[bratticus]

Brent crude settled on Friday February 25, 2012 at $126.65. Anyone with an Internet-connected computer, a little web searching ability, some time and the initiative can find that out, yet there are huge numbers of news articles that instead of putting a simple fact like the exact price put a statement like:

Saudi Arabia, U.S. Seek to Manage Iranian Threat to Oil Market
NASDAQ / February 25, 2012

... The Brent crude price surged to more than $125 a barrel ...

If I only saw it happening to a few news articles or just some of the time I wouldn't raise an eyebrow, but it's become a cliché of sorts, just like price stickers that have $19.95 on them to hide the fact that you are paying $20.

[Cog]

I attribute this to pure laziness rather than a conspiracy.

[bratticus]

Here's a winner: Did you know we are having the Best Week thanks to Iran and Peak Oil?

NYMEX-Crude up 7th day, best week since Dec, on Iran
Reuters / February 24, 2012

U.S. crude futures rose a seventh day on Friday, closing at a nine-month high and having the best week since December as the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Iran had stepped up uranium enrichment work was seen inflaming Tehran's tensions with the West.

With best weeks like this who needs crises?

[bratticus]

I attribute this to pure laziness rather than a conspiracy.

So NYMEX hires lazy reporters?

[Cog]

The Brent crude price surged to more than $125 a barrel after the United Nations' nuclear watchdog issued a report flagging the potential military nature of Iran's nuclear program, following an aborted U.N. inspection mission to Iran this week.

There is nothing inaccurate in the statement. Why put in the exact figure it rose to? Is $126.65 scarier than rising to above $125? Maybe the article was written earlier in the day when the price first broached $125.

[bratticus]

Why put in the exact figure it rose to? Is $126.65 scarier than rising to above $125?

Why put $19.95 instead of $20?

=

[Cog]

Laziness. Does the exact figure matter in some grand scheme of things?

[bratticus]

If mainstream media wanted people to know about peak oil they could inform most everyone on the planet in a week. Instead we see not only an endless procession of "peak oil is a myth" news articles but also these psychological mitigation games.

[Cog]

I understand where you are coming at from now. Most people in the world(us excluded) don't keep a ticker of oil prices streaming across their desktops or have researched the impacts of peak oil. For them, it will all come as quite a surprise.

[Beery1]

Do we need to know exactly what price it rose to? No. There is no need for a thread on this.

If I say I bought bag of chocolates for about $4, does the fact that it actually cost me $4.35 make me a liar, or lazy? Does it make me guilty of playing manipulative psychological games? No. It just means that I reckon that no one will care to know the exact figure, so I don't need to dig out the sales receipt.

In line with the moderators' new policy regarding trolling, I suggest useless threads like this should be deleted. People come here looking for important data and discussions, not junk. There are too many useless threads on the Peak Oil forums already - can we do a bit of judicious pruning please?

[bratticus]

I understand where you are coming at from now. Most people in the world(us excluded) don't keep a ticker of oil prices streaming across their desktops or have researched the impacts of peak oil. For them, it will all come as quite a surprise.

+1

[PrestonSturges]

Why put in the exact figure it rose to? Is $126.65 scarier than rising to above $125?

Why put $19.95 instead of $20?

I think that partly it takes longer to read and understand, so the mind retains it better. And then, when you mentally round it up to $20, you actually had to do a calculation, so the number is goes into your memory again. Compare that to reading a price of $20 and then later seeing the same item for $22 - you would hesitate to say which was more expensive because your memory of $20 would be hazy. But if you saw $19.95 first and $20.15 later, you'd think of the $19.95 as being much cheaper. You'd remember the $19.95 clearly, and the mind would see the $20 price as a significant price point.

[Keith_McClary]

How about:

Brent crude price surged to more than $124.99 a barrel.

[careinke]

I'm with Cog, lazy reporting. I frequently see news stories from different sources with exactly the same wording. Not only are the reporters lazy, they plagiarize each other.

Same with network news. I mean come on, they have the same news stories and even the same human interest stories.