Saturday, February 2, 2013

All the "Clean" Energy Spin That is Fit to Print by the NYT

Matthew Wald had an interesting article about nuclear energy in the New York Times.  While reading as much as I can about the energy industry in a the last few months, I've learned energy "news" in the main stream media is often spin...pure unadulterated lobbyist spin.  This makes Matt Wald an easy target with his east coast liberal propaganda.

If a person reads enough about the "clean" energy and the wind industry, you begin to recognize patterns in writers and as they promote their agenda and go back to the same sources and references.   Repeat sources often turn back up, sometimes making an opposite argument because things didn't work out the industry intended.  It's kind of humorous after a while.  The New York Times wrote an article in 2010 advocating Long Term Power Purchasing Agreements  for the wind industry.  In 2012 another writer used the same source who was making the opposite argument that long term contracts were hurting the wind industry.  Over the three years,same source , Howard Lerner of the Environmental Policy and Law Center, was used  twice to make the opposite arguments for the "clean" wind energy industr

One article Howard Lerner was advocate Springfield make longer term commitments to wind energy companies.  The next article Howard Lerner is telling the reporter how long term commitments are hurting the wind energy industry.    Unfortunately, when the reporter is being used to advocate the wind energy industry's position, it's just spin and propaganda.

Getting back to Matthew Wald's latest article, it's about two new nuclear reactor being built in Georgia.  The entire spin of the article is that the reactor is being built with  potential  federally guaranteed loan and will be paid for by ratepayers through cost allocation.  Matthew reports that two groups, one being Synapse Energy Economics, questions whether the project if financially viable  with current low priced natural gas and current economic conditions.

What makes this amusing is Synapse Energy Economics wrote a report for the Environmental Policy and Law Center stating the economic benefit for wind power in Iowa and a more recent report praised by the American Wind Energy Association claiming the benefits of wind energy on the economy.  These reports are clearly baised towards "clean" energy and used by Rock Island Clean Line recently claiming there is an econmical benefit for more wind energy.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't foresee an article from Matthew Wald about BLOCK RICL opposing Clean Line Energy's protest to FERC for cost allocation for $2 billion dollar Merchant Transmission Line for wind energy.   It's doubtful Matthew Wald be writing an article about Clean Line Energy's desire to transport 3,500 megawatts of wind energy into the same southeast market and questioning the lack of demand or even the true cost to consumers for that wind energy.  From what I can gather his reporting of the energy industry is rather slanted towards the "clean" energy industry's position.

News is spin and propaganda is news for many of the today's newspapers as editors wonder why people are moving towards the internet for news.  We've quit buying our local newspaper, not because of the price, but because the content was extremely bias and did not represent the opinions of the community.  No, not all reporters are lazy and not all editors push an agenda.  There are still some good reporters who seek out a story, and there are some editors who support freedom of speech beyond a 250 word limit.  I have a new found appreciation for those that make an attempt to put out real news and make a decent publication.

Maybe the Superman and Spiderman image of news editor of grouch old men chewing on a cigar and yelling at reporters to get off their rears and find a story was accurate back in the day.  Maybe the editors just got tired of yelling at reporters to do their jobs and the reporters just found it easier to accept the spin from lobbyist.  In any case, spin like Matthew Wald is the real death of papers.  It's been said often about the New York Times, but I don't think they're listening to the public.
Matthew Wald is just another example of what's killing today's newspapers.

edit....does Mr. Wald even mention what the cost of this nuclear energy would be or talk about the demand in the southeast market for more energy?  I didn't see any mention about cost of this nuclear energy. 

No comments:

Post a Comment