News Anchors -- Clueless on Oil Prices
I know it's fashionable to beat up on both oil companies and big media, but there seems to be some collaboration going on in the pricing department. I'm just not sure if it's intentional on media's (read TV's) part but as every schoolboy knows, the price of gas, the price of oil and the profits the oil companies take are at all time highs. This makes sense. If they charge more, they make more. Since the U.S. government is owned and operated by them, they can charge whatever they please.
Who's going to stop them?
Invariably, when there is a change in gas prices, TV news reports it and then brings in an "expert" or an "analyst" or even a rep from the oil industry, many times one in the same. After reading the item the anchor he or she asks, as though hearing the topic for the first time, "What has caused prices to go up?"
(Note: that's "anchor" not "reporter" as the two are different, "anchor" having nothing to do with journalism. In Britain, they more accurately call them "news readers.")
The "expert" babbles on about the lack of new refineries or refinery capacity, or that there's been a storm, or they're slaves to OPEC. The anchor looks wide-eyed and swallows it whole, never ever questioning, never asking if we're really supposed to believe this in light of reality.
Is there any proof offered by the "expert?" Does the anchor mention that they can raise prices at will and when they want even more money they do so. Nobody is ever called on these things.
The anchor looks helpless and clueless, unable to ask even the softest questions about why prices seem to go up just before major driving holidays. We know why. Why doesn't she (most anchors are women these days)?
I have seen this repeatedly. I saw it last week again.
This scene promotes the concept that oil companies are at the mercy of some other force. We know they're not. They are in collusion with each other, with the OPEC countries, with the government they put into power. And their hands are in our pockets.
Invariably the anchor asks what the future holds for gas prices. They never seem to know.
They know. Down to the penny.
So the question becomes are these news anchors participants or just plain dumb (or sloppy or lazy, etc.)? Having been a news producer and having had an anchor misread her own name off the teleprompter, I have my suspicions. Her name was "Marsh," she read what was on the prompter, "Narsh."
On the other hand, corporate power extends to every aspect of our life, TV anchors included.
Consider that the next time you pull up to the pump.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
All great points. However:
It is no more "fashionable" to go after the MSM and Big Oil than it is to run inside during a hailstorm.
Tony, c'mon man. What a subtle put-down, to say that responding accurately to crisis is happening because it's "fashionable".
We're all getting knocked around out here in America. It's not about fashion anymore. Other than that, great article. Thanks.
I have heard the same crap from "experts" for years and never bought a single line of it. I too used to ask why they refused to show any evidence of what they say.
Morons...a
It is standard practice of the Corporate American Media to aid and abet Corporate American Oil. The overwhelming reports of gas prices serve no purpose other than to mitigate any negative consumer action. TV is bought and paid for by the advertising Oil Companies. What is even worse is the collusion among our government and Corporate America.
When President Eisenhower warned we Americans, the price of gas was .30 per gallon. We ignored his warning and we continue to pay the price at the pump as well as losing our basic constitutional freedoms.
The truth is that the powers that be are waiting till they can make the maximum profit on universal health care, hybrid cars, etc. The suddenly it'll be available! Like it's a big miricle (but it's not).
Here's the Fun Angle on hydrogen: You can make it out of thin air, providing that air has moisture in it. And, you don't have to pay Exxon any money whatsoever for the privilege of doing so.
If you're not brave enough to get all Tesla about your personal energy needs, you can always take the Layman's way, and start at your circuit breaker box, work your way around your home and start swapping out the incandescents,
then go out to whatever passes for your garage and take a Good Hard Look at your conveyance of choice. To really be energy-enlightened, you can go get yourself a bicycle. Next best step to that is to drop 4 grand on a motorcycle, and go get 60MPG everyday, and maybe even have a little fun. After that, if you MUST operate a 'cage', trip on down to your local auto dealers, and start getting info about their most efficient models, or 'tele-work' that question by researching it on the web. No matter what you drive, if you're not driving it at all, you're saving fuel. If you do drive, get real 'in tune' with the speedometer, and do a lot to take care of your car, too, such as tires, alignment, brakes(dragging brakes give OPEC et. al. more money), and, most importantly, don't tailgate. Aggressive driving wears out your car, wastes fuel, spreads bad karma etc., so bad choice, there.
We use cars, we need cars, we practically have to have cars, especially if you live out-of-town at all. But, we can be a lot smarter about how we use them, and budget our fuel a lot better, and support green tech developments that'll get us off the oil pump completely.
The sooner that happens, the better, not just for us, but for everybody.
I just love "reading TelePrompTer verbatim" jokes. Ron Burgundy: "Go f*** yourself, San Diego!"
Don't fall for the idea that nuclear is the answer to climate change.
An analysis performed by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith shows that nuclear plants still have significant CO2 emissions.
www.storms
It takes energy to refine uranium fuel for nuke plants. According to the study, with fuel from the highest-grade uranium ores, the amount of CO2 emitted by fuel processing for operating a nuclear plant for 20 years and decommissioning the plant is the same as that emitted by operating a gas-fired power plant for 7 years. As ores are depleted, the CO2 emissions of fuel processing increase so that when the available ore depletes to 0.01% uranium, the total emissions of the nuclear plant are equal to those of operating a gas-fired plant over 20 years. Ore quality is declining steadily and will decline faster if more nuclear plants are built. When we reach the time when only the lowest grade ores are available, nuclear power will emit more carbon than conventional power generation.
