[dqv]

No questions like

> Okay, what percentage is canceled and what percentage is frozen? How many of these projects were actually going to happen anyway?

which were informed by the poster's past experience with public interaction through the media. I'd argue that questions are rarely opinions.

Why didn't the journalist at least cite the source of the informatoin? What if the survey that provided the data gave more details about why the projects were actually canceled/frozen? Should it really be up to the media to decide for me how to interpret the data?

[sjm-lbm]

> Why didn't the journalist at least cite the source of the informatoin?

In the article, they cite enough statements made by specific people at specific organizations to support the headline - it's not peer-reviewed academic research, sure, but it's not like they are just making stuff up either.

[TexasEcon23]

>> In the article, they cite enough statements made by specific people at specific organizations to support the headline - it's not peer-reviewed academic research, sure, but it's not like they are just making stuff up either.

The 'support' is that the PR department of the company said it. You think corporations always give you unbiased information? They are strongly incentivized, as the comment pointed out, to claim that contracts may be canceled due to reason X when the reality is far more complex. The cost for claiming this is so incredibly low that there is no reason not to do it.

[tyleraldrich]

> Why didn't the journalist at least cite the source of the informatoin?

The source is cited in literally the first sentence.

"President Donald Trump’s tariff on imported solar panels has led U.S. renewable energy companies to cancel or freeze investments of more than $2.5 billion in large installation projects, along with thousands of jobs, the developers told Reuters."

I'm not sure if you read this article or are just responding to comments/the title, but this article is just reporting a few statements from solar developers and isn't trying to tell you how to decide to interpret anything. They wrote the total dollar amount of frozen/cancelled investments and quotes solar developers. This is Reuters, it's a pretty boring neutral article.

[dqv]

The article is reporting on an unspecified question asked of unspecified developers. It's another version of "people are saying..." which Fox News popularized. It's just not satisfying without some other detail - like what question they asked or who they talked to.

Edit: read the article to this point [0] which I had assumed was the end to see why I said what I said.

[0]: https://i.imgur.com/9uI6zbt.png

[tyleraldrich]

It's now abundantly clear you didn't even attempt to read this article. Paragraph after paragraph listing developers and direct quotes from some of them:

To list a few: Pine Gate Renewables, GTM Research, SunPower Corp, Cypress Creek Renewables LLC, the list goes on.

This isn't a Q&A (and most news isn't). You're not going to get specific questions asked to specific people. Some people like to remain anonymous. Comparing this to fox news "people are saying..." is ridiculous. I don't even have an opinion about this article but not reading an article at all and making pointless commentary about it in the comments irks me.

[dqv]

https://i.imgur.com/9uI6zbt.png

This is where I assumed the article ended. It's just bad presentation, not bad journalism.

Pointless whitespace that makes it seem like the article is over irks me.

[vaishaksuresh]

It isn't pointless whitespace. There is an iframe there that isn't probably loading

Code: https://imgur.com/vKskTnz

Iframe Contents: https://imgur.com/x0WqzmI