New York Times Gets Off on the Wrong Road with Natural Gas

Ian Urbina did another hit piece on natural gas at the New York Times but got his facts all wrong and drew the wrong conclusions, putting himself on the wrong road:

http://eidmarcellus.org/marcellus-shale/urbina-wheels-his-way-into-...

Views: 1225

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Perotto on May 24, 2012 at 2:40pm

Jeff,

You have been called out. Quit dancing around and support your generalizations with a credible rebuttal to Mr. Shepstone. The reality is that he is right and he proved it with rational, fact based logic.

Permalink Reply by David Perotto on May 24, 2012 at 2:57pm

So, someone can submit any claim without any basis for doing so? If Mr. Shepstone's facts are correct, Mr. Urbina's conclusions must then be in question. Thoughful debate necesitates the inclusion of facts to valildate conclusions, every entry level philosophy class teaches this.

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on May 24, 2012 at 2:10pm

RE: "You're funny if you think I'm uneducated."

Not to worry, your posts have done a sterling job of proving my point; all the proof anyone should need.

What might your educational or employment background be?

It does not seem to extend to your being able to dispute any of the factual data provided by Mr. Shepstone.

 

JS

Permalink Reply by time will tell on May 24, 2012 at 4:47pm

 Jeff , how do you define a REAL ENVIRONMENTALIST and please expand on we would understand this . Lets talk about this .

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on May 24, 2012 at 6:14pm

RE: "What do you think?"

Still waiting for you to "grow a pair" and explain why Mr. "Shepstone is not a credible source for debunking a Times story."

Tell us where Mr. Shepstone was wrong instead of pretending the Times is infallible.

Mr. Shepstone has managed to "invalidate the core conclusions in Mr. Urbina's story and require no rebuttal", yet you find these facts insufficient - how so?

By your own admission, your "Reality is entirely subjective"; but, what the World requires is objective logic - are you up to the task?

The truth is you lack the ability to provide a cogent rebuttal; when you dig youself into a hole, you really should stop digging - I am still waiting for you to prove us wrong!

Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock - we are still waiting.

To quote Sgt. Joe Friday: "Just the facts, Maam.".

 

JS

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on May 25, 2012 at 4:06am

Using your own logic, Urbina is not a credible source because he works on behalf of Newspaper and has as his goal to sells papers through sensationalizing events.

In the case of Urbina, your logic is likely valid as Ian Urbina has even been discredited by his employer.

"Ian Urbina

NYTimes Critics Vindicated: Public Editor Dresses Down Dubious Arti...

By Clay Waters | July 18, 2011 | 12:46

                       

New York Times Public Editor Arthur Brisbane gave a dressing down to reporter Ian Urbina’s heavily criticized recent Sunday front-page article on natural gas extraction, “Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush,” in his Sunday column, “Clashing Views on the Future of Natural Gas.” The benign headline concealed a reasonably incisive critique, accusing Urbina of making unsubstantiated claims and failing to provide sufficient opposing views.

Urbina (pictured) has also penned questionable articles on the supposed environmental dangers of “fracking,” a process used to extract natural gas from shale. Brisbane wrote Sunday:


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/people/ian-urbina#ixzz1vtQ47R1g "

 

When Urbina's own Newspaper (employer) concludes that Urbina made "unsubstantiated claims and failing to provide sufficient opposing views", that strikes at the heart of his credibility.

You State: "Shepstone is not a credible source because he works on behalf of the energy industry and has as his goal to defend that industry's interests."

Mr. Shepstone documented his critique using publicly available statistics, facts which do not appear to be in dispute.

I will take Mr. Shepstone's facts over Urbina's "unsubstantiated claims".

I will take Mr. Shepstone's facts over Urbina's Yellow Jounalism.

The truth is you lack the ability to provide a cogent rebuttal to Mr. Shepstones studied analysis of Urbina's"unsubstantiated claims"; when you dig youself into a hole, you really should stop digging - I am still waiting for you to prove us wrong!

 

JS

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on May 29, 2012 at 3:51pm

You state that “His “employer” stood by him and defended the story.”
Two editors, Richard Berke and Adam Bryant, stood by Urbina’s reporting and the story. Berke and Bryant are editors at the New York Times, but they are not Urbina’s employer. I have found no reference where Urbina’s employer “stood by him and defended the story”. Please provide a reference that would substantiate your assertion.

The reporting of Ian Urbina was found seriously wanting is several articles published by Arthur Brisbane, the current Public Editor. Arthur Brisbane job as Public Editor has been described as the newspaper’s version of an internal affairs division. Mr. Brisbane is responsible for reporting on and writing about the 1,000 journalists who produce The Times.

The New York Times has not always had a public Editor, or Ombudsman as they are known at other newspapers. The New York Times established the position in 2003, after the Jayson Blair scandal in 2003 over falsified sources, plagiarism, and fictional reporting.

The role of public editor is to defend the paper’s commitment to high journalistic standards, to act as the newspaper’s moral compass. The Public Editor found Urbina’s journalistic efforts wanting.

Over the past five years, the stock of the New York Times Company has plummeted from more than $25/share to its current depressed price of less than $7/share.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=NYT+Interactive#symbol=nyt;range...;

I personally consider that sloppy and dishonest journalism exhibited by individuals like Ian Urbina and his colleague Jayson Blair has greatly influenced the decline of the New York Times; as a once respected newspaper thr “Grey Lady” has become a parody of its former self.

I would like to nominate Ian Urbina for the First Annual Jason Blair Award for Journalistic Integrity (the how low can you go award).

http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/08/01/more-controversy-engulfs-ny-time...

http://cryptome.org/0005/distrust-redact.htm

http://blog.american.com/2011/07/new-york-times-ombudsman-rebukes-h...

 

JS

Permalink Reply by time will tell on May 24, 2012 at 6:25pm

You have some valid points Jeff .The environment its self has been doing just that meaning selection .One life form emits something that an other can't tolerate be it from let say  algae blooms that depletes  oxygen and kills fish .

Methane is naturally found in some water sources but the over zealous claim that all methane in water is from drilling . That's not true and this is how stories become reality to move forward half true agendas  .

There is risk to any form of energy recovery  but I think you would agree that we need it to sustain our way of life .

Is any form of energy perfect I'd say no .

If you look at NG in my opinion this seems to be our best bet .

We need to police the handling of the spent fluids ie tract there final destination .

In this day and age what is really authentic ?

I say this from experience Jeff , I have attended different meetings with like minded people on the environment as your self and things seem to be going well until I would bring up something positive in re guards  to natural gas vs. coal and and the tables turn to total rejection to any type of energy other than solar or wind .

That's not right either .

You and I know that this will never work by it's self .Reading your post I think 

you will agree.

Yea in a perfect world all ecosystems live in harmony but that life cant happen 

hear on earth .Never has and never will .

So now what ? 

I am an environmentalist that is a realist .

The anti-everythingers have to get over it and face the truth .When I read the 

total fabricated stories flying around on this site it's no wonder we as a country are so divided .

After much study and hands on with natural gas and oil it is the best choice 

for now .

If people really want to make a difference look at who is guarding the hen house and hold them responsible to in force the law , now that would make a difference !

Keep in mind that the more dependent we remain on over sea oil the less 

the environment becomes important and weakens us to defend our country .

When you look other countries we are not in last place with the environment .

Jeff we cant change the world but we can make it better .

Permalink Reply by time will tell on May 24, 2012 at 11:47pm

One correction , in the beginning   all ecosystems worked in harmony and will some day do the same .

Permalink Reply by time will tell on May 25, 2012 at 2:14am

your both welcome . As I stated I am a realist . The biggest part of the problem here on this site is phonies that claim they are land owners or those who signed to early and there bonus that was acceptable at the time now are anti O-G  because the increase in the bonus amounts .Jeff in time I believe that NG will do just that help bridge our fuel choices .

May I make a suggestion Jeff , your passion is obvious and that's 

a good thing but your delivery could use a little help .Don't take it the wrong way .

You and other create a good balance that is healthy  to this ecosystem known as the Shale development process .Please stay on the right side of it .

Like I said earlier we are tried of the the anti-everthingers .

I will never give the industry a pass if they are taking short cuts or 

cheating on our environment ...

Jack and some of the others bring a vast wealth of information that is priceless from there experience in many different  fields .

I personally own some wells and understand how it works , others know terminolgy , some are well versed in the environment , others the legal end , there are chemists here , and pipe fitters to mention just a few .

If we put all of our talents together we " The landowners and the people " instead of dividing ourselves everyone this can change our dependentcy on foreign energy .

Now that should make us all smile .

Permalink Reply by ji on May 25, 2012 at 1:12am

Ridgeman... thank you for being a gentleman and contributing civil responses and not attacking.  you make this site more credible. 

Permalink Reply by lynn on May 24, 2012 at 4:10pm

Thanks Tom for the link and the facts.  I was actually surprised at how far down in the danger zone mining is.  If what I am hearing about the zero tolerance policies the drilling companies have for all types of infractions by its employees I expect that percentage to continue to drop.  Would be interesting to see the percentage compared to local hires and longterm employees/companies.  Thanks for all the good info you post.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service