trying.

Levine: Almost every mayor in America now is come together, and say what they are going to
adhere to those protocols. We have to, we have to.

Tucker: All the kids are doing it, it’s that your argument? Like other people are doing it,
therefore it’s a good idea?

Levine: Tucker, come on, you know it’s true.

Tucker: Large groups of people have been in favor of some really crazy things over the years.
Don’t you--oh your constituents, the public, the obligation of explaining in clear, simple terms
specifically how the terms of this agreement will achieve the goal you say they will.

Levine: The terms are clear. You all come together, you reduce your greenhouse gas emissions,
and you lower the temperature of the world, that the waters will stop rising. That is a global
agreement. Tucker, nothing is perfect.

Tucker: Ok, but that’s not what the agreement says. But why does--

Levine: Of course it does Tucker. That’s where it goes.

Tucker: But it doesn’t. I sense I know more about it perhaps than you do. Last question, you may
be totally right, and I am not denying that you are, but if that’s true, if reducing emissions will
prevent the seas from rising, then why not require India and China, and the world’s other biggest
polluters to do that. This agreement doesn’t do that.

Levine: And Tucker, it does. It brings everyone together. But one thing I learned about the
president’s comments today, what we said about Pittsburg, it’s funny because the mayor of
Pittsburgh is a friend of mine who doesn’t agree with this. But, what’s incredible, I didn’t realize
that Ohio and Pittsburgh doesn’t get affected by climate change. To me, it’s an interesting thing I
just learned.

Tucker: You are making me more nervous that when this segment began. Mr. Mayor, I
appreciate you coming on with me, it was game of you.

32. “Trump announces he will pull out of Paris Climate Accord”

President Trump keeping his word, putting America first, by withdrawing from the Paris Climate

Now democrat, and some others, in full meltdown mode. Griff Jenkins is live for us in
Washington DC with the latest on this.

Heather and Robin. It’s true, President Trump delivered on that promise in the Rose Garden

Trump: As of today, the US will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord, and
the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country...I was
elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburg, not Paris.

The citing the Green climate fund is just one reason why inclusion in the accord is costing the
country a vast fortune. But the move drove widespread backlash. Sec. Hillary Clinton called it a

historic mistake. Vice Pres. Biden tweeted this “Were feeling impacts of climate change. Exiting
#Paris Agreement imperils US security and our ability to own the clean energy future.”

Pres. Obama who signed the pact in 2015, as an executive order, sidestepping senate approval
expressed regret, saying “Even in the absence of American leadership, I am confident that our
states, cities and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way and help protect future
generations the one planet that we’ve got.”

International leaders assailed the move as a setback for global efforts to combat climate change.
And climate scientists decried it and issued dire warnings of greater risk of increased GHG
emissions. But the administration vigorously defended the move, Vice Pres. Mike Pence,
pointing to unfair burdens.

This is an agreement that puts an enormous burden on American consumers, on the American
economy, while allowing countries like India and China to virtually get off Scott-free for a
decade or more.

But there disagreement within the administration and Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk and Disney’s
Robert Anger have withdrawn from the Pres. Business advisory council. Guys.

Sorry to hear about Elon Musk leaving. But hopefully they’ll be able to find a way back.

33. “Gutfeld: Why the Paris accord is a terrible idea”

President Trump may have us pull out of the Paris climate agreement, but the question isn’t why
we pulled out, but why we pulled in to begin with. That was Obama’s choice, and he did it on his
own. Which sadly, he could. When a pal spends money on lotto tickets rather than toothpaste,
it’s a bad decision but you can’t stop him. That’s what Paris Accord is: The world’s worst lottery

Imagine a ticket where the prize is why smaller than the price of entry. A ticket that costs 10
grand that gets you 5 bucks in a hundred years. That’s according to the most optimistic
predictions. That it will cut temperatures by 0.05 C over a century, let that sink in. In scientific
terms, its trivial, in human terms, it homicidal. Trivial cause there’d be no difference if we did
nothing, but it turns homicidal once you think of the things we might have done instead with all
those trillions of dollars--you could solve everything from malaria to malnutrition.

The UNS admits that for 7.5 billion dollars a year, we could give education, basic healthcare,
sanitation, clean drinking water, to every person on earth. By diverting funds from that, the
climate accord signers hurt millions of people they never have to meet, so there’s no guilt. That’s
what this is really about: it’s about guilt. The climate accord is fueled by a lie, that the West is so
foul, that only chucking trillions at a problem will absolve us of our exaggerated sins. But
instead, the Paris deal makes life a whole lot worse. Kill it, and let’s dance on its grave.

You know who signed the accord? I love this, Dana. North Korea. Everyone’s going to say, ‘see?
Even North Korea doing it.’

Even North Korea, they might have nuclear power soon.


Yea, that’s true. They would prefer earth to be spending trillions of dollars on this, and leave
North Korea alone.

That’s right, so the other interesting this is, you remember when this was signed and we talked
about it on the show. We were making fun of them for saying Pres. Obama deserve all this
credit, because it will actually achieve nothing. If you look at the MIT assessment, it was
something like, global temperatures could reduce by .2 degrees C in 2100. That’s a long time.

To point out, its 0.02C. And I gave a higher one, 0.05 because I was feeling diplomatic.

Because you’re being nice. Well I think that the pres. Tomorrow said he is going to announce
this at 3 o’clock in the rose garden, bold venue for something like this. I think that he can explain
it either way, if he says he is going to stay, it doesn’t matter, because it doesn’t really have any
teeth in it, and he can say that this is important for diplomacy. If he decides to leave, he can say it
doesn’t matter, either way I think it doesn’t matter.

He ran on America first, not Paris first. He points out, it’s worthless like a piece of paper. I
actually read what it said, listen to this, it sets goals for reducing emissions, and then every year,
they meet at a fancy place.

That’s what it’s about.

And they talk about whether they met those goals

This is why pres. Obama didn’t deserve all of that adulation and praise at the time.

And its non-binding, and there’s no penalties for not reaching the goals, and you can pull out of
it and there are no penalties for that either. So, the whole thing is worthless, and even considering
that Trump’s policies do take into effect, under Trump’s current policy approach, by 2025 our
carbon emissions will be going down 19% lower, then they will have been in 2005. So, they are
already projecting lower emissions significantly, if we just continue down the path we are going
on. And that’s much better than China.

They pull out, submissions, this is about 5 star hotels. These people just created a process for the
rest of their lives, they get to go to the best places in the world, hangout and meet Leonardo
DiCaprio. That’s what this is about.

That’s what this is about, and then Elon Musk saying, ‘you know when may be forced to
withdraw from panels.’ Fine, get back to making you fancy cars.

These climate change treaties, they’re basically a massive transfer of wealth, from developed
economies to less fortunate, because you give them grants to subsidize, so that they can then say
we are fighting, “climate change” *winks.* By the way, so the US signs this, this is a bad deal
for us, we are the ones that what, are going to be penalized? We are already doing a good job in
making sure that we are going to reduce carbon emissions. So, we are actually wearing the white

hat here, were the good guys already, but yet we want to continue to do bad deals, punish
ourselves, lock ourselves in climate handcuffs. For what?

Juan (liberal opinion): Wow, you know sometimes I think to myself, what am I doing here.
Unbelievable. I listen to this gunk. I’ll give you a bunch of facts. You talk about this 0.05, 0.02,
what I hear is that it’s not rising, that is continuing to rise, you’re saying its reducing. You talk
about things like, what about floating cities, what about scarcity, global hunger. No, no, don’t
talk about that.

Where are you getting your information?

Al Gore is in my head. Get out of here.

Al Gore said the ice caps were going to melt in 2014. Last time I checked, they are still there.

I see, so that’s your concern.

The USA, Syria, and Nicaragua, the only countries in the world saying nothing is going on.

They agree with North Korea then.

You know what this is, this is Steve Bannon again. This is ‘Make America great again.’ That’s
why he’s tweeting that. That’s for suckers.

We’ve heard this before.

No jobs deal, no trade deal.

You want to drain this country dry of money and resources, for no reason, just to say we support
climate change?

We wouldn’t do something that would help other people.

The good things are the things we are neglecting. Clean water, hygiene, malnutrition, malaria.
All of that could be solved.

Let’s just let the Chinese go ahead, let them go.

Juan, you want some facts, wrap your head around this. We will spend at least 100 trillion in
order to reduce to the temperature by a grand total of, wait for it, 0.03 of a degree. This is a better
way to spend that money—

This is what we were discussing before. I can’t believe what you’re saying. To keep the
temperatures from rising is essential for us.

The climate models. If you have a slight increase it helps with vegetation it increases lifespan.

I have one thing to say. Which is that pres. Trump Can reverse pres. Obamas mistake by
withdrawing from this accord and putting it to the senate. Something pres. Obama was not
willing to do, and it would stop the nonsense of the executive branch going around the congress,
to try to commit America to decisions it’s not willing to make legislatively.

Exactly. On that note, you know what, you could have saved that in your journal, I’m glad you

34. “Pruitt on withdrawing from the Paris climate deal”

The President’s point man on the environment, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt. Mr.
Administrator thanks for being here.

Good to see you Brett.

I heard you in the Rose Garden, supporting this move. For people who are skeptical about it and
have problems with it, what do you tell them tonight.

That America has been leading in this issue before Paris. We’re at pre-1994 level, and were at
pre-1994 levels on our CO2 footprint before Paris was ever entered into. In fact, from 2000-2014
we had an 18% reduction in our CO2 footprint. So, the US has nothing to be apologetic with
respect to our commitment to using technology, using innovation, using American ingenuity, to
address issues like CO2. What Paris represents, Brett, is a bad deal for this country. And the
president, really hit home today that he has an America first strategy, not just in trade, not just in
national security, not just in border security, but also in issues like the environmental agreements
that Paris represents.

I know you’ve heard some reaction, it’s been all over the board. But take a listen to some of it
that we gathered this late afternoon.

[Clips from other news broadcasts]

It is a huge mistake. And future generations will look back on this day as one of the worst
things that has happened in the 21st century.
We are going to lose millions of jobs for hard-working Americans because the president
is going to honor a promise to the coal industry, rather than a promise that he should be
honoring to the rest of the world, and to the future generations of Americans.
Every Chicagoan and Illinoisan who depends on Lake Michigan and our aquifers for safe,
clean drinking water is at risk because of Donald Trump’s recklessness.
It’s an extraordinary abdication of American leadership. He’s made us an environmental
pariah in the world, and I think it is one of the most self-destructive move I’ve ever seen
by any president in my lifetime.

Your reaction.

You know what’s interesting about those comments today, if you go back to when the Paris was
entered into by nations across the globe, there were environmentalists here criticizing the deal,
because it didn’t hold china accountable, it did not hold India accountable. The largest polluters

in the world didn’t have to take any steps until 2030. India, in the agreement, wasn’t going to
take any steps toward CO2 reduction until they received 2.5 trillion dollars in aid before any
positive response.

We are already taking those steps Brett. We have nothing to be apologetic about. We’ve led the
world in CO2 reduction because of inhibition technology. What we ought to be focused upon is
exporting what we know to places around the globe, like China and India, and helping them
reduce CO2 emissions, as opposed to setting targets in Paris that no one can meet.
You know what’s interesting about this entire discussion, is the targets that are set in Paris, the
26-28% reduction in GHG in CO2 emissions, the previous administration, Pres. Obama, every
action he took, still fell 40% short of those targets. It’s a failed deal to begin with. And we were
spending 292 billion dollars on one rule, the clean power plant, in response to Paris.

