The secret here is they only investigate the things that support their narrative. In this article they actually explicitly stated they're looking to cover a specific list of negative things associated with the industry. They would not, for example, publish an article about how much lower our standard of living would be without the industry. Or to attempt to weigh the positives adjust the negatives of the industry.
So you can always publish "gold standard" journalism and yet still present a distorted version of the truth.
So you can get information from multiple well researched sources. This is one of them. Don't expect anyone to do all the work.
"You're not publishing full investigative journalism articles on absolutely everything." is not a valid criticism of your article, or a reasonable criticism of the publisher.
Yes, this type of criticism is baffling and, frankly, a bit morally outrageous.
ProPublica can't be expected to do all the work of uncovering all sides of the truth. They already do the hardest work: uncovering what the powerful would rather that we not know. They do enough; what are the rest of us doing?
I would agree that it's historically been uncommon for the media to give balanced perspective on civilizational progress, but some good sources for this have emerged in recent years. One of my favorites is Works in Progress magazine: https://worksinprogress.co/
I mean in that case there is nobody engaged in journalism! You choose what you cover, and who you interview, and how much you spend hemming on a source's claims, etc etc etc.
It's a lot easier to think about journalism as the result of human output that is indeed biased towards certain ideas, and to then read from various things, look into things yourself, or reading things from outlets that you believe have your interests at heart.
Expecting one group to collect all the info and present a pro/con list is gonna be very hard, but if you just check out a handful of outfit's coverage on something you might get a good enough picture to apply some judgement.
The motte: nobody is perfectly neutral, so no journalism can be perfectly objective. (true)
The bailey: it is normal and reasonable for journalists to present a biased narrative without even attempting to find or mention relevant information that would contradict it. (false)
Objectivity is an ideal that, while impossible to perfectly achieve, can certainly be done better or worse, and is important for journalists to think about if they want the trust of the public.
I only really see this as a relevant objection if the "omitted" information is such that it distorts what is actually presented. Is that the accusation? Or are they "biased" because they didn't publish this next to a counterpoint about how wonderful internal combustion engines are?
Emotional manipulation by only presenting a view which aligns with your desired policy outcomes — but not the contrast, eg that ICEs enable modern farming — is classic propaganda technique.
I'd add manipulation by picking phrasing you want to though... Like "ICEs enable modern farming". Machines/vehicles are one of the things that enable modern farming, it's ICE that's currently the most common power source for them - but ICE is just one implementation of it and can be replaced.
Why does an investigative reporter need to tell me that fossil fuels can be used to operate a tractor? We knew that already. No investigation is required.
the actual secret is that this misguided line of reasoning is unfortunately abused by those who wish to suppress arbitrary journalism they dislike, or the concept of professional journalism in general, because as you say, such criticism would mean journalism doesn't actually exist
I mean that's just plain false. Think of how much time any one meaty investigative report takes; nobody has the time or resources to then turn around and carefully make sure they do some sort of counterbalancing expose that's somehow pro-industry (and what's the point of an expose? They employ many PR people for that purpose anyway).
You don't need to take their comment seriously... After all they didn't make the counterargument and therefore it's a overly biased point and thus not useful in any way.
That's why as an individual you're supposed to get your news from multiple high quality sources, each with their own biases and slants, and then you make your own conclusion. I realize most people only want to read news that supports their already held beliefs though.
> You’re not engaged in journalism if you only investigate and present a narrative which aligns with your policy preferences.
where did you hear this silly rule? It sounds like something a child would make up when they don't want to hear something
>they don’t overtly lie or fabricate data to support their case... that’s true of many propaganda outfits.
another thing which is true of "many" propaganda outlets is they don't literally give you cancer, and that is an observation exactly as discerning as yours, because they are both also true of "many" truthful media outlets
if you have an issue with the specific article, or the facts alleged within, that's one thing, but the facts not reflecting well on your viewpoint and you being upset they aren't reporting other things which would make you feel better, is not a criticism of them
I feel that the "pro-"extractive industry side of things has so much obvious monetary incentive behind it that it isn't really necessary to worry about independent reporters not adequately presenting it.
The whole article is about what would happen without the California oil industry: it would cost the people 21.5 billion dollars to clean up the industrial operations of that industry.
They wouldn’t in the case of California oil production because it’s long past peak and would have little impact if it went poof.
In general, these companies have made enough money that they are insulated from any meaningful punitive action. “Polluting Oil Well 32668 of Los Angeles, LLC” will go bankrupt if sued and disappear once it becomes untenable.
That’s no secret, and being the HN Lorax for oil extraction is both bizarre and a futile effort - the die is cast, and taxpayers will be stuck with the bill.
Not the US, but I gained some insights into the legal treatment of industrial polution in Germany after working at two chemical companies. Over simplified, the last one to turn the lights off in a certain industrial site is stuck with the bill of cleaning up the mess. Decades upon decades worth of mess. Those sites are, by now, multi user sights, it is the users who are responsible for clean-up and costs, not the site owning entity.
The result is, some of the sites are kept at minimum operations just to avoid the tremendous shut-down costs.
Avoiding those costs by spining the operations off doesn't really work. The new entity would have to take the risk of shut-down costs, if it is clear those cannot be covered from the get go, it is the original entity that is in the hook. So, worst case, e.g. 3M wpupd have to declare bancruptcy. One common work around is to push those outdated operations down to other cheap skate companies, e.g. from Asia, who can buy them, including clean-up liabilities, for a symbolic price. Then they extract whatever value is left, before reselling it again. As long the overall site, or rather park, is operational this works. Which is bad for the last operator left, he risks being stuck with the bill.
By the way, those costs for clean up are accounted for as potential liabilies in the balance sheets of operating companies. Just putting everything in seperate legal entity, and letting that one go bankcrupt, doesn't really work. Which is a good thing, IMHO.
I’m sure that’s the case, but wouldn’t the courts be able to seize the relevant land in that case, too? Or pass some special blanket law stating any site that requires the government pay for clean up reverts to public (government) ownership?
At least in that case the government gets a lot of land back that can be sold for solar farms or, in higher density areas like Los Angeles, developed into higher uses like housing+parks?
Skipping oil and going to power generation, you have the same thing. Spin off the power generator, leave it with no money, the land has negative value, go bankrupt. This has happened in Oxnard for example, and the city is trying to not have it happen again (good luck).
So you can always publish "gold standard" journalism and yet still present a distorted version of the truth.