4 ms·

That’s some researchers sharing their analysis with NYT.

by samat 9y ago

beefman 9y ago
In particular, Union of Concerned Scientists researchers. But they're not really researchers, because they'll never report results that don't support UCS political positions. Also, "analysts" from Middlebury Institute of International Studies — apparently another nonproliferation shop.[1] And finally, anonymous "U.S. officials". [1] http://www.miis.edu/about/newsroom/experts/jlewis http://www.miis.edu/about/newsroom/experts/jlewis
- wavefunction 9y ago
  Do you make the same distinction with researchers who work for petroleum firms that hid their findings on anthropogenic climate change or tobacco firms that concealed their findings on the health risks of tobacco consumption? If so, I applaud your sense of equity.
  - beefman 9y ago
    Sure do. And of course, missile defense is hard so I have no problem believing there may not have been a successful interception (I see no evidence here one way or the other). My point was only that the grandparent is incorrect — this is not good journalism. The journalist took a story ready-made from a bunch of people with an angle. I'm familiar with the practice, as a good friend of mine has won prestigious awards for publishing a ready-made story from an NGO.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - bobmoretti 9y ago
      You're 100% correct that this was a case of good presentation and not investigation by the reporter. Questions: 1. Can you point me where to find more info on UCS ignoring results that contradict their political positions? 2. What "angle" does a nonproliferation shop have in this matter? 3. The article attempts to present some evidence (obviously mostly not to a level required for independent, academic confirmation). So when you see you "see no evidence here", are you saying you need to see it presented in greater detail and to a higher standard, or do you think that the evidence is flawed or misrepresented in some way?
- whorleater 9y ago
  I'm curious what's the `"analysts"` is for, even assuming the Middlebury Institute has an angle, how does nonproliferation factor into bias towards this story? Unless you firmly believe nonproliferation wonks have a bias against missile HTK systems, it seems to be a non-sequitur.

That’s some researchers sharing their analysis with NYT.

by samat 9y ago

That’s some researchers sharing their analysis with NYT.

In particular, Union of Concerned Scientists researchers. But they're not really researchers, because they'll never report results that don't support UCS political positions. Also, "analysts" from Middlebury Institute of International Studies — apparently another nonproliferation shop.[1] And finally, anonymous "U.S. officials". [1] http://www.miis.edu/about/newsroom/experts/jlewis http://www.miis.edu/about/newsroom/experts/jlewis

wavefunction 9y ago
Do you make the same distinction with researchers who work for petroleum firms that hid their findings on anthropogenic climate change or tobacco firms that concealed their findings on the health risks of tobacco consumption? If so, I applaud your sense of equity.
- beefman 9y ago
  Sure do. And of course, missile defense is hard so I have no problem believing there may not have been a successful interception (I see no evidence here one way or the other). My point was only that the grandparent is incorrect — this is not good journalism. The journalist took a story ready-made from a bunch of people with an angle. I'm familiar with the practice, as a good friend of mine has won prestigious awards for publishing a ready-made story from an NGO.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - bobmoretti 9y ago
    You're 100% correct that this was a case of good presentation and not investigation by the reporter. Questions: 1. Can you point me where to find more info on UCS ignoring results that contradict their political positions? 2. What "angle" does a nonproliferation shop have in this matter? 3. The article attempts to present some evidence (obviously mostly not to a level required for independent, academic confirmation). So when you see you "see no evidence here", are you saying you need to see it presented in greater detail and to a higher standard, or do you think that the evidence is flawed or misrepresented in some way?
whorleater 9y ago
I'm curious what's the `"analysts"` is for, even assuming the Middlebury Institute has an angle, how does nonproliferation factor into bias towards this story? Unless you firmly believe nonproliferation wonks have a bias against missile HTK systems, it seems to be a non-sequitur.