The Bedbug Bunk: How the New York Times used fear and misinformation to spread hysteria public library

Get books alerts: sign respond: inspirational
Funny
Typical
Important
Scandalous
Amazing
Innovative
Beautiful
Follow # news_entries # ad_sharebox_260x60 img News: Books

View the Original article

Approach of Crisis: advice for the difficult times of Deepak Chopra

Get own alerts: Sign Up respond: Amazing
Inspirational
Funny
Eng
Hot
Crazy
Important
Weird
Proceed as follows: Death & Dying, life advice, Oprah, Oprah Winfrey network, own their own Network, challenge, challenges, Coping, crisis management, Deepak Chopra, Deepak Chopra, hard times, own experts opinion, tough times, own news # news_entries # ad_sharebox_260x60 img

View the Original article

Portuguese Model murder: Renato Seabra, male Model In Times Square castration killing convicted

In these 3 June 2011 file photo, Renato Seabra appears in State Supreme court in New York (AP Photo/Louis Lanzano, file) get New York alerts: Sign Up: New York, crime, Video, Renato Seabra, murder, Nyc, Portuguese, Portuguese Model Renato Seabra Model kill murder, murder, New York News # news_entries # ad_sharebox_260x60 img

View the Original article

The New York Times, Shale and Editorial Oblivion

News that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has settled on a plan to allow hydraulic fracturing in five counties along the state’s border with Pennsylvania is obviously great news for those counties, many of them starved for the kind of well-paying jobs that come with shale development.

As for New York’s other counties that sit on top of energy-rich shale deposits, Cuomo’s plan raises questions – like this one from Anschutz Exploration’s Tom West, in an interview with Bloomberg:

“As a first step, this may be a way to get past all the hysteria. But if this is a permanent line in the sand, how do you compensate the people on the wrong side of the line?”

Great question. Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, though hardly hysterical, a New York Times editorial on the Cuomo plan is oblivious to some key facts about hydraulic fracturing (following Sunday’s pattern). Which makes you wonder whether the two pieces constitute a kind of passive-aggressive contribution to the news columns’ “war on shale gas.” Thursday’s editorial:

“More than a dozen states have encouraged extensive hydraulic fracturing. But the natural gas industry is poorly regulated, and the environmental risks are real. Reports of air and water pollution elsewhere have raised fear and opposition among many residents who live in New York’s portion of the gas-rich Marcellus Shale formation.”

“Poorly regulated” industry? How about a poorly researched editorial that misses – or worse, leaves out – EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s endorsements of the work states are doing to regulate hydraulic fracturing. We’ve practically got Jackson’s words memorized, but for the Times’ benefit (again), here she is last fall:

“We have no data right now that lead us to believe one way or the other that there needs to be specific federal regulation of the fracking process. … So it's not to say that there isn't a federal role, but you can't start to talk about a federal role without acknowledging the very strong state role.”

Here’s Jackson a couple of days later on MSNBC:

“States are stepping up and doing a good job. It doesn’t have to be EPA that regulates the 10,000 wells that might go in.”

Frankly, if there’s fear bubbling up over hydraulic fracturing in New York, if local questions have morphed into opposition, the Times has had a big hand in it with coverage that’s rife with inaccurate reporting and misrepresentations, collected here. And now two editorials that read like some folks just haven’t been paying attention.

View the original article here

Editorially Speaking, New York Times is Behind the Curve on Shale Gas

Here’s what caught our eye in an otherwise relatively benign New York Times editorial on shale natural gas and hydraulic fracturing:

“For their part, the oil and gas companies — both the ExxonMobils and the mom-and-pops that abound in hydrofracturing — need to drop their warfare against necessary regulations.”

And later:

“Stronger federal rules are plainly needed.”

Last things first: Stronger federal rules? Where has the Times’ editorial board been the occasions when EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has downplayed the notion of federal shale gas regulation overlaying existing state regulation? Here’s Jackson last fall:

“We have no data right now that lead us to believe one way or the other that there needs to be specific federal regulation of the fracking process. … So it's not to say that there isn't a federal role, but you can't start to talk about a federal role without acknowledging the very strong state role.”

And a couple of days later, on MSNBC:

“States are stepping up and doing a good job. It doesn’t have to be EPA that regulates the 10,000 wells that might go in.”

It’s likely Jackson knows there’s not much the feds could add to the competent, efficient oversight that state regulators already are providing. And the Times doesn’t explain what it believes federal regulation – probably duplicative, almost certainly unnecessary – would accomplish.

In fact, industry recognizes the need for regulation. We just believe it’s best handled by the states. That’s why we’ve worked with the states through the STRONGER organization to develop regulatory regimes tailored for their specific circumstances. API and its members also have worked hard to develop industry standards that often form the basis for state regulations – on wellbore integrity, water management, community relations and more. Industry supports disclosure through the FracFocus online chemical registry.

All of the above address the editorial’s other assertion – that energy companies need to “drop their warfare” against regulation. Sorry, but the real warfare here has been waged by the Times in its “Drilling Down” series, a collection of inaccuracies, misrepresentations and manipulations that the Council on Foreign Relations’ Michael Levi dubbed a “war on shale gas.” This has included flawed reporting on mortgages, leases and the economic future of shale gas – at one point drawing a penalty flag from the newspaper’s own ombudsman. 

So, while noting the editorial’s positive points about shale gas, we encourage the newspaper’s editorial board to get up to speed on the good work states are doing to regulate industry activity, as well as industry efforts to get shale gas development right.

View the original article here

Editorially Speaking, New York Times is Behind the Curve on Shale Gas

Here’s what caught our eye in an otherwise relatively benign New York Times editorial on shale natural gas and hydraulic fracturing:

“For their part, the oil and gas companies — both the ExxonMobils and the mom-and-pops that abound in hydrofracturing — need to drop their warfare against necessary regulations.”

And later:

“Stronger federal rules are plainly needed.”

Last things first: Stronger federal rules? Where has the Times’ editorial board been the occasions when EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has downplayed the notion of federal shale gas regulation overlaying existing state regulation? Here’s Jackson last fall:

“We have no data right now that lead us to believe one way or the other that there needs to be specific federal regulation of the fracking process. … So it's not to say that there isn't a federal role, but you can't start to talk about a federal role without acknowledging the very strong state role.”

And a couple of days later, on MSNBC:

“States are stepping up and doing a good job. It doesn’t have to be EPA that regulates the 10,000 wells that might go in.”

It’s likely Jackson knows there’s not much the feds could add to the competent, efficient oversight that state regulators already are providing. And the Times doesn’t explain what it believes federal regulation – probably duplicative, almost certainly unnecessary – would accomplish.

In fact, industry recognizes the need for regulation. We just believe it’s best handled by the states. That’s why we’ve worked with the states through the STRONGER organization to develop regulatory regimes tailored for their specific circumstances. API and its members also have worked hard to develop industry standards that often form the basis for state regulations – on wellbore integrity, water management, community relations and more. Industry supports disclosure through the FracFocus online chemical registry.

All of the above address the editorial’s other assertion – that energy companies need to “drop their warfare” against regulation. Sorry, but the real warfare here has been waged by the Times in its “Drilling Down” series, a collection of inaccuracies, misrepresentations and manipulations that the Council on Foreign Relations’ Michael Levi dubbed a “war on shale gas.” This has included flawed reporting on mortgages, leases and the economic future of shale gas – at one point drawing a penalty flag from the newspaper’s own ombudsman. 

So, while noting the editorial’s positive points about shale gas, we encourage the newspaper’s editorial board to get up to speed on the good work states are doing to regulate industry activity, as well as industry efforts to get shale gas development right.

View the original article here

Editorially Speaking, New York Times is Behind the Curve on Shale Gas

Here’s what caught our eye in an otherwise relatively benign New York Times editorial on shale natural gas and hydraulic fracturing:

“For their part, the oil and gas companies — both the ExxonMobils and the mom-and-pops that abound in hydrofracturing — need to drop their warfare against necessary regulations.”

And later:

“Stronger federal rules are plainly needed.”

Last things first: Stronger federal rules? Where has the Times’ editorial board been the occasions when EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has downplayed the notion of federal shale gas regulation overlaying existing state regulation? Here’s Jackson last fall:

“We have no data right now that lead us to believe one way or the other that there needs to be specific federal regulation of the fracking process. … So it's not to say that there isn't a federal role, but you can't start to talk about a federal role without acknowledging the very strong state role.”

And a couple of days later, on MSNBC:

“States are stepping up and doing a good job. It doesn’t have to be EPA that regulates the 10,000 wells that might go in.”

It’s likely Jackson knows there’s not much the feds could add to the competent, efficient oversight that state regulators already are providing. And the Times doesn’t explain what it believes federal regulation – probably duplicative, almost certainly unnecessary – would accomplish.

In fact, industry recognizes the need for regulation. We just believe it’s best handled by the states. That’s why we’ve worked with the states through the STRONGER organization to develop regulatory regimes tailored for their specific circumstances. API and its members also have worked hard to develop industry standards that often form the basis for state regulations – on wellbore integrity, water management, community relations and more. Industry supports disclosure through the FracFocus online chemical registry.

All of the above address the editorial’s other assertion – that energy companies need to “drop their warfare” against regulation. Sorry, but the real warfare here has been waged by the Times in its “Drilling Down” series, a collection of inaccuracies, misrepresentations and manipulations that the Council on Foreign Relations’ Michael Levi dubbed a “war on shale gas.” This has included flawed reporting on mortgages, leases and the economic future of shale gas – at one point drawing a penalty flag from the newspaper’s own ombudsman. 

So, while noting the editorial’s positive points about shale gas, we encourage the newspaper’s editorial board to get up to speed on the good work states are doing to regulate industry activity, as well as industry efforts to get shale gas development right.

View the original article here