World News

32352 readers

967 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Rumblestiltskin@lemmy.ml

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

jackmarxist@lemmy.ml

zephyreks@lemmy.ml

OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml

610

Germany begins dismantling wind farm for coal (euobserver.com)

submitted 1 year ago by lntl@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

286 comments fedilink hide all child comments

German energy giant RWE has begun dismantling a wind farm to make way for a further expansion of an open-pit lignite coal mine in the western region of North Rhine Westphalia.

I thought renewables were cheaper than coal. How is this possible?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AreaSIX@lemm.ee 32 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes stranger on the internet, the most decorated investigative journalist alive has "gotten sloppy' you say. So who's more credible here, the guy who broke My Lai and Abu Ghraib, reported on Watergate and the secret bombing of Cambodia, won a Pulitzer and a record five Polk awards, or you, some anonymous commenter on the internet, laughably calling it "weak", "cautioning" against it? You don't think other bootlickers in the past have called his reports on My Lai, Cambodia or Abu Ghraib "weak"?

[–] HornyOnMain@hexbear.net 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

maybe-later-honey Didn't you know? Abu Ghraib is actually Saddamist shill misinformation. The Washington Post says so!

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

His reporting on My Lai was based on internal government documents. Abu Ghraib was already being reported by other sources like Amnesty International, so he was backing up by other reporting there.

Thing is, I'm not asking you to trust me. Not one bit. I'm asking you to apply an appropriate level of skepticism. Common practice for an accusation this serious is to get more people talking. But here, the whole accusation rests on one source. Why should we trust this source? Because Seymour Hersh said they know stuff? And since then, nothing. Now maybe Hersh is still digging and will publish something in the future. If so, I'm all ears. Until, I stay skeptical.

And it's not just me pointing to how Hersh uses anonymous sources as being problematic. His Wikipedia article has a lengthy section covering both criticism and defense.