NPR woke me up on the clock radio to some sort of report that more and more ships will get through the Strait.
I guess you can even plant stories on NPR. BS! Wonder who would look for $uckers.
Around 8-10 tankers are going thru the Strait daily. This is verified by satellite as well as observers on the ground, both in government and without.
What’s your problem?
This is obviously vastly fewer than pre-war, but it’s not zero either.
As for NPR, they are reporting that vastly fewer ships are transiting the Strait, but that the US government is saying that the Strait is open for more shipping. Perhaps in your sleep induced haze you misunderstood? And ascribed a nefarious motive where none was warranted?
Nah, that couldn’t happen.
7 Likes
Excuse me that was not clear in the report. At times NPR reports very few ships are passing. But yesterday the admin got one over on NPR. It was an obvious BSing. No where did NPR say it was BSing. More unverified news without the disclaimer.
About 2000 years ago a Jew was killed. One group did it, another group got the bad press for the death. For 2000 years the other group has been blamed in the press. The entire group so far 30 generations later. It is called blood libel. Stop protecting organizations that take part in unverified news.
Your post needs to address why NPR does not verify facts. Going after me is not the topic. But you think you are protecting NPR. LMAO you think your reputation is at stake.
The only thing I can offer is that I worked for 40 years in media, most of that in some form of “news”, with actual newsrooms and actual news reporters. I would also add that my wife was a free-lance correspondent for NPR for about a year (“All Things Considered”) and I am acutely aware of how much fact checking they made her do before a story could air.
Most reporters try hard, but sometimes fail. (I am setting off to one side those who work in “opinion media’ or “clearly biased”). It is impossible to perfectly qualify every statement made by every single person (especially to your wishes) and still have a report that runs under 3 minutes, but you do the best you can.
PS: “About 2000 years ago a Jew was killed” is idiocy, and has nothing to do with anything. There were no contemporaneous news reports. No tape recorders. Most people couldn’t read. If you are going to go after the media, try something a little bit better than this, which is the most ludicrous example I can imagine, and having corresponded with you for some time, I can imagine quite a lot.
10 Likes
No way, Mel Brooks is, very thankfully, still alive and kicking!
2 Likes
So you are defending not verifying facts? Is that your argument?
We are supposed to give you a huge high five and say what a reputation?
Most of what is coming from the media reporting on Israel is bad Jews news that is unverified.
You have never said in these discussions that the media needs to simply fully verify facts.
It is not “sometimes”. It is not just those who have formed opinions.
You are trying to dismiss reality at NPR. The network is constantly running with unverified facts. They themselves will occasionally tell listeners that, for months, the facts have been unverified in their reporting.
The reason NPR does this? The network knows a disclaimer is necessary when running with unverified facts. Instead of doing it when needed, very often at that, the occassional disclaimer is offered as an umbrella statement.
Can you give us a link to the story so we know what you are talking about?
Nah, LOL
NPR is so not worth it. The network does not make their stuff searchable. Or at least their search features are the worst there are online.
Listen to NPR and then try seaching the story on Google or on their website the next day. God bless you.
In other words it didn’t happen.
3 Likes
It happened.
It happens repeatedly on NPR.
If NPR is supposed to be better than that, the network needs to verify the facts. Not just some of the facts.
And it needs to begin to be more fair and balanced than Fox. Which is entirely laughable when you listen to NPR.
I am sure @Goofyhoofy insists on such standards. He thinks they are already here; that is another matter. The standards have disappeared.
It is make-believe if you think NPR is verifying the facts.
We can all listen for ourselves.
Remember, I am an independent. I am not sold on trying to gain anything, regardless of the nonsense that is going on. A pox on both sides.
Is it really that hard to ask for honesty?
Claude is such a marshmallow.
This is on NPR, reporting on Y2K. Remember, a computer does not actually have any experiences. Remember your personal experience?
Not in any notable, documented way. NPR’s Y2K coverage in 1998–99 was extensive but generally measured — it covered remediation efforts, government readiness reports, and the range of expert opinion, and it didn’t push the apocalyptic framing that some cable and tabloid outlets did.
The broader criticism of media Y2K coverage was overstatement of likely disruption, not fabricated facts — and in hindsight it’s disputed whether the coverage was “wrong” or whether the alarm drove the remediation that prevented failures. NPR’s public editor at the time (Jeffrey Dvorkin) did not, as far as I know, run any correction or critique of NPR’s Y2K reporting, and I’m not aware of specific NPR stories later shown to be factually inaccurate.
If you have a particular segment or claim in mind, tell me and I can check.
OK…if I want more marshmallows…
Nothing documented that singles NPR out. The dot-com-era media criticism landed mostly on CNBC, the business magazines (Fortune, Business Week, Industry Standard, Red Herring), and the analysts they platformed — the cheerleading, uncritical IPO coverage, and “new economy” framing. NPR wasn’t a major financial-news player then; its business coverage was a small slice of the programming, largely via Marketplace (produced by Minnesota Public Radio/APM, not NPR) and occasional segments.
The fair generalization is that NPR, like nearly everyone, didn’t call the top and carried “new economy” enthusiasm in its cultural and business segments without much skepticism. But that’s a failure of the whole press, not a specific NPR error, and I’m not aware of any retracted or corrected NPR story from that period tied to the bubble.
Worth noting the timing point: Y2K didn’t cause the bust, though the two overlapped — the Nasdaq peaked March 10, 2000, and one contributing factor economists cite is that corporate IT spending had been pulled forward into 1998–99 for Y2K remediation, leaving a demand hole in 2000–01.
If you’re building toward a pattern argument about NPR’s track record, the Gaza coverage has a real critical literature; Y2K and dot-com don’t. I’d anchor on the former.