Al Gore: Why no, I’m not a hypocrite for selling Current TV to oil emirs
posted at 12:01 pm on January 29, 2013 by Ed Morrissey
Three minutes of hilarity come to us today from a rather unlikely pair — Matt Lauer and Al Gore. Give Lauer credit for pressing Gore on the implications of selling Current TV to Al-Jazeera, a global news organization that isn’t sponsored by Big Oil interests, but owned by them. Reaching back to Gore’s own book The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change, Lauer asks Gore not once but twice how he can square his accusations that other news organizations are bought by Big Oil and then sell his to Qatari oil emirs.
Gore says … well, watch:
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Erik Wemple practically laughs out loud:
Hypocrisy! “Today” displayed a quote from Gore’s new book “The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change.” It reads, “Virtually every news and political commentary program on television is sponsored in part by oil, coal and gas companies…” So Lauer asks Gore if his sale of Current TV to a network owned by the emir of an oil-earnings-fueled Middle East country (Qatar) doesn’t smack of a contradiction. To which Gore had a lame response. “I certainly understand that criticism. I disagree with it. Because I think Al Jazeera has obviously long since established itself as a really distinguished and effective news gathering organization. And by the way, its climate coverage has been far more extensive and of high quality than any…”
Lauer came back at him, citing possible hypocrisy. Gore essentially repeated his first response.
And you have to love this explanation of what makes Al-Jazeera so exceptional:
Gore loves accolades won by other outlets. Of Al Jazeera, he says, “It’s won major awards in countries around the world.”
Yes … but did they ever win this Major Award?
Note too (as Wemple does) that Gore doesn’t dispute that $100 million payday. I’d guess that was the only “major award” that really impressed Gore. Kudos to Lauer for making Gore answer that question — twice.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Videos: What do Americans think about the IRS and DOJ scandals?
Pennsylvania union ad: Liquor store privatization is pretty much a death trap
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Was Ringo Starr a great drummer?
Del Dolemonte on January 29, 2013 at 4:14 PM
Great job, outlining all of that. I’ve done it myself a dozen times on here.
But it won’t stop him from lying about this over and over again.
blink on January 29, 2013 at 4:15 PM
Aw, Blink…you do try so hard.
Which just shows how you didn’t understand what I was saying to you.
verbaluce on January 29, 2013 at 4:21 PM
I’m not a drummer, so perhaps not well suited to answer that.
I’d say he was for sure a very influential drummer – and think that’s enough to make him great.
verbaluce on January 29, 2013 at 4:28 PM
Semantics.
Do you prefer the term ‘government benefit’?
(And stop trying to bite my ass. It’s weird.)
verbaluce on January 29, 2013 at 4:31 PM
Oh please. I’m light years ahead of you. I understand EXACTLY what you were trying to say to me.
You were trying to say that you could discuss the science if you wanted to, but that you don’t want to discuss the science with me.
But we all know that this isn’t true.
We all know that you’re don’t want to discuss the science of CAGW with me because I’ll make you look stupid.
We all know that I’ll successfully make you look stupid because you don’t understand the science of CAGW.
We all know that you don’t understand the science of CAGW because you don’t have an adequate scientific foundation.
We all know that you don’t have an adequate scientific foundation because you’ve never studied science.
We all know that you’ve never studied science because you don’t like it.
So, I’m cutting to the bottom line and asking you why you hate science.
Also, it’s reasonable for me to ask if your disinterest in discussing the Beatles, fishing, BMWs, etc. with me also stems from the fact that you know that I’ll successfully make you look stupid about those topics, too.
blink on January 29, 2013 at 4:33 PM
So to put your own words together – big oil gets exactly the same “subsidies” as every other company in the US?
So basically big oil does not get any special treatment.
dentarthurdent on January 29, 2013 at 4:35 PM
So, you are clueless about accounting and economics, too.
You don’t understand the difference between a revenue subsidy and specific tax treatments.
Seriously, tell us what specific “government benefit” oil companies get that all companies don’t get?
