3 ms·

Perhaps you've misread my comment. I found the same Reuters story and quoted it above. If NPR were a bit less partisan, I wouldn't feel the need to look furthe

Perhaps you've misread my comment. I found the same Reuters story and quoted it above. If NPR were a bit less partisan, I wouldn't feel the need to look further afield to find the rationale. The omitted specifics around "national security" suggested that perhaps there was more to the story. From there I looked towards Reuters. If NPR's editorial stance were different, perhaps I wouldn't have needed a second opinion. >>The problem with these partisan sources is that even if there were a deeper rationalization for killing the project with regulations, such as a valid national security situation, we wouldn't expect NPR to cover it. Looking elsewhere I didn't find much. Personally, I would like to see wind farms compete on a laissez-faire basis. Regulatory uncertainty is an added cost for everyone. Similarly, I didn't like the previous administration's ideological war on oil and gas. However, from NPR's editorial perspective, there weren't enough regulatory hurdles. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/13/1015581092/biden-promised-to-end-new-drilling-on-federal-land-but-approvals-are-up https://www.npr.org/2021/07/13/1015581092/biden-promised-to-...

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
so you went from what you thought was a more biased source (npr) to what you thought was a less biased source (reuters) and it turned out to be the same report? 'we claim it's a matter of national security on the totally-solid basis of we say so' etc? > The omitted specifics around "national security" suggested that perhaps there was more to the story there were and still are no specifics provided by the administration on how this is a matter of national security to the point of halting the project, only implausible pretexts which are insufficient by default until convincingly proven otherwise. given the 'national security because we said so but with more words' pretext, we see there was and is indeed no more to the story than that.
- palmfacehn 1y ago
  Exactly. If there were a compelling rationale, we would expect NPR to downplay it. If red hatted wolves were devouring NPR radio hosts, their cries for help wouldn't be sufficient. We would need external verification. Additionally, their editorial support for wolf attacks against opposing partisans would be hypocritical.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    > If there were a compelling rationale, [I] would expect NPR to downplay it. Exactly – Given your editorial stance, I expect that you would expect that, and yet the evidence here shows that you were wrong to: There was no compelling rationale for this action, thus NPR could not have reported one, thus they did not report one.
    - palmfacehn 1y ago
      You've taken a long road to observe something I acknowledge in my original comment, while sidestepping the point.
      - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        How am I sidestepping the point? The point is that, upon reviewing the evidence, NPR is not as biased as you personally described, and that your claims here[0] are thus unfounded. The problem here isn't with any bias on NPR's part, but with your personal claim of NPR bias, given that it is contradicted by the evidence we see here. Indeed, a position of 'evidence against my claim only proves my point harder' is nonsensical, and may itself be underlied by bias. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45010316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45010316

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago

so you went from what you thought was a more biased source (npr) to what you thought was a less biased source (reuters) and it turned out to be the same report? 'we claim it's a matter of national security on the totally-solid basis of we say so' etc? > The omitted specifics around "national security" suggested that perhaps there was more to the story there were and still are no specifics provided by the administration on how this is a matter of national security to the point of halting the project, only implausible pretexts which are insufficient by default until convincingly proven otherwise. given the 'national security because we said so but with more words' pretext, we see there was and is indeed no more to the story than that.

palmfacehn 1y ago
Exactly. If there were a compelling rationale, we would expect NPR to downplay it. If red hatted wolves were devouring NPR radio hosts, their cries for help wouldn't be sufficient. We would need external verification. Additionally, their editorial support for wolf attacks against opposing partisans would be hypocritical.
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  > If there were a compelling rationale, [I] would expect NPR to downplay it. Exactly – Given your editorial stance, I expect that you would expect that, and yet the evidence here shows that you were wrong to: There was no compelling rationale for this action, thus NPR could not have reported one, thus they did not report one.
  - palmfacehn 1y ago
    You've taken a long road to observe something I acknowledge in my original comment, while sidestepping the point.
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      How am I sidestepping the point? The point is that, upon reviewing the evidence, NPR is not as biased as you personally described, and that your claims here[0] are thus unfounded. The problem here isn't with any bias on NPR's part, but with your personal claim of NPR bias, given that it is contradicted by the evidence we see here. Indeed, a position of 'evidence against my claim only proves my point harder' is nonsensical, and may itself be underlied by bias. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45010316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45010316