West Coast Ocean Protection Act Aims to Permanently Ban Offshore Drilling in Federal Coastal Waters

Press release from the Office of Congressman Huffman:

Congressman Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) today introduced the West Coast Ocean Protection Act to permanently ban oil and gas drilling in federal waters off the coast of California, Oregon and Washington.

“Offshore drilling poses unacceptable risks, and the science and public opinion are clear: we should not put our oceans and fisheries, coastal communities, economies, and planet at risk just to enrich the fossil fuel industry,” said Representative Huffman. “The world is transitioning to a green, clean energy future – and it is past time that we ban new offshore drilling and shift our investments to safe, renewable energy sources. Californians have experienced first-hand the environmental disasters caused by oil spills, and we are ready to put an end to that risk once and for all by permanently protecting our coasts.”

“The era of offshore oil and gas production in the Pacific is coming to a close,” said Senator Feinstein. “We’re in the midst of a historic transition to cleaner energy sources, including offshore wind. Offshore drilling and the risks it poses to the environment and our robust ocean and coastal economies are not part of that clean-energy future. It’s time to permanently ban new drilling leases in federal waters off the West Coast.”

California began efforts to block offshore drilling in 1969 when an oil rig off the coast of Santa Barbara leaked 3 million gallons of crude oil into the ocean, blanketing beaches with a thick layer of oil and killing thousands of marine mammals and birds. It was the largest oil spill in U.S. history until the Exxon Valdez spill 20 years later. After the 1969 Santa Barbara spill, California blocked all new offshore oil drilling in state waters, protecting our coastal waters up to three miles from the shore. The state reinforced that ban in 1994 by passing the California Coastal Sanctuary Act, which prohibited new leasing in state waters.

In October 2021, a ruptured pipeline from an existing oil well spilled more than 25,000 gallons of crude oil into the ocean and onto the beaches of Orange County. Despite numerous alarms, operators allowed oil to flow from the leak for over 14 hours. The spill covered more than 8,000 acres of the ocean’s surface and required more than a week of cleanup while local businesses and fisheries suffered.

No new offshore drilling has been allowed in federal waters along the Pacific Coast since 1984. However, the Trump administration released a five-year offshore leasing plan in 2018 that proposed opening up the entire West Coast to new drilling despite widespread opposition in Pacific coast states. That proposal was blocked by the courts but the threat of drilling will remain until a permanent ban is enacted. 

The West Coast Ocean Protection Act would permanently protect these waters that are essential to coastal economies and healthy marine ecosystems. Nearly 70 percent of Californians opposed offshore drilling according to recent polling by the Public Policy Institute of California.

The bill is supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Oceana, Sierra Club, Environment America, Environment Washington, Environment Oregon, Environment California, Surfrider Foundation, League of Conservation Voters, Surf Industry Members Association, WILDCOAST, Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast, Paddle For Peace, and the National Aududon Society.

“Surfrider Foundation applauds the introduction of the West Coast Protection Act. We urge Congress to pass this and other legislation to protect U.S. waters from new offshore drilling. Stopping new offshore drilling will protect our nation’s environment, communities and businesses. The bill is also a key action to address climate change,” said Pete Stauffer, ocean protection manager, Surfrider Foundation.

“We can’t continue business as usual. With a climate and biodiversity crisis to address, and a clean energy economy taking off, this is no time to pursue a backward-looking energy strategy. The public has made it clear – communities oppose new offshore drilling and seismic blasting and don’t want to hand over our coastal waters to polluters. This bill would make significant strides in protecting the West Coast, coastal communities, and fragile ecosystems,” said Valerie Cleland, senior ocean advocate, NRDC.

“From soaring cliffs to sunny beaches, the Pacific coast is truly a national treasure. Sadly, this treasure has been threatened far too often, for far too long, with spills and pollution from offshore drilling. We’re glad to see the West Coast Ocean Protection Act reintroduced. We need to make ocean drilling a thing of the past,” said Kelsey Lamp, Protect our Oceans campaign director, Environment America. 

“Dirty and dangerous offshore drilling worsens climate change, threatens marine life, and results in environmentally and economically devastating oil spills. Oceana applauds Senator Feinstein and Congressman Huffman for reintroducing the West Coast Ocean Protection Act which makes important progress toward permanently protecting all our coasts from new offshore drilling. Ending new offshore drilling is a crucial step toward addressing the climate crisis. Our oceans can be part of the solution as we expedite our transition away from dirty and dangerous fossil fuels and toward clean, renewable energy like responsibly-sited offshore wind,” said Diane Hoskins, Climate and Energy campaign director, Oceana.

