I definitely agree, that's why I watch both Fox and PBS. In reading my comment I see that it was a little ambiguous. I did not mean that the statements from both sides be excluded, I meant that they be included and critiqued after researching their validity and noting the larger context. "Parroting" to me means to echo statements without bothering with their meaning, poor word choice on my part.lpickup wrote:If I had my preference, I'd take reporting of what all sides of an issue are saying versus the editorialized and possibly censored output that some media outlets deliver. Just be sure they let us know what the credentials and possible motivations of the sources are so I can judge for myself how much weight to assign to each viewpoint.padamson1 wrote:I wish reporters still did actual work instead of just calling two sides of an issue on the phone and parroting whatever they heard (from sources with a clear conflict of interest). Whatever happened to thinking about the big picture, checking the facts, and distilling what is correct for the public interest?
So I feel that if the reporter had been doing his job, he would be asking the bigger questions: "Why can't the excess electricity be re-routed elsewhere?", "Couldn't the nearby coal fired plant in Boardman Oregon be shut down in these situations?", "Does PG&E and/or BPA profit more when this situation occurs?". With answers to these questions one can see more about what the underlying issues really are (especially the last one, if they do profit then neither ratepayers nor taxpayers should have to foot the bill. Note that ratepayers are billed extra for Wind power, if PG&E isn't buying it, that's profit).
There may be perfectly valid answers to these questions, but the guy never asked. Nor did he at least prompt his readers to think about these questions or what the quoted statements really mean for them.