Fox "News"? Or do you mean Fix "Views". This is the network that asked embedded Iraqi reporters what questions it was acceptable for Fax to ask...weak.

Fox does have some reach, but that's mostly into the hearts and minds of households whose genetic package will be selected of existance out by a general failure to adapt.

The worst things that could have happened would have been for Fox to agree with what PA is doing; that would have made me suspect.

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.

"Fox does have some reach, but that's mostly into the hearts and minds of households whose genetic package will be selected of existance out by a general failure to adapt."

Yoda, you came back!

Valter, There is no "try", there is only "do".

Yes master. Like our Council, I shall close my eyes and let the force guide me. Forgive me for doubting.

Palo Alto must be doing something right if Fox News, the conservative PR channel, felt compelled enough to "slam" us.

Ha. Keep up the good work Palo Alto!

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.

Oh, and CFLs are not accepted in curbside recycling, nor at Green Citizen. How many end up in the trash instead of at the baylands recycling center?

Palo Alto Hardware, among others, will take dead CFLs off your hands and recycle them. Just ask.

Ah, Palo Alto in all its glory. We can save the planet without making any actual sacrifice! CFL Bulbs are our salvation!! Send someone down the block in the Humvee to buy a case, quick!

Valter:

[Luke:] "I can’t believe it". [Yoda:] "That is why you fail" :)

Only a debate to the finish between Yoriko Kishimoto and Bill O'Reilly can restore our municipal honor. I hereby throw down the gauntlet on her behalf.

Comrade, Your courage will be measured by your presence, as a second, in case the Mayor is taking lessons in how to use the Force.

She already moves the council with no visible connection to reality. I feel a quaver in the force when the council meets.

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.

Time to push LEDs -- not CFLs!

Help us, Help me, Obi-Wan Wallis; you're our only hope. ;) Perhaps a special Monday evening tutelege for the Mayor?

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.

Jeesh!!

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!

Resident, Yoda suggests you read this Web Link

then, please understand that it is folly to label anything that Fox produces "news"

please go ask Iraqi embedded reporters how Fox news reporters _requested permission_ to ask certain questions.

your naivete about Fox is further proof that there is a somewhat lower level of critical awareness among loyal Fox viewers, of which you claim to be one...

So, the next time you hear the myth about Fox outpacing CNN (also a pretty lame network, btw), try to do some research and get your facts straight, instead ofo believing more Fox propaganda

Jeesh!

Resident seems to believe that "free speech" means that it is mandatory to listen and pay attention to any corporate propaganda channel out there. Jeesh!

And no, I have not been paying attention to CNN either after their disgusting coverage of the gulf invasion in 1991. Was that very unconstitutional of me?

Enough of Fox News and CNN try BBC not the American version but the international one, at least you somewhat get some tiny bit of unbiased news.

> try BBC not the American version but the international one,
> at least you somewhat get some tiny bit of unbiased news.

Excuse me .. but did you read the report which has been issued by the BBC, itself, admitting to being institutionally biased, which came out this week?
---
Web Link

BBC report finds bias within corporation

By Gary Cleland
Last Updated: 1:09am BST 18/06/2007

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.
----

If you can only watch one source of news, watch Leno. Even then, the news is what they do, not what they say.

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...

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!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Let me choose my news,thanks

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.

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.

I only look and listen to BBC News, DW News and Russia Today. Forget the U.S. Network newcasts - all of them. I need to get a world view of what is going on. But, everyone to their own choice!!!

The problem with the "world view" of what is going on without the "US" view of what is going on is the same as getting news about Russia from US news...incomplete.

I read all sides.

I'm frightened to read that anyone actually believes that Fox is an actual news source. Beam me up, quick!

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?