What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

John Stossel - The Last Real Investigative Journalist (1 Viewer)

Insein

Footballguy
Now I understand there are still some investigative journalists out there in the industry that try to get their stories to see the light of day but there is no one in my opinion that can still have the clout that Stossel has to present an issue, be able to intelligently argue both sides of it and allow his readers/viewers to come to their own conclusions.

I was going to post his videos to individual topic threads but felt he deserved his own. 

 
Haven't watched one recently but I have considered his videos / work to be a very light and often incomplete analysis, but at least attempts to look at things with a view that challenges prevailing opinion and brings into focus data that is otherwise discarded.  This is about all you can do constrained to 20-30 min clips.

In other words...way ahead of most of what we consume and good food for thought.  I have to catch up on some of these you posted.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Nuclear Option

John investigates why the US is lagging way behind the rest of the world in construction of Nuclear power. 
Sure fear is the biggest the issue with nuclear.  But its not fear from anti nuclear activists but fear from investors.  You might want to argue that what investors fear are in some part what the nuclear activists might achieve to delay construction or even halt it, but the reality is that the risk with nuclear is that everything else is falling in costs such that the long time horizon to recoup the upfront investment is just too long.   

Somehow this last true investigative reporter missed even mentioning this.  Maybe he doesn't believe it to be true, but so what he is supposed to be presenting both sides so the viewer can make an informed opinion.  As opposed to having two experts such that the one that agrees with him looks reasonable and the one that disagrees looks somewhat clownish.

Give me a break!   

 
Sure fear is the biggest the issue with nuclear.  But its not fear from anti nuclear activists but fear from investors.  You might want to argue that what investors fear are in some part what the nuclear activists might achieve to delay construction or even halt it, but the reality is that the risk with nuclear is that everything else is falling in costs such that the long time horizon to recoup the upfront investment is just too long.   

Somehow this last true investigative reporter missed even mentioning this.  Maybe he doesn't believe it to be true, but so what he is supposed to be presenting both sides so the viewer can make an informed opinion.  As opposed to having two experts such that the one that agrees with him looks reasonable and the one that disagrees looks somewhat clownish.

Give me a break!   
That is a good point but why is it that ROI takes so long in the US vs other countries? 

 
That is a good point but why is it that ROI takes so long in the US vs other countries? 
Besides the bad taste of the cancellations that happened as of 1973  (yes 1973), the ridiculously high "slay the inflationary beast" interest rates of the late seventies, early eighties, etc.  the main reason is that other places have governments that subsidize  and even own the nuclear power plants.  The government is the investor.  

 
Anytime I hear John Stossel's name - I remember this.
It was a long time ago, maybe 20yrs, and I forget what the hell it was exactly about but he was talking about people attacking him on the internet or email.

 He showed a post that said “John Stossel is a butt weasel”.  I was fairly young and me and my brother got a kick out of that.  To think...that used to be bad back in the day and compare that to our environment now.

To this day I hear John Stossel and think “is a butt weasel”.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Insein said:
Make America California

John looks into the trend from the Biden Administration to utilize California style policies for the rest of the country. 
Where is this "intelligently" arguing any side yet alone both...

Insein said:
Stossel has to present an issue, be able to intelligently argue both sides of it and allow his readers/viewers to come to their own conclusions
... anywhere in the linked piece?   Just a stupid Texas PR piece and I happily live in Red Texas.

 
Where is this "intelligently" arguing any side yet alone both...

... anywhere in the linked piece?   Just a stupid Texas PR piece and I happily live in Red Texas.
I think the intelligent part is that he actually is presenting a broader view...which in todays world simply means an alternative view to what 80% of the media narrative is.  If you're not used to that is sort of a "holy ####" moment.

Again I haven't seen any of his clips recently but that's why I wrote what I wrote earlier.  Not about him being a butt weasel, about his analysis being very light and incomplete.

 
I used to watch him all the time. Years ago I shared his libertarian world view; since then I’ve moved to the left, he to the right. 
I certainly wouldn’t call Stoessel the last real investigative journalist: that’s extremely untrue and rather insulting to some pretty brilliant people, particularly during the last 4-5 years. Stoessel, as TV and podcast guy, can’t really hold a candle to the best writers on the New York Times and Washington Post like Maggie Haberman and Mike Schmidt; they’re on a whole different level. But Stoessel is honest, intelligent, and interesting. 

