6 ms·

There are two ways to look at this story. You can take it at face value and you can wring your hands over what this story apparently is trying to convey. Or y

There are two ways to look at this story. You can take it at face value and you can wring your hands over what this story apparently is trying to convey. Or you can understand the way companies and politics and the media manipulates perception to get outcomes they want. On the second point, let's read between the lines. So 2.5 billion is "canceled or frozen". Okay, what percentage is canceled and what percentage is frozen? How many of these projects were actually going to happen anyway? I have been a part of numerous attempts to manipulate public opinion by claiming that projects were canceled that never were going to happen anyway or making a big show of "freezing" things, when everybody knows the project is going to go through eventually. In many cases "freezing" is indistinguishable from "we can't do anything right now and we are just waiting to get everything rolling". I mean, I used to be involved with a company that made up a whole PR campaign about switching to another company for a key contract just as a negotiating tactic, when internally we knew that we weren't going anywhere. This campaign came complete with actual (truthy) quotes from real engineers at the company saying we were considering switching vendors. Of course it wasn't a lie, because we did have a five minute conversation internally about how we were thinking about switching companies, but the intention was never serious. I am aware of a venture just several weeks ago that fed the media completely manufactured narratives, and these narratives were dutifully swallowed uncritically and subsequently disseminated as fact. In this case, the company needed justification for doing something, so it called up a "friend" and had the friend issue a press release that a certain thing was getting "canceled". We all know internally that it's bullshit and eventually this thing will happen. So maybe everything here is really true, and may be $2.5 billion of contracts aren't going to happen. Or maybe this is the solar industry playing politics and attempting to create a narrative and pressure the administration to lift the tariffs. So, I would ask people to re-examine their confirmation bias and/or stop being so credulous.

maym86 8y ago
Please offer some facts or evidence to clarify it then? All you are offering is an opinion.
- zzzzzzzza 8y ago
  An opinion is "a view or judgement about something not necessarily based on facts or knowledge". What he offered is mostly not an opinion in that it's mostly him relating his personal experiences on this topic; which probably, if we are to give him the benefit the doubt, are factual events that actually happened.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - root_axis 8y ago
    I disagree. To me, it appears as mostly opinion with personal anecdotes presented as evidence. The opinion esentially boils down to "Don't trust this story or the media in general, only credulous individuals would believe what this story is saying, if you read between the lines you will come to the same conclusion that I did, after all, my personal experiences back up my opinion that this story is bullshit"
    - jeremyt 8y ago
      I am willing to put my money where my mouth is and take a bet saying that in exactly one year, a significant number of these $2.5 billion of contracts will have miraculously found a way to happen.
      - root_axis 8y ago
        I don't necessarily think you're wrong, I am more addressing your rhetoric that suggests your informed opinion invalidates the story, especially because the anecdotes you present are examples of companies deliberately lying to the media for their own personal gain. Yet the problem is the media... FTA: President Donald Trump’s tariff on imported solar panels has led U.S. renewable energy companies to cancel or freeze investments of more than $2.5 billion in large installation projects, along with thousands of jobs, the developers told Reuters. So are the developers lying? Maybe... but it's still totally legitimate to report that this claim was made. Some things you just have to take at face value because you're not privy to secret boardroom meetings where plans to deceive the public for profit are conceived. Here is another article from another publication about a different tariff story. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/391185-three-arkansas-companies-say-theyll-close-if-trump-doesnt-give-them-exemption http://thehill.com/policy/finance/391185-three-arkansas-comp... Based on the reasoning you presented in your OP (pre-edit), I should just assume that they're lying and are really just appealing to Trump's ego in order to maximize profits. Right? In either case the media can't really know the truth so they just report it and maybe spin the story to one side based on readership.
yifanl 8y ago
I'm unsure what reading between the lines does here. Does the revelation that only some of cancelations is due to tariffs change the story beyond shifting a number from X to Y?
- jeremyt 8y ago
  Yes, of course. If it turns out that the number of contracts canceled is much less, then it changes the calculations completely. If it turns out that this story is completely bogus and the "cancelled" contracts were already going to be canceled before the tariffs and the delayed contracts end up going through, then that means there was actually no effect.
  - yifanl 8y ago
    Using anecdotes to speculate on the validity of any given work of journalism is just substituting media bias for personal bias. I don't know how many contracts were cancelled, so I would have to consider the range of values between "the story is sensationalism" to "the story is accurate in its essence", and at this point I'm no better off than when I started.
    - jeremyt 8y ago
      Well, that's my point.
jmartrican 8y ago
This type of analyses on the media's output needs to be taught in school.
- vaishaksuresh 8y ago
  The type that offers no facts and gives anecdotal evidence to support the opinion?
  - dqv 8y ago
    No questions like > Okay, what percentage is canceled and what percentage is frozen? How many of these projects were actually going to happen anyway? which were informed by the poster's past experience with public interaction through the media. I'd argue that questions are rarely opinions. Why didn't the journalist at least cite the source of the informatoin? What if the survey that provided the data gave more details about why the projects were actually canceled/frozen? Should it really be up to the media to decide for me how to interpret the data?
    - sjm-lbm 8y ago
      > Why didn't the journalist at least cite the source of the informatoin? In the article, they cite enough statements made by specific people at specific organizations to support the headline - it's not peer-reviewed academic research, sure, but it's not like they are just making stuff up either.
      - TexasEcon23 8y ago
        >> In the article, they cite enough statements made by specific people at specific organizations to support the headline - it's not peer-reviewed academic research, sure, but it's not like they are just making stuff up either. The 'support' is that the PR department of the company said it. You think corporations always give you unbiased information? They are strongly incentivized, as the comment pointed out, to claim that contracts may be canceled due to reason X when the reality is far more complex. The cost for claiming this is so incredibly low that there is no reason not to do it.
lifeisstillgood 8y ago
Fascinating to compare this with a recent thread on holding journalists to account for veracity and integrity of their stories.
gascan 8y ago
It's at least supported by my own personal experience, which inclines me to believe the narrative. My wife & I were considering installing solar on our residence. The payoff was marginal, but it was there. We were going to save for a year, and begin after prices had fallen a little further. Then, the tariff came up, and the cost/reward equation went up in smoke. Anecdata of course, but part of why I'm inclined to believe. Solar appears to be right at a tipping point where it makes solid financial sense even if you don't care about saving the environment- but it's marginal, enough that a tariff could easily wipe out the benefit. (Which, the cynical side of me says, is exactly what the administration was aiming for)
- jeremyt 8y ago
  Which is why I said confirmation bias. Sometimes your confirmation bias is correct; sometimes it isn't.