But, you had already dealt with the regulations by what you were doing administratively here.
There are people who look at this accord and say it didn't have teeth, so the US could do
whatever it wanted to. And by not being a part of this now, being one of the 3 countries with
Syria and Nicaragua, who did think that this accord didn’t go far enough, and the US outside of
this deal, that we’d take ourselves away from the table as far as American leadership in the
world. That’s what they’re saying.

We’re the United States, we don’t lose our seat at the table, number one. We are already a part of
the UN ICCC, which is a part of the climate action committee there at the UN, that seat is secure.
But here’s the deal, when you look at this situation with India and China and the rest, what
people aren’t recognizing, this isn’t about China suing the United States from getting out, this is
about India suing the United States from getting out. If you go back to 2016, there were
environmental groups, law review articles that were written, that said now that we have Paris, it’s
the precursor to us using the court system in this country, to compel regulatory response by the
EPA to further drive away fossil fuel, drive away coal, while china and India continue building
coal generation. So, this is truly, the president did a courageous thing today. He truly put
Americas interests first, and said, ‘we’re going to remain engaged in CO2 production, we’re
going export what we know from innovation tech, were going to make sure we have an America
first strategy. But were not going to yield to a framework that was failed from the very beginning
that put America second.

Now I saw the US chamber of commerce did an analysis of jobs potentially lost from adhering to
all the elements in the Paris accord. But there were 25+ companies that tried to lobby the
administration to stay in. Saying that it would lose jobs, and you heard that in that montage of
democrats, that by pulling out it would lose job.

What we know, is that there was a contraction occurring in our energy sector jobs, there have
been reports that show a 2.5 trillion-dollar reduction in GDP over 10 years. Up to 400,000 jobs,
as you mentioned by the US chamber study. And 200,000 of those jobs in the manufacturing
sector. That’s objectively measured. So, these discussions about our inability to export green
technology, I don’t think that’s the case at all. In fact, there are some that say this poses concerns
for national security and alliances there. You know, we’ve done this before, Brett. We pulled out
of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. If you go back and read in March and April of 2001 the criticism

levied against president Bush. You can read the comments from the German chancellor, they’re
almost identical to the ones today.

What is the prospect of this President renegotiating?

Europe wanted this because it put us at an economic disadvantage. And the president said, look,
were open to discussing this, but were not going to put America’s interest second in that
negotiation. The President took care of the American citizen today.

Was there a lot of internal debate about this? We’d heard Sec. of State and Ivanka and Jared
were on one side, there was a battle, and Steve Bannon on the other. Can you characterize--?

All of that is simply legend. What happened in this process is what happens with every decision
the president makes. He had advisors around him, informing, equipping, helping him make a
decision. The debate was good and strong and meaningful amongst all voices, and the president
made an informed decision. Everyone did their role, and it was something that I’m very proud of
the president today.

Finally, if somebody looks at this and says, ‘wow, we are stepping away from our environmental

We lead through action, not words. Look at what we’ve done, from 2000-2014 reduction. Look
at what we’ve done. We are pre-1994 levels in our CO2 footprint. Why? Because of American
innovation and technology. Not because of government mandate.

35. “Pence: Paris Climate Accord put enormous burden on Americans”

In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United State will
withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord...but begin negotiations or really entirely new
transaction, on terms that are fair to the US, its businesses, its workers, its people, its tax
payers…We will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair. And if we
can, that’s great. And if we can’t, that’s fine.

That was the Pres. earlier today, announcing that he will pull the US out of the PCA, keeping a
campaign promise. Here with reaction from Washington, is the VP of the US, Mike Pence. Mr.
VP its always an honor, thank you for being with us

Thank you, Sean, it’s a great day.

You know, it’s really great, because I read it’s as much as 4 trillion dollars in a world-wide tax,
I’m sure we would pay the vast majority of it. Number one, he kept a promise, number two, he
said he’s open to negotiating, but not a bad deal, and that’s another problem that has kept. So, tell
us why this is so important.

Well you know I always tell people, it’s the greatest privilege of my life to serve as VP to
president Trump. One of the biggest reasons is that this is a man who gets up every day to keep
the promises he made to the American people. And by withdrawing today, from the PCA, the
president has demonstrated his commitment, not just to keep his word, but to put American

workers, American consumers, American energy, and the American people first. This was a bad
deal from the moment it was signed by the last administration. It was an international treaty that
was never submitted to the senate, probably because it never would have had a chance there.
This is an agreement that puts an enormous burden on American consumers, on the American
economy, while allowing countries like India and China to virtually get off Scott free for a
decade of more. And the president today, after listening to all sides, after listening to European
leaders, last week, made a decision to fulfill his word to the American people, to get out of the
Paris accord. But also, to leave the door open to the possibility negotiating a completely new
deal, or going back into the agreement under terms that will put the American economy and the
American people first.

I’ve been really fighting for my career lately, so I’ve been a little busy with other topics, but I
think this is really the only show in America that has listed the President’s accomplishments. I
noticed when he was in the rose garden today, that he went through part of that list, that never
seems to get reported. What are you most proud of, and what do you see coming, cause I’m a
little worried about the timeframe, the legislative calendar, about getting a lot of these things
done before the end of the year.

The president recounted many of the accomplishments, I tried to do the same in my introduction
to the president today, but when you look through the list there is a reason why the DOW closed
at a record level today. There’s a reason why the month of May we just found out that a quarter
of a million new jobs have been created.

Over a million, now. Over a million.

