So the BBC editor has a good story that fits the current narrative and runs it without research which would have shown that the price flucuates by a dollar or two within its (at present) downward spiral.

Whereas the Sky runs its interpretation (I actually found a Guardian article that put together all the reasons for the fall, and they included the weather and hedge fund changes of behaviour as well)

I’m not sure whether you’ve finally seen my point – that the media exerts its influence by reporting news in a partial way. The facts should in my view take precedence over the “interpretation” (or “spin”)

“Crude rises on Georgia fighting” :-

“US light, sweet crude rose 18 cents to $115.38 a barrel, while London Brent gained 38 cents to $113.71. Prices had earlier risen by more than a dollar.

Georgia is not an oil producer but the country is a key transit point for crude and gas exports.

Oil prices have fallen in recent weeks after hitting a record $147.27 in July.”

From Sky News today under the banner :-

“Supermarkets Slash Petrol Prices”

“The price of crude oil has slipped by almost $35 over the last six weeks, amid mounting concern that slower economic growth is reducing global demand, and currently stands at just over $113 a barrel.”

Nor am I anxious in any sort of problematic sense – a certain amount of cynicism reduces irrational anxiety, and encourages an independence of mind to
which you appear to be oblivious.