Skip to main content

How do we want to spin this?

Image result for SM Energy

Reuters recently ran a story that begins this way:

"Riverstone Holdings LLC, a private equity firm that focuses on energy and power sectors, said it would sell U.S.-based oil and gas explorer Rock Oil Holdings LLC to SM Energy Co (SM.N) for $980 million in cash."

Surely that sounds boring to most of you, dear readers. 

One point that may make the lede interesting, for observers of the news media, is the choice whereby the story was made to be about Riverstone Holdings, the PE firm. The other two firms are direct and indirect object, "to sell" is the predicate. Riverstone is the subject. [By the way, "lede" is standard journo jargon for "lead paragraph," as distinct from "lead story" for which the standard spelling is retained.] 

Was there an alternative? Of course there was! More than one, surely, but the one that comes immediately to my mind would read, "SM Energy Co is purchasing Rock Oil Holdings LLC from ...." etc. Should this story be about the buyer rather than the seller? 

It might depend on why the transfer of Rock Oil Holdings will be considered an important fact by at least some readers. The big reason, surely, is that Rock Oil possesses close to 25,000 acres in the Permian Basin, in Texas. Presumably the reason why SM Energy is buying is in order to extend its own holdings in that basin, a key part of the geography of the shale oil revolution.

The key reason why Riverstone is selling may be that it believes that revolution, at least in that basin, has already played itself out, so it would rather have the cash.

So which way one coaches the lede graf in that story may have a great deal to do with whether one is an optimist or a pessimist about that continuing significance of that revolution. 




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak