Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by SwedishAdvocate, Aug 8, 2014.
You have to see it.
Otherwise you won’t believe it.
Not much to debate. But thanks for an entertaining clip. Is it from the 50's? I'm surprised they didn't smoke cigars brought in by black servant and that they didn't call the female guest honey and slapped her but for a nice finish.
I don't think there was an informed comment during the entire segment, literally and honestly, except for the S being sexy. Totally regardless of the politics of any media outlet, it is just kind of discouraging that such fluff and banter gets broadcast.
If you did you guys didn't know, the Model S "costs $150,000....or whatever" and the Gen 3 goes 300 miles. (The Gen 3 getting 300 miles sounds like a largely misinformed comment, but who knows....Franz, JB, Elon, I'm rooting that you prove the Fox guy right)
I loved the comment that a "hybrid Tahoe" was an oxymoron. I wonder what they would think if someone clued them in that diesel locomotives are hybrids?
Nothing new. Fox makes up everything.
Yeah nothing unexpected from this group of commentators. Consider their audience......
And now, it would seem, you are joining them by this comment. I would certainly agree that this piece is total fluff and not worthy of broadcast "news" coverage, but I think we can over-generalize. I long for years past when news was reported as news without silliness, commentary, or political/social overtones (Cronkite, Brinkley, et al). Now days our "news" is too often just simply another form of entertainment.
Wow, disappointing. I haven't watched TV news for years, but Neil Cavuto used to do a good business show. Non-political and informative. It's all just a race to the bottom now, with people watching Bill O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow (or Jon Stewart, for that matter) to get validated, and then feeling like they're actually informed.
Four people who know nothing about electric cars, sharing their opinions about electric cars. By itself, not too surprising: most people who do business analysis just look at financials, and don't concern themselves with understanding the actual product. But there wasn't even any business analysis in this segment. Just four people ragging on a product they don't personally desire.
The most absurd line of argument went like this: (1) Americans don't like plug-in electric cars; (2) Except the Tesla, which is awesome and sexy; (3) but the Tesla costs $100k and is selling like hotcakes, which clearly proves... people don't want electric cars?
Oh, and it was supposed to be a segment on the new Volt, which was mentioned maybe twice. Everything else was about how Tesla's success proves that there's no market for EVs.
And if you were hoping for better accuracy from CNN, there's this:
Whats Wrong With This Picture? | Zero Hedge
Really, guys? I shudder to think how many CNN staffers looked at this before it went on air and saw nothing amiss.
To me it looks unbelievable that they discussed the matter of electric cars laughing that way. As I said in the Post #1 that originated the thread on Climate Change/Global Warming on TMC this matter is not a matter of a joke.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
Please be serious on the matter of electric cars.
With all due respect, but IMO, what was likely a prank by a disgruntled intern at CNN, does not quite rank at the same level as a 4:40 long segment with vast implications on Man-Made Global Warming…
- - - Updated - - -
Not everything from Bill O’Reilly, Rachel Maddow or Jon Stewart is dead wrong. Most things I can recall watching from Maddow and Stewart have been pretty accurate. With regards to O’Reilly, I’m not the right person to comment.
The question I asked myself when I saw this Cavuto segment about electric cars/hybrids was: How is this possible? And why?
We're all ignorant of something. I'm ignorant of many things. The question is whether or not you have the will to overcome your ignorance. For me, I am constantly trying to challenge my ignorance and test my beliefs vs the weight of the available evidence. If the evidence is strong enough to destroy my current beliefs, I will abandon my beliefs in face of the evidence. I do everything I can to put my personal pride aside, as well any possible prejudice or bias, in favor of a full-hearted pursuit of the truth and nothing but the truth, no matter how shocking, taboo, or depressing that truth may be. In fact, I very much value the times in my life that I was rocked from my foundation on something that I couldn't possibly believe, but had to, because again... the evidence is there.
As for those who would rather stay happily ignorant, can't say I spend much emotional capital on them.
Good thought my friend Tiger. Socrate, an ancient Greek Philosopher, always made his phylosophical thoughts starting from the principle not to have the knowledge. He always started by saying: "I know not to have the knowledge", even if he had the knowledge on the subject that he was going to discuss with somebody else.
IMO we all should be so humble to behave as Socrate when approaching any matter, this way we will manage to listen also to other opinions and consider other evidences that maybe we wouldn't have considered. And we will manage to get closer to the truth.
True. Partisan media are much better at investigative journalism because they have a point to prove. Most of what you see reported by National Review on the one hand, or Mother Jones on the other, is factually correct. Even most of the Daily Show is factually correct. The problem is that the facts are carefully chosen, and collectively create a picture that is at best incomplete, if not outright misleading. If I toss a coin 100 times and only report when it comes up heads, you will get the impression that coins always come up heads. If you then tune to the Tails Channel, you'll be shocked to discover that the other half of the population is obviously being lied to. And unlike the Heads Channel, where smart and thoughtful people come to learn important truths, only suckers and morons actually believe all that Tails Channel propaganda.
My money is on simple incompetence. It's too short a segment, on too obscure a show, to be seriously considered as part of an anti-EV conspiracy. My guess would be that GM's Volt announcement came right before the show was taped, they didn't have time to do real research, so they just winged it. Even so, it's shockingly shoddy non-journalism.
These kinds of vast sweeping generalizations can also easily be outright misleading.
There are facts, and then there are opinions. At my age, I’ve taken a stand on certain core values.
Just like tigerade above however, I’m ready to challenge my (atheist) belief-system if I come upon proven facts that clearly show that I currently am wrong about something.
But as an example, I’m not going to back away from the opinion that the oil within Norway’s borders should be extracted by an entity fully owned by the Norwegian state so that the profit goes equally to the Norwegian citizens, just because some talking head on a screen who’s being paid millions of $$$ annually says that all means of production should be privately owned.
- - - Updated - - -
But regardless, that oil production should of course end ASAP.
Cavuto has been hating on plug-ins in general for years. He is particularly obsessed with the Volt.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/08/23/video-neil-cavutos-bizarre-hatred-for-the-chevy/182259 (From 2011).
That video is full of ridicule of electric cars, which reminded me of this quote:
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi
This is cool.
I kind of like another link, found while reading the link above:
ExxonMobil Finds A Home At Fox News
Now, this makes sense to me; Fox as paid PR arm for ExxonMobil.