The magic bullet is really conservation. Of course, nobody sells "consume less", so we don't see it in the media very often.
Greenengineer - your day will come. It will just take longer in the land of America since the government is dominated by lobby groups for coal and oil. Nuclear is such a stupid idea that it is hard to think people could really believe this will allow them to keep on burning carbon fuels as if there were no to-morrow.
Yeah,they forget to mention the fact: WE GET MOST OF OUR OIL FROM CANADA AND MEXICO,you know our "next door neighbors"
The one handicap anchors and journalists have that they rarely admit is that whatever they report on, they really don't know that much about the subject. Typical journalists reporting on business and economics have a degree in journalism, not business, marketing, economics or related subjects. Political journalists don't have a degree in political science, history, civics or government affairs. Typical journalists report on what they understand and act as the middle person between members in the fields they report on and news consumers. The same applies to any other journalist reporting on other subjects.
The problem is further exacerbated by anchors, editors, and news directors dumbing down their questions to appeal to the lowest common denominator for more ratings.
Silly.
If restrict the ability of oil companies to produce profits you will restrict the discovery and production of oil which will result in higher prices.
Nuclear energy is the answer to CO2, high oil prices, and air pollution. Build 400 new nukes on shuttered army bases, close all the CO2 producing electrical generators, and reintroduce GM's EV1 electrical car.
Suggesting nuclear power is a solution reflects a common illusion. While it is well known that nuclear plants are potential targets for terrorists and have serious unsolved waste problems; it is little recognized that increasing temperatures, due to Global Warming, already have caused the closing of some nuclear power plants and reduction of power at others. Water they rely on to cool reactors during the summer is either drying up, or too warm to use. As a result, in the U.S., as well as Germany, France and Spain, utilities have been forced to shut down several nuclear plants and reduce power at others. Nuclear plants typically take a decade to build. The critical window for reduction of fossil fuels (before serious loss of life and major dislocation begins) may now be less than ten years.
All cars will be electric cars in the future! A revolutionary new system will allow cars to generate electricity and when parked, sell power to the local utility. See magneticpo
Just like Chernobyl.
Now that is just plain dumb. Nuclear is not a renewable resource and the cost is going up. Nuclear costs a fortune to build and to dismantle. Nobody has a clue what to do with the waste. Maybe put it in your back yard.
At this time many things are being developed to make the use of electricity fall. I have just bought LED light bulbs. Google them and see what you can get for 1.5 watts. Everything can be much more efficient. Solar paint is being developed. Flexible solar panels are here. Wind is booming - blowing everything away. Just not in the States where coal and oil put their politicians into office. Try subsidizing renewables and see how fast change can occur. Or keep on with the old technology and let the rest of the world race ahead.
King,
You never replied to my reply to you on this issue, so here’s your chance:
kcg,
Your statement,
If you REALLY believed that global warming was as big a problem that(sic) you say you do(,) and you REALLY believe(d) that CO2 produced by humans (was) the cause, then why(,) oh why(,) do you and others of your bent not support nuclear generation of electricity(?) If France can get 80% of their electrical production (from nuclear power), why can't the US?
For several reasons;
1) Nuclear has the potential to be catastrophically dangerous. We’re unable to provide either safety or security for existing plants. (Does “Savannah River Plant” ring a bell?) In this age of terrorism, security WON’T get easier. (Says Mr. bush.) Also: No reactor in the world is inherently safe. All operational reactors have inherent safety flaws, which cannot be eliminated by safety upgrading. Highly radioactive spent fuel requires constant cooling. If this fails, it could lead to a catastrophic release of radioactivity. They are also highly vulnerable to deliberate acts of sabotage, including terrorist attack.
http://www
1a) I WON'T bring up the insurmountable issue of nuclear waste, if you insist, but I really don't see why ANY serious danger should be disregarded. (Except that if we can ignore enough of them your argument may begin to sound valid.)
2) There are many other methods of energy production with virtually NO RISK and relatively little cost. Should we simply toss the $23 BILLION already spent by America to develop cleaner sources of energy?
http://www
3) France has FEWER problems, but PROBLEMS, none the less.
French nuclear safety agency activated its emergency response center in December 2003 in response to torrential rainfall along the lower Rhone River, following the emergency shut down of two reactors (Cruas-3 and -4) due to flood affected damage… “Emergency response” isn’t always good.
Also, please read:
http://www
Please let me know if I've answered all your questions.
Global crude oil production peaked in May, 2005. Big Oil won't admit this because they want demand to be as high as possible. Since the world oil supply is decreasing, the price will continue to rise.
I certainly can't depend on Big Media to report on anything that doesn't have entertainment value, such as the end of the age of oil. Not yet, at least.
Loading comments…
Posted September 4, 2007 | 10:34 AM (EST)