Further Reasons for Misgivings about Fracking

Media outlets cannot be held accountable for every advertiser that buys space from them. For instance, very occasionally, Far-Right groups do advertise on MSNBC (though the ads always do leave me scratching my head over how they could possibly be worth the expense).

But, given how political ideologies, corporate interests, advocacy on socio-economic and environmental issues, and media coverage of all of the rest have, increasingly, become ambiguously differentiated elements of the public discussions, anything that seems to confirm one’s worst assumptions about conflicts of interest or shared self-interest can all too be easily seen as just such a confirmation.

All too often, however, our worst misgivings do turn out to have been very warranted.

In an earlier post, I expressed my misgivings that “fracking” and other “new” methods of energy development touted as providing “energy independence” for America were going to provide immense corporate profits at the expense of the long-term public good of the people living above the oil and gas because not enough provision is being made to clean up the environmental damage that is almost certainly being done and, at best, only superficially being addressed.

So, you will understand my great misgivings when I became aware that the seminal, ultra-conservative periodical National Review is distributing an e-mail advertisement touting the financial killing to be made by purchasing stock in a company that is profiting extravagantly from the production of oil and gas from shale deposits.

Here is a link to the ad: “Round 2 of Explosive Bakken Shale Profits.”

Of course, every Right-wing idea is not automatically a bad idea, but the recent track record does not lead me to assume that any ideas from that end of the political spectrum should be assumed to be good ideas until proven otherwise.  That may be personal bias, but it is based on direct personal experience.

3 thoughts on “Further Reasons for Misgivings about Fracking

  1. Of course, every Left-wing idea is not automatically a bad idea, but the recent track record does not lead me to assume that any ideas from that end of the political spectrum should be assumed to be good ideas until proven otherwise. That may be personal bias, but it is based on direct personal experience.

    I get spam too. I don’t blog about it.

  2. Shouldn’t the debate here be focused more on the regulatory side of thing? As I understand it the problem is not so much with fracking itself, but with irresponsible usage and little oversight

Your comments are welcome. They must be relevant to the topic at hand and must not contain advertisements, degrade others, or violate laws or considerations of privacy. We encourage the use of your real name, but do not prohibit pseudonyms as long as you don’t impersonate a real person.