4 ms·

One of the purposes for detonating the H-bomb was to determine the effect of the explosion on the Van Allen Belts. Typical of Robert Krulwich, and NPR in gener

One of the purposes for detonating the H-bomb was to determine the effect of the explosion on the Van Allen Belts. Typical of Robert Krulwich, and NPR in general, is to find some arcane piece of interesting news, ask some insightful questions, then only use and report on the facts that ultimately align with their opinion. We never do find out if it was harmful to the belts, the atmosphere, or anything else. How many tests were performed by both sides, or what the effect of a missile malfunction might have been. No matter, he proffered his opinion. And that's what really counts.

apsec112 16y ago
For the record, the blast was harmful to orbiting satellites, since the belt of high-energy electrons it released fried their electronics. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime#After_effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime#After_effects
anigbrowl 16y ago
That's how media in general works: columnists and special correspondents are mini-celebrities, so everyone expects a statement about where they 'stand' on the issue, and of course such statements are largely tailored to the prevailing views among the audience. I think this trend is a bit more pronounced in the US, but not by much. It's a terrible paradigm. I want information and really am not interested in the views or artificial pieties of the person who is delivering it. One reason I look forward to the Economist every week is the lack of bylines - one does become familiar with the voices of particular writers, but as they're anonymous they have no incentive to honor readers' shibboleths.
code_duck 16y ago
A lot of the time, NPR (let alone other media) seem to miss the crucial points of a story, as if they didn't notice.
sprout 16y ago
Maybe you should do more than just skim the article: >When the bomb burst, people told of blackouts and strange electrical malfunctions, like garage doors opening and closing on their own. But the big show was in the sky. They're a little lighter on details vis-a-vis the heady scientific mumbo jumbo (that most people won't get anyway) but they did provide some evidence that the detonation was not a benign event.

apsec112 16y ago

For the record, the blast was harmful to orbiting satellites, since the belt of high-energy electrons it released fried their electronics. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime#After_effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime#After_effects

anigbrowl 16y ago

That's how media in general works: columnists and special correspondents are mini-celebrities, so everyone expects a statement about where they 'stand' on the issue, and of course such statements are largely tailored to the prevailing views among the audience. I think this trend is a bit more pronounced in the US, but not by much. It's a terrible paradigm. I want information and really am not interested in the views or artificial pieties of the person who is delivering it. One reason I look forward to the Economist every week is the lack of bylines - one does become familiar with the voices of particular writers, but as they're anonymous they have no incentive to honor readers' shibboleths.

code_duck 16y ago

A lot of the time, NPR (let alone other media) seem to miss the crucial points of a story, as if they didn't notice.

sprout 16y ago

Maybe you should do more than just skim the article: >When the bomb burst, people told of blackouts and strange electrical malfunctions, like garage doors opening and closing on their own. But the big show was in the sky. They're a little lighter on details vis-a-vis the heady scientific mumbo jumbo (that most people won't get anyway) but they did provide some evidence that the detonation was not a benign event.