 
I think the intelligent part is that he actually is presenting a broader view...which in todays world simply means an alternative view to what 80% of the media narrative is.  If you're not used to that is sort of a "holy ####" moment.

Again I haven't seen any of his clips recently but that's why I wrote what I wrote earlier.  Not about him being a butt weasel, about his analysis being very light and incomplete.
I guess I'm agreeing with "being very light and incomplete" and maybe he is very good at wrapping up his mix of conservative and libertarian ideas into a compelling presentation for those that lean that way.   Maybe a "wider lens" from these particular set of trees, but not a "broader view" of the forest.  In fact this clip was all a handful of trees and not really a look at the forest.

The California clip (posted two weeks ago) pretty much paints California as a hell hole "which is a shame because it really is beautiful" with mass exodus to Texas because of taxes and regulation and high unemployment (blamed on minimum wage) and high poverty and affordable housing means just under a million dollars.  Oh and with some pretty, but smug Houston conservative presenting one side and a bunch political clips of Biden and others presenting pretty much nothing.  I'm guessing all of the facts are true but the presentation is hardly balanced.    Hardly honest.  It doesn't mention that a good part of the exodus from California was the pandemic interrupting international travel, or that if you are going to be poor there are incentives  to be poor in California, or that the prices of houses in San Francisco is a function of the free market ideas that he would otherwise preach.  But most of all the hit piece didn't spend one second on what exactly Joe Biden wants to replicate from California.  What policies are California "paving the way".   

Give me a break!

 
I used to watch him all the time. Years ago I shared his libertarian world view; since then I’ve moved to the left, he to the right. 
I certainly wouldn’t call Stoessel the last real investigative journalist: that’s extremely untrue and rather insulting to some pretty brilliant people, particularly during the last 4-5 years. Stoessel, as TV and podcast guy, can’t really hold a candle to the best writers on the New York Times and Washington Post like Maggie Haberman and Mike Schmidt; they’re on a whole different level. But Stoessel is honest, intelligent, and interesting. 
Maggie Haberman 🤣

Glenn Greenwald:

“One January 2015 strategy document — designed to plant stories on Clinton’s decision-making process about whether to run for president — singled out reporter Maggie Haberman, then of Politico, now covering the election for the New York Times, as a “friendly journalist” who has “teed up” stories for them in the past and “never disappointed” them. Nick Merrill, the campaign press secretary, produced the memo, according to the document metadata:

That strategy document plotted how Clinton aides could induce Haberman to write a story on the thoroughness and profound introspection involved in Clinton’s decision-making process. The following month, when she was at the Times, Haberman published two stories on Clinton’s vetting process; in this instance, Haberman’s stories were more sophisticated, nuanced, and even somewhat more critical than what the Clinton memo envisioned.

But they nonetheless accomplished the goal Clinton campaign aides wanted to fulfill of casting the appearance of transparency on Clinton’s vetting process in a way that made clear she was moving carefully but inexorably toward a presidential run.”

 
Maggie Haberman 🤣

Glenn Greenwald:

“One January 2015 strategy document — designed to plant stories on Clinton’s decision-making process about whether to run for president — singled out reporter Maggie Haberman, then of Politico, now covering the election for the New York Times, as a “friendly journalist” who has “teed up” stories for them in the past and “never disappointed” them. Nick Merrill, the campaign press secretary, produced the memo, according to the document metadata:

That strategy document plotted how Clinton aides could induce Haberman to write a story on the thoroughness and profound introspection involved in Clinton’s decision-making process. The following month, when she was at the Times, Haberman published two stories on Clinton’s vetting process; in this instance, Haberman’s stories were more sophisticated, nuanced, and even somewhat more critical than what the Clinton memo envisioned.

But they nonetheless accomplished the goal Clinton campaign aides wanted to fulfill of casting the appearance of transparency on Clinton’s vetting process in a way that made clear she was moving carefully but inexorably toward a presidential run.”
But you have to admit, her vocabulary is impeccable.

