4 ms·

From the linked Ian Urbina Wikipedia page: > As a journalist, his investigations typically focus on worker safety and the environment... As you point out, Urb

From the linked Ian Urbina Wikipedia page: > As a journalist, his investigations typically focus on worker safety and the environment... As you point out, Urbina has an undeniable preference for international law, regulation, and treaties pertaining to oceans and fisheries. These sentiments seem to align with the values promoted by the Yale School of the Environment [1]. The article links to an investigative report Urbina did for NBC [2] which describes the evidence. [1] https://environment.yale.edu/ https://environment.yale.edu/ [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/china-illegal-fishing-fleet/index.html https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/china-illegal-fishing-fleet...

knolax 6y ago
> As you point out, Urbina has an undeniable preference for international law, regulation, and treaties pertaining to oceans and fisheries. He might have an expert level knowledge on the topic, but he is using all the standard tricks journalists use to paint a narrative. Bringing up statistics without context and without defining the thing it's measuring, using technical terminology without explaining what it means, alluding to certain things without elaborating, and citing sources(if at all) in a way such that you have to spend a lot of time hunting down an actual document supporting his claims. > The article links to an investigative report Urbina did for NBC [2] which describes the evidence. evidence of what? I'm not denying that Chinese boats are fishing in North Korea. It still seems weird that in a situation where Chinese boats are fishing in North Korea's waters, the fixation is on sanctions. I can understand this being bad if North Korea doesn't want Chinese boats fishing in their waters but both articles seem to imply that there is implicit approval, in which case who cares? Sanctions are antithetical to free trade and human welfare.

knolax 6y ago

> As you point out, Urbina has an undeniable preference for international law, regulation, and treaties pertaining to oceans and fisheries. He might have an expert level knowledge on the topic, but he is using all the standard tricks journalists use to paint a narrative. Bringing up statistics without context and without defining the thing it's measuring, using technical terminology without explaining what it means, alluding to certain things without elaborating, and citing sources(if at all) in a way such that you have to spend a lot of time hunting down an actual document supporting his claims. > The article links to an investigative report Urbina did for NBC [2] which describes the evidence. evidence of what? I'm not denying that Chinese boats are fishing in North Korea. It still seems weird that in a situation where Chinese boats are fishing in North Korea's waters, the fixation is on sanctions. I can understand this being bad if North Korea doesn't want Chinese boats fishing in their waters but both articles seem to imply that there is implicit approval, in which case who cares? Sanctions are antithetical to free trade and human welfare.