Sky Australia dont even try to hide that they are pushing the murdock agenda
this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2025
174 points (93.1% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5452 readers
198 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
She argues as honestly as any tankie.
This really is a master class in how to handle hostile news media
Plus the perfect example for how the MSM, especially right-wing Murdoch rags, are nothing but psychological warfare to manufacture consent for the plutocracy.
Surprised they gave him so much time.
She was deep under water. The producer was in her ear yelling random rebuttals to try to help , but it ended up will him not only making his point, but demonstrating how msm perverts a transparent message to demonise climate activists
The big lie she tried to repeat is that NEW fossil plants are cheaper than renewables. In 2019, in US, new FF peaker (cheapest) plants cost over $1/watt, while solar was under $1/watt. FF plants have operating and fuel costs. Solar panels have since dropped 20c/watt since then.
The Australian market has the most developed home solar costs/penetration in the world. It is successful because utility, largely legacy, power is expensive/extortionist. AUS wholesale electricity market averages between 11c to 20c per kwh.
$1/w solar provides a 3% yield/year at under 2c/kwh in AUS for 30 years, which has very high solar production capacity. LFP batteries, now down to 10c/watt also has a 30 year lifespan at 4 hours storage, and is 3% yield at 1c/kwh discharge - charge margin.
6% interest rates means 6c/kwh from solar and 3c/kwh from batteries pays for project with full leverage. Free money at just 10c/kwh revenue. Winfalls at higher revenue rates. Actual solar costs are below $1/watt and interest rates below 6%, and what needs to improve.
As for jobs, new energy is jobs. Adding x gw of solar per year is permanent jobs even if there is little operating staff. Growing x each year is permanent job increases every year.
Australia is amazing for solar. I wish Canada would step up and fix our damn regulations. It’s insanely more expensive to install household rooftop solar here vs Australia. I’m so jealous!
Cost is entirely based on monopoly utility power, and their power to refuse connection. Australia does have a good 40%+ solar production advantage over Canada though, but Canada does have "net pricing" which banks long summer surpluses for winter.
They do not care about facts. The suffering is the point.
It's either sadism or greed with the right. Flip a coin.
It's probably more greed in this context though.
News hosts should ask critical questions. It's not their job to try and "win" a debate. She could have said "thank you for your insight" and be done.
Ideally, they should ask critical questions. But this host's job (that is, the labor they are being paid to perform) isn't to serve society as a news host. It's to disseminate corporate propaganda on behalf of the network major shareholders. It was their job to try and "win" that argument (it's not even a debate!) and they sure didn't.
It is their job to protect big oil tho lol.
Big coal*
I love that she was so willing to repeatedly interrupt him and say shit that made her look insane and/or unqualified to have an intelligent conversation.
He got his message accross. Despite attempts to hinder it. Nice.
Sky News is Murdoch rag trying to be Fox.
Fox
The other Murdoch rag.
She was so much more civil than any host I've ever seen on Fox News or talk radio in the US though. I appreciate they didn't pick someone less articulate to interview as well.
There was so much respect and dignity here I don't know what to say. I'm not used to this. They play Fox News in the bars here
Jesus Christ American media is in bad shape that you think this is journalistic integrity.
You are picking a fight with the wrong people
My word she is a patronising arsehole
Clickbait title. There was no panic.
I mean, she was floundering and he did an excellent job in rebutting her lies. He laid out his case first, succinctly, and when she tried the two methods to rebuff him “you’re hurting jobs” and “renewables aren’t ready,” he had the ammo ready to point to his earlier statements that clearly laid out the bare truth. When her nonsense proved way too weak for his calm demeanor, you can tell she had people in her ear telling her to tow the line and she stumbled over her words and couldn’t answer a simple, straightforward question that would proved his entire case. Simply because it proved his entire case. And he brought the data and the quote from the coal industry itself to cut her entire bullshit out at the knees. It was truly a concise and simple dissection of the insane bullshit these people are less and less able to say they don’t have a mandate to push out every night and day.
It was beautiful and fuckin satisfying. To her credit (I guess), I’ve seen much more abrasive and simply idiotic floundering in the form of US broadcasters who get angry and end the segment. She didn’t, so she had to struggle against someone who was ready and successful in laying out his case.
I watched the video.
she was floundering
Which is not panic.
I mean, it’s relative, isn’t it? An anchors job is to remain composed and in control, leading the show. When they lose that control and a guest is making them look like a fool because they can’t hold the basic position they’re taking in a discussion, panic realistically sets in. She looked panicked to me. Because she was clearly getting bested in a discussion, and her hypocrisy was laid bare. When it’s apparent she’s being spoken to in her ear about her performance (which I would say was very apparent), and she’s looking all over the studio as this guest concisely dismantles what she’s said? And she couldn’t answer a simple question—and that question was very much the punctuation on his entire argument, and she tripped over it and landed on her face—I’d say that shows panic.
“Panic” for an anchor doesn’t look like panic in a burning building. Panic for an anchor is being flustered, having that turn into cascading failure, tripping over your words, having zero conviction in your voice because your entire argument has been torn apart, having nothing to say but the clearly two pronged offense (which has already been dissected and laid bare) so when stumped, clearly only going back to repeating the same question even though it was shot down the first time?
That’s panic in an anchor.
it’s relative, isn’t it?
No.
She looked panicked to me.
She never looked panicked to me.
Panic for an anchor is being flustered
I disagree. I would say that panic for an anchor is being in a state of panic, as for anyone else. I'm not sure why you're moving the goal posts just because the person in question is a TV news anchor.
lol that’s not “moving the goalposts,” that’s discussing an amorphous impression being relative. Because it is. Emotions are relative. I can’t believe I’m having to explain that. And expressions are relative. When you’re anxious at home, you pace, maybe cry, try to shake your arms to let out your anxious energy. If you’re on stage, waiting to give a presentation in front of an auditorium full of people and you’re anxious, you’re sitting there, trying to remain outwardly composed, but you’re probably looking around, fidgeting, all while trying to remain presentable.
So you’re saying the latter can’t be anxious because they’re not pacing around, crying?
Absolutely ridiculous logic.
So you’re saying the latter can’t be anxious because they’re not pacing around, crying?
I'm not saying that.
Absolutely ridiculous logic.
Indeed.
So you’re not making any other point because you realized you’re wrong now, right? Because if you realized the latter can be anxious while not showing the same signs as the person in private, you’re basically saying an anchor can be panicked by showing the much more subtle signs I pointed out before. And that’s the entire point of the conversation.
So you’re not making any other point because you realized you’re wrong now, right?
No.
lol
So unprofessional.