It’s remarkable Sean. As I travel around the country, the confidence, the enthusiasm, you know,
people from the shop room floor to the boardrooms know that they’ve got someone in the oval
office who gets up every day and is fighting for them and fighting for American free enterprise,
and for jobs for the American people. The list is kinda hard to go through in a short period of
time. 14 bills that roll back Obama-era regulations that would have cost our economy 18 billion
dollars a year. The confirmation in record time since the 19th century, of a supreme court justice,
who is committed to the rule of law and the constitutional principles and holding back the
administrative state. You look at a commitment to repeal and replace Obamacare. The way he is
driving forward on tax relief, tax reform. And the American people get it, all the way through the
decision today to withdraw from the PCA. This is a president who is fighting for the American
people, fighting for American jobs. I think the results, whether it be in those jobs numbers,
whether it be in the confidence you see in businesses, or even in our stock market, all speak for
itself. America is back, because they have a President, in President Donald Trump who is
fighting every day for them.

Alright Mr. Vice President you have been gracious enough, we are going to air part 2 of our
interview tomorrow on our program. We are going to ask you about the unprecedented attacks
against the president and the administration and family and more.

36. “Trump’s decision to leave Paris deal enrages global leaders”

Good evening, welcome to Washington. When it comes to climate change, it appears that we will
not always have Paris. President trump announced a short time ago the US will withdraw from

the agreement signed onto by Pres Obama. The move crosses off another item from candidate
Donald Trump’s candidate to do list. And while the move has its supporters on capitol hill and
small business, in big business in that states most effected, it has also enraged a cross section of
leaders in politics, business, even religion. We start off with chief white house correspondent
John Roberts on the north lawn. Good evening john.

Brett good evening to you. Pres trump today slammed the PCA as a bad deal for America, one
that would give other countries an economic advantage over the United states, something he said
as president, he will not stand for.

In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the united states will
withdraw from the Paris climate accord.

With the formality of the Rose Garden around, president Trump today put the world and
congress on notice, the US will only sign on to a deal that good for America and good for
American workers.

I am willing to immediately work with democratic leaders to either negotiate our way back into
Paris, under the terms that are fair to the united states and its workers, or to negotiate a new deal
that protects our country and its taxpayers.

In a half hour speech, president trump outlined what he said would be the economic burden,
expense and job loss from staying in the accord.

Reaction was swift. Space X and Telsa’s CEO Elon Musk, who stands to gain from the subsidies
contained in the Paris agreement, resigned from white house advisory boards, tweeting, “Am
departing president’s council. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or
the world. “

House speaker Paul Ryan on the other hand, praised the move. With a statement saying, “I
commend president Trump for fulfilling his commitment to the American people, and
withdrawing from this bad deal.”

In Europe, leaders with whom president met just last week, all but mocked him.

The Americans can’t just get out of the agreement. Mr. trump thinks that, because he does not
get close enough to the dossiers to comprehensively understand them.

Among the nations urging trump not to abandon the accord, Russia. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry
Pesov. “Pres Putin signed this convention in Paris. Russia attaches great significance to it.”

At the same time, the White House moved to mend some fences with Russia, setting plans to
return two Russian compounds on Maryland’s eastern shore and near oyster bay long island. The
Obama administration ordered Russia to vacate the palace as retaliation for the email hacking
scandal back in December.

For the first time today, Russia president Vladimir Putin acknowledged that Russian hackers,
who Putin described as patriots, may have tried to influence the US election in Donald Trump’s
favor. But he insisted there was no official government involved.

They are patriots, they start to contribute their opinions in order to fight against those who speak
ill against Russia. Theoretically its possible, we don’t engage with that on a state level.”

With his move on the climate accord, Pres Trump today seemed to invigorate a base that had
grown weary of a white house besieged with daily scandals. The president made no apology for
pulling out of the Paris Accord, saying he was elected to represent people and places like
Pittsburg, not Paris. Brett.

John Roberts live on the north lawn. John thank you.

37. “Ambassador. Bolton: Leaving Paris accord is an ‘excellent decision”

Barack Obama has come out with a statement, this was his baby, he led the effort on this. And
obviously not too pleased that it has not come to pass with the successor. He says “the nations
that remain in the Paris agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits in jobs in industries
created...I believe the United States of American should be in the front of the pack, but even in
the absence of leadership, even as this administration joins a small handful of nations that reject
the future, I am confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to
lead the way.

Our former ambassador to the united nations, John Bolton. On that, obviously he’s not happy
about it. Were already hearing from some of those nations that have signed onto it, nearly 200 of
them, that they are not happy with it. But this was pretty well telegraph.

Well I think this was an excellent decision. Look, the Paris accord is a self-licking ice cream
cone. Its purpose is to exist in the short term, it really would have had next to no effect. The
danger was in the longer term. In the short term, it’s a bunch of national programs that could
have devised any way you wanted. The overall effect on climate by any reputable scientific
analysis is 0, and countries India and China basically said, ‘our program for reducing carbon
emissions will begin in 2030. So, the near-term effect is null. Why would anyone agree to
something like that? Because of the failure of the predecessor agreements, Kyoto and
Copenhagen. What they wanted was an agreement on anything, to create the foundation for what
they are really interested in, which is international control, over national decision making.

This is really a global governance issue, which the Europeans just love, which Barack Obama
just loves, which Donald trump is now rejected. There are lots of economic arguments about the
effects of this agreement. To me the overarching, ultimately most important, more than
constitutional question was, do we govern ourselves here, or are we going to seed governments
authority to international organizations, and that’s what’s been rejected.

You know, ambassador, regardless of people's views on this particular deal and accord, some of
the expressed concern that it could hurt how we could work with Europe and other nations with
dealing with terror, on trade deals, on that sort of thing. Are you similarly concerned?

No, not at all. That just is a fundamental misconception of how international diplomacy works.
We’ve heard these arguments before, and in the Bush administration, my first job, was to get us
out of the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty. Oh my god, the Europeans said, oh my god, Joe
Biden, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, they said it’s the end of international strategic
stability. We got out, nothing happened. We got out of the statute creating the international
criminal court. And nothing will happen here either, other than people will recognize were not
going to engage in this kind of blue smoke and mirrors in order to get to more international
control. I think it will cause people to say, if they are serious about this, if they really want to
make a difference, then they are going to have to enter into serious negotiations. The
fundamental point is that we could be dealing with global cooling here, if the objective were to
put more carbon emissions into the atmosphere to increase the earth’s temperature, these people
would be arguing for the same structures. Because their overall objective is more international
governance, and less national sovereignty.