All companies are allowed to depreciate infrastructure builds. All companies are allowed to deduct their cost of goods sold (which is what a depletion allowance is).
Or, do you think that it’s wrong that all companies are allowed to deduct the cost of doing business?
blink on January 29, 2013 at 4:37 PM
Unlike alternative energy companies in which the government provides specific methods for them to receive revenue (sales).
Government entities pay MORE (or require the public) pay more for certain types of energy.
blink on January 29, 2013 at 4:38 PM
Exactly.
dentarthurdent on January 29, 2013 at 4:43 PM
RWM was admonishing the greentech sector because of subsidies.
That was the context in which the issue was raised.
verbaluce on January 29, 2013 at 4:47 PM
I have no illusions as to what your view of any discussion would be.
verbaluce on January 29, 2013 at 4:53 PM
RWM was schooling you on the differences between revenue subsidies and common tax deductions that are available to most companies.
How are you not embarrassed to reveal your ignorance about so many issues on here?
blink on January 29, 2013 at 4:57 PM
Really? So, you know that I take an incredibly scientific approach to discussing the issue of CAGW?
Is that bad? Is a scientific discussion about CAGW a bad thing these days?
blink on January 29, 2013 at 4:59 PM
That’s because the green sector gets actual subsidies – i.e. direct handouts from the government – in addition to the standard tax deductions big oil and every other company get.
That’s the difference you just can’t seem to grasp.
Identify any single direct subsidy any big oil company has gotten that is comparable to the DOE handouts Solyndra and other “green” companies have gotten – just one.
And don’t try to use (again) the standard operating expense deductions that EVERYONE gets.
dentarthurdent on January 29, 2013 at 5:19 PM
Well of course, because, you know – it’s settled – even though the data says otherwise. But then who really cares about a trivial thing like actual data…..
dentarthurdent on January 29, 2013 at 5:21 PM
Let’s not bother asking verbaluce why some states require electrical utilities to pay twice as much for electricity from wind turbines or solar cells. Let’s not ask verbaluce why wind and solar can’t compete with other forms of energy.
Let’s let verbaluce continue to pretend that oil companies get the same thing.
blink on January 29, 2013 at 5:22 PM
I DON’T BELIEVE IN GOVERNMENT ‘BENEFITS’ EITHER (deducting costs of business is NOT, however, a government ‘benefit’).
Next.
PS: Stop making big ass out of yourself and then putting your ‘giganormity’ in our faces and we’ll stop biting you.
Resist We Much on January 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM
Except, you confused the “issue” by calling tax deductions (depletion allowances and IDCs, which are the costs of doing business for independents and wildcatters) “subsidies,” which they are not.
As for “special treatment,” you will notice that major oil companies DO get special treatment. They are NOT allowed to deduct many standard costs of doing business.
Do you have any other “inconsistencies” or “ignorance” that you would like to prominently display for the world today?
Resist We Much on January 29, 2013 at 5:36 PM
OK, enough BS. Now can I get back to my Tennessee Barbecue. I’m hungry.
Hummer53 on January 29, 2013 at 5:48 PM
You can never go wrong Ed citing to A Christmas Story. Nice one.
Mr. Joe on January 29, 2013 at 6:15 PM
A….MEN.
I’ve heard this lie pushed so many times that people believe it.
This comes from people believing that because they think a certain way they own the facts.
They’ve take the word subsidies and have substituted tax deductions, the same that EVERY business recieves when they have investments out of the country.
The “big oil” demon has been the Democrat whipping boy for too long.
Let this irresponsible use of words finally end.
itsspideyman on January 29, 2013 at 6:29 PM
Hilarious. Comedy gold. Al, your former employees hate your guts and have called you a lying sellout. It’s a hoot to listen to your pathetic falsehoods. Selling a TV station to jihadi sympathizers? Way to go. The oil money is the least of my concerns, even though you are a green energy charlatan and a limousine liberal hypocrite.
Thank Heavens you were not elected president.
Philly on January 29, 2013 at 7:01 PM
I love Arabs. I really do. They like horses and keep women in their place and know not to toss acid on horses. They do wonders with lamb and rice.
