I'm one of 10s of thousands of people in California still without power after a major storm 4 days ago. And let me tell you, it's cold. I've lived in the Bay Area for 30 years, through many big storms, and I cannot recall there ever being a time when so many were left without power for so long. And yet, all the newspapers continue to spout PG&E spokes-messages without an ounce of critical reporting.
"Our operating crews are at capacity," they say. And the newspapers report it. "It's one of the biggest storms in 50 years," they say. And the newspapers report it. "We'll have everything back up and running real soon now." No questions asked.
What the hell does it take to get a damned newspaper to do some REPORTING?
For instance: What is the criteria by which this storm is judged "one of the worst" in the past 50 years? Is it property damage? Wind speed? Number of customers left without power? What is the real explanation for why it's taking a week to get the power grid back up?
Exactly how many field technicians—people who can actually fix power lines—are on the job today? How does that number compare to past years and past storms? PG&E says they’re operating at capacity. What does that actually mean? What is capacity, and how has it changed since PG&E went through bankruptcy?
How much investment in storm preparation was made last year compared to previous years? How much of the preparation is the responsibility of PG&E versus local, county and state municipalities? Is there any relation between staffing levels and PG&E’s recent profits plunge? IE: Have they been cutting costs to try and meet stock guidance, or reallocating staffing costs to pay for infrastructure investments?
I'm happy to accept reasonable explanations for any of these questions. But I won't accept newspapers simply regurgitating canned PR messages from our for-profit utility system.