38. “President Trump seeks climate deal that’s fair to US”

President Trump today fulfilled a controversial and major campaign promise by pulling the US
out of the landmark Paris Climate agreement. The climate pact seeks to reduce the amount of
worldwide pollution emissions, but the president says it imposes far too heavy a burden on
America’s economy, and that it is unfair to America’s workers.

As of today, the United States with cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris accord,
and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country Global
activists, that have long sought to gain wealth at our countries expense, they don’t put America
first. I do. And I always will. I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburg, not Paris. Our
withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty.

President trump did say that the US would potentially reenter the agreement, if his administration
can negotiate a better deal. So, Jesse, a big deal today. This is like Kyoto and all sorts of things
rolled into one, kaboom.

Kaboom that’s right, that’s the lefts reaction. We went from leading from behind to America
first. Let’s remember that this Paris deal was negotiated by none other than Barack Obama, not
the best deal-maker if you look at Bergdahl, Obamacare, and the Iran Deal. Anything he does is
suspect. So, I don’t know if either he got hoodwinked, or he wanted to knock America down to
size. But it costs 3 trillion dollars, and you lose 6 million jobs, and to what? Hypothetically bring
the temperature down a fraction of a degree in a hundred years? Seems pretty stupid to me. And
India and China can continue to push coal, they receive taxpayer money, and they can increase
emissions, meanwhile we can’t do any of that, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I think
spreading the wealth-schemes don’t work, if they did, Venezuela would be a paradise, obviously
it’s not how capitalism works.

Trump said something very specific, he loves the American worker. There’s nothing wrong with
that, and I think Democrats used to understand that, they don’t anymore. He’s not beholden to
foreign capitals, he’s beholden to the constitution.

If Obama wanted this done, he would have sent it to the senate for ratification. Democrats can’t
even control their emotions let along the temperature in a hundred years. The same people that

were saying Hillary was going to be elected in November are telling us what the weather is going
to be like? I don’t think so.

Something happened today along the way to this announcement, which was that federalism
started working. Because a bunch of cities and states, mayors and governors, and then you have
big corporations saying well, we’re going to take it upon ourselves to bracken down on our
emissions anyway. If they are going to do that, maybe you don’t need the federal government to
push from Washington.

Exactly! Wait, if the government isn’t going to force us, we will do it ourselves. There you go,
that’s called conservatism everybody. Free markets.

Ok, this is an interesting decision, what he did. Because he didn’t actually have to do this. Fact, I
think this might be the bravest thing he’s done. He’s already expended a lot of political capital,
he’s not very popular, he could have gotten a strange new respect from the left by letting this go,
he could have agreed with his daughter. It’s a non-binding agreement, meaning it really is
useless, and it really is a bad deal.

As Jesse points out, it’s so absurdly expensive for a negligible increase. Up to 200 trillion dollars
over a century, will cut 1% of the carbon target, which is a 2 Celsius reduction in global
temperature. So, in order to reach their ideal, you would need to multiple 200 trillion by 100
trillion, which we don’t even have. So, carbon cutting is a farce. The impact of this deal is
negligible. It will destroy economies.

What he did was actually brave in the sense that he didn’t have to do it. He could have just not
followed through. Now you’re watching everybody going crazy over this. All he said was ‘it’s a
bad deal, if becomes a better deal, I’ll go in.’ He’s like the guy who walked into the showroom,
and said, he looked at the car, it’s too expensive. You know what, give me a call, I’ll come
back.’ that’s exactly what he did. Or another metaphor is, he went to a party, realized the party
sucked, and said I don’t need to be here, maybe there’s a better party. So, the idea that this is
such an awful thing is hysterical. If you are going to lose your crap over this, you are lying. You
are a liar. This is not bad.

And to that point Kimberly, some opponents said, you just stay in President Trump because you
don’t have to abide by it. So, is it better to sit at the table and fake it? Like, for example,
Governor Schwarzenegger, one time came to the White House and he told President Bush, sir,
you don’t actually have to believe in climate change, you just have to say that you do and then
everyone will like you. Oh really, is that how that works?

I think that President Trump was being very consistent with his campaign promise. He promised
he was going to do this. I don’t think this is a deal that anyone should be crying about, like we
said its non-binding. And the United States is already a clean energy oil and gas leader. So, we
can keep doing what we are doing, we can keep reducing our emissions. Why would we in fact,
put ourselves at an economic disadvantage giving and subsidizing an economic windfall to other
countries, and sort of a climate redistribution of wealth scheme. It makes no sense to me. I think
he did the brave and courageous thing. And in fact, I told him that this morning at 8am. When he
called and spoke to him about it. This is something that is very much so on this mind.

Wait a second, who called you?

The President.
Climate change, taxes, The 5.
She just kind of slips that in there, as if maybe it happens all the time.
Yea the president calls me at 8 in the morning.
Yea he said he loves the five, terrific show, he says hello to all of you. Loves the covfefe.

He said he was excited about this today, it was going to be a big speech, a lot of people would be
excited about it. However, there will be people that would be upset and disappointed about it,
that he would do his best to explain. Like Juan.

Juan did anybody call you.

It was so private. At 8 o'clock I am snoozing dude, I dreamt about it.
You can have the floor Juan because I am sure you have a lot to say.

I do because I am a liar, I am a liar, according to Gregory. But I tell you what, I don't have to
participate in this partisan bickering, because the United States is the only country where there is
kind of political, polarization over the idea of climate change. Rest of the world, oh no, we know
something is going on. Why? 2016, the warmest year in history, 3rd year in a row that we set this
record, according to NASA and the NOAA. Gee, I don’t think these people are too political. But
guess what, imagine that.

