Archive for category Dodgy Journalism
More Anti-Green Claptrap From The Daily Mail (but this time I’m onto them)
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Dodgy Journalism on February 27, 2012
I happened upon another anti-green article in the Daily Mail the other day (no surprise there), but what I found to be of real interest was the way the reporter cunningly used information from different sources to pile the pressure on his headline subject and twist the story to make it sound like green policies are responsible for much, much more than they actually are.
I’ve also got to say that this article was all over the place. It pulled figures from everywhere and then assembled them in such a higgledy-piggledy way that it was impossible to really make neither head nor tale of the piece. There’s one thing for certain though: it’s anti-green through and through. Still; at least the reporter didn’t hack anyone’s phone to get the scoop… or did he?
Disclaimer: Can I just say that I am not a Daily Mail reader; I just have friends and family who alert me to articles such as this. Thank you.
The article opens by claiming that green polices add 15% to a typical energy bill. Fair enough; they probably do. However, it then subtly starts to pile on the numbers by first saying that “the combination of green taxes and wholesale price rises” could push prices up by 36%. Note the part that says “…and wholesale price rises”. Next we are told of a hypothetical ‘high-price scenario’ included in a Whitehall paper, which would also then push up the numbers. Finally we are informed that, due to these factors, consumers will need to find an extra £500 a year for energy by 2020. Yep, that’s an extra £500 a year – shock, horror, dismay. At this point the reporter cleverly brings green taxes back to centre stage and works in a biased quote from those renowned experts on green policy The TaxPayers Alliance (?!), and hey presto, this £500 extra on your bill is all down to those nasty old green policies.
The article also says these green taxes will help to fund “wind farms, nuclear power stations, more solar panels and a new pylon network.” Erm, hello? Only two of these are ‘green’ technologies. Idiot.
I will give credit, however (much as it pains me) to the fact that the article makes mention of switching your energy supplier to save money, and also that the story ends with a pro-green policy quote from a Department of Energy and Climate Change spokesman.
Nevertheless. What bugs me here is the Mail’s blatant attempt to turn its readers against any kind of green policy. This isn’t the first time they’ve done this either (thank goodness, as they keep me supplied with blog material). Joking aside though, why do they feel so strongly that we should not have to pay anything to safeguard our future?
Also let’s not forget: It’s not only climate change we are trying to combat here. We are also trying to give ourselves some energy security. I mean, do we really want to be beholden to Russia and other even more psychopathic regimes for our gas supplies?
And one last thing: Why does the reporter feel that green taxes are any less legitimate than other taxes? If these taxes from energy were used to fund, say, the police instead, would the Daily Mail still be so angry? (of course it would, what am I saying? It’s the Mail).
Protecting our environment and securing a healthy planet for our future generations is not a triviality; and it’s not going to come cheap. Somebody has to pay, and spreading the burden across the populace seems fair to me. It also seems fair that households who couldn’t care less about energy conservation will pay more towards these green policies because the tax is levied as a proportion of your bill. Ergo, families who do try to conserve energy will pay less. Fair indeed.
These green policies are intended reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and to shield us from exactly the type of wholesale prices rises the article mentions. Surely the reporter would agree that this is a good thing to aim for, but how exactly does he propose we pay for it, if not with green taxes?
By all means, alert us to the potential rises that have been forecast, but don’t put them under the headline of “green taxes add 15% to your bill”.
Daily Mail readers aren’t known for their ability (or desire) to read between the lines. So – as the reporter is obviously intending – the reader comes away with the image that green taxes are adding £500 to energy bills, which of course, is absolute nonsense.
GR
For a more in depth (and a little more sensible) look at this very story click here…
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photos courtesy of me, Nostal6ie and Daniel Gilby
Yet More Anti-Green Clatter Spills Forth From The Daily Mail
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Dodgy Journalism on July 14, 2011
The Daily Mail - that most beloved of English institutions – has released yet another anti-green article. This one seems designed to get Middle England all fired-up at the indignation of having to adjust the UK’s highly-polluting energy supply so as to protect our children from a future of devastating climate change. How awful!
This article – which, incidentally, was front-page news – is getting all flustered because it claims that families will have to fork out an extra £1000 a year as part of their energy bills in order to fund a switch to green energy and nuclear power.
What a load of rubbish. Nowhere will you find anyone in-the-know who agrees with this figure. It is plucked out of thin air simply to allow the Mail readers their daily 5 minutes of irritation at this cruel, cruel world. Even the Daily Telegraph – another paper that dislikes anything remotely green – only claims an increase in bills of £160 over the next 20 years. (Although, the way things are going, I’m expecting that type of increase on my bill next month).
