Why energy journalism is so bad
Citing subject matter authorities is a necessary element of journalism, but so is casting a critical eye on what they say. Unfortunately, most journalists repeat what their selected authorities say verbatim, and rarely mention contrary views.
While some of the examples cited are specific to energy journalism, overall I think it’s a journalism problem, not an energy journalism (or science journalism) problem. There are far too many examples of journalists being credulous parrots or not checking what they say for reasonability.
Just had an encounter with the problem few days ago. All the important media portals I browsed reported a new report on the Fukushima accident submitted by a group of third-party experts. But all of them had exactly the same content (except for the initial and, sometimes, final phrase) which was the press release on the TEPCO web site. And I found absolutely no link toward the report itself although TEPCO mentioned the report was attached to the press release. (by the way, if anyone found the Fukushima report issued December 2nd, I would appreciate if you share it).
So… in his article that includes a section on bad arithmetic from fellow energy journalists, we find the following:
“This leads to reports claiming that the U.S. has 1,230 trillion cubic feet of gas yet to burn, when the EIA clearly states that that number applies to the “estimated unproved technically recoverable resource base,” while in their Reference case the number drops to 827 trillion cubic feet, and in their Low case it drops to 423 trillion cubic feet — one-fourth the headline number.”
When I divide 423 into 1,230 I get about 0.34, over a third. Or, when I multiply 423 by 4 I get 1,692.
Just sayin’…