Spot-the-insidious-liberal-media-bias is, as a rule, not a game I have much patience for, but since Ron Bailey mentions the proposed amendment to the Endangered Species Act that would compensate landowners when they're effectively told their property is now a wildlife sanctuary, I just want to note that my first exposure to the proposal was through this New York Times story. How might you headline this piece? "Law Would Compensate Owners for Environmental Restrictions"? Or, taking a cue from Ron, "Bill Proposes Paying Owners to Save Species"? Nope, they went with: "House Bill Would Limit U.S. Power to Protect Species." And the lede:
The chairman of the House committee overseeing natural resources introduced a bill Monday that would make it more difficult for the federal government to set aside land it deems crucial to the health of endangered species.
Note also this unsourced tidbit: "the law is credited with preventing the extinction of hundreds of species of insects, plants and animals in the past quarter-century." Credited by whom? Everybody? The Sierra Club? The reporter's aunt Millie? The world may never know.