"The difference between reporting and editorializing", or, "Why I stay away from Rick Albin and live a happier life".
Yes, I know, I'm being a little hard on Rick. Hey, someone has to do it. Yes, I know, I am biased. But then again, so is he.
Watch how this story becomes an "election issue" rather than a "consumer issue". How do I know they did that? Because when I went to look for this story at the time it broke, they had a piece from Patrick Center, the consumer reporter, up on their website. That was pulled down in short time.
Stick Granholm in the mix, and here comes Rick to find the negative.
Four short paragraphs in, he asks a question. I thought the reporter's job was to answer the questions. Rick asks so many questions in this piece, I believe it was designed to create doubt about the whole issue.
But is ethanol an efficient replacement for petroleum-based gas, and will enough people be able to use it to make a difference?
Well, answer the question, Rick. Channel 13 did (their answer, courtesy of the Free Press, is over 4 million cars on the road right now). They also had a link to a list of cars that can use this product.
Already Rick is creating doubt by using the words "efficient" and "will enough people"- implying that it might not be efficient and not so many folks can use it. It took me two clicks to find a possible answer to that question.
Moving on- he jumps right to Granholm. Is this a campaign statement from Jennifer, or a statement of fact? I think it's a little of both. I doubt she can utter a word at this point without it being construed as a campaign statement- but, damn, this is a beautiful thing for our state. Why shouldn't we be the ones to take the lead on this issue?
"We are going to be the alternative energy of the world. ... We are the state that put the world on wheels. We will be the state that breaks the United States' dependence on foreign oil."
With those words, Governor Granholm made it clear she likes the idea of building ethanol plants and helping GM get back to profitability. That means jobs, and in an election year, or any other year, that's good news.
But will it work?
Here, he turns it personal to Granholm ("she likes") and ties it to the election, and, by ending it in a question, creates doubt.
Will it work? Gee Rick, you are the reporter here. You tell me. But instead, one sentence later, Rick asks another question designed to confuse.
The E-85, as it is called, will only burn in vehicles specifically designed to take it.
GM says it will make more of these vehicles, but will you buy them?
I dunno, Rick. Why don't you tell me how many GM cars can use this technology? Once again, Channel 13 did.
GM, which has more than 1.5 million flexible-fuel vehicles on the road, began running television and newspaper ads this year touting E85.
Is that good or bad, sales-wise? I have no clue. Apparently Rick doesn't either. Rick then follows with another negative statement.
As for buying the fuel, Mejier will put E-85 in a number of their gas stations. But if your vehicle can't use the fuel, then it won't impact you.
You can't use it, so, who cares, right? And that stuff about the environment and dependence of foreign oil- bah, non-issue if you won't immediately benefit from this.
Still, the governor, GM and the folks promoting ethanol like the plan.
"The issue of the environment, the issue of national security, and the issue of the economics, we feel it's a superior alternative," according to Russell Youngdahl Jr., the CEO of Clean Fuel America.
It is true that burning 85 percent ethanol automatically reduces dependence on foreign oil. But how efficient is it to produce ethanol, and will production and transportation cost slow the availability of the alternative?
Again, Rick, you tell me. Start with a positive, but create doubt in the very next sentence.
Are you saying that because it isn't readily available quite yet, we should just abandon it? Because the cost might be higher at first to start on this direction, perhaps it isn't worth it and we should, what, just forget about it and continue to be a slave to the whims of OPEC?
Bet it cost a bunch of money to lay oil and gas pipelines, too, but that didn't stop them did it?
John C. Taylor from the Seidman School of Business at Grand Valley State University says it could.
"An ethanol pipeline system would have to be dedicated specifically to ethanol, specifically designed for ethanol-makes a very expensive proposition. But it does take- various studies I've seen suggest it takes about as much energy to produce ethanol as you get out of the ethanol," he told 24 Hour News 8.
Right now. Wait until oil hits $100 a barrel, then we can have a conversation about cost, eh?
Rick then ends with a slew of questions, at least they are semi-positive ones- watch for the talking point.
Will it be the next big thing here in Michigan? Will it be enough to rescue a state's economy, a major manufacturer and our pocketbooks?
That's a lot to ask of a little ear of corn, but almost everyone 24 Hour News 8 talked to Tuesday said it may be a start.
No, Rick, it is a start. And the bit about "rescue the state's economy" is a straight Pub talking point. "Rescue" is a bit dramatic, don't you think?
If you only watched Channel 8's coverage of this story, you were left with the doubt and questions. Can I use it now? Is it too expensive to make? Is it just a campaign issue? No focus on the positive aspects at all.
I don't see how anyone could deny that we need to get the hell away from our dependence on foreign oil. We should have started a long time ago. And I don't see how anyone can deny that this is a plus plus for Michigan- we grow the corn, we make the cars, we are building the refineries.
Maybe I am a little hard on Rick and Channel 8. But when I compare and contrast with the reporting on 13- I find 13 chock full 'o information, and 8 has nothing but confusing questions.
13 went on to do a story about the only station around here that carries ethanol- and finds they can't keep up with the demand.
With each increase in the price of regular unleaded gas, the manager of at Green Islands Renewable Fuel Center in Greenville says sales of E-85 fuel go up.
"Demand is growing," says Green Island's manager Jill Blair. "We're getting phone calls left and right.
"It's so much cheaper," says Green Island's customer Dave Waffle. "It's only $2.44 for E-85 versus %2.79, $2.80, $2.89 some places for regular fuel."
"We've seen anywhere from $.20 to $.60 a gallon difference from conventional no lead," says Blair. "That definitely gets everybody's attention and brings them in."
Automakers are producing more flexible fuel vehicles and refineries are under construction to meet the growing demand.
13 also had a piece about the construction of the refineries going on right now here in Michigan. I can't link to it because they don't do "teleprompter news" like 8 does- but it's on their video section.
They provide reporting of the news, not "questions" about the news. They also have balance- bringing up some of the current negative aspects of ethanol, lower fuel efficiency and lack of widespread availability, but those are problems that can and should and will be fixed with time.
OK, I'll stay away from Rick from now on. It's obvious that his stories will be one big editorial from here 'til November. And beyond. After all, 2008 is now on the horizon.