Is Trump disputing the science? No, he is disputing the economics, not the science, there is a

No there is no difference. If you ignore a reality, if you put on blinders and say, don’t pay
attention to the fact we have coastal waters rising, don't pay any attention to the polar ice caps,
just ignore it. You know who couldn’t ignore it? Rex Tillerson, secretary of state. Not there.
Ivanka, oh my gosh, the darling child. Could show up.

It was a jewish holiday.

That’s an excuse.

Juan, I don’t think you should demean as religious explanation. And white house issue about it.

Let me tell you something else. You have Jeff Immelt of GE, you’re saying this is about jobs?
Get out of here, GE, Shell, ExxonMobil, even--no no wait-- Elon musk, says ‘I’m not even doing
business with Trump anymore,’ and he was on trump’s council--

He is still taking Trumps money, right? in subsidies. Paris Money.

So, here’s the deal, you have a bunch of people who are Trump puppets, sitting around and
you’re saying we gotta go. We ought to worry, get out of here.

[everyone speaking over each other]

That the US would suddenly abdicate all leadership and let China and let the Europeans take the
lead on---[speaking over]

You have no science in any of that.

I gave you the science. You told me don’t listen to NASA and NOAA.

That has problems.

Oh, that’s the answer, attack NASA, go right ahead Greg.

Multinational corporations like Exxon Mobil and Shell want these deals because they can sign
these fat contracts with these 3rd world countries to get paid off of US taxpayer subsidies.
Number 2, of course China wants this deal. They get to do whatever they want, and they get to
knock America down the side. Since when did we follow what China wants?

You know what happened today? The French Pres spoke to the Pres Trump, and you know what
he said? According to Greg, Trump is just saying that this party sucks, I can get a better party, or
I can get a cheaper price on the car. You know what the Pres of France said, Forget it buddy. No

We don’t listen to the French. We lead. Look at the history, WWII.

Oh, I see. Hahahaha.

Plus, how is this 6 million jobs loss and 3 trillion spent how do you think that’s a good deal?
Trumps not anti-science, Trump is anti-good deal.

People agree that this, the reason that this was non-binding was because it was understandable if
you didn’t want to be a part of it. Because it put so many burdens on so many countries. So why
is it popular among the famous and the rich? It’s because it’s a gesture of benevolence that gives
them the immunity for their behavior. So, you can have your private jets, you can have your
limos, and you can have you 8000 sq. ft. home that was just purchase in Chicago or DC, I am not
sure, by President Obama. This deal was useless. But how did it get this far? Because it was
designed to punish the West. Environmental activism is designed to seek reparations for the
West’s past. So, it doesn’t matter if the deal is flawed. It doesn’t matter if economically it is
impossible. It doesn’t matter because we are sinners and this is their way of punishing us.
Finally, somebody said, ‘You know what? Screw you Paris, were not taking it. Maybe we can fix
it, we’ll talk later, but right now it’s not going to work.’ What’s wrong with that? And by the
way, Juan, he is not denying the science, he is looking at the economics. The economics is mind-
boggling, it’s absurd.

I’ll tell you what’s absurd. What’s so rude to me is, he goes and he meets with the Pope, the pope
hands him an encyclical on environmental concerns and climate change, he goes oh, I’m going to
listen mar pope. You know what pisses me off.

That was awesome.

You are all policy Juan.

Don’t bring the Pope into this.

This is the kind of ruse that Trump is perpetrating on the coal miners in this country. Oh yea, this
is for you coal miners. Get out of town. There is not one coal mine that's going to come back
because of this deal.

They’re opening up a new mine next week Juan.

That doesn’t have to do with this deal.

What happens to the coal industry---[speaking over each other]

You guys we have a whole other block to do with this.

You know what really helps clean up the country? Natural gas, nuclear power. You know who’s
against it? Environmentalists.

Absolutely. That’s right.

And if the deal can get everyone except for Syria and Nicaragua on it, it is really just symbolic
anyway, to your point.


39. “Miner who confronted Clinton reacts to Paris accord decision”

President Trump made clear today a specific group was top of mind as he made his decision, coal

The agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the
United States. This deal is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a
financial advantage over the united states.

The very point of anti-climate change efforts bringing on job loss became a sticking point for
Hillary Clinton throughout 2016, like when this out of work coal miner asked why Clinton
wanted him unemployed.

Bo--coal miner: I just want to know how you can say you are going to put a lot of coal miners
out of jobs, and then come in here and tell us how you are going to be our friend. Because those
people out there don’t see us as a friend.

I am sure you all remember that. Joining us now, the man you just saw in that clip, former coal
miner Bo Copley. Bo nice to see you.

Thanks for having me Sandra, it’s a pleasure being on the show again.

When you see and hear that clip, what goes through your mind about that moment, that so much,
had such a big impact in the 2016 election?

Well obviously, it meant a great deal to me and my family. Regardless of what people may think
of Hillary Clinton, at that time especially she was considered one of the most powerful people in
the world. To have an opportunity as a common everyday person, to get to sit down and voice
your concerns with someone like that, is truly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that has obviously
changed my life and my family’s life since then.

Fast-forward to today, President Trump announcing in the rose garden just a few hours ago, that
we are pulling out of this Paris Climate agreement, something that you had been urging to roll
back those Obama era environmental regulations. Is the President following through on his
campaign promises?

Well, to us I believe that it is. I think that is speaks volumes to the lengths that he is willing to go
to try to hold up to his promises on the campaign trail, you know. These kinds of deals
worldwide would be devastating West Virginia and its economy and coal miners in general. For
him to say that were going to back out and possibly renegotiate a way to enter in that would
benefit better in the long run, I think speaks volumes to the lengths that he is willing to go to
stand up for people like me and people like W Virginia’s who voted for him.