“Communities on the West Coast have been fighting for a long time to be free of the fossil fuel industry’s grip. LCV thanks Congressman Huffman and Senator Feinstein for reintroducing the West Coast Ocean Protection Act, which would prohibit new oil and gas leasing off the West Coast and prevent a massive 19 billion tons of greenhouse gases from fueling the climate crisis. Offshore drilling continues to pollute coastal waters, with devastating consequences for the economy and public health of coastal communities already bearing the brunt of Big Oil’s greed. This bill is a step towards a just, clean, renewable energy future,” said America Fitzpatrick, conservation program director, League of Conservation Voters.

“We thank Senator Feinstein and Congressman Huffman for championing this effort to protect our coasts from the environmental disruption of offshore oil and gas extraction. Offshore drilling puts wildlife in danger, threatens the health of coastal communities, and prolongs our reliance on climate-damaging fossil fuels. Congress needs to listen to the local communities and millions of Americans who have spoken out against offshore drilling and pass the West Coast Protection Act,” said Athan Manuel, director of Sierra Club’s Lands Protection Program.

“Put simply, there is no room for more offshore drilling in a clean energy future. Rather we need to prioritize transformative and responsible actions that will move us away from fossil fuel production to renewable energy. Ocean Conservancy is excited to see the re-introduction of this critical legislation that would permanently ban risky offshore drilling on the West Coast, protecting our ocean health, and fostering the transition to cleaner energy sources. We look forward to working with Congress to advance this legislation,” said Jeff Watters, Vice President of External Affairs at Ocean Conservancy.

In the House, the legislation is cosponsored by Representatives Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44), Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), Julia Brownley (CA-26), Ed Case (HI-01), Judy Chu (CA-28), Suzan K. DelBene (WA-01), Mark DeSaulnier (CA-10), Anna Eshoo (CA-16), Jimmy Gomez (CA-34), Raúl Grijalva (AZ-03), Val Hoyle (OR-04), Sara Jacobs (CA-51), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), William Keating (MA-09), Derek Kilmer (WA-06), Rick Larsen (WA-02), Barbara Lee (CA-12), Mike Levin (CA-49), Ted. W. Lieu (CA-36), Doris Matsui (CA-07), Jimmy Panetta (CA-19), Scott Peters (CA-50), Katie Porter (CA-47), Deborah Ross (NC-02), Adam Schiff (CA-30), Eric Swalwell (CA-15), Mark Takano (CA-39), Mike Thompson (CA-04), Jill Tokuda (HI-02) and Juan Vargas (CA-52.).

In the Senate, the legislation is cosponsored by Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Facebooktwitterpinterestmail

Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules

Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

76 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike MorganD
Member
1 year ago

Feinstein had a Chinese spy for an employee for more than 20 years. So the deal smella like Thousand Year Eggs to me. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/10/thiessen-sen-dianne-feinstein-had-a-chinese-spy-on-her-staff-for-20-years/

We have the ability to gain freedom from Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the rest of the oil cartels; but these people linked to countries supporting Russia against Ukraine want to keep us down.

Offshore Wind Farms? Sure. They just kill whates and seabirds.

Country Joe
Member
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Morgan

That scandal was pretty much ignored by our nations biased and corrupt lame stream media…

grey fox
Member
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Morgan

Would help if US companies quit exporting oil and petroleum products (gasoline, diesel)

SamD
Member
Sam
1 year ago
Reply to  grey fox

That would be a terrible idea.

onrust88
Member
onrust88
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam

Why? Why is it a terrible idea?

SamD
Member
Sam
1 year ago
Reply to  onrust88

Billions of people depend on oil to heat their homes, cook their food and employ them and eliminating the world’s largest oil producer from global trade would be devastating to the poorest nations and turn OPEC into a monopoly

lol
Guest
lol
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Morgan

Wait, by “linked countries supporting Russia against Ukraine” you are referring to the spy that was on her staff?
You realize how absolutely cray that sound sounds right? As if her driver being a spy means she had an anti-Ukraine agenda.