 
The Nuclear Option

John investigates why the US is lagging way behind the rest of the world in construction of Nuclear power. 
This is honestly the most garbage story I have ever heard.  We are a decade removed from Fukushima and they still have exclusion zones where no one is allowed to live but he describes that as a nothing accident.  No mention of the costs of nuclear power including building Shoreham which costs a cool $6billion dollars and bankrupted LILCO.  

 
This is honestly the most garbage story I have ever heard.  We are a decade removed from Fukushima and they still have exclusion zones where no one is allowed to live but he describes that as a nothing accident.  No mention of the costs of nuclear power including building Shoreham which costs a cool $6billion dollars and bankrupted LILCO.  
Why do you think the cost is so high?

 
Why do you think the cost is so high?
Lots of reasons from lack of expertise/experience to regulatory costs.  Below is a link to costs for buidling/running a power plant (see page 2 of pdf).  Upfront base overnight costs for a Nuclear plant are about 6,000 (kw/h) compared to around $1000 (kw/h) for a combined cycle natural gas plant. In addition to the the upfront costs, the variable costs are lower as well on a natural gas plant so it is cheaper to run once it gets started.  Nuclear power plants fuel and waste disposal costs are fairly high and people don't always realize that.  The thought that nuclear is a cheap option is complete garbage.  

Interestingly coal plants are about half way between the two to run on upfront costs and much higher on variable costs making them about the same costs as nuclear power plants.  There is a reason that natural gas plants are what we build here in the US and that is because they are cheaper to build and run then other sources of electricity.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf

ETA - the development of really efficient combined cycle natural gas plants in the late 80s/early 90s has basically crowded out other energy sources other than anything that is highly subsidized.  Though would add wind is finally getting pretty close on costs.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
will Mike Rowe just damn run for president already. 
I've thought this many times over the years, but there's no place for him.  The GOP would be all in on the RINO stuff and the Dems would have their feelings hurt because of some of the truths they are unwilling to face.

 
I've thought this many times over the years, but there's no place for him.  The GOP would be all in on the RINO stuff and the Dems would have their feelings hurt because of some of the truths they are unwilling to face.
talk about giving hope to the working class. Maybe its time for a new party! 

 
Socialism Always Leads to Violence

Gloria Alvarez reviews the history of violence in the Socialist nations of Central and South America. 
I have a FB friend who's a hard-core Trump follower. He recently posted a meme that asked if we can provide free vaccines, why can't we provide free insulin or chemo. I replied with "nice to see you're coming around on universal healthcare". He didn't reply.

Maybe I should have commented that we provide free insulin, we'll become just like Central America.

 
I have a FB friend who's a hard-core Trump follower. He recently posted a meme that asked if we can provide free vaccines, why can't we provide free insulin or chemo. I replied with "nice to see you're coming around on universal healthcare". He didn't reply.

Maybe I should have commented that we provide free insulin, we'll become just like Central America.
So you posted the same thing every other FB and Twitter leftie posted? Clever. 

 
So you posted the same thing every other FB and Twitter leftie posted? Clever. 
So you spread the same nonsense that if America provides healthcare and other tax-payer funded programs like the rest of the developed world, we'll descend into chaos and violence and bring about the end of the world as we know it? Clever.

When do you predict the fall of Canada? Anytime soon?

 
So you spread the same nonsense that if America provides healthcare and other tax-payer funded programs like the rest of the developed world, we'll descend into chaos and violence and bring about the end of the world as we know it? Clever.

When do you predict the fall of Canada? Anytime soon?
Have you seen Canada lately?

 
So you spread the same nonsense that if America provides healthcare and other tax-payer funded programs like the rest of the developed world, we'll descend into chaos and violence and bring about the end of the world as we know it? Clever.

When do you predict the fall of Canada? Anytime soon?
Besides I don't think the solution to the problem of government collusion with Big Pharma in healthcare is to give the government total control over healthcare. 

 
Besides I don't think the solution to the problem of government collusion with Big Pharma in healthcare is to give the government total control over healthcare. 
So its better to have a profit motive to keep you sick and uncontrolled pricing? Do you approve of insurance companies contradicting your doctor on what meds and procedures they'll cover?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top