Monday, August 25, 2003

Biased reporting

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. consumers would have to foot a $100 billion bill to upgrade the nation's rickety electric transmission grid but could reap five-fold savings from cheaper power costs, according to an industry report released on Monday.

Why do they present it this way? It's as if someone thinks there is something illegitimate about recovering the costs of upgrading transmission facilities.

Later they noted the "five-fold savings". How often do you get a deal like that? Why don't we see a headline like "Transmission line upgrades offer consumers 5 to 1 return"?

Now let's look at the organizations quoted. The Electric Power Research Institute is identified as "a utility-funded group", and the Edison Electric Institute is identified as "the biggest U.S. utility lobbying group". The Consumer Federation of America has no such characterization. I wonder why?

Oh, here they are. Can someone explain to me why a group nominally about consumerism is pushing gun control? Isn't that just a little outside the scope of consumerism?

They're not even in the scope of the truth - "Contrary to public opinion, historians, scholars, and most importantly the courts, have virtually all concluded that: the Second Amendment was designed to protect state organized militias rather than the individual right to n a gun." This and other things out them as another lefty interest group posing as a public interest group, yet they escape such identification in the article.

No comments: