Power company money flows to news sites that attack their critics(npr.org)
npr.org
Power company money flows to news sites that attack their critics
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/19/1143753129/power-companies-florida-alabama-media-investigation-consulting-firm
90 comments
Regardless of the racism argument, it seems obvious to me that NEM 2.0 is forcing those who can't afford a solar system to purchase overpriced power from those who can.
I wish we'd just charge/pay people the instantaneous market rate of power. And at noon on a sunny summer day in California, the market rate should be pretty close to zero. Nowadays, the grid needs more storage and peaking generation than it does more solar panels, so we should stop artificially incentivizing rooftop solar panels.
I wish we'd just charge/pay people the instantaneous market rate of power. And at noon on a sunny summer day in California, the market rate should be pretty close to zero. Nowadays, the grid needs more storage and peaking generation than it does more solar panels, so we should stop artificially incentivizing rooftop solar panels.
Fun fact, you can do this in Australia and see/pay the instantaneous cost of energy. At noon it often goes negative. So you can get paid to consume!
Edit - link to the dashboard
https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-elec...
Edit - link to the dashboard
https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-elec...
So I'm wiring up 200A of resistive heaters and trying to net my monthly power usage by making Australia even hotter (insofarasmuchas that's possible) with 48kW of space heaters. Seems fun.
I remember asking a friend - how should solar panels face the sun to get the maximum efficiency?
(I was thinking there must be a way to get the maximum number of kwh out of a day)
He said "You don't orient the panels for the sun, you orient them for PG&E!"
in other words, dump kwh and face them where the sun is at 3 pm onwards
(guess they used regulatory-capture to soak everyone again so even that doesn't matter)
(I was thinking there must be a way to get the maximum number of kwh out of a day)
He said "You don't orient the panels for the sun, you orient them for PG&E!"
in other words, dump kwh and face them where the sun is at 3 pm onwards
(guess they used regulatory-capture to soak everyone again so even that doesn't matter)
"It seems obvious to me that investor-owned utilities were forcing those who can't afford to own and operate a natural-gas power plant to purchase overpriced power from those who can..."
Are you sure it's just that as more solar comes online, less natural gas gets burned and so profits for the investor-owned utility drop, while the price for electricity remains the same?
Are you sure it's just that as more solar comes online, less natural gas gets burned and so profits for the investor-owned utility drop, while the price for electricity remains the same?
I doubt that commercial generators are making anywhere close to 22 cents a kilowatt hour at noon on a sunny summer day. They'll turn on their gas turbines later in the day when solar output has dropped and the instantaneous market rate increases.
Homeowners should be paid lots of money if they can produce power at peak demand times, incentivizing the installation of storage. This is what it will take if we really want to turn down the natural gas generators.
Homeowners should be paid lots of money if they can produce power at peak demand times, incentivizing the installation of storage. This is what it will take if we really want to turn down the natural gas generators.
My power goes directly into my neighbor's meter. The power company charges my neighbor the full rate for my power. They pay me almost nothing. Pure fucking profit.
Wasn’t one of the companies in Texas doing that, which is how people ended up with bills in the thousands?
https://theconversation.com/amp/whats-behind-15-000-electric...
https://theconversation.com/amp/whats-behind-15-000-electric...
I want to program my electric car to charge whenever the instantaneous market rate is below $0.10/kwH. If the instantaneous market rate of power goes above $1/kwH, I want my air conditioner to shut off. If everyone else did the same thing, the price would never get much above that.
Shielding people from the realities of supply and demand is what leads to overconsumption. Give them tools to control their consumption based on true market rates and everything will sort itself out.
Shielding people from the realities of supply and demand is what leads to overconsumption. Give them tools to control their consumption based on true market rates and everything will sort itself out.
Off topic: There was an ad that tried to make fun of green energy by having the Eiffel Tower converted to a wind turbine. The ad stated that even that will not be enough. I believe the company was Shell. Does anyone have a link to that ad?
Your link is from a trade association made up of Solar power interests. How is that any less biased?
You can’t look at bias vs non-bias (it would be nice, but capitalism makes it almost impossible to be unbiased).
Instead you have to look at the power disparity between sides, and whether you trust the values of each group.
Instead you have to look at the power disparity between sides, and whether you trust the values of each group.
NPR is going a great job with this. Another interesting report they have is at National Public Media (which receives corp sponsors for NPR, PBS, etc):
How do brands establish trust? A ground-breaking new study from NPR and Neuro-Insight explores how a platform can transfer its trustworthiness to sponsors, what the subconscious can tell us about purchase intent and the effectiveness of NPR radio sponsorship vs. commercial TV news.
https://www.nationalpublicmedia.com/insights/
How do brands establish trust? A ground-breaking new study from NPR and Neuro-Insight explores how a platform can transfer its trustworthiness to sponsors, what the subconscious can tell us about purchase intent and the effectiveness of NPR radio sponsorship vs. commercial TV news.
https://www.nationalpublicmedia.com/insights/
It’s probably not just power companies. I would be surprised if Wall Street firms and other large industries didn’t also do this practice.
https://www.openculture.com/2014/09/conspiracy-theory-rock.h...
Media bias is a big problem.
https://www.openculture.com/2014/09/conspiracy-theory-rock.h...
Media bias is a big problem.
How could media bias be a problem in a free market like the USA? Obviously all consumers will simply stop consuming news media that gets sponsored by big evil corporations and only support those who advocate for free open truth.
Wait, what do you mean every major news organization in the US is owned by billionaires or media conglomerates, dang, we didn't free market hard enough.
Wait, what do you mean every major news organization in the US is owned by billionaires or media conglomerates, dang, we didn't free market hard enough.
Adam Smith was pretty clear that monopolies were antithetical to what he called a free market. If consumers had a choice, they'd consume different news, under his theory. But the market is captured by a small handful of billionaires. The US is not a free market.
I guess the problem is that monopolies naturally form in a completely unrestricted market. So to make Adam Smith's free market, some kind of restrictions are required. But a lot of people think a "free market" is one with few restrictions.
Either way what we really have is capture of the government by a wealthy elite, and what they try to use the government for is to socialize risks and privatize profits. Whatever pure theories there are out there and no matter how much sense they make, the practical effects of private wealth concentration is elite control of the government.
Either way what we really have is capture of the government by a wealthy elite, and what they try to use the government for is to socialize risks and privatize profits. Whatever pure theories there are out there and no matter how much sense they make, the practical effects of private wealth concentration is elite control of the government.
Whether this would be possible under a more sophisticated implementation of democracy seems like a useful thing to contemplate, but we shan't discuss modifying our most sacred institution, as only far right Russian trolls think of such things as we all well know from our training courses.
The freedom of "Free market" was _freedom from economic rent_
not 'free of all restrictions'
not 'free of all restrictions'
What? Wikipedia, the Oxford English Dictionary, and nearly every informal conversation I've ever had on the subject all agree that "free market" means free of restriction, not free of rent. In practice, of course, free of "restriction" means chock-full of business entities squatting on each and every rent opportunity, strip-mining the market for maximum extraction and paying off the political establishment to keep the hustle going. I would love to live in a world that believed in freedom from economic rent, but nobody with any power interprets "free market" in that way.
I think they mean "to the government." Because no matter how badly megacorps treat people, folks still think that privatization of everything is the panacea.
London was founded as a trade port where, in exchange for military protection and market advantages, you pay tax and more tax and yet another tax -- if I understand it. There are theories of law and commerce that extend from that.
What people really want when they says "free markets" are competitive markets first, and free markets second. If we have freedom at the expense of competition, we'll end up with neither.
The most "free" markets are not the ones with the least regulation, as some might presume, but the ones with just right amount of regulation.
