Fox News explains why solar power works in Germany, but not here.

[mini me]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Okay, then we agree that the FOX piece was totally off base? Maybe even a lie?

Now, the article you posted does suggest that Germany's relatively low level of insolation presents a problem for them when it comes to solar energy. That's not in dispute but for you to make the stretch that Germany's problems, with only about 38% as much sunshine as Michigan, means that solar will encounter the same problems here that it does there. It's simply not supported, or even suggested, by the facts.

John

We don't agree that it was a lie. A lie implies intent, and I don't think there's enough info to conclude that. I know some of you guys like to dump on Fox, and more power to you if that floats your boat.

The info that I used to suggest that solar isn't viable here in MI as anything more than a Small supplement to the grid comes from folks in the industry that I've spoken to. You can disagree with that all you wish, but I suspect they knew what they were talking about.

[bobabode]

Well, if you ask nicely them Sunshine staters'll be glad to send you some when it's cloudy in Michigan. After all, you all came to their help after those sumbitchin' bushwackers from Missoura shot every man and boy in Lawrence a while back.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by mini me

We don't agree that it was a lie. A lie implies intent, and I don't think there's enough info to conclude that. I know some of you guys like to dump on Fox, and more power to you if that floats your boat.

The info that I used to suggest that solar isn't viable here in MI as anything more than a Small supplement to the grid comes from folks in the industry that I've spoken to. You can disagree with that all you wish, but I suspect they knew what they were talking about.

How can a reporter who has done "research" get her facts totally reversed, especially when the facts are so strikingly different from what she claimed them to be? That being said, I didn't say that she was lying. I merely asked if we could agree that she might have been. I suppose you're so fond of FOX that you can't even admit that much.

Did you notice that she cited no sources AT ALL in her story? The closest she got was saying that "people are saying" that solar is in trouble here or "many people are talking about on Wall Street" that we should move away from solar and concentrate on "nat gas". Why? Because it pollutes less. No wonder FOX viewers know less than people who watch no news at all.

Now, another thing: you said that the FOX story "supported" your suggestion that the experience of Germany, with significantly less than half the sunshine of Michigan, was relevant to Michigan. That's true ONLY if you swallow the FOX story on its face.

I suppose you realize that because now you're saying that "folks" you know in the power industry tell you that solar is a dead issue in Michigan. So, who are these people, what are they telling you and what is their level of expertise? You say that I'm free to disagree but, in fact, I'm not since I have no idea as to the specifics of what they've told you.

A final word about FOX and lies. It was mentioned earlier in this thread but you might have missed or ignored it. FOX has gone to court (in Tampa as I recall) to defend themselves from a suit by two reporters who were fired because they refused to do a story that was one huge pack of lies. This fact is not in dispute. Not only did the court rule that the fired reporters had no case but it also found that a news organization, like FOX or any other, was under no obligation to tell the truth. Ever. They and any other news outlet are now free to out and out lie in their reporting. How does that sit with you?

John

[mini me]

Originally Posted by Boreas

They and any other news outlet are now free to out and out lie in their reporting. How does that sit with you?

John

I also recall CBS canning Dan Rather for pushing a fabricated story that he still maintains is true. I recall the news reports after the Denver theater shooting being more often wrong than even close to the truth. Same with the Connecticut shooting. I see network news divisions doing "infotainment" shows that liberally mix editorial and news and present the product as fact.

To me, I view it as the state of affairs in modern news reporting today. Likely a product of the 24-7 news networks that need filler to maintain an audience, and will manufacture that filler any way they can. You've apparently chosen to heap your ire on Fox News, and likely not without good reason. But I don't see Fox behaving that much differently than CNN, MSNBC, etc.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by mini me

I also recall CBS canning Dan Rather for pushing a fabricated story that he still maintains is true. I recall the news reports after the Denver theater shooting being more often wrong than even close to the truth. Same with the Connecticut shooting. I see network news divisions doing "infotainment" shows that liberally mix editorial and news and present the product as fact.

To me, I view it as the state of affairs in modern news reporting today. Likely a product of the 24-7 news networks that need filler to maintain an audience, and will manufacture that filler any way they can. You've apparently chosen to heap your ire on Fox News, and likely not without good reason. But I don't see Fox behaving that much differently than CNN, MSNBC, etc.

Your examples are ones of erroneous reporting, not lies. There is no equivalence. FOX sought and won a court decision that allows them to lie with impunity and to even fire employees who refuse to do it.

John

[mini me]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Your examples are ones of erroneous reporting, not lies. There is no equivalence. FOX sought and won a court decision that allows them to lie with impunity and to even fire employees who refuse to do it.

John

Ah, yes. The Fox news "won the right to lie" internet myth continues to propagate. If it helps you to believe that, go right ahead. However, the last time I checked, Freedom of the press applied to news network affiliates, local news anchors had general managers. and the general managers get to tell their employees what to say on the air.

I suppose if CNN fired Anderson Cooper for picking and choosing the stories that he chooses to pursue, you'd take similar exception with CNN?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by mini me

Ah, yes. The Fox news "won the right to lie" internet myth continues to propagate. If it helps you to believe that, go right ahead. However, the last time I checked, Freedom of the press applied to news network affiliates, local news anchors had general managers. and the general managers get to tell their employees what to say on the air.

I suppose if CNN fired Anderson Cooper for picking and choosing the stories that he chooses to pursue, you'd take similar exception with CNN?

"Picking and choosing" stories isn't the same as broadcasting deliberate lies. That's what FOX won the right to do in court. If you can prove me wrong on that, be my guest. Otherwise, your sarcasm is pretty pointless.

John

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by mini me

Ah, yes. The Fox news "won the right to lie" internet myth continues to propagate. If it helps you to believe that, go right ahead. However, the last time I checked, Freedom of the press applied to news network affiliates, local news anchors had general managers. and the general managers get to tell their employees what to say on the air.

I suppose if CNN fired Anderson Cooper for picking and choosing the stories that he chooses to pursue, you'd take similar exception with CNN?

Originally Posted by Boreas

"Picking and choosing" stories isn't the same as broadcasting deliberate lies. That's what FOX won the right to do in court. If you can prove me wrong on that, be my guest. Otherwise, your sarcasm is pretty pointless.

John

"Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.

By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast."

...


The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-decision-2003






Carl

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by mini me

Ah, yes. The Fox news "won the right to lie" internet myth continues to propagate. If it helps you to believe that, go right ahead. However, the last time I checked, Freedom of the press applied to news network affiliates, local news anchors had general managers. and the general managers get to tell their employees what to say on the air.

I suppose if CNN fired Anderson Cooper for picking and choosing the stories that he chooses to pursue, you'd take similar exception with CNN?

It is not an Internet myth that Fox news, who's biggest investor is a Saudi prince, in other words a dirty ,stinking, Mooslim, did indeed go to court to win the right to misinform the public and fire any employee not willing to spread their false propaganda. Just ask Jane Akers.

http://www.philly2philly.com/politic...sinform_public

Just keep your head stuck in Fox fantasy land and you will do just fine.

[mini me]

Originally Posted by Boreas

How can a reporter who has done "research" get her facts totally reversed, especially when the facts are so strikingly different from what she claimed them to be? That being said, I didn't say that she was lying. I merely asked if we could agree that she might have been. I suppose you're so fond of FOX that you can't even admit that much.
John

I suppose you missed my earlier comment that I don't watch network news shows. As to whether a reporter can get facts reversed, head on out to YouTube. You'll find loads of examples of news reports / anchors / personalities making complete asses of themselves. And I suspect YouTube will need to continue to add server space as folks keep posting new examples.