Priorities: New York Times puts Elon Musk's bird nests ahead of Biden, France stories on front page

What's the phrase, 'whistling past the graveyard'?

Meet the New York Times, and its front page, which placed the destruction of nine birds' nests over the faltering mind of the leader of the free world, and the upside-down election result in France.

 

 

As Pesca notes, the Times placed the environmental damage from Musk's mighty SpaceX launches to outer space -- throwing bits of metal, rock, rubber and the like around as the huge space ships ignite -- that wrecked nine birds' nests, ahead of its story on Democrats seeking Joe Biden's ouster as candidate for president, and the unexpected outcome of France's legislative elections, where the far-left took the most votes in a three-way outcome. Those stories have potentially world-changing outcomes, but the Times chose to focus on birds.

Priorities, priorities ...

Nothing comes ahead of birds' nests in the all-the-news-that's-fit-to-print Times. Not a senile president, with his fellow Democrats calling for him to get out, and certainly not a wild outcome to a French election.

Now, don't get me wrong, I do think wildlife must always be protected where possible, and I always protect the songbirds' nests at my home from predators, whether it's cats or bigger birds. They tweet so sweetly, after all.

But it seems a small thing for the Times to be whining about, given the dramatic scope of Musk's mission and the hard fact that the birds are not endangered.

It was a mere nine nests affected on what is a very small chunk of land, a "doughnut hole" surrounded by a much bigger state park and federal lands with lots more nests. The birds involved were not endangered birds.

One of the affected birds was the snowy plover, which is listed as "near threatened" rather than threatened or endangered as a species. Another was the Least Tern, which is listed as of "least concern," meaning, there are a lot of them. There are plenty of these birds around, and moving their nests ought to be the best course of action for conservationists on an area where rockets are launching.

Musk himself seems a bit cavalier about the whole thing, both in the story and in his response to the story here:

 

 

Still, Musk is right to hold this story in contempt.

Take a look at what the snowy plover's real enemies are, according to Wikipedia:

The snowy plover is listed as near threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. The main threats are habitat destruction due to invasive beach grasses, urban development, as well as frequent disturbance due to recreational uses of beaches. Conservation measures on the US Pacific coast include roping-off beach areas that are used for breeding, the removal of invasive beach grasses, and protection against egg predators. While such measures have been successful locally, the global population is thought to be in decline.

They are trying to tell us nine birds' nests damaged in a rocket launch are worth a Page 1 above-the-fold story while mentioning nothing about the beach grasses, urban development, predators, and beach-goers that actually do put the snowy plover on the "near-threatened" list?

Seems a little context could have been used, as well as a mention that none of the affected birds were endangered, both of which I had to dig to confirm and didn't get from the story.

That part was inconvenient, because the aim of the story, of course, was to Get Musk.

Who put them up to this, that's what I want to know.

Or are they really that petty?

Or are they trying to distract from those other uncomfortable stories?

It's pretty obnoxious to see, given the other stories out there that will have some real-world consequences, such as the election of a senile president, or the crazed far-left preparing to destroy what's left of France.

Priorities, priorities. What priorities the Times has.

Image: "Mike" Michael L. Baird, via Wikipedia // CC BY-SA 2.0

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com