3 ms·
I originally agreed that the headline was sensationalist, but then I saw that it was from Bloomberg and that PG&E’s stock was down after hours. In this case, I
by el_benhameen 8y ago
I originally agreed that the headline was sensationalist, but then I saw that it was from Bloomberg and that PG&E’s stock was down after hours. In this case, I think that considering the existing “PG&E is bad” narrative is legitimate when writing the headline. Bloomberg’s product is market-moving information, and whether or not this accident was PG&E’s fault, it did move markets.
- clhodapp 8y agoThe question is: which direction does the arrow of causality go?
- mc32 8y agoIsn't that a consequence of the public portrayal (aided by the media) that PG&E is bad? Have you seen retractions regarding the Tubbs fire, if so, have they been commensurate?
- dekhn 8y agoWell, a bit more relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion "It was revealed that PG&E had done pipeline replacement work on Line 132 along parts of the San Andreas Fault zone, near this area, to reduce the likelihood of the pipeline failing from an earthquake. However, the replacement was stopped short of the area that failed in 2010.[48] On January 13, 2012, an independent audit from the State of California issued a report stating that PG&E had illegally diverted over $100 million from a fund used for safety operations, and instead used it for executive compensation and bonuses.[49]" So basically, if there's a gas-related fire, regardless of cause, you can point at PG&E and say "deferred maintainence".
- mc32 8y agoPG&E is guilty of many sins, but it's not the business of news organizations to make cavalier assumptions as to cause. They are not private individuals spouting unfounded opinions, they are news organizations who should vet their news and publish responsibly.