SamD
Member
Sam
1 year ago

 “we should not put our oceans and fisheries, coastal communities, economies, and planet at risk just to enrich the fossil fuel industry,”
The whole freaking world operates on oil, framing it as “just to enrich the fossil fuel industry” is straight-up propaganda

c u 2morrowD
Member
1 year ago

 “The world is transitioning to a green, clean energy future – and it is past time that we ban new offshore drilling and shift our investments to safe, renewable energy sources. Californians have experienced first-hand the environmental disasters caused by oil spills, and we are ready to put an end to that risk once and for all by permanently protecting our coasts.”

China, Russia and India did not get this memo

Mountain man
Guest
Mountain man
1 year ago
Reply to  c u 2morrow

Exactly they can’t keep the electricity on , can’t generate enough for electric cars as if we could afford them . I guess we could get horses but how will we grow the feed ?

Country Joe
Member
1 year ago
Reply to  c u 2morrow

Environmental policies that tax traditional energy, before new alternatives are developed to effective and practical outputs, is not only incredibly expensive for the working class, but may collapse modern society at the rate things are going. I won’t be surprised when the push for zero emissions leads to people burning furniture to keep from freezing and living in caves.

onrust88
Member
onrust88
1 year ago
Reply to  Country Joe

Sounds like the old “freeze to death in the dark” people tried to use against environmentalists in the past. It was B. S. then and it is now.

Sigh
Guest
Sigh
1 year ago
Reply to  Country Joe

“Environmental policies that tax traditional energy, before new alternatives are developed to effective and practical outputs”.
It’s the only reasonable and pragmatic way to do it. If one thinks “traditional energy” development companies (read: Big Oil) are going to help without a kick, forget it. Hell, big oil did original studies in the 1970’s on climate change impacts of fossil fuels then ACCELERATED production. That’s right, the money-grubbing anti-tax corporate sleaze new long before subsequent so-called liberal enviro class.

D'Tucker Jebs
Member
1 year ago
Reply to  c u 2morrow

We could, you know, lead by example.

Alf
Guest
Alf
1 year ago

These are two of the biggest idiots in America and California dealt us with both of them. That’s nothing unusual as so many voted for them all these years. Yeah… let’s get rid of oil and natural gas drilling and install an even more devastating thing by littering miles of ocean wit wind turbines. It doesn’t get much more stupid.

Mountain man
Guest
Mountain man
1 year ago
Reply to  Alf

Still waiting for the offshore turbines , how is the power going to get here ? Oh wait the ocean floor cables , how are they laid and anchored ? How tall are the turbines again ? Who has invested in any of this ? Clearly the next tax funded boondoggle.

onrust88
Member
onrust88
1 year ago
Reply to  Alf

Ad hominem arguments don’t cut it Alf. I could call you the third biggest idiot in California but it means nothing other than me enjoying name calling.

Kym Kemp
Admin
1 year ago
Reply to  onrust88

Pushing it.

Alf
Guest
Alf
1 year ago
Reply to  onrust88

Does that mean you voted for them? Their corruption is indeed fact and no, I would never vote for either one except if on a jury to send them to life in prison.

local observer
Guest
local observer
1 year ago

it seems that most do not understand the petroleum industry. Our gas just increased today because of China’s demand. It’s a world marketplace, US oil companies don’t care who their customer is. They sell to 173 different countries. In 2021 the US was a net exporter of Oil. We imported a few hundred million less than what we exported. It’s cheaper for the US refiners to refine Middle East oil than ours, so that’s what they do. We sell ours and buy theirs. The politics we see on FOX news is to help the US oil companies make more money, because if they pump more in the USA they will sell more to countries like China.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6

thetallone
Guest
thetallone
1 year ago
Reply to  local observer
grey fox
Member
1 year ago
Reply to  local observer

Still was in 2022 and expected to rise in 2023

Sales of U.S. crude to other nations are now a record 3.4 million barrels per day (bpd), with exports of about 3 million bpd of refined products like gasoline and diesel fuel. The United States is also the leading liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporter, where growth is expected to soar in coming years.

Last edited 1 year ago
onrust88
Member
onrust88
1 year ago
Reply to  local observer

Damn, there you go again, being rational. What is wrong with you?

Festus Haggins
Member
Festus Haggins
1 year ago

I have a hard time believing it’s a nonpartisan poll when the poll takers are of the California government that hires on Diversity & Inclusion and the legislation sponsored by 98% Dumbocrats. Public Policy Institute of California.

Ben Round
Guest
Ben Round
1 year ago

Yes. Please do!