The Mail’s reporter says that the move is intended to cut emissions to meet UK and EU targets. No. The move is intended to shift the UK toward a future where we can enjoy a clean, secure energy supply without polluting the atmosphere or worrying about Russia turning off the gas. Oh, and apparently it’s also intended “to appease the climate lobby”.
So what is this climate lobby then? Are they the ones who agree that climate change is a threat, or are they the energy companies who stand to make large profits from the upshot of this? Are they wind power advocates or supporters of nuclear power? Hmmm: A nice, clear-cut definition; thanks for that.
I’ll admit, I still don’t know where I stand with regards to nuclear power, but I have to say, it’s nice to see nuclear being mentioned in this article alongside the usual culprit, wind power.
So then, the Mail is getting on its high horse because we’ll all have to pay higher bills as we move away from a fossil fuel-based energy supply. I presume they are referring to these same fossil fuels that are responsible for the numerous, unrelenting price hikes we’ve suffered over last few years? Ok; great idea. Let’s just forget about green energy and stick with what we know shall we? That’ll really keep the costs down.
So where did the Daily Mail get this figure of £1000 per year from? Was it Ofgem? The Carbon Trust? The Department of Energy and Climate Change perhaps? No. It was a bank called UniCredit; well there’s some objective journalism for you.
Another of the sources in this article, Dr Benny Peiser, says, “Britain itself could be sitting on a gas gold mine, which would power homes for decades”. The only ‘gold mine’ I imagine he can be talking about is shale gas, and that’s a very bad idea.
Now, I’m not so naïve as to think we can have a lovely new clean energy system and not have to pay for it. But it really gets-my-goat (in case you hadn’t noticed) when papers like the Mail pull figures from sources that are employed simply to make good headlines.
Finally (and strangely) I would like to finish by saying a big thank you to the Daily Mail. Much as you annoy me with your journalistic tripe; without you I think I may struggle for material to use in my blog. Keep up the bad work and long may our relationship continue. Cheers.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photos courtesy of Daniel Gilby and npower Renewables (from Renewable UK)
The Daily Mail Strikes Again
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Dodgy Journalism on May 31, 2011
If you are the owner a wood burner or open fire, get rid of it now BEFORE IT KILLS YOU!!!
Sorry; no need to panic. I was just using some Daily Mail style hyperbole to get you to read my article.
You may think I’m exaggerating about the hyperbole, but trust me, I’m not. I have just been forwarded an article by this ‘news’paper telling us that wood burners will give you cancer. For real; read it here if you want.
So what is this information doing in an environmental blog? Well, in my opinion, wood burners are good for the planet: they use a renewable fuel, they use a fuel that’s carbon neutral, they use a fuel that can be sourced locally, plus they can replace or augment radiators in your home, lowering its carbon footprint.
So not just as an environmentalist, but also as a conscientious reader of the news, I am fundamentally opposed to articles such as the one in question, which turn a quite ordinary piece of news into the end of the world as we know it.
This reckless journalism by the Mail isn’t doing anyone any favours. Ok, agreed, it is reporting one of science’s latest findings; but telling us that breathing in smoke is bad for you? Well duh!? What a revelation that is!
What I find irresponsible is the fact that they use these findings to try and convince us that wood burners and open fires are evil. If they were that bad Santa would be long dead by now… and he’s not. Is he?
Now I’ve got no beef with the story itself, it is vaguely interesting and based on fact, but titling it ‘Wood-burning stoves can be as deadly as exhaust fumes by producing smoke that can cause heart disease’ is just a tad over the top isn’t it?
Fair enough, the author mentions health impacts associated with open fires in the developing world, but we already knew that burning fires inside homes comes with an element of risk.
It’s not until the last few paragraphs that the author actually gives us some useful information about how best to burn wood to avoid unnecessary smoke. Thanks for the advice. Seriously.
I would like to know what the reporter suggests for those of use who use wood burners and open fires so we don’t kill ourselves. Should we replace them with electric heating systems and then all laugh when he writes a piece moaning about the wind turbine erected near his house to help produce the extra electricity?
Gosh what a pile of nonsense. Wood burners are great, so long as you don’t start breathing in the smoke. Got that? Don’t breath the smoke; it’ll give you cancer, you know.
If you’re considering buying a wood burner or resuscitating that old open fire in the front room; go right ahead. It’s not just good for the natural environment, but it’s also good for your own personal environment: the ambiance created by burning wood in the corner is unbeatable. Don’t listen to these spoilsports who have nothing better to do than sensationalise the normal.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photo courtesy of Vladimir Tatarevic
