60 Minutes & Shale Gas Misinformation - Why it matters...
Minute 6:06 is where it all went south. Minute 10:45 is where I laughed out loud. Like an aged rollercoaster that you were foolish enough to hop on. I, however, continued to watch, hoping that it would right itself. But it wasn’t to be. Ms. Stahl, what did we do to you to deserve such “royal treatment?”
You can watch the segment here.
What I won’t do is be overly critical of the landowners who find themselves with polluted drinking water or faulty equipment spewing poison 200 feet away from their living space. However, when you buy land or lease your property, you need to know what you are getting yourself into-that’s just the reality of it. And, indeed, the industry needs to be held accountable when they are at fault. I don’t know too many arguing this point.
Let’s just get this out of the way; the segment was wrongly titled. Rather than “Shaleionaires,” a more appropriate title would have been, “Shale Gas: The Greed, the Industry & the Ugly.” If you thought, “Shaleionaires” indicated that it would be a positive segment, or at least 51% positive, boy were you fooled!
What was missed was an opportunity to open up many people to the wonders of natural gas and the role it can play in freeing us from Middle East oil. You know; those people who want to kill us. Rather, CBS utilized classic fear mongering that would make Gasland proud. They even evoked those boogey-words that bring fear into the heart of every New Yorker – Cheney, Halliburton…Hydrocarbons. Boo!
BTW, where are the independent experts CBS? Well spoken they may be, but oil and gas CEOs don’t exactly usher in soft fuzzies. I can already see the preview for next week’s 60 Minutes; “Exxon’s CEO advocates for the combustible engine.” By making a CEO the main advocate for natural gas, CBS is saying, “There are no independent people that can make the argument for natural gas.” And, “We are going to pit the industry against the people that really care- the environmentalists.” Of course, we know natural gas can win this debate if given equal footing.
What can also get lost in the excitement are the facts or the other side of the story? In what may have been the most malicious act of omission, Lesley Stahl affirmatively states, “the EPA has just begun to study the effects of Hydraulic Fracturing.” What? Did someone from CBS not come across the 2004 Study on Hydraulic Fracturing? If there are questions regarding the study that make it not credible, then that is one thing, but to communicate that fracking has never been looked at is simply misleading.
Some I have spoken with have said that, “people won’t really pay attention.” But I disagree. Mass media has influence. 13 million is a big audience. Perhaps not big enough to alter U.S. energy policy, shape geopolitics, or rewrite science, but big enough to make our jobs of public education a lot harder.
Add a Comment
-
Comment by wilie on November 19, 2010 at 9:22
-
If you thought 60 minutes and CBS would do anything other than a hit piece on the Haynesville Shale you are either a progressive or have not been paying attention to the MSM for the past 50 years....
-
Comment by jffree1 on November 19, 2010 at 9:19
-
@Keith
I don't think I voiced an opinion either way. I only pointed out that the other guys seemed to object to it as much as we do.
-
-
Y'all might like this article: http://thedailyreview.com/opinion/the-gas-boom-be-smart-about-what-...
It looks at "Gasland" and 60 minutes, both, and even gives a plug to "Haynesville"...
"The two presentations are notable for vastly different reasons. One show, "Gasland," was a long, muck-raking polemic, peppered with sensationalism, emotionalism, and distortions. The other was a much shorter, balanced and informative news report that recognized the economic value of the gas boom while responsibly acknowledging there are risks and problems."
"If you want a relatively quick overview of the natural gas phenomenon, watch the 60 Minutes program. And by way of contrast, see "Gasland" and learn for yourself the difference between a responsible report and a hatchet job.
And, to underscore that "60 minutes" does not have a monopoly on responsible video presentations about this controversial topic, consider another documentary called "Haynesville," by filmmaker Gregory Kallenberg."
-
Comment by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 19, 2010 at 8:37
-
@Dick O'Donnell - How about the Medal of Honor recipient? They didn't butcher him. lol. No that is a good point - they are semi-investigative repoters. @jffree1 - I don't see how anyone could watch that and say that it was favorable to the natural gas industry. Was it radical, no. But favorable it wasn't either.
-
Comment by Bob Tucker on November 19, 2010 at 8:27
-
60 Minutes is a lot like Heraldo Revia, if you need a story send him out, he will make one. This looks like an ambush/hatchet job to me. I quit watching this crap years ago and get my news from Fox or the internet to keep from getting the socialist, liberal point of view. If enough of you will email CBS and complain, Ms Stahl will be up to her bony butt in "hot oil."
-
-
I just need to inject that the "other side" is just blasting away at Ms. Stahl on numerous "green" blogs for jumping on the Natural Gas bandwagon. So, it depends on which side you are on as to how this piece has been recieved. So, who's side did she really choose?
-
Comment by Love Horizontals on November 19, 2010 at 7:40
-
What is needed is a fair and objective documentary on Natural Gas. If the lamestream media wants to jump on a fossil fuel, then there is no dispute coal is the Darth Vador of the industry while Natural Gas is its Cinderella...and oil in between. Clean coal is a total joke...coal can be cleaner, yes.....but it will never be as clean as natural gas. If anyone thought the 60 Min piece was going to be anything other than what it was...you have been living in la la land. Dont be fooled that this piece didnt hurt......it provided a source of info to fuel the fire of others. It is all they need for their talking points. The biggest problem with these misleading stories is that they are not challenged with an offsetting story.....so they are the one that forms the opinion for most Americans not as knowledgeable about the industry as we are. The negative is out there to stay with no offset.
-
Comment by essay on November 19, 2010 at 7:36
-
keith you're right it does matter, but some people just can't be helped, and i suspect that many of 60minutes viewers had already gotten plenty of negative propaganda about shale gas from other sources before the show even began production.
-
Comment by Cactus on November 19, 2010 at 7:34
-
Well put Keith. My thoughts exactly!
-
Comment by Dick O'Donnell on November 19, 2010 at 7:12 -
I certainly agree with your observations regarding the "60 Minutes" piece. However, we should never forget that the "60 Minutes" slant is ALWAYS on the negative aspect of whatever story they are covering.
You will never see them do a piece on Mother Theresa. Their audience is conditioned to an unbalanced storyline that stimulates a controversy. People will view this story and relate to it depending on their point of view. Fortunately the "shelf life " of a typical piece is only one week. Next week they start over again on some other issue.
Dick O'Donnell
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Rusk County
97 members
-
Vernon Parish
59 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
399 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
242 members
-
Sabine County, Texas
172 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
Cass County, TX
118 members
-
Angelina County, TX
87 members
-
Titus County
10 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
You need to be a member of GoHaynesvilleShale.com to add comments!
Join GoHaynesvilleShale.com