Comments on: Republican VP candidate pushes oil over clean tech

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin bolsters McCain camp's support for more domestic oil and natural gas drilling, sharpening differences with Obama's energy policies.

[mmaccallum]

This is the most grotesque violation of journalistic integrity I've seen. Was the writer of this article paying attention to the speech? I have a feeling that the merger of CBS with CNET has something to do with the downward spiral of the quality of CNET.

I'm seriously considering abandoning this site due to their lack of journalistic integrity and gross incompetence.

[JAndrewM]

"most grotesque violation of journalistic integrity"? You've never seen FOX "News" apparently.

[rdbuckley]

I think the post from jimmcclay says it all. I too listened to the speech, and then read the transcript, when I saw this.

Martin, were you used as a pawn in the Democrat's spin machine? Your stuff is typically much better researched and balanced than this. You can fix this mess with a simple update to the article.

[ikramerica--2008]

It's sad how biased so many journalists have become this summer. They are so invested in electing Obama, they will say anything, write anything, smear anyone to get it done. That's normal among political campaigns, but not from the press.

Shame on you Mr. LaMonica. Your credibility is shot. You didn't listen, you haven't done your research, but that hasn't stopped you from writing your slanted piece. Very sad...

[meh130]

Nuclear energy is clean energy. It is also base load energy, which wind and solar are not.
The chart provided does not reflect the position Obama took in his acceptance speech.

[indylinuxblog]

So, how long until we get a retraction, or apology from the writer? This is total garbage.

[Dalkorian]

Nice try repubs. You've had 8 years to develop alternative energy strategies and what have we got in return? Terrorism, erosion of the Constitution, falling dollar value, illegal torture and $4/gallon gas. More lies and empty promises won't pay the bills. You can't correct an errant course by continuing down the same path. We've lost our way under repuke rule and it won't be found again under repuke rule.

It reminds me of a Simpsons episode where some townspeople find themselves at the bottom of a hole they dug and start to wonder how they're going to get out. Someone suggests they simply dig their way out and after a few moments comments "no, dig up stupid".

Anyone saying that the republican Governor of Alaska, who's supportive of drilling in ANWAR for a couple of years worth of oil, isn't in the pockets of the oil companies is fooling themselves.

[mmaccallum]

How smug of you, Dalkorian.

Yes, the Republicans have had the past 8 years, but what about your boy Clinton's 8 years prior to that? The largest expansion of government and spending and yet all we got out of the deal is a majority of Americans driving SUVs. No energy policy whatsoever.

Nice try Dalkorian.

[indylinuxblog]

Dalkorian,

What? Go put your head back in the hole. If Clinton would have taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance the world would be a much better place. Its the democrats total refusal to deal with terrorists that has us in the mess in the first place. How about that Democratic leadership in the Congress? What has Mr. Reid and San Fran Gran Nan done since assuming power? Not a dam thing.

Notice that this article mentions nothing of the Republicans that stayed after the democrats turned off the lights in Congress to work out a drilling strategy. If I remember correctly, Mr. Obama was against drilling just 30 days ago, however he has now since changed his stance.... No shocker there. I'm with Rudy, maybe next time Obama needs to make a decision, he should call John McCain. I don't think the advice he is getting from William Ayers, or Rev. Wright is going to work any longer.

[MaggieRed]

Who ever your editor is you Martin must have something on them, because this is the biggest piece of lying trash I've read so far. Since when did CNET decide to become a part of the Obama campaign? Your journalistic ethics have just been flushed down the toilet along with rest of your colleagues here at CNET and the advertisers.

I believe this is a call for your job and you Martin should step down.

This is unacceptable for CNET, and it has no place here.

This brings into question that validity of any CNET story from this point forward. Obviously the folks at CNET and this author care nothing about facts and feel the need to distort the truth for their political gain.

Time to start writing to CNET advertisers.