Lone Ranger
Guest
Lone Ranger
1 year ago

Democrats still at it, the poor get poorer and they don’t give two sheets. And why is fuel going higher ? Bidens green policy, that’s why.

lol
Guest
lol
1 year ago
Reply to  Lone Ranger

They are awful on issues of economic equality, but still better than the republicans, for those who cant see past the two party system. If it were up to conservatives we would still have child labor and no weekends.

old guy
Guest
old guy
1 year ago
Reply to  lol

saying if conservatives would have child labor and no weekends equates to if it was up to democrats, we would still have slavery

onrust88
Member
onrust88
1 year ago
Reply to  old guy

If it were still 1850, but some time has passed since then.

onrust88
Member
onrust88
1 year ago
Reply to  lol

And the feudal lord could still lay with the new bride first on her wedding day. It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

Farce
Guest
Farce
1 year ago
Reply to  Lone Ranger

Neither party cares. Yes the rich get richer- in BOTH parties. The poor get poorer. The middle class disappears and the working poor lose their homes must live on the streets. And NEITHER party does anything to reverse this because they are BOTH run by the wealthy corrupt politicians doing favors for their uber-wealthy donors. It’s a compete shit show but they keep everybody fighting over which party cares more about the American people… Ha Ha Ha!!! NEITHER party cares more. It is the wealthy feeding the wealthy and damn the poor souls who have no representation.in either party. You seem smart enough Lone Ranger.to figure out this much. I appreciate your attacks on Biden- he deserves little respect. But the DEMs are only half of the problem…

Lone Ranger
Guest
Lone Ranger
1 year ago
Reply to  Farce

Agreed Farce

Sigh
Guest
Sigh
1 year ago
Reply to  Farce

Most rightwing in the hills agree. But even consider alternative models and things go “socialist” then watch them rail (and the guns come out) hence we’re stuck.

onrust88
Member
onrust88
1 year ago
Reply to  Lone Ranger

More idiots on parade.

Lone Ranger
Guest
Lone Ranger
1 year ago
Reply to  onrust88

Go green on rust! Maybe buy an ev and get back to me. I’ve got zero beef with evs ,I’ve owned a few. Sounds like your a parade of one , crack me up.

Country Joe
Member
1 year ago

Environmental policies that tax traditional energy, before new alternatives are developed to effective and practical outputs, is not only incredibly expensive for the working class, but may collapse modern society at the rate things are going. I won’t be surprised when the push for zero emissions leads to people burning furniture to keep from freezing and living in caves.

lol
Guest
lol
1 year ago
Reply to  Country Joe

They chose between unattainable fantasy (free clean energy and everyone bicycling to work) or a very difficult reality (austerity and population control). So they choose a fantasy.

Neither side is willing to accept that we cannot continuing burning fossil fuels AND there are no viable alternatives that will allow us to continue life as we know it.

We will continue dumping more CO2 every year for at least the next 30 years when fusion plants hopefully began being built. We will lose a lot more species by then but should be able to survive.

Al L Ivesmtr
Guest
Al L Ivesmtr
1 year ago
Reply to  lol

Increased CO2 means more plant growth, means more food, means more animals. and plants. Prove that we need to stop burning and using fossil fuels as you cannot offer one shred of viable proof why we should not. Doubling down by banning drilling while installing giant bird choppers minus the drill is just plain idiotic. They cost more to produce than they generate, they cost more in fossil fuels to service than traditional drilling snd fracking, and the undersea and above sea vibrations they create interrupts the migration of ocean mammals. The EVs they will service cost more to produce by mining rare Earth minerals all over the world, often using child slave labor in the Congo. The batteries weigh over a thousand pounds and are extremely toxic. These toxic batteries will be shipped back to the third world once they are expended. The third world poor will then break them down snd remove the rare earth minerals using primitive smelters which will add more toxins to the environment. These same minerals will then be shipped back to the first world using fossil fuels. Finally, EVs are extremely dangerous for other vehicles on the road as they vastly outweigh traditional vehicles. Species extinction is occurring right now on the southern border due to border jumpers crushing the local desert ecosystems. But for some reason the democrats do not care because of ulterior motives of staying in power and grasping the ring to unite them all.

onrust88
Member
onrust88
1 year ago
Reply to  Al L Ivesmtr

Al – You should divest yourself of that kool-aid. lt really impacts your ability to think clearly and just raises your blood pressure about non-issues. The Tesla, a battery powered car weighs from 2300 pounds, the Roadster, to 5300 pounds, the Model X Plaid, their heaviest model. A gas Ford F-150 weighs between 4,000 and 5700 pounds. A diesel F-250 weighs from 5600 to 7300 pounds depending on options. All you say is conjecture, not reality. It might happen the way you say and it might not. Your theory is a doomsday theory and it’s your right to support it, but it is mostly BS, not supported by reality and facts.

