The EPA has been in a bit of a panic recently. It started with President Trump's victory last November, which so startled employees of the agency that they were coming to work and crying.
A couple of months to adjust to their new situation apparently hasn't helped.
After unsuccessfully attempting to derail the confirmation of Scott Pruitt as the new EPA administrator, the employees have vowed to make their new boss's life miserable.
On Sunday, the MSNBC Twitter account was still sounding the alarm:
Given all of this negative noise it might surprise some to find out that, just last Friday, the EPA awarded $100 million to Flint, Michigan, to deal with its ongoing water crisis. CNN reports:
The Environmental Protection Agency announced Friday that it has awarded Michigan $100 million to make upgrades to Flint's drinking water system, which became contaminated with lead and other toxins after the city switched water sources as a cost-cutting measure.
CNN also notes that the money was actually earmarked and approved by the Obama administration.
However, as RedState pointed out on Sunday, that doesn't mean that the Trump administration had to let the funding go through:
People may argue that this was a decision made by the Obama Administration, but so was lowering the mortgage insurance rate and putting a halt on DAPL. Trump reversed both of those decisions and was eviscerated by the media. On top of that Trump’s EPA had to still make the final approval of the funds. Had Trump reversed it, how many articles do you think would have been written about it? How much time would the media have dedicated to it?
Yet the media is so against giving Trump even the slightest victory, they won’t even cover the news of this approval. As of midnight on Saturday March 18, the only “mainstream” organizations to run the story were CNN, Washington Examiner, The Hill, and the Daily Caller. That’s it. No mention on the CBS Evening News. No story in MSNBC. Didn’t make the NY Times.
Bias in the media isn't always accomplished by what they do, but often by what they don't do. Not covering something can propel a certain narrative just as much as covering something with a tinge of bias.
Whatever the reasons that this story has been left largely uncovered, it is a clear case of what the Trump administration is doing not being in sync with the speculation being offered by the media.