I think that despite some comments I may have made about Media Matters and President Obama, both have some redeeming qualities, also.
Then we have Al Gore. It was bad enough that this pathetic, fat, piece of crap got preachy at the expense of poor Americans and folks the world over with this nut ball global warm..er, climate change and then manipulated ignorant dupes like some in this administration to put a millstone on a nascent recovery. Then he sells to oil money!
His excuse citing the extent of the network’s coverage of climate issues is interesting. Of course, the oil industry is of vital import to those folks. So is keeping prices high. Go over there and watch the TV or just check their web site!
Those goals are NOT necessarily antithetical dealing fairly with the US. They sure are to banning or reducing the use of fossil fuels.
Maybe if I could get the US unemployed to pay him off, he would have sold to a community organizing group, or maybe the US chamber of commerce.
Sad.
IlikedAUH2O on January 29, 2013 at 9:50 PM
Anybody want a salvage BMW?
IlikedAUH2O on January 29, 2013 at 9:53 PM
Big oil, strip miner, chicken little he is.
Man-bear-pig gets the leg lamp award … awesome!
kregg on January 30, 2013 at 6:04 AM
If it runs, sure. Tell me where to send the boys to pick it up.
rogerb on January 30, 2013 at 6:39 AM
Heh. Salvage.
I didn’t say free . They had a mess of BMW’s in NJ salvage after Sandy. So many I thought the Bavarians were reducing inventory by dropping the excess units in the drink. They were cheap and I was looking for something to customize since I gave my Caddy away. The best was a 7 in Miami with hail except they were cutting th price nearly enough. When hail is so bad you have to dump the panels and weld till next week.
Now..on your comment…
Oh maybe they are free since it is just a 135 Coupe or whatever.
Wow. $0 bid…that has to change.
Lookie:
http://erepairables.com/salvage-auction/cars/bmw/1+series/2011-bmw-1+series-3127271
IlikedAUH2O on January 30, 2013 at 7:11 AM
RWM –
Again…you are playing semantics here…your language sounds like it’s right out of some lobbyist’s lierature.
Maybe Heritage as a source works better for you?
Oil Subsidies That Should Be Removed
First, let’s take a look at oil subsidies that are obvious and unnecessary. Congress should eliminate the following subsidies:
Government R&D
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Tax Credit.
and
Special tax treatment can serve the same purpose as a subsidy by uniquely favoring the oil and gas industry.
> Percentage Depletion Allowance
> Exemption from Passive Loss Limitation
verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 9:22 AM
Stop being stupid, verbaluce. It’s NOT semantics.
LEARN the difference between a revenue subsidy and a normal business expense.
What is “Government R&D”? Do you even know, or were you happy to just cut&paste something that you don’t understand?
R&D is ALWAYS considered a legitimate business expense. Or are you claiming that Apple gets a “subsidy” for inventing new iPhones and iPads????????
1. THIS IS A TAX CREDIT! If the company doesn’t make a profit, then they get NOTHING! This doesn’t help them get revenue. Why are you too stupid to understand this?
2. This tax deduction hasn’t even been available for a long time.
This is like a “Cost Of Goods Sold” or “Cost of Sales” that every company in the world gets to expense. Apple gets to deduct the expense of “selling” an iPhone. Independent oil companies get to deduct the “cost” of their oil sold via Percentage Depletion Allowance.
Or do you think that Apple deserves this type of deduction more than independent oil companies?????
1. I’m quite sure that you have NO IDEA what this is. Because, if you did, then you would be far too embarrassed to cut&paste this.
2. So, you don’t think that an investor should be allowed to deduct the cost of drilling a dry hole? If Apple loses money on a version of an iPhone, then you don’t think that they should be allowed to deduct that loss from the revenues from their other products?
Again, how are you not embarrassed by your ignorance????
blink on January 30, 2013 at 9:49 AM
Stop being a hack, Blink.
Even a right leaning think tank like Heritage understands it’s false not to acknowledge that these are in effect ‘subsidies’.