Lone Ranger
Guest
Lone Ranger
1 year ago
Reply to  onrust88

Comparing passenger cars to four wheel drive work trucks, crack me up. How about your 5300 plaid compared to another passenger car ,like maybe a 3500 four door Beemer or Benz. Your evs are heavier , fact, can’t go as far , fact. They are cheaper to run and look cooler, I’ll give them that, but pricing is eating up low cost to run. You’ve got alot to learn son.

onrust88
Member
onrust88
1 year ago
Reply to  Country Joe

It would be illegal to burn furniture since most of it is made of plastic now or wood byproducts meaning wood chips and glue. Who cares about the working class any more? That would be the lower class or the working poor, there is no working class anymore. We got rid of them when we got rid of the middle class. I guess you didn’t get the memo.

Lone Ranger
Guest
Lone Ranger
1 year ago
Reply to  onrust88

Illegal, crack me up. 66 mph on 101 is also illegal, trying to tell homeless not to burn furniture cause it’s illegal got me rolling.

c u 2morrowD
Member
1 year ago
Reply to  Country Joe

California is taxing solar now … greedy !

I like stars
Guest
I like stars
1 year ago

Do giant wind farms fit in with “west coast ocean protection” or are they simply a different from of exploitation?

onrust88
Member
onrust88
1 year ago
Reply to  I like stars

We do not really know yet? That’s why continuing discussion is needed and looking at places in the world where they are is important. It isn’t as if this is new technology.

Xebeche
Guest
Xebeche
1 year ago

I so look forward to the end of humanity. The absurd bickering in the comment thread here is a perfect example of why humans are no longer needed here☺

West Benbow
Guest
West Benbow
1 year ago
Reply to  Xebeche

You first

D'Tucker Jebs
Member
1 year ago
Reply to  Xebeche

Many of the comments here lead me to believe you may get your wish sooner rather than later.

Festus Haggins
Member
Festus Haggins
1 year ago
Reply to  D'Tucker Jebs

It could be worse, you could be reading the comments over at Last Croak outpost. The mod Angie C will make sure you can only hear her echo and that of her tribe (which is few).

Uri
Guest
Uri
1 year ago
Reply to  Festus Haggins

Are you sure she uses she/her for pronouns?

D'Tucker Jebs
Member
1 year ago
Reply to  Festus Haggins

The irony is that she’s only hurting her own cause. The cancel-culture she embodies is a huge turn-off to many would-be supporters.

SamD
Member
Sam
1 year ago
Reply to  D'Tucker Jebs

It’s a good lesson in human psychology, even a small amount of power can corrupt a well-intentioned person.
What’s strange is that loco lets it continue, seems like banning half the site traffic would be bad for ad revenue.

Kym Kemp
Admin
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam

Comments generate a miniscule amount of traffic.

D'Tucker Jebs
Member
1 year ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

I’ve always kind of wondered, and you’d probably be the one to know. Is it the number of views… clicks… not sure what the industry lingo would be. Anyway, wouldn’t driving people off of a site still have a negative impact on the bottom line?

Giant Squirrel
Guest
Giant Squirrel
1 year ago
Reply to  D'Tucker Jebs

You’d think a click to read or write a comment is the same as a click to read the underlying article

D'Tucker Jebs
Member
1 year ago
Reply to  Giant Squirrel

Well, now I know the world is about to end!
You and I just agreed.

Kym Kemp
Admin
1 year ago
Reply to  D'Tucker Jebs

It is the same. It’s just that most articles have thousands of views, oftentimes tens of thousands and six or seven hundred comments is my biggest comment getter of all times.

For instance, the last 30 days had 2.7 million page views but I rarely top 300 comments a day and to the best of my memory didn’t top 500 ever. So let’s just say I get 5,000 views per day solely to look at comments (I don’t think I get anywhere near that). That’s 150,000 comment-related views a month compared to 2.7 million views. It isn’t nothing (as my dad would have said) but…I’ve never had anyone say to me “Well, if only you had 200,000 more views a month, we’d advertise with you.”
I have had advertisers say something like, “We love your numbers but our owner doesn’t want to be associated with the nastiness/craziness/ of your comment section”
I don’t want to speak for LoCO but I have to admit when a big account turned me down for that reason, it did make my stomach flip and I did question my commitment to letting people say stuff that would cause advertisers to back off.

