by Outcast_Searcher » Mon 11 Sep 2017, 14:24:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'M')ore bone-headed errors occur in the panel describing Alaska.
There is no oil producing are in Alaska called the "North Shore." Perhaps they meant the North Slope?
The photos show offshore rigs in Cook Inlet---an area that produces only a tiny amount of oil.
Most of the oil in Alaska comes from land based oil fields---not offshore as Duke University wrongly believes.
SHEESH!
If people want to criticize much of the MSM, they don't have to look for dark widespread conspiracies. They can point to basic COMPETENCE -- almost every day, and certainly every week.
I'm sure I'm old fashioned, but I expect supposedly professional reporters (for the MSM articles I read) to have an excellent grasp on English. This would include things like grammar, spelling, using the correct word, being able to form a coherent sentence, etc. I also would expect them to have researched their subject matter, especially if somewhat technical, enough that they can at least get the vast majority of the BASIC facts correct. (i.e. have a clue what they're talking about).
Now, to me, the percentage of times supposedly top MSM media outlets (including newspapers, magazines, and TV, and of course internet reporting) let their customers down on these fronts is appalling. I realize of course, that cost cutting is partly responsible for this, but at what price?
(And I know Duke isn't the MSM, but they're supposedly a highly regarded major university -- which IMO should competently report a story, or should stop reporting. Oh, and if I can't trust their competence in basic reporting -- should I trust their analysis? Should I trust their conclusions? Especially if they likely have a political axe to grind re their economic viewpoint (as most of the MSM, both left and right wing, does?)
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.