But thanks for letting us know Apple makes use of the PDA.
verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 10:33 AM
Irony doesn’t get any richer than that.
Acknowledge that you understand the difference between a revenue subsidy and a tax deduction. Acknowledge that you understand that one artifically props up a business while the other one merely allows additional profits (that would be earn anyway) to be retained by shareholders.
If you don’t acknowledge this, then you have ZERO credibility.
Your willful ignorance on full display.
You think it’s ok for Apple to deduct their expenses, but you refuse to acknowledge that the oil and gas industry should be allowed to have very similar deductions.
blink on January 30, 2013 at 10:39 AM
‘Special tax treatment can serve the same purpose as a subsidy by uniquely favoring the oil and gas industry.’
Now your position is there is nothing special at all.
that there is no difference –
that it’s all the same –
that there are no distinctions –
Your differ with the analysis of conservative economists and corporate tax analysts on the issue.
Ok.
Noted.
verbaluce on January 30, 2013 at 10:45 AM
First, acknowledge that you FINALLY understand the difference between a revenue subsidy and an expense deduction.
Until you do, I will simply continue to make you look like an idiot.
No, that’s not my position. The oil and gas industry is different than many other industries. In a way, it’s special. Apple gets to expense the cost of selling a product (COGS or Cost of Sales) that they make. Oil companies don’t make a product, therefore their COGS allowance is different.
Does “different” mean “special”? Do things that are different need to have “special” rules in order to provide similar treatment? Why, gee. Yes, they do.
Wow, you really are stupid.
Why would anyone claim that the oil and gas industry is the same as all other businesses and that there are no distinctions?
verbaluce, the only thing you’ve done is proven that you’re just as ignorant about accounting/finance as you are about science!!!
Is that because you hate numbers just as much as you hate science? Or do you hate science because you hate numbers.
verbaluce, it’s good that you get this opportunity to be educated by me. Maybe this helps prevent you from embarrassing yourself in real life by talking about your arse.
blink on January 30, 2013 at 11:13 AM
If you ask verbaluce if the revenue subsidies enjoyed by alternative energies equate to the tax deductions that some oil and gas companies can use, then here is the answer he’ll give you.
What an idiot.
blink on January 30, 2013 at 11:27 AM
verbaluce, do you think it’s unfair that the taxpayer is forced to “subsidize” (using YOUR definition of subsidy) Apple’s failed R&D projects? Because according to you, the US taxpayer subsidizes the failed R&D projects of a company that makes billions and billions of dollars in profit.
blink on January 30, 2013 at 11:29 AM
Holy cow. I’m not a big fan of the 1 series, but I’d definitely give them five dollars for it.
rogerb on January 30, 2013 at 12:31 PM
You mean his extortion of millions from corporations without actually providing a product or service, based on lies, fabricated “science”, and the alarmist methods of a complicit media? You bet I begrudge him that. He’s a Looter of the first order. His behavior proves Ayn Rand to be a prophet.
Freelancer on January 30, 2013 at 12:32 PM
Gore should be tried for treason since he did business with a terror support organization.
jediwebdude on January 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM
Chase me down and I will give free advice on flood and guys to help you if you get one. unfortunately, the only guy I know in my area bills like a lawyer but he can make one perfect.
I have bought cars and sold them for 8 to 10 times what I paid. and I didn’t rip anyone off.
Sometimes I get bruised and bleed too…all part of being a capitalist.
IlikedAUH2O on January 30, 2013 at 8:21 PM
Algore is a big fat despicable POS corrupt hypocrite. His EnviroFascism is just camouflage for what the Enviro Industry in this country is really all about – POWER, MONEY, GREED.
His entire life is a Big Lie. My favorite Algore Lie is how he invented the Internets.
CatchAll on January 30, 2013 at 10:33 PM
Lauer asked his yearly quota of “hard questions” to a leftist. With his reputation for “objectivity” secure until next year, he can go back to just tongue-bathing them.
Gator Country on January 30, 2013 at 11:14 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2