The reaction to the New York Times reporting on North Dakota’s oil boom was visceral, which tells you the newspaper did something right.

The Times last week did a couple of major pieces on (mostly) negatives associated with the growth of Bakken Shale oil extraction in the western part of the state. What the newspaper reported wasn’t necessarily earth-shattering – that North Dakota state government has a very, very, very cozy relationship with Big Oil, almost to the point of corruption – but since the New York Times parachuted in to do the story, it was treated as a Major Deal.

Funny … local talk-radio hosts, newspaper columnists like the Bismarck Tribune’s Clay Jenkinson and news service writers report on the downside of the boom for five years and it mostly gets tossed aside as sour-grapes griping. Then the New York Times writes about Lynn Helms spooning Harold Hamm and … BOOM!

The reaction was interesting. From the right, bloggers and talkers used the lazy and clichéd argument the Times is a left-wing rag and there was partisan politics behind the articles. Because, you know, the New York Times has nothing better to do than worry about North Dakota politics. One local talk-show host went so far as to tell the Times to stay out of North Dakota because … well, it doesn’t matter why. That particular talker is an ill-educated idiot, and lightly listened to.

Left unsaid by the right-wingers is the not unsubstantial fact that if the New York Times really cared about North Dakota politics and really wanted to influence things, it would have run the stories BEFORE the recently completed election. Not after it. Then it could have actually made a difference if North Dakota residents were outraged by its reporting.

But when it comes to Republican partisan hackery by bloggers and radio talkers in North Dakota, there is rarely deep thinking. Or thinking of any kind.

That brings us to the lefty reaction of the Times article, which sadly was little better than the barking from the opposite side of the aisle.

North Dakota Democrats immediately latched onto the reporting as proof the oil boom is the most evil period of recorded history in the state, then used radio and social media to eviscerate statewide media as being incompetent in telling citizens what is “really” happening. Essentially, much of the griping came down to the belief Forum Communications Co. is compliant with the oil industry raping the state because … well … because FCC is owned by a Republican and North Dakota Democrats really like to fixate on that fact.

But here are a couple of other facts:

While Forum Comm certainly endorses Republican candidates (except for Dorgan, Conrad, Pomeroy and Minnesota’s Collin Peterson for years … conveniently forgotten by the Dem-NPL), its reporters have dutifully written about oil spills and other controversial dark sides of the boom. Its editorial page chief in Fargo, Jack Zaleski, has written about the ugliness of western development. Jenkinson, the Bismarck Tribune columnist, has penned many pieces urging slower oil development, to the point he’s been personally targeted by industry sycophants. The state’s most-listened-to radio host, unapologetic Democrat Joel Heitkamp, has railed against Republican coziness with Big Oil.

And yet, North Dakota residents have overwhelmingly showed their support for those in charge during the boom. That tells us one of two things: North Dakotans are happy with the way their elected officials are handling the oil boom, or they simply don’t care. It’s irrelevant, really. The voters have spoken, and they are happy with the status quo.

Just look at the numbers. In 2012, Democrat candidate for Governor Ryan Taylor separated himself from incumbent Jack Dalrymple by talking largely about oil development. Taylor was defeated 63-37 percent. In 2014, Taylor ran for ag commissioner, again campaigning largely about development. He lost to Doug Goehring, embroiled in controversy over turmoil in his office and his relationships with female employees, 57-43 percent. Republican attorney general Wayne Stenehjem, one of the members of the powerful three-person commission that oversees oil development, won 74 percent of the vote in 2014.

Two Democrats who ran for Public Service Commission on “keep oil in check” platforms were trounced. You could make the case, too, that the conservation measure on this year’s ballot was a reflection of North Dakotans’ views on land use, encompassing both oil and agriculture. It was rejected by 8 of 10 voters, despite millions spent in advertising to support it.

For two election cycles, North Dakotans have had the chance to say they don’t like what’s happening with oil development. They’ve said exactly the opposite.

To steal a quote from a one-time North Dakota university president: “It’s their state.”

Visceral reactions over newspaper articles are a waste of time. North Dakotans have spoken. And it’s their state. You don’t have to like it, but you have to accept it.

(Mike McFeely is a talk-show host on 790 KFGO-AM in Fargo-Moorhead. He can be heard from 2-5 p.m. Follow him on Twitter @MikeMcFeelyKFGO.)