Media's habit of interviewing advocates but not calling them such (at least when they're liberal), and an overblown concern about EV's.
CPR’s Ryan Warner interviews an immigration advocate, does not label her as such.
Yeah, gosh, this lady clearly has no dog in the fight.
One of my pet peeves about the media is not giving you and I (the consumers of said media) context enough to weigh the things said in their articles and interviews.
This happens on both sides of the aisle: it's common for industry lobbyists and Conservative Think Tank members to be presented as non-partisan (in the unbiased sense) on conservative media, and for Liberal Think Tank members or activists to be presented as non-partisan in liberal media. Another example showed up recently.
CPR's Ryan Warner interviewed someone about immigration policy. The only introduction I could see in the interview's accompanying printed article is what you see in the screenshot.
It became pretty obvious upon reading the interview where the interviewee landed politically. When I went to Google and looked up the group this woman now works for it was even more obvious when I read their "About Us" page (second link below).
This is not about their choice of interviewee. Mr. Warner and CPR are free to do whatever they'd like, talk to whomever they choose, about whatever they see fit.
What I do care about is how it's presented. If you put someone up that is an advocate, they should be clearly labeled as such. Those that consume media should be able to know this so we can weigh what we hear or read.
If you're on the fence about this, or if you hold to the what I hear from people in the media (some form or another of "well, we included the information in the intro so the interested reader could follow up") let me ask you a question. If CPR and Mr. Warner interviewed a someone about cigarettes and simply said they were from Altria would that be okay with you? If they interviewed an oil and gas lobbyist and listed them just as someone from "Western Consulting Associates", would that be enough?
This woman should have been labeled as what she was: an activist who was there to advocate.
https://www.cpr.org/2023/01/18/denver-migrants-immigration-policy-interview/
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/about/our-mission
EV’s being heavier is a concern, but this felt overblown to me.
This one struck me as a little overblown.
What I mean by that is the panic that EV's are going to kill us all (when I saw this on Twitter, the person putting it out said it was cause for stopping any EV purchases).
Is it an increased danger? Yes. I'll delve into that more below.
Still, and perhaps this is because I drive a tiny car and thus everything else is bigger and already a danger, I don't think concerns about this should deter us from exploring EV's.
Yes it's a risk. It was already a risk because there are already vehicles that are heavier and ones that are lighter. It just becomes an engineering problem to solve to make everyone safer in collisions that involve one car being heavier than the other.
I'm all for open and honest discussion about the problems of EV, but this one, at least when used as evidence of why we should not sell them, is too much.
https://www.npr.org/2023/01/11/1148483758/ntsb-heavy-electric-vehicles-safety-risks?fbclid=IwAR2MBxoTGZgGU7UnSYA7q1sdh9bNeCYkvVH8F_IVTDEvCF4Igx5C_kP3pH4