General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMy youngest son is hopping mad.
Many of the places he used to go on the internet to research the environmental dangers of fracking for natural gas have been changed to declare it safe and also declare natural gas as a clean technology for the future. The EPA and others are for it now. Anybody else experiencing this?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)on political discussion boards, too.
Corporate tentacles run deep.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)that run every half hour on TV woud be enough. Does everything have to be so deeply corrupted?
Robb
(39,665 posts)T Boone knows that well.
Also, easy PR Kung fu move when you own the media. Get ink and airtime for the nuttiest zealots with the wildest claims ("fracking kills babies dead in their cribz!!!" , then have a calm rational discussion about how those claims are silly-- and make sure you ignore the real problems. End result, people get the feeling things are hunky dory.
The fringe always defines the debate. Sometimes that reality gets coopted and the useful idiot paradigm comes into play.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)The web model is great, everyone can get a voice. But it's also easy to cherrypicking the outliers and hold them up as representative.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)Seems to be everything from wikipedia to the EPA. As a frequent visitor to many environmental web sites, he claims they are all being edited or changed.
lookingfortruth
(263 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)SoutherDem
(2,307 posts)When did the EPA start to favor fracking?
But the oil companies are spending tons of money to give themselves a environmentally friendly image. I didn't know the EPA bought this "Brooklyn Bridge".