Hacker News Reader

Comment by cwal37 | Hacker News Reader

"ideological subsidies" for this administration means any policy supporting non-thermal and non-battery (to a lesser extent, although their lobby has pretty successfully extracted them from previous renewable associations they relied on) generating units.

To get more specific, you could say everything rolled back from the IRA as part of the BBB.

View on HN

If it's just BBB they're referring to then I would call that a political talking point since that doesn't seem directly related to this deal.

Unless the subsidies being repealed explains why TotalEnergies seems happy to get out of the lease now even though they presumably thought it was a good deal for them back when they originally agreed to it. If that's true though then I don't know why neither the article nor the press release say anything about it other than in this vague allusion.

Unclear to me what would satisfy this complaint.. You wish La Monde speculated more on some glaring omission of motive here? You're original point is that they seemed to speculate too much!

They could do some actual journalism, find out the answers to some of these obvious follow-up questions, and report on them. Or, failing that, link to the press report since it seems like as is they aren't really adding much beyond that.

But my original complaint about editorializing was about the title the submitter wrote on HN, not the article title.

What if they couldn't grt an answer, should they just not publish in that case? And why would they link to the press release, they are not a propaganda office.

They could at least raise the questions in the article instead of leaving readers with the impression they didn't even try to find answers. Worst case, you write "the person we spoke to declined to comment".

> why would they link to the press release, they are not a propaganda office

Just reporting the contents of the press release as if it were your original reporting is worse IMO. At least reading a press release you know the source of the information and what their agenda is.

Not every single article needs to be Woodward and Bernstein dude. Sometimes you just need to report what happened, what someone said. If that ends being an incomplete or incongruous picture, you gotta chalk it up sometimes to the nature of such matters in the world, not a deficiency of the journalism. Your argument could be applied to literally any piece of journalism! In general, answers to possible questions are not finite, metaphysical things that we can always fully account for, and its not a news articles job (which isn't even a long form investigation style piece!) to try.

I know, of course, you are not arguing uncharitably here, so I can only assume this is the first news article you have ever read.

Yes, I'm fully aware this is an extremely common problem. I'm just saying if the article adds nothing over the press release it's reporting on (and even actively removes important context) then we should just link to the press release.

They were stuck in a never-ending series of legal battles because the current administration is trying to block all wind power, so their money was not actually going anywhere useful. Coincidentally Trump hates wind power and is still bringing up his golf course having some offshore wind near it after years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com