[Cobralord]

You guys really missed the point of her speech regarding energy. That's really journalistic malpractice. I'd expect bias in the regular media, but we in tech deal in cold fact, so stop trying to shade your reporting and keep to the facts or you'll wind up like the MSM, with no readers and decliner viewership. Palin was very clear in saying that she wanted oil and gas now, because all of the other alternative energy sources you're so in love with (besides nuclear) are pie-in-the-sky. And honestly tidal energy is probably the only "alternative" energy that will actually be reliable as its basically hydro-power, which we've been using for centuries. But we're years away from that, and we having pressing needs now. Not only that, but as our nation grows, our energy demands will grow to match. We need a massive investment in energy infra-structure, and in energy security, and we need to investigate all forms of energy to do that.
Obama's energy plan is for gas to go up to $7 a gallon, but he just wants it to go up "gradually" ***!?
Someone may want to explain to Obama that we need oil for plastics and petro-chemicals as well as fuel. In other words, even if we miraculously all bought plug-in Priuses tomorrow, we'd still need oil.

[mlamonica]

McCain and Palin have clearly voiced support for renewable energy sources, as is noted in this article. But the energy-related text of Palin's speech focused on increased domestic oil and gas drilling.

Meanwhile, Obama has gotten endorsements from a significant constituency of clean-tech industry participants. See here:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10032634-54.html?tag=mncol;title
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10026862-54.html?tag=mncol;txt
http://earth2tech.com/2008/07/29/why-cleantech-investors-love-back-obama/

For a more thorough comparison of the two candidates' policies, see this article below or click on the image attached to this article for a summary.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10031450-54.html?tag=mncol;title

[jimmcclay]

Mr. Lamonica,

How courageous of you to clarify your dishonest article with a comment buried among dozens of others. How about a public apology or retraction? I would think a professional "journalist" would take more pride in his work and in maintaining his journalistic integrity by admitting his errors (intentional or not).

CNet management,

Are you reading this? This guy needs to be forced to PUBLICALLY own up to what was either blatant partisan dishonesty from a supposed journalist, or complete incompetence. Either one is sufficient for disciplinary action from any repudable new source.

I am a regular visitor to CNet and download many of your podcasts. But, if this continues, I will find another source for my tech news. And it sounds like there are a great number of others who agree ...

[indylinuxblog]

Martin,

That's total BS. Read through the actual transcript. She mentioned several clean tech energies. Not that it matters, it appears that I'm not the only one that sees through your distorted pro Obama garbage. The fact remains she mentioned green tech, and in no way pushed oil and gas ahead of clean tech. Your article is an outright lie.

[mmaccallum]

I have just sent the following email to CNET:

I feel that since CNET got into bed with CBS, the journalistic integrity of your organization has soured tremendously. The gross incompetence demonstrated in some of your "news" articles are grossly bias and do not represent both sides of the story.

This is PRONOGRAPHIC journalism.

I will begin to write to your advertisers and let them know that I will not patronize them, will not buy their products and or services and will make a concentrated effort to purchase any good and services that are in direct competitors until this grotesque attempt at journalism is corrected.

CNET has been a favorite of mine for many years, and now, I have no choice but to abandon them as they have abandoned their ethics and standards in the name of money.

Others WILL join me.

[blatz91]

Might be the worst article I have read on cnet. Point Blank - Not going to waste any more of my time with this article or you Martin.

Obama 08

[snesich]

Palin's speech---written for her by Matthew Scully, one of Bush's main speechwriters---was dripping with sarcasm, antipathy, and nastiness. It also contained a number of factual distortions and exaggerations. When you attack your opponents with such viciousness---even if delivered with a smile---it doesn't make you look very good.

And Palin's advocacy for methods of energy extraction and generation that harm the planet, was 50 years behind the times. Has she been listening at all to the scientists and economists that study these issues?

The need to score points with her ideological base was the primary goal for Palin in her speech. It's disappointing; she could have introduced herself to America with a speech that appealed to the best in all of us, and one that demonstrated an understanding of the need for a new approach to energy. It was a grand opportunity that was thrown aside by her apparent need to go for the cheap shot.

[jimmcclay]

Ah, what thin skins the liberals have. Nastiness? Do you recall any of the horrible things said about President Bush or other Republican leaders? Comparing him to Hitler, perhaps (that was Sen. Reid)? Accusing him of plotting 9/11 (that was the Democratic leadership)?

