Stupid Dail Mail article

[BruceB]

When people complain about Daily Mail articles I normally smile, thinking they are PC loonies or lefty loonies who should get a life. But the Mail has published an article by Colin Dunne today about solar panels which really is complete and utter nonsense.
Don't fall for the solar panel flannel! COLIN DUNNE did- then realised the £5,000 carbuncle on his roof will only save him money if he lives to 154 | Mail Online

 

[TedM]

It sounds like Dunne has had solar thermal installed on his roof - "tubes", "plumber", "bath". Those are 'library' photos of a PV install.

 

[Ian-LS]

Everyone replying to the article seem to think he had solar panels fitted not solar thermal. I would have though £5,000 was on the steep side for just 20 evacuated tube collectors.

Why the hell did he go ahead with a salesman in the first place? Why didn't he do his sums first as without subsidy solar thermal won't pay for itself unless the cost is a lot lower than £5,000 or hot water consumption is quite high.

He seems to think he would be saving on his electric bill as well, how exactly? If he is looking at his electric bills then of course he'll be dissapointed with his savings.

Why would you spend £5,000 on a product you don't actually know much about at all? You wouldn't spend £5,000 on a car without looking at reviews, taking it for a test drive, getting other prices from other garages/show rooms would you?

 

[Adam W]

It sounds like his biggest gripe was with allowing himself to get buttered up by the salesman.
Maybe it's just "Tory propaganda".....

 

[SibertSolar]

What a complete idiot. Isn't he supposed to be some sort of comedy writer? Articles like this completely drive me mad

 

[Outspoken]

Stupid is as stupid does. A fool and his money are soon parted...they all spring to mind..

I personally had doubts about the effectiveness of PV systems in the early days, some research, simply maths and personal experience of them in buildings soon laid those fears to rest...there is also the other side of the coin..the more Homes and businesses that install these, the more robust our national grid becomes because there is less strain on the overall system and thus there is a reduced need for massive capital investment to keep things moving forward...

As far as I am concerned the law should be changed that all new build homes should be sited such that they can utilise a minimum of a 4kW PV system on the roof from day one.

 

[SolarCity]

Even for the Daily Mail, that is a corker.

Fitting Solar Thermal and then getting confused that he isn't getting much electricity?

Clearly, the man is a tool.

 

[Gavin A]

tbf, he has obviously been fed a pack of lies and ought to be going to trading standards.

This story has nothing much to do with renewables at all, it's a straight story about door step trading / miss selling that could as easily have applied to double glazing, or any similar scam industry.

 

[SolarCity]

True, so why is this bloke writing for a national newspaper?

A quick glance at the comments section will confirm what we already knew - Daily Mail readers will believe ANYTHING. Renewable energy is a subject far too important to have these idiots writing about it.

 

[Worcester]

Beacuse it is so misleading an article (I haven't got a printed copy) - report them to the Press Complaints Committe Press Complaints Commission >> Making a Complaint >> How to make a complaint (As Leveson still has yet to be sorted out)

 

[Adam W]

A quick glance at the comments section will confirm what we already knew - Daily Mail readers will believe ANYTHING.

That sounds like a sweeping generalisation - the comments I read seemed to be split down the middle: those who 'believed' renewable energy is a waste of money (I suspect they may have thought that already) and those who are very happy with their solar PV installation. Either way I don't think anyone was 'suckered in' by this article.

I would say your comment is 'typical of left wing Daily Mail haters' dismissing everything you don't like as "Tory propaganda" with throwaway comments such as "the rich get rich and the poor get poorer", "Cameron's Britain" and "Vote UKIP" but that would just be too ironic.

 

[Earthstore]

What a confusing and badly written article, although it is supposed to be humorous.

We all know the difference between PV and Thermal, but the public do not, so some people that read this will just think that "Solar" does not work, it will take 150 years to pay for itself.

Anybody who installs renewables know that it works, and most that have got it know that it works, unless they have had a badly designed PV/heatpump system installed.

It is strange don't you all think, that there has never been large articles printed in the national newspapers about how good renewables are, do you ever wonder why?

 

[SolarCity]

That sounds like a sweeping generalisation - the comments I read seemed to be split down the middle: those who 'believed' renewable energy is a waste of money (I suspect they may have thought that already) and those who are very happy with their solar PV installation. Either way I don't think anyone was 'suckered in' by this article.

To be totally honest, the content of most of the comments changed over the space of a few hours. Most of the early ones seemed to be praising this pratt and, as you point out, they are more than likely against renewable energy anyway. Now there seems to be a lot of people pointing out that the article is nonsense. Probably down to being linked in places like this.

I would say your comment is 'typical of left wing Daily Mail haters' dismissing everything you don't like as "Tory propaganda" with throwaway comments such as "the rich get rich and the poor get poorer", "Cameron's Britain" and "Vote UKIP" but that would just be too ironic.

Well, you can't really assume any of that really. I know plenty of people firmly on the right who understand how ridiculous The Daily Mail is. I don't think anyone is supposed to actually take it seriously anymore.

 

[Adam W]

Well, you can't really assume any of that really.

No, it would just be too ironic.

I think most Daily Mail readers think for themselves a lot more than it's critics would like to believe.

 

[SibertSolar]

I doubt that, otherwise they wouldn't be reading it....(joke)

Seriously though, negative cliches and stereotypes do tend to be born from a facet of truth, or at least a pattern of repetition, right? This particular article sits smack bang in the middle of all that's wrong with poor journalism, the fact that its printed in the DM just gives more credence to the comments made above, generalisations or not.

In my opinion, writers and editors alike, who feed this kind of trash to their readers should be called out on the inaccuracy of the content - I couldn't find any direct way of approaching the author from within the DM website as I believe he's a guest writer. The more comment/tweets/emails the better as far as I'm concerned - accompanied by sweeping statements or not, makes no difference to the fact that the story stinks

 

[Adam W]

It's not presented as 'fact' or even 'journalism' though - it's one guy's opinion. Some people will disagree with him, others agree, but very few will be "brainwashed" by the article or even "lap it up". Either way I don't think anyone could disagree that it makes for a good debate.

 

[Ian-LS]

He's on linked in i think as a journalist if you fancy messaging him there. Although i think the new comments slating the article kind of make up for him not being forced to retract the article.

 

[SolarCity]

It's not presented as 'fact' or even 'journalism' though - it's one guy's opinion. Some people will disagree with him, others agree, but very few will be "brainwashed" by the article or even "lap it up". Either way I don't think anyone could disagree that it makes for a good debate.

Judging by the public's reaction to the MMR debacle, I would have to strongly disagree.

It's not really brainwashing, it's just a lazy public. If they read it in the newspaper, they tend to believe that it is true.

In this instance it is a failure on the editor's part. Articles like this cost people their livelihood and a certain amount of care should be taken when the decision to publish is taken.

 

[Adam W]

You can tell from the comments that a lot of people haven't just read the guy's opinion and taken it as the truth, and it's the same with a lot of articles in the Daily Mail, in fact a lot of the comments on other articles slate the standard of journalism.
I wouldn't say Daily Mail readers blindly follow what they read in their paper any more than the readers of any other paper. If anything Daily Mail readers tend to question it more, it's just they seem to get stereotyped the most.

 

[Gavin A]

yeah, but how many of them are actually daily mail readers? I'd bet most simply followed links from other places there - it was passed around twitter by REA and a few others fr example.