[Ajedi32]

Thanks, that's helpful. Pretty annoying the original article didn't link to its source given that it was just repeating the contents of a press release.

Anyone know what these "ideological subsidies" are that they're referring to? Were they part of the agreement that was just terminated? Or was that just a vaguely related talking point they inserted into the press release for political reasons?

[cwal37]

"ideological subsidies" for this administration means any policy supporting non-thermal and non-battery (to a lesser extent, although their lobby has pretty successfully extracted them from previous renewable associations they relied on) generating units.

To get more specific, you could say everything rolled back from the IRA as part of the BBB.

[Ajedi32]

If it's just BBB they're referring to then I would call that a political talking point since that doesn't seem directly related to this deal.

Unless the subsidies being repealed explains why TotalEnergies seems happy to get out of the lease now even though they presumably thought it was a good deal for them back when they originally agreed to it. If that's true though then I don't know why neither the article nor the press release say anything about it other than in this vague allusion.

[nieve]

They were stuck in a never-ending series of legal battles because the current administration is trying to block all wind power, so their money was not actually going anywhere useful. Coincidentally Trump hates wind power and is still bringing up his golf course having some offshore wind near it after years.

[beepbooptheory]

Unclear to me what would satisfy this complaint.. You wish La Monde speculated more on some glaring omission of motive here? You're original point is that they seemed to speculate too much!

[Ajedi32]

They could do some actual journalism, find out the answers to some of these obvious follow-up questions, and report on them. Or, failing that, link to the press report since it seems like as is they aren't really adding much beyond that.

But my original complaint about editorializing was about the title the submitter wrote on HN, not the article title.

[fastasucan]

What if they couldn't grt an answer, should they just not publish in that case? And why would they link to the press release, they are not a propaganda office.

[Ajedi32]

They could at least raise the questions in the article instead of leaving readers with the impression they didn't even try to find answers. Worst case, you write "the person we spoke to declined to comment".

> why would they link to the press release, they are not a propaganda office

Just reporting the contents of the press release as if it were your original reporting is worse IMO. At least reading a press release you know the source of the information and what their agenda is.