maym86 8y ago

Please offer some facts or evidence to clarify it then? All you are offering is an opinion.

zzzzzzzza 8y ago
An opinion is "a view or judgement about something not necessarily based on facts or knowledge". What he offered is mostly not an opinion in that it's mostly him relating his personal experiences on this topic; which probably, if we are to give him the benefit the doubt, are factual events that actually happened.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- root_axis 8y ago
  I disagree. To me, it appears as mostly opinion with personal anecdotes presented as evidence. The opinion esentially boils down to "Don't trust this story or the media in general, only credulous individuals would believe what this story is saying, if you read between the lines you will come to the same conclusion that I did, after all, my personal experiences back up my opinion that this story is bullshit"
  - jeremyt 8y ago
    I am willing to put my money where my mouth is and take a bet saying that in exactly one year, a significant number of these $2.5 billion of contracts will have miraculously found a way to happen.
    - root_axis 8y ago
      I don't necessarily think you're wrong, I am more addressing your rhetoric that suggests your informed opinion invalidates the story, especially because the anecdotes you present are examples of companies deliberately lying to the media for their own personal gain. Yet the problem is the media... FTA: President Donald Trump’s tariff on imported solar panels has led U.S. renewable energy companies to cancel or freeze investments of more than $2.5 billion in large installation projects, along with thousands of jobs, the developers told Reuters. So are the developers lying? Maybe... but it's still totally legitimate to report that this claim was made. Some things you just have to take at face value because you're not privy to secret boardroom meetings where plans to deceive the public for profit are conceived. Here is another article from another publication about a different tariff story. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/391185-three-arkansas-companies-say-theyll-close-if-trump-doesnt-give-them-exemption http://thehill.com/policy/finance/391185-three-arkansas-comp... Based on the reasoning you presented in your OP (pre-edit), I should just assume that they're lying and are really just appealing to Trump's ego in order to maximize profits. Right? In either case the media can't really know the truth so they just report it and maybe spin the story to one side based on readership.

yifanl 8y ago

I'm unsure what reading between the lines does here. Does the revelation that only some of cancelations is due to tariffs change the story beyond shifting a number from X to Y?

jeremyt 8y ago
Yes, of course. If it turns out that the number of contracts canceled is much less, then it changes the calculations completely. If it turns out that this story is completely bogus and the "cancelled" contracts were already going to be canceled before the tariffs and the delayed contracts end up going through, then that means there was actually no effect.
- yifanl 8y ago
  Using anecdotes to speculate on the validity of any given work of journalism is just substituting media bias for personal bias. I don't know how many contracts were cancelled, so I would have to consider the range of values between "the story is sensationalism" to "the story is accurate in its essence", and at this point I'm no better off than when I started.
  - jeremyt 8y ago
    Well, that's my point.

jmartrican 8y ago

This type of analyses on the media's output needs to be taught in school.

vaishaksuresh 8y ago
The type that offers no facts and gives anecdotal evidence to support the opinion?
- dqv 8y ago
  No questions like > Okay, what percentage is canceled and what percentage is frozen? How many of these projects were actually going to happen anyway? which were informed by the poster's past experience with public interaction through the media. I'd argue that questions are rarely opinions. Why didn't the journalist at least cite the source of the informatoin? What if the survey that provided the data gave more details about why the projects were actually canceled/frozen? Should it really be up to the media to decide for me how to interpret the data?
  - sjm-lbm 8y ago
    > Why didn't the journalist at least cite the source of the informatoin? In the article, they cite enough statements made by specific people at specific organizations to support the headline - it's not peer-reviewed academic research, sure, but it's not like they are just making stuff up either.
    - TexasEcon23 8y ago
      >> In the article, they cite enough statements made by specific people at specific organizations to support the headline - it's not peer-reviewed academic research, sure, but it's not like they are just making stuff up either. The 'support' is that the PR department of the company said it. You think corporations always give you unbiased information? They are strongly incentivized, as the comment pointed out, to claim that contracts may be canceled due to reason X when the reality is far more complex. The cost for claiming this is so incredibly low that there is no reason not to do it.

lifeisstillgood 8y ago

Fascinating to compare this with a recent thread on holding journalists to account for veracity and integrity of their stories.

gascan 8y ago

It's at least supported by my own personal experience, which inclines me to believe the narrative. My wife & I were considering installing solar on our residence. The payoff was marginal, but it was there. We were going to save for a year, and begin after prices had fallen a little further. Then, the tariff came up, and the cost/reward equation went up in smoke. Anecdata of course, but part of why I'm inclined to believe. Solar appears to be right at a tipping point where it makes solid financial sense even if you don't care about saving the environment- but it's marginal, enough that a tariff could easily wipe out the benefit. (Which, the cynical side of me says, is exactly what the administration was aiming for)

jeremyt 8y ago
Which is why I said confirmation bias. Sometimes your confirmation bias is correct; sometimes it isn't.