Thursday, March 26, 2009

Q Tips


NPR related comments welcomed.
Posted by Mytwords at 8:44 AM
Labels:

11 comments:

Juan "Toss" Ensalada said...

All,

You have to love NPR's sourcing distribution for this story, "China's Military Threat In Focus After Naval Incident," from Mary Louise Kelley.

Pro-Military:
1. New Pentagon report on China's military strength.
2. Navy Adm. Timothy Keating, the U.S. Pacific Commander
3. Blair, the U.S. Intelligence Chief.

Anti-Military
1. Nina Hachigian, an Asia expert at the Center for American Progress.

Not sure where to include the journalists, Mary Louise Kelley, however. Is she pro, anti- or neutral? She obviously not anti-military, thus, she is either neutral or pro. But since she's decided to source 3 pro-military points of view, I think one could rightly classify her as a pro-military source herself -- after all, she IS the expert journo, right?

So, NPR uses four pro-military sources to one anti-military one. Seems about right for Voice of America, er . . . ah . . . National Propaganda Radio.

-JET

3/26/09, 9:19 AM
Porter Melmoth said...

Speaking of Chalmers Johnson, Mary Louise COULD have given him a call. He is a regional expert (a bonafide expert, not just a media rag) of great depth and understanding. But that would be expecting too much, wouldn't it? I must remember to keep my NPR expectations at the lowest common denominator, so that when someone of value appears on their air, I will be amazed.

Neocon elements have always had the hots for an aggressive RED China in order to justify their world-grasping paranoia. China itself has no history of expansion beyond its regional borders (Tibet being the one essential example of blatant aggression). If China doesn't mess with Vietnam or Korea any more, why ever would they 'take on' the US?

Still, the beds of the Neocons continue to be soaked with their own discharge, and NPR is one of the avenues to publicize through, as it were.

(PS: if these journos and consultants are 'pro-military', maybe they're pro-Chinese military, too! OK, cheap joke...)

3/26/09, 10:49 AM
Anonymous said...

If China doesn't mess with Vietnam or Korea any more