Last edited 1 year ago
Kym Kemp
Admin
1 year ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

In addition, one fire department has been openly hostile since I refused to delete comments that were negative about them (that I also believed were unfair). This means that I am less able to get information out to people.

SamD
Member
Sam
1 year ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Troubling that a public utility pressured you to delete comments. I cant imagine the police department request comment moderation would go over well with people

Kym Kemp
Admin
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam

Police departments are as different as people in general. Some are less understanding of the value of free speech than others.

D'Tucker Jebs
Member
1 year ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Thanks. Very informative. That’s one of the reasons I enjoy the comment section here. I tend to learn things every day.
I also understand your conundrum when it comes to just how much to tolerate. I’m not actually opposed to regulating certain types of comments- especially the spreading of hateful, harmful, and verifiably false information. Whatever your choice, I do not fear that you will go the route of LoCo. What they call moderation is really just a form of passive-agressive bullying.
In my opinion, you’ve got the better site anyway.
Thanks again for what you do.

I like stars
Guest
I like stars
1 year ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Definitely sometimes, and arguably often, the comments add valuable information. Sometimes they don’t. I appreciate that you continue to host and moderate them. It must be often frustrating. More communication is usually better. There are unkind thoughts expressed here but there are many kind ones too.

SamD
Member
Sam
1 year ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Appreciate the info Kym. How times do commenters visit your site before commenting? If its 10 visits per comment then that 150K represents 1.5M

Kym Kemp
Admin
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam

I doubt that it is 10 visits per comment. If you notice, the vast majority of commenters are repeat commenters.

But if the LoCO has lost enough numbers and thus advertisers from their more serious moderation (at least as claimed by commenters, though I read their site daily I rarely read the comments so I don’t know) they have at least the capability I have to read the loss and Hank is way more technically capable than I am so likely they have more ability. And it seems likely to me that they would have changed moderation practices if it was hurting their bottom line. And they haven’t. Thus…..commenters are not that big of a draw to medium to large sites.

SamD
Member
Sam
1 year ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Fair. Thanks for the explanation and the perspective.
You’re right, I’m sure loco would act if it was damaging ad revenue.
Must be difficult to juggle the pressures from advertisers/readers/local politics. no wonder media is so easily corruptible.

Kym Kemp
Admin
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam

The media, like teachers, plumbers and barbers, and other professions are made up of people. Some folks are corruptible, some are less so, and some are incorruptible.
And…the media is vast. Trying to lump Breitbart, Rachel Madow, The Wall Street Journal and National Geographic together as corruptible or incorruptible is…not very helpful.

Last edited 1 year ago
SamD
Member
Sam
1 year ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Corruptablilty is more a product of opportunity than human integrity, media/police/politics encounter far more opportunities to be corrupted by incentives than teachers plumpers barbers.
Yes, the media and its spectrum of corruption is vast, Madow and Breitbart can certainly be lumped together at the top of that spectrum.

SamD
Member
Sam
1 year ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

The negative image it creates spreads beyond the comments
Can I ask how you concluded comments account for little traffic?

c u 2morrowD
Member
1 year ago
Reply to  Festus Haggins

terrible mod. It’s her way or the highway.

DanD
Member
Dan
1 year ago
Reply to  Festus Haggins

Angie (Moderator) is a tool for Humboldt’s own Rupert Murdoch,
LoCo owner Pat Clary has used his resources, whether at HAF or
one of his radio stations to direct money intended to enhance our coastal environment, to instead make war on a benevolent plant.
The damages are now generational, we were on our way to creating wildlife habitat to the west and we are now, thanks to ineptitude losing habitat to the east. NO REPORTS. Not even the once-noble Econews will show photos of what happens to dunes when you remove the vegetation and fail to replant.

onrust88
Member
onrust88
1 year ago
Reply to  Xebeche

If people couldn’t bitch, what would they do with themselves?

c u 2morrowD
Member
1 year ago
Reply to  onrust88

build that she shed , she has been on me about for the past year.

c u 2morrowD
Member
1 year ago

California, a forward thinking and progressive state. The only state to go from a budget surplus to a budget deficit in three months.

DanD
Member
Dan
1 year ago
Reply to  c u 2morrow

The United States has been acquiring debt for 230 years, and a full 25% of that debt
was acquired during the four years of Republican Trump.
Is this the restraint of Conservatism?