Fox News slams Palo Alto Around Town, posted by tammy, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2007 at 10:18 pm
If you saw the "1/2 Hour News Hour" tonight, but they slammed our town by interviewing some expert from here. I'm upset. They pointed out that those CFL blubs, if broken, will emit mercury that will cause brain cancer. Look, I think CFL blubs are the way to stop global warming. I'm really upset. Brain cancer? Is environmentalism a scam? Is it just a big ruse to raise taxes and increae government control over our lives? No, no, no!
Posted by A Resident, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2007 at 6:20 am
The fact that CFL bulbs contain mercury is old news. You have to make up your own mind whether to use them or not. Just dispose of them with your hazardous waste. Climate change is a fact but what Palo Altans are doing or not doing about it isn't going to make any difference. If everyone on the planet gave up driving and we closed down every poluting power plant on earth, now that might make a difference.
Posted by Opinionated, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 19, 2007 at 1:08 am
Not that I would pay any attention to Fox, but apart from containing mercury, CFLs also need significantly more energy to manufacture, are made in a country with severely lacking environmental regulation - and even less respect for human rights. They are shipped across oceans on oil-burning ships, and their energy usage can not be reduced using convenient dimmers.
I tested a few CFLs in my house, but they burned out faster than my regular bulbs. Luckily, it seems that high powered LED bulbs will be taking over in a few years. Maybe then we'll see people switching over more freely.
Posted by Light Headed, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 19, 2007 at 11:35 am
Over Time, CFLs will be replaced by Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs). This will put an end to the disposal problem, although how clean the manufacturing problem is is perhaps an open question.
These devices are a little expensive at the moment, but doubtless that they too will be outsourced to China or India soon, bringing them into the $2-3/device range. These devices use generally around 3-4 watts, so they are almost free to operate.
Walmarts has some CFLs on sale right now for $.74 cents per bulb (75 watt equivalent). This makes them a pretty good replacement for incandescent bulbs, although the light output isn't quite as good.
With cheap LEDs, one could actually increase the light available in the home at virtually no increased cost.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 19, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Clearly there are people who have no clue who Fox News is. I know it is the current fad, but it is amazing to me the comments here that imply that the news station with more listeners than every other news station..combined... is somehow less of a news station than the others. We, in the majority, who listen to Fox NEWS, listen because we know we get everything the other news stations give us..PLUS some of the rest of the story. We actually get to develop our own opinions based on multiple facets of any story, not just the part of the story that fits some template so that our opinions are manipulated out of us.
I can't imagine anyone saying something like "Not that I would pay any attention to CNN, but... I agree with their statement that..blah blah...". Though they should say it! Remember CNN, the "news" agency that promised Saddam to only tell the world what he wanted in order to let their agency stay in Baghdad? And anyone actually trusts that place for news?
What is wrong with you guys? Afraid of true free speech? Why don't you actually try listening to Fox NEWS once in awhile..the NEWS, not necessarily the editorials like O'Reilly. Though I don't care for him at all, I find him horribly arrogant, but at least he doesn't spit the same blather out of the same template all the time, he actually surprises sometimes.
Back to the CFL thing. What is wrong with acknowledging that CFLs are not the be all and end all that some believe them to be? Are we not allowed to, therefore, address the reality that Priuses have real problems with their BATTERIES and the environment because they are better in gas mileage? Come on, folks, this isn't a win-lose, this is a multifaceted ongoing assessment of what is actually useful versus not useful...not about what feels the best!
The BBC has failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff, a report commissioned by the corporation has concluded.
The report claims that coverage of single-issue political causes, such as climate change and poverty, can be biased - and is particularly critical of Live 8 coverage, which it says amounted to endorsement.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 20, 2007 at 7:51 am
Thanks News Junkie!! My estimation of BBC just improved. A little self-honesty is a good thing. Acknowledging their built-in filter is a great first step. Love those Brits and their unflinching ability to tell the truth about themselves! ( Think about Blair's most recent speech)
Let's see what they do with it. Who knows, maybe I will switch from Fox to BBC if they actually start to tell "the rest of the story" in the news. I switched them off the day I heard a reporter say, with a straight face, after a bomb went off in Baghdad, that the Iraqis were not used to this level of violence..after a minimum of over a million dead Iraqis in 20 years from wars, massacres, torture and execution by Saddam! That was the day I knew I was going to get nothing but bias from BBC.
Maybe they will start simply reporting the news without a filter...
Posted by eric, a resident of Mountain View, on Jun 20, 2007 at 10:19 am
The fact that anyone is debating the relative merits of FOX and CNN "news" is really all you need to know about the state of affairs in the media in this country. Both are a joke and an embarassment for different reasons. Might as well be arguing about the nutritional content of McDonalds vs Jack in the Box french fries!
Posted by John, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Jun 21, 2007 at 12:29 pm
The BBC internal investigation, as well as the MSNBC external report ( Web Link ) demonstrate what has been obvious for decades, namely that mainline news organizations are left wing. Talk radio (right wing) is a reaction to this bias.
I think this is fine, as long as we have the means to access news from the biased sources of our own choosing. The interesting little 'secret' is that left wingers and right wingers read and listen to the 'other side', if only to know the 'enemy'. In other words, there is now probably better news coverage, as well as skeptical understanding of the news, compared to the days of Conkrite and Murrow.
There is also the incredible (to me) ability to 'broadcast' the news via the internet. It is a real revolution. We are no longer chained to major media outlets. In fact, they are slowly disappearing (e.g. NY Times).
Many people are now lamenting the lack of cohesion of the current American political scene. For instance, Trent Lott thinks that talk radio must be dealt with; Hillary Clinton complains of a vast right wing conspiracy. I hope we don't take such thoughts seriously.
News IS propaganda. I say get over it, and pick your own bias. But don't forget to read your enemies viewpoint! It is called democracy. The USA democracy has never been stronger.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 21, 2007 at 9:27 pm
One thing that makes the BBC different from most is that it does not depend on advertising for its funding therefore it does not need to worry about ratings. This has made a very big difference because its listeners and watchers are tuned in to discover the news. They have what may be unusual here a system whereby they give news headlines at the beginning of the broadcast rather than teasers. In other words they will say in a couple of sentences what happened and then you can listen for me if it interests you. That is different to the teaser idea here where they give a snippet that often makes something sound a lot more newsworthy than it really was e.g. Come back and find out what Bush said today to this famous person...... when it turns out to be something completely irrelevant.
I honestly believe that a lot of the critics of many of our politicians is really as a result of these teasers that portray something as being totally different from what it really is.
We do need honest news media that is concerned about broadcasting the news as it is, not about ratings and getting their audience to return later to find out the truth. The truth should be given as the headline and the more important the item is the more it should be headlined accurately at the beginning, not the end of the broadcast.
Posted by GetReal, a resident of another community, on Jun 21, 2007 at 11:40 pm
TV "news" is nothing more than entertainment, whether it's in the form of "tarting it up" as Dan Rather said or in the form of all the talking heads out there, led by O'Reilly. Same can be said for "talk is cheap" radio - Limbaugh, Savage, etc. are all just entertainers. If you really want news, read a NEWSPAPER!
Posted by Another Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 22, 2007 at 7:30 am
BBC does not depend on advertising because it is like PBS, tax funded. NO THANKS, I do not trust govt funded news sources, and it is one of the many reasons PBS and BBC and France Channel are so incredibly biased..they do not have to make it on their own merit.
Posted by Another Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 22, 2007 at 7:32 am
What amazes me is that though there are people who extol the virtues of BBC or PBS BECAUSE they are tax-funded and "free" from control, there are others who would be the first to shut down Voice of America ..because it is tax funded and controllable.
Posted by Another Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 22, 2007 at 7:35 am
John, I completely agree with you. I have better news coverage, between the internet, Talk Radio, the SF Comicle, CNN, Fox, and Wall Street Journal than I ever had before. When I compare to France, Spain, Mexico or England( the countries I know best, we have the most access to ALL the news.
I like learning all sides. I do not want to be spoon fed.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 22, 2007 at 9:51 am
BBC is tax funded, but not government congtrolled. Also the tax is voluntary, if you don't own a tv you don't have to pay the licence fee. It is not half and half like pbs which depends on the public pledging and donating money, which in effect means that if the public don't like something that something is dropped. The BBC has long been accredited with being unbiased, particularly the World Service, which like Voice of America is only available outside the country and is the news source for many in parts of the world where their own news sources are definitely controlled by governments.