Grousing.

Imagine being a graduate student and having your dissertation announced at a press conference, picked up by AP, and carried around the nation.

Don't count on that happening if your paper is on a subject like, "Oil operations found to have little impact on blue-bearded cactus monkeys." But if your dissertation says natural gas drilling in the American west might be harmful to the health of some poor critter, watch out! The resulting media stampede might be harmful to your health.

That's what happened when doctoral student Matthew Halloran published his dissertation which found -- alleged -- that the federal government needs to impose restrictions on natural gas drilling in the west in order to protect the sage grouse.

Halloran's findings were trumpted by such obviously unbiased, scientific groups as the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance and the Upper Green River Valley Coalition, and was dutifully reported by AP.

Not reported by AP were any comments by the natural gas industry, ornithologists expert in the sage grouse, or any of the multiple groups who support the current levels of protection for the bird. Like, for example, the governors of western states.

This is what passes for objectivity in environmental journalism. Reporter Bob Moen tried to talk to one wildlife regulator, couldn't find him, and checked off the "objectivity" box. He failed to call industry representatives, ranchers, property rights advocates, scientists or anyone else.

It's not fair, but what's the point of grousing about the grouse story? You'll never change these bozos.