The heading for this post is the headline from the Scotsman, and it just shows you how misleading a headline can be because when I read it I thought of an objection which is actually reported positively in the article, viz: "'We are not saying we should stop building wind farms. Birds would suffer much more from climate change if we don’t,' said Andy Pullin of the Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation at Birmingham University. 'But the data shows we have to be much more careful about where we site them.' He said wind farms built in deeper water further from the shore might prove better for birds."
It's an example of lazy editorial control looking to beef up [or is that 'sex up' nowadays?] confrontational slants [=spins] on stories. Problem is that often people read the headline and a sentence or two and that then forms their impression and then opinion.
Scotsman.com News - Sci-Tech - Wind farm study blow to green hopes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg -
I'm not sure people have believed me when I've said that there have been discovered uncaffeinated coffee beans. Well, here's one...
No comments:
Post a Comment