Yes, she was sarcastic and attacked Mr. Obama. You know why? Because it is an election. That is what you do in an election. Liberals are not the only ones allowed to attack. I am constantly amused at the claims from people like you who get upset whenever someone attacks your ideals - calling it hate speech and the like. The only hate speech that I have heard over the past several years has been from liberal democrats. Pointing out where your opponents are wrong is called discourse.

Sarah Palin did admirably what Ronald Reagan did that won him 2 elections (by landslides). He presented his views, attacked the flawed views of his opponents, and did it with a smile - because he knew he was right.

So, I suppose the only way the speech would have been acceptable and fair would have been for her to renounce all conservative ideals, embrace socialist, liberal policy, and endorse the Annointed One ...

What arrogance you have.

[buanot]

More left-wing bias showing in the media. Gee Martin, I wonder who you're voting for? Obviously you've made up your mind and don't care one wit about what the candidates actually say. We need to drill for oil in the SHORT TERM to help American families and the American economy. McCain and Palin have made it clear that their administration will push for and even spend significant amounts of federal funds to encourage the development of the renewable energy that we need in the long term.

[snick22]

all im reading on this post is politics heres the facts : Both major parties are completely owned by big business with the oil companies dominating the control. People need to think for themselves instead of being brainwashed by one of the 2 parties. These canadates are acting like kindagarten kid. Shame on them and shame on us for allowing it. Both the democrat and republican parties have the reputation for curruption . Each side can only attack and not offer solutions and unfortunately the general public is feeding into the process.
On energy they have no solution - Look it up for yourself - how much the oil companies gave to each party (including the VP's on both sides for favors its in the billions when you include lobbyist . It is time for those that really care about this country to start to take a stand and form a new party so we can get our country back . From everything I read hydrogen is 15 years off unless we have a major breakthrough - that should be our long term goal. For the immediate future we need to quickly increase solar, wind, and natural gas, along with conservation, and $$ incentives for us corporations to advance these technoligies along with better mass transit. Continued drilling is only a small part of the equation and is NOT a short term solution by any means. This is not rocket science, but if we continue to let the oil companies dominate the 2 major parties like puppets and the 2 parties dominate our brains like puppets we will never get anything accomplished.well i have said my piece - good nite

[roly19]

the fact is u.s still needs oil and we are still behind compared to other countries that are using natural gas or other methods because of there oil prices are so high compared to u.s. i think we have to do the same but we still need oil for a long time.we also have to stop depending on other countries for oil.why do we go to school? so we can be prepared for the future the same applies for drilling for oil.fact is we still have to depend on oil until we can have a efficient method to run our cars etc..

[fireofenergy]

Drill, but use that oil to do the SOLAR POWER TOWER thing. On a vast scale, it would be cheaper than anything else. On an enviro scale, the best (unless post mounted mirrors were replaced by complete bull dozing), and on a political... well, it seems no one wants to pay the tiny fraction extra to use government to kick start it, how sad! Red and Blue seems to need a lot more of informing about what I would call "The Miracle of Desert Mirrors". This one trick alone could power ALL of USA (also assuming we all had only e-cars) with just 1/5th or less of the Mojave! What's more, it bypasses the law of thermodynamic break down to extra heat (since that heat is already there baking the ground). Even more... what little isn't used is reflected back into space, and after decomishioning, point all them billions of mirrors skyward to effectively create a giant sunscreen in space (without launching a single load)!

What "dem rep's" need to do is subsidize super cheap battery tech!
Oh, I'll vote for prop7 (California), since that'll kickstart some form of the best cheapest ways to make energy without carbon. Don't listen to the "cons" cause they don't make sense past saving a few pennies...

[brucecg]

Typical misleading headline and erroneous reporting from the "unbiased" biased liberal press. Get over it. Shes a winner and you are a whinner.

[TomMariner]

ARE YOU KIDDING!!!

I had to move to the top of the page to make sure this was not the New York Times opinion page.

This type of blatant political attack has no place in a technical publication! CNET just moved a gazillion places lower in my opinion -- Until now I would instinctively go to the CNET site for anything technical. If the reviews are as distorted as this political hit job, bye bye CNET.