The unraveling of the ridiculous Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule is finally underway, but let’s set that issue aside for a moment whilst we blast an annoying, persistent bit of media bias.

According to Colorado Politics, the rollback is to the dismay of “environmentalists and other clear water advocates.”

If there really is such a thing as “clear water advocates,” that suggests there are folks out there who actually advocate against clear water.

And when the media uses the phrase clean water advocates or clean air advocates, they are again suggesting there are those who want dirty air and water.

This phrasing is so common among journalists, we don’t know if it’s just laziness or pure bias.

They are constantly insinuating that if you’re against government overregulation or crazy rules, you’re either Godzilla bent on destroying the world, or a Republican, who hates clean air and water.

If you want to protect your property or livelihood, you must be anti-environment, they presume.

Memo to the media: Everyone breathes air and wants clean air, we all rely on water to exist and prefer it to be clean and clear.

In the future, just say advocacy groups. Or better yet, tell the truth and say activist organizations of the Democratic Party.

You’re not fooling anyone, and you’re only showing your own bias.

So, stop it.

Now, back to the WOTUS rule.

The original intention was to protect coastal waters by regulating inland streams, but it was created by the Obama administration. Therefore, it was littered with government control over private property and even declared ditches located hundreds of miles away from the coast as a navigable waterway that could pollute the ocean.

The proposed new rule excludes seasonal streams and defines protected waters as “relatively permanent flowing and standing waterbodies that are traditional navigable waters in their own right or that have a specific connection to traditional navigable waters, as well as wetlands abutting or having a direct hydrologic surface connection to those waters.”

It’s a little better. Folks have 60 days to comment on the proposed rule.