The most "free" markets are not the ones with the least regulation, as some might presume, but the ones with just right amount of regulation.
Even Milton Friedman said that prevention of monopolies was a legitimate and even necessary cause for government intervention, in order to preserve the free market.
Free market ≠ corporate capitalism. At least it didn’t use to be. Free market rhetoric is almost always using small businesses in their story telling, in which there is a lot of competition and an implicit level field. How to handle the vast concentration of power and wealth is basically outside the scope of most of these theorizers, which is unfortunate because it’s our biggest practical issue, imo.
Free market ≠ corporate capitalism. At least it didn’t use to be. Free market rhetoric is almost always using small businesses in their story telling, in which there is a lot of competition and an implicit level field. How to handle the vast concentration of power and wealth is basically outside the scope of most of these theorizers, which is unfortunate because it’s our biggest practical issue, imo.
>Adam Smith was pretty clear that monopolies were antithetical to what he called a free market... The US is not a free market.
The last time I pointed out the above in DC, I was called a communist and literally hounded out of the bar. (What is it with people who don't understand economics often also wanting to abuse the label of "service animal"? Someone should commission a study IMHO.)
The last time I pointed out the above in DC, I was called a communist and literally hounded out of the bar. (What is it with people who don't understand economics often also wanting to abuse the label of "service animal"? Someone should commission a study IMHO.)
Monopolies are to free markets like evil/incompetent dictators are to socialism: they might not be a core tenant of the philosophy, they may even be antithetical to the core tenants of the philosophy, but they sure seem to be encouraged by the practical mechanics of the philosophy.
It's almost as though large, powerful organisations will fight to protect their own positions within a market segment, whether they are private or government entities.
A substack supporter then?
At least there’s a choice with capitalism. Not to mention that we can consume foreign media if we wish. With socialism there’s only one choice and power is much more concentrated. Like capitalism, socialism isn’t immune to corruption. The difference is the much greater concentration of power in one place for socialism which exacerbates the problem of corruption.
I don’t deny that we’re either experiencing or about to experience late stage capitalism, but socialism tends to hit the late stage much faster as we’ve seen in the 20th century.
I don’t deny that we’re either experiencing or about to experience late stage capitalism, but socialism tends to hit the late stage much faster as we’ve seen in the 20th century.
> With socialism there’s only one choice and power is much more concentrated
What makes you think that? I'm pretty sure socialism is an economic system not a political one
What makes you think that? I'm pretty sure socialism is an economic system not a political one
Socialism is an economic system where the central government owns and controls all production and all distribution of everything. There is no private ownership in that system. If you want choice, that’s capitalism.
Both systems in the theoretical limits will result in zero choice, as the govt consumes all choice in one and in the other the most efficient player marginalizes out all less efficient players (i.e. Amazon basic products slowly taking over all generic products due to their scale).
Just gotta fingers cross that kings and billionaires keep being low key foolish and somehow destroying their monopolization on power so we don't live in a hell world
Just gotta fingers cross that kings and billionaires keep being low key foolish and somehow destroying their monopolization on power so we don't live in a hell world
I agree. My point is that socialism is not a panacea, and it’s affected even more by corruption due to the extreme centralization of power.
Yeah, the main thing I dislike about capitalism is how weak our say is about the corruption. Like we can watch insurance companies fuck us on the daily and people will genuinely act like it's their divine right to minimize cost at the expense of human life, because it unironically is, we are reduced to the place of dogs. At least in a state run system (with a functional democracy underlying) you're anger can be manifested in a changing of the state. Getting a functional democracy going is also it's own impossible problem though...
It’s actually much worse in socialism because one entity controls literally everything. Corruption doesn’t disappear in a socialist system. It actually spreads faster and is more virulent because there is no separation of powers. Just imagine a CEO of everything and substitute it for your insurance company example.
I would also argue that democracy is inherently incompatible with socialism due to this extreme centralization of power. The proof lies with multiple failed experiments in the 20th century. Socialism isn’t some new, radical idea anymore. We know what late stage socialism looks like.
I would also argue that democracy is inherently incompatible with socialism due to this extreme centralization of power. The proof lies with multiple failed experiments in the 20th century. Socialism isn’t some new, radical idea anymore. We know what late stage socialism looks like.
i would argue the exact opposite. socialism, in its best form, is more democratic than capitalism. socialism != a CEO that controls everything. you put strong democratic systems in place to prevent the CEO or dictator. your insurance company is controlled by all the workers rather than a CEO, and they get to make decisions about the business, etc. there are a ton of permutations for how socialism can function and many of them aren't what the red scare leads everybody to believe. the 20th century failures were more like dictatorships than socialism.
socialism is all about how you organize a business by giving workers control, rather than organizing with the employer/employee relationship in capitalism. the workers can vote for a CEO to make the big decisions if they want, or a creative director to design or whatever, but they can also have the power to fire that individual if they don't think they're doing a good job.
and to your point about centralized control — we already have that with a ton of industries in america. we already have it for the US military, etc. seeing capitalism as the free market and socialism as a planned economy is a false dichotomy.
socialism is all about how you organize a business by giving workers control, rather than organizing with the employer/employee relationship in capitalism. the workers can vote for a CEO to make the big decisions if they want, or a creative director to design or whatever, but they can also have the power to fire that individual if they don't think they're doing a good job.
and to your point about centralized control — we already have that with a ton of industries in america. we already have it for the US military, etc. seeing capitalism as the free market and socialism as a planned economy is a false dichotomy.
Your whole argument isn’t grounded in reality or history.
”socialism, in its best form, is more democratic than capitalism. socialism != a CEO that controls everything… you put strong democratic systems in place to prevent the CEO or dictator.”
No, it is not more democratic than capitalism. You have one entity controlling all manufacturing and distribution. There is no competition. There are no other competing entities with competing powers. A free press doesn’t exist in a socialist state because there’s only a state press. There’s no independent press to check on the government and report back to the masses.
”your insurance company is controlled by all the workers rather than a CEO”
That’s called a small co-op, and that can exist in a capitalist system. That cannot exist in socialism because there’s only one entity, the state. Not even large co-ops that span more than one building can function like this
“the 20th century failures were more like dictatorships than socialism.”
This is a bad argument. Using your logic, I can say what we have now isn’t capitalism because we have lots of regulatory capture and corruption. “It’s more like cronyism.”
If we’re being honest. It’s still capitalism, just like all the failed experiments in the 20th century are still socialism. The reason why socialism devolves into communism is because of the extreme centralization of power.
“socialism is all about how you organize a business by giving workers control, rather than organizing with the employer/employee relationship in capitalism. the workers can vote for a CEO to make the big decisions if they want, or a creative director to design or whatever, but they can also have the power to fire that individual if they don't think they're doing a good job.”
No, it isn’t. That is idealist fantasy. It’s like saying in a democracy, the citizens vote on everything. We do not. The masses elect representatives to act as proxies. Similarly, in socialism the masses also have representatives or leaders. Why? Efficiency. Of course, this is a vector for corruption. Also, unlike in a capitalist system, there’s no competition to the state (no checks or balances from competing powers: private vs public), which greatly magnifies the effects of corruption.
“and to your point about centralized control — we already have that with a ton of industries in america. we already have it for the US military, etc. seeing capitalism as the free market and socialism as a planned economy is a false dichotomy.”
And to your point, I can come right back and say that capitalism can fix our current mess because what we have right now is not ideologically pure, theoretical capitalism /s
…just as you refuse to acknowledge the pile of failed 20th century collectivist experiments as socialist.
”socialism, in its best form, is more democratic than capitalism. socialism != a CEO that controls everything… you put strong democratic systems in place to prevent the CEO or dictator.”
No, it is not more democratic than capitalism. You have one entity controlling all manufacturing and distribution. There is no competition. There are no other competing entities with competing powers. A free press doesn’t exist in a socialist state because there’s only a state press. There’s no independent press to check on the government and report back to the masses.
”your insurance company is controlled by all the workers rather than a CEO”
That’s called a small co-op, and that can exist in a capitalist system. That cannot exist in socialism because there’s only one entity, the state. Not even large co-ops that span more than one building can function like this
“the 20th century failures were more like dictatorships than socialism.”
This is a bad argument. Using your logic, I can say what we have now isn’t capitalism because we have lots of regulatory capture and corruption. “It’s more like cronyism.”
If we’re being honest. It’s still capitalism, just like all the failed experiments in the 20th century are still socialism. The reason why socialism devolves into communism is because of the extreme centralization of power.
“socialism is all about how you organize a business by giving workers control, rather than organizing with the employer/employee relationship in capitalism. the workers can vote for a CEO to make the big decisions if they want, or a creative director to design or whatever, but they can also have the power to fire that individual if they don't think they're doing a good job.”
No, it isn’t. That is idealist fantasy. It’s like saying in a democracy, the citizens vote on everything. We do not. The masses elect representatives to act as proxies. Similarly, in socialism the masses also have representatives or leaders. Why? Efficiency. Of course, this is a vector for corruption. Also, unlike in a capitalist system, there’s no competition to the state (no checks or balances from competing powers: private vs public), which greatly magnifies the effects of corruption.
“and to your point about centralized control — we already have that with a ton of industries in america. we already have it for the US military, etc. seeing capitalism as the free market and socialism as a planned economy is a false dichotomy.”
And to your point, I can come right back and say that capitalism can fix our current mess because what we have right now is not ideologically pure, theoretical capitalism /s
…just as you refuse to acknowledge the pile of failed 20th century collectivist experiments as socialist.
nice cherry picked rebuttal. you missed a big point that there are tons of variations of how socialism can work. i define socialism as a way to organize a business where the workers control the business. that isn't capitalism and yes, you're right, it's closer to a co-op. i define capitalism where an owner (or owners) control the business and they employee workers who have little or no control over the business. if we can't agree on those definitions then there's really no point in nitpicking each other's arguments.
> How could media bias be a problem in a free market like the USA?
Every media is biased. The free market solution is to allow anyone to be a media company, so the various viewpoints are available.
> we didn't free market hard enough
You being free to post your views here is evidence the free market is working.
Every media is biased. The free market solution is to allow anyone to be a media company, so the various viewpoints are available.
> we didn't free market hard enough
You being free to post your views here is evidence the free market is working.
The free market vision you are deriding is failing because of government licensing and law making. Only certain outlets are licensed to print news. And laws are written to prevent what are perceived to be slanderous rumours. This is to say, information is not actually free. And free movement of information is essential for a free market.
I also think that implicit in what you state, is a request for greater governance to manage the free market.
If you ask me, what you really want is less government oversight.
You may respond to say that we will be run by robber barons, if we have even less oversight, or free information.
To which I would respond that we are already run by (the worst) robber barons who currently maintain their control via their control of the governance apparatus, and the illusion many hold that we have anything like a free market. It's just that we are suffering under our illusion so much, that we don't even recognise the problem!
If you ask me, we actually live under a form of disguised fascism, where governments and corporations work together and pretend we have democracy and a free market. They use their mouth pieces (media, education) to misinform us.
I also think that implicit in what you state, is a request for greater governance to manage the free market.
If you ask me, what you really want is less government oversight.
You may respond to say that we will be run by robber barons, if we have even less oversight, or free information.
To which I would respond that we are already run by (the worst) robber barons who currently maintain their control via their control of the governance apparatus, and the illusion many hold that we have anything like a free market. It's just that we are suffering under our illusion so much, that we don't even recognise the problem!
If you ask me, we actually live under a form of disguised fascism, where governments and corporations work together and pretend we have democracy and a free market. They use their mouth pieces (media, education) to misinform us.
For those interested, the Energy and Policy Institute follows these kinds of moves, and their newsletter is informative.
https://www.energyandpolicy.org/
https://www.energyandpolicy.org/
This is an important subject - there is something deeply rotten in the utility world in the South. There are a bunch of stories you wouldn't think are connected, but all have major utilities in the background. From 'fake news' sites set up to smear candidates, to huge bribes paid via nonprofits, to sham candidates backed by the utility running in close elections, to capital plans that include hundreds of millions of dollars in case of snow in Miami.. I really hope the FBI is working on this;
* Ex-Florida senator charged in fake candidate scheme (https://apnews.com/article/miami-senate-elections-florida-el...)
* Florida’s dark money playbook: How ‘ghost’ candidate scheme revealed secretive political tactics (https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-ne-dark-money-ghost-...)
* Firm working for FPL took control of news site, let execs influence coverage, records show (https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/florida/os-ne-fpl-matrix-c...)
* Nonprofit funded with FPL cash backed DeSantis’ 2018 campaign (https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/09/06/no...)
* Joel Greenberg alleged far-reaching public corruption in Florida jailhouse interview (https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/09/07/jo...)
* Leaked: US power companies secretly spending millions to protect profits and fight clean energy (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/27/leaked-u...)
* Tom Fanning Southern Company Matrix Scandal: What don’t we know? (https://www.energyandpolicy.org/tom-fanning-southern-company...)
* FPL’s extreme winter plan would create 'unnecessary' costs to consumers, critics say (https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/business/2022/06/28/flor...)
* Ex-Florida senator charged in fake candidate scheme (https://apnews.com/article/miami-senate-elections-florida-el...)
* Florida’s dark money playbook: How ‘ghost’ candidate scheme revealed secretive political tactics (https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-ne-dark-money-ghost-...)
* Firm working for FPL took control of news site, let execs influence coverage, records show (https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/florida/os-ne-fpl-matrix-c...)
* Nonprofit funded with FPL cash backed DeSantis’ 2018 campaign (https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/09/06/no...)
* Joel Greenberg alleged far-reaching public corruption in Florida jailhouse interview (https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/09/07/jo...)
* Leaked: US power companies secretly spending millions to protect profits and fight clean energy (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/27/leaked-u...)
* Tom Fanning Southern Company Matrix Scandal: What don’t we know? (https://www.energyandpolicy.org/tom-fanning-southern-company...)
* FPL’s extreme winter plan would create 'unnecessary' costs to consumers, critics say (https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/business/2022/06/28/flor...)
Don't forget:
* $10B+ wasted on completely failed SC nuclear plant, which basically led to its collapse and subsequent buyout by out-of-state (Dominion) utility https://apnews.com/article/sc-state-wire-south-carolina-busi...
* GA version is still lurching to completion... at cost now approaching $30B https://www.ajc.com/news/as-vogtles-nuclear-units-move-towar...
* $10B+ wasted on completely failed SC nuclear plant, which basically led to its collapse and subsequent buyout by out-of-state (Dominion) utility https://apnews.com/article/sc-state-wire-south-carolina-busi...
* GA version is still lurching to completion... at cost now approaching $30B https://www.ajc.com/news/as-vogtles-nuclear-units-move-towar...
Vogtie really is going to scare a lot of people off from nuclear for a very long time. I think ultimately, the federal government will need to assume responsibility for the construction and operation of nuclear plants. And when future generations look into why that is, Vogtie will be right up at the top of the list of reasons.
Governments just need to stop wasting public money on them. Take them over, shut them down.
FPL (through a third party) also hired a private investigator to follow around a local opinion columnist because he was writing articles against the proposed privatization of Jacksonville's municipal utility company.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2022/06/24/fpl...
