3 ms·

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?

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

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