Will this improve things in your state, for your community, and for your economy?

Well we certainly hope so. Any kind of sanction that’s been put on coal mining and the
regulations that have been put in place under the previous administration to what we feel, is to
squash out coal. Honestly anything that can be lifted to put our people back to work we view as a

good thing. And Obviously this looks like something to use which is going to benefit the coal
industry greatly.

Bo, all of this has inspired you to run for office. You are going to be running for the senate in
2018. When you look at president trump, how would you grade his performance so far as
someone you have supported from the beginning?

I would say I would probably give him a B. I always want to leave room for improvement. I
think some of the situations he’s been in he could probably handle with a little more tact than
what he does, but then again, I don’t think he would be Donald Trump if he didn't handle them
the way he has been handling them. But I always want to leave room for improvement, and to be
able to say that he could do a little bit better job.

Well the best with you family. A lot of people don’t realize that in moment, in that exchange
with Hillary Clinton during the election season you slid a picture of your entire family over to
her. And you said to her, “This is about my family, my hope is in God, that’s my future.” We
wish you the best of luck, we understand that you are still out of work, and hopefully the
environment improves for you. Thank you for joining us.

40. “Geraldo ‘absolutely appalled’ by Trump’s climate deal exit”

Just moments ago, Ansley had an exclusive one-on-one with VP Mike Pence and he weighed in
on the President’s decision to leave the PCA.

[VP Mike Pence]: What the world witness yesterday, again, was an American President putting
America first. President Donald Trump on the campaign trail had called into account an
agreement that really put an extraordinary burden on the American economy, while allowing
some countries around the world like China and India to literally go a decade or more without
any accountability for reducing CO2 emissions. We’re putting the American worker, the
American economy first. And think that what’s refreshing is to have a president in the oval office
that is keeping his word to the American people, but, I think as you see on a broad range of
issues, whether its rebuilding our military, whether it’s seeing the tremendous growth in this
economy, President Donald Trump gets up every day fighting for the American people.

Joining us now to discuss is Fox News correspondent at large, Geraldo Rivera.

Hi everybody.

Good morning correspondent.

Roaming, you didn’t want roaming, roving, rock-and-rolling. The man. The correspondent.

So, before we get to the particulars of what the VP said, your take on the interview as a whole.

The interview is terrific, Ansley did an excellent job, I think Mike Pence is one of the most
likable people in American politics. I think he is perfect in terms of personality, yin to the
President’s yang. I like him very much, I don’t agree with many of his ideas obviously, he’s a
hard-core traditional conservative, but he’s got the president’s back. He’s a traditional politician
in the sense that he knows how the government works. In terms of climate change particularly, as

you can image Pete, I am absolutely appalled by this decision, I think it is unnecessary, a self-
inflicted wound on the president because I love the president. I like the VP, I love the president. I
want him to succeed and I think this is terrible.

But he campaigned on it, right?

He campaigned on it, he campaigned on a lot of things. You say things on the campaign that you
don’t necessarily, you haven’t really thought out whether it’s going to be good policy or not. To
me, it isn’t just the fact the entire world is against us on this, its people that I respect in business
who become successful, Jeffery Elmat at GE, Elon Musk at Tulsa, Bob Igor at Disney,
Zuckerberg at Facebook, virtually every industry but coal is against this decision, I don’t
understand it. Yes, I feel sorry for the coal workers, but I also, if I lived in the 19th century, I
would’ve felt bad for the Buffalo hunters when the Buffalo were exterminated.

What was this agreement actually going to do though? That’s the question. When it was initially
rolled out, those who were the most zealous about climate change, said it’s not going to do
anything, it’s not actually going to reduce temperatures it’s all voluntary. So why this hysteria
over the fact that he said, you know we are going to go our own route?

I think that’s a fine question, I don’t know. I don’t know, I am not a scientist. I know enough,
after 50 years in public life, I know enough that you listen to the experts and to generalize
consensus, it can’t be that 190 countries are fanciful, they are all looking to screw the United
States. I just don’t believe it.

You know that we’ve already written a billion-dollar check, and you know we would be on the
hook to write billion dollars more to underdeveloped nations. And the president is basically
saying, yea, Bob Iger is going to be fine, and we know Elon Musk is going to be fine, he’s got
this Tesla car that he hopes to sell to a lot of people that costs 100,000 dollars. But what about
the people that work for him. What about the people who work in blue collar jobs, he looked to
those numbers and said, this is too much for us to endure. For example, he says that this is going
to cost over the course of 10 year, 170 billion dollars. James Hansen, the godfather of global
warming, said this whole thing is a fraud, it’s a fake, it is bull--- for what they say. We’ll have
the 2 C warming target, and try to do a little better every 5 years. It is worthless, there is no
action, just promises. He says the whole deal we walked away from, doesn’t matter anyway.

Well then there is a whole lot of fuss and an awful lot of activity over nothing, Bryan. With all
due respect, I have been in Beijing China when I couldn’t see you because of the smog.

Is that awful?

I have been in Miami where at high tide that you walk up to your ankles sometimes in sea water.
I think that to deny that the climate, the Delaware sized hunk of Antarctica is separating now.

You know his speech didn’t say global change is not happening, he says this deal is bad.

What does this get out of this? What does the get the President of the United States? Other than
this makes him look as if he is defying the world just for the sake of defiance.

Or leading the world saying I campaigned to put American first. (What?!??) We are not just
going to go to by consensus.

I think you can still lead the world by getting out of this deal. I’ve heard hysterics, really on both
sides of the aisle too, saying, that the fact we pulled out of this deal we are no longer leading on
the world stage. Is that true, cause that is not a world I want to live in?

All I know, Abby, is that I am a sailor. One of the most encouraging things I see in block island
sound and out there by Martha’s Vineyard, is all these windmills. Every place I go in the
country, now we have a house in Ohio, every place I go in the country, I see windmills turning. I
have solar power that it cost me 50,000 grand to put in my house. 10 years ago, I paid it off
already by the money I’ve saved. Natural gas is flooding the market, you don’t need dirty coal.
What’s the point of this? What the average American can’t get natural gas.

[speaking over each other]

I would bet most the people in New York have natural gas, they fuel anything by coal here
anymore. What is this for? What is this deal for, Bryan? What is this deal for?

Our country.

To live in a gas mask?

I don’t want an international bureaucrat in Brussels telling me what regulations I have to have--

I don’t want to have to swim when I go to the Deli. I want the world to be as clean as it is now
for my children, at least as maintainable, sustainable---

All right, all right.

I just think that President has done is--and I also think this: 1920, League of Nations was going
to lead the world to peace, the US was the last one that said the world can do it, were not. Same
thing that led to the League of Nations collapse. Same thing with this climate accord, and nice
guys pull out, the accord will collapse.

[speaking over each other]


Appendix 3: Analysis Results


Works Cited
Bennett, Lance. "News in a Changing Information System." Bennett, Lance. News: The Politics of
Illusion. Tenth Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2016. 1-27.
Borden, Sandra L and Chad Tew. "The Role of the Journalist and the Performance of Journalism:
Ethical Lessons from "Fake" News (Seriously)." Journal of Mass Media Ethics 22.4 (2007):
Carpenter, Susan L. and WJD Kennedy. Managing Public Disputes: A Practical Guide for
Government, Business, and Citizens' Groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1988.
Dritto, Peter, et al. YourMorals.Org. Jan 2016. 15 April 2018. <>.
Fienberg, Matthew and Robb Willer. "The Moral Roots of Environmental Attitudes." Psychological
Science (2012): 1-7.
Flaxman, Seth R, Sharad Goel and Justin M Rao. "Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online
News Consumption." Public Opinon Quarterly 80.1 (2016): 298-320.
Graber, Doris A and Johanna Dunaway. "Media Purpose and Structure." Graber, Doris A and
Johanna Dunaway. Mass Media and American Politics. Ninth Edition. Washington: CQ
Press, 2014. 2-25.
Gray, Barbara. "Framing of Environmental Disputes." Lewicki, R, B Gray and M Elliot. Making
Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts: Concepts and Cases. Washington: Island
Press, 2002. 11-34.
Haidt, Jonathan. The moral roots of liberals and conservatives. Monterey: TED2008, 2008. Video.
Heath, TP and A. Chatzidakis. "Blame it on marketing: consumers' view on unsustainable
consumption." International Journal of Consumer Studies 36 (2012): 656-667.
Hersher, Rebecca. Key Moments In The Dakota Access Pipeline Fight. NPR. 22 February 2017.
Jervis, Rick. '5 months without power': Blackout is latest snag in Puerto Rico's long recovery from
Hurricane Maria. USA Today. 12 February 2018. Article.
Kennedy, Merrit. Crude Oil Begins To Flow Through Controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. NPR. 1
June 2017. Article.
Kidwell, Blair, Adam Farmer and David Hardesty. "Getting Liberals and Conservatives to Go
Green: Political Ideology and Congruent Appeals." Journal of Consumer Research 40
(2013): 350-367.
King, Gary, Benjamin Schneer and Ariel White. "How the news media activate public expression
and influence national agendas." Science 358 (2017): 776-780.
Krippendorff, Klaus. "Content Analysis." International encyclopedia of communication 1 (1989):
Macnamara, Jim. "Media content analysis: Its uses, benefits, and best practice methodology." Asia
Pacific Public Relations Journal 6.1 (2005): 1-34.
Maza, Carlos. "How Trump turned Sean Hannity into a conspiracy theorist." Video. 2017.
Meyer, Robinson. What's Happening With the Relief Effort in Puerto Rico? The Atlantic. 4 October
2017. Article.
Newman, Amy. "Communication Planning: A Template for Organizational Change." Cornell
Hospitality Report 16.3 (2016): 3-6.
Nisbet, Matthew C and Todd P Newman. "Framing, the Media, and Environmental
Communication." The Routledge Handbook of Envrionment and Communication.
Routeledge, 2014. 325-338.

Nisbet, Matthew C. "Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public
Engagement." Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 51.2 (2009):
Nisbet, Matthew C. "Framing Science: A New Paradigm in Public Engagement." New Agendas in
Science Communication. Ed. LeeAnne Kahlor and Patricia Stout. London: Taylor and
Francis Publishers, 2009.
Nisbet, MC, EM Markowitz and J Krotcher. "Winning the Conservation: Framing and Moral
Messaging in Environmental Campaigns." Ahern, Lee and Denise Sevick Bortree. Talking
Green: Exploring Contemporary Issues in Environmental Communications. Peter Lang Inc.,
International Academic Publishers, 2012. 9-35.
Nyhan, Brendan and Jason Reifer. "When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political
Misperceptions." Political Behavior 32.2 (2010): 303-330.
Pew Research Center. "In Changing News Landscape, Even Television is Vulnerable." Trends in
News Consumption: 1991-2012. September 2012. Article. 2018. <http://www.people->.
—. Poltical Polarization in the American Public. 12 June 2014. 30 March 2018.
Prior, Markus. "News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political
Knowledge and Turnout." American Journal of Political Science 49.3 (2005): 577-592.
Rice, David. The U.S. is now the only country not part of Paris climate agreement after Syria signs
on. USA Today. 7 Nov 2017. Article.
UNFCCC. The Paris Agreement. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
2014. Webpage.
Vick, Karl. A Land They No Longer Recognize. Time. 3 October 2017. Article.
Volcovici, Valerie. U.S. submits formal notice of withdrawal from Paris climate pact. Reuters. 4
August 2017. Article.
Worland, Justin. What to Know About the Dakota Access Pipeline Protests. Time. 28 October
2016. Article.