The story rapidly gets "meta." It starts out as a story about drought conditions and why politicians don't want to use the *word* "drought." Then they note that they tried to talk to a federal scientist about it, but he was not given permission to speak. So - muzzled.
But now it gets weird. The story just continues on. In a previous era there would be a hue and cry about the fact that the (taxpayer-funded) scientist was not allowed to talk about a topic of undeniable public and financial interest.
Has the media become *so* blase about muzzling of scientists that they just blow it off without any protest? Do they view it as acceptable? I'm just shocked that the story ended there.
Perhaps we can change the narrative a bit?