Left-leaning and anti-Trump titles had been disappearing, and then Library Director Bette Ammon got the following anonymous comment: “I noticed a large number of books attacking our president. I am going to continue hiding these books in the most obscure places I can find to keep this propaganda out of the hands of young minds. Your liberal angst gives me great pleasure.”

Those “obscure places,” the New York Times said, included misplaced in out-of-the-way sections, as well as behind rows of books and with spines facing inward so the missing books couldn’t be found.

The paper said about half the missing books deal with Trump, including “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House” by Michael Wolff and “Under Fire: Reporting from the Front Lines of the Trump White House” by April Ryan.

And when books are hidden and unable to be found, staffers order replacements — which is costly, KXLY said.

“If we’re replacing a $20 book, it may take time for three different staff people to order it, receive it, catalog it, [and] cover it,” Ammon added to the station, “and not to mention the time spent actually searching when the book went missing in the first place.”

To combat the problem, one staffer set up a webcam, but the enormous amount of footage took too long to go through, the Times said, adding a flying a drone over the top of the stacks showed no missing titles.

Click here to view original web page at www.theblaze.com

Trump’s EPA Factchecks The NYT, Says Journos Botched Report On Agency’s Move To Nix Secret Science

by Casey | Nov 13, 2019 | Blog, Fake News, Media Bias, Science

The Environmental Protection Agency suggested Tuesday that a New York Times’ report fleshing out the agency’s move to make the regulatory process more transparent contained gross inaccuracies.

The EPA took exception to several sections of a NYT report Monday that highlights the agency’s proposal to help make data collecting more transparent for scientists who are trying to replicate research. The report contained “glaring inaccuracies,” the agency noted in a statement.

EPA’s statement starts with an explanation of how the so-called Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science rule will impact the agency’s ability to craft regulations. The proposal seeks to make the data and scientific studies that are pivotal to regulatory action available for review.

On Nov. 8, the EPA delivered to the Office of Management and Budget a draft supplemental federal register notice (FRN) to clarify vague elements of the original 2018 proposal, according to the agency’s statement. The agency intends on filing a final rule in 2020.

NYT’s report Monday “incorrectly” noted that the proposal “could apply retroactively to public health regulations already in place.” Neither the proposal nor the supplemental apply to regulations already in place, the EPA noted before lambasting other elements of the report.

The report suggests that the EPA’s proposal might render existing regulations inadmissible when they come up for renewal. TheNYT suggested a 1993 Harvard University project linking polluted air to premature deaths could be nixed under the proposal. Scientists in the project collected data from people who signed confidentiality agreements ahead of the project.

This characterization is false, according to the EPA. (RELATED: Andrew Wheeler Says He Will Implement Rule To Keep ‘Secret Science’ Out Of EPA)