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2022/06/24/fpl...
Also worth mentioning the related scandal[1] of JEA's former CEO and CFO attempting to sneak in a "Long-Term Incentive Performance Unit Plan" that would have paid out hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars as bonuses to executives if "a recapitalization event (including a sale of JEA) occurred, meaning payouts would have been funded by net proceeds to the COJ from the sale of JEA."
Entirely unsurprising who the top private bidder was[2].
[1] https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2022/03/07/for...
[2] https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2020/08/26/nex...
Entirely unsurprising who the top private bidder was[2].
[1] https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2022/03/07/for...
[2] https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2020/08/26/nex...
Thanks for collecting these. It's interesting that these issues don't (appear) to plague larger utilities like the TVA[1], which seems to be actively exploring and developing renewable projects.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority
Yeah, I'm not sure what it is about the TVA -- feels almost like DARPA in a way. Something about the staffing and organization has led to a model utility. They're not without minor scandal occasionally but given the amount of political power they wield, maybe it's the distinction that TVA is government-owned and NextERA (who runs FPL) and Southern Company are both for-profit corporations?
Apolitical civil service government organizations are good at sustained operations and incremental growth/change. They are bad at rapid change. The controls they have are reasonably effective at preventing the type of corruption that you see.
The coal/rail/electric supply chain is a breeding ground for all sorts of shenanigans for all sorts of people. Plenty of drunken uncles have bullshit jobs in the utility and rail space. That culture permeates into new projects as well.
In the Federal space, that kind of crap doesn't fly for long.
The coal/rail/electric supply chain is a breeding ground for all sorts of shenanigans for all sorts of people. Plenty of drunken uncles have bullshit jobs in the utility and rail space. That culture permeates into new projects as well.
In the Federal space, that kind of crap doesn't fly for long.
TVA is a federal project, not a state regulatory body.
You can also maybe extend that further to the people behind the decisions to make something private or public. If you're looking to commit crimes, you're probably going to have an easier time in the private sector.
Ha. Well maybe technically. In the government sector, you may control what the definition of a crime is, or maybe you exempt yourself from the laws that apply to everyone else (looking at you, Congress).
Certainly gives another meaning to 'the power company.'
Somehow I knew this was going to be Alabama Power before I clicked the link
This is just scratching the surface. To any normal person this sounds like a massive scandal on its own but this is just what they've allowed to get out. The corruption in state and local government in the states served by Southern Company's electric utilities would make Putin blush
For example, Alabama Power's former CEO is on the board of directors of Regions Financial Corporation, based in Alabama, and a top 25 bank in the US
This is just scratching the surface. To any normal person this sounds like a massive scandal on its own but this is just what they've allowed to get out. The corruption in state and local government in the states served by Southern Company's electric utilities would make Putin blush
For example, Alabama Power's former CEO is on the board of directors of Regions Financial Corporation, based in Alabama, and a top 25 bank in the US
[deleted]
dikaio(3)
_ money flows to news sites that attack their critics.
Fill in the blank, tautology.
Fill in the blank, tautology.
Every outfit tries to influence news sites.
Here's another way of framing this headline: "A company that provides critical services has lobbyists - just like pharma, hospital networks, national defense, and food and agriculture."
I think there's a bit more to it than that.
It appears that a significant chunk of the local online news market in these regions is only financially viable based on pay-for-coverage arrangements with moneyed interests.
So, I agree, lobbyists gonna lobby. And some of the lines in the article are pearl clutching. (GASP a utility company donated to a SuperPAC that opposed a ballot initiative? Yeah, that's normal. You might not like Citizens United, but that's just something they did, not something they're "accused" of.)
But to the extent that you have a crop of local-interest news and politics websites that present as objective but, based on the quotes in the articles, wouldn't be able to exist without opaque financial arrangements that slant coverage... yeah, it's a genuine media story. Less about the power company, and more about journalism. (Which, indeed, Folkenflik is NPR's media reporter.)
Alabama has high electric rates, an unusually profitable utility company, and this arrangement has proven durable. For me, that's a good enough "so what" for a New York based media reporter to condescend to the journalistic ethics of these Southern publications. It's not just academic; it's harming people.
It appears that a significant chunk of the local online news market in these regions is only financially viable based on pay-for-coverage arrangements with moneyed interests.
So, I agree, lobbyists gonna lobby. And some of the lines in the article are pearl clutching. (GASP a utility company donated to a SuperPAC that opposed a ballot initiative? Yeah, that's normal. You might not like Citizens United, but that's just something they did, not something they're "accused" of.)
But to the extent that you have a crop of local-interest news and politics websites that present as objective but, based on the quotes in the articles, wouldn't be able to exist without opaque financial arrangements that slant coverage... yeah, it's a genuine media story. Less about the power company, and more about journalism. (Which, indeed, Folkenflik is NPR's media reporter.)
Alabama has high electric rates, an unusually profitable utility company, and this arrangement has proven durable. For me, that's a good enough "so what" for a New York based media reporter to condescend to the journalistic ethics of these Southern publications. It's not just academic; it's harming people.
Everybody has lobbyists, but there are legal limits on lobbying. Lobbyists have to register and make some of their activities transparent. They're not allowed to be used for laundering money in political donations, which are sharply limited. Giving money to a newspaper to support a candidate may cross that line. It would take an FEC (or state equivalent) investigation to make a judgment (and probably the courts would want a say in it, too).
Newspapers also have ethical limits. Ethical limits aren't legally enforceable, but for the most part major newspapers don't allow pharma, hospitals, defense, etc. to cross those lines. There are always exceptions, I'm sure, but the newspapers still cling to the hope that they'll be seen as accurate rather than simply shilling for whoever pays them. It undercuts their entire mission.
So this isn't the same as the usual round of lobbying. Lobbying is a legal and regulated activity, a way for groups to coordinate access to politicians and plan their public relations. That always has the risk of being shady, but it's more above-board than most people imagine.
Except when the rules are broken, and in that case it might be a crime. That's newsworthy.
Newspapers also have ethical limits. Ethical limits aren't legally enforceable, but for the most part major newspapers don't allow pharma, hospitals, defense, etc. to cross those lines. There are always exceptions, I'm sure, but the newspapers still cling to the hope that they'll be seen as accurate rather than simply shilling for whoever pays them. It undercuts their entire mission.
So this isn't the same as the usual round of lobbying. Lobbying is a legal and regulated activity, a way for groups to coordinate access to politicians and plan their public relations. That always has the risk of being shady, but it's more above-board than most people imagine.
Except when the rules are broken, and in that case it might be a crime. That's newsworthy.
Oh, I guess it's fine then. They all do it.
Your framing is way worse. It shows nihilism and fits downright criminal/corrupt behavior under the much more neutral term "lobbying".
Your framing is way worse. It shows nihilism and fits downright criminal/corrupt behavior under the much more neutral term "lobbying".
The statement was more of a comment on the acceptance of lobbying (by those accepting the lobby) for critical components of society.
Instead of volunteering PR and adding distractions, it might be better to say that power companies have "lobbyists" that bribe news sites in return for slandering critics of those companies.
Even though it's strange to call people who bribe news outlets rather than politicians "lobbyists," because that sort of begs the question.
Even though it's strange to call people who bribe news outlets rather than politicians "lobbyists," because that sort of begs the question.
Publishing lies to destroy people's reputations, and concealing that you were behind the lies isn't "lobbying".
Shorter even: Lobbyists Exist.
Also: a news agency receiving funding from a US administration that hates some industries, is here to tell you just how bad those industries are.
May as well be in Canada.
May as well be in Canada.
[0] https://calssa.org/blog/2021/6/5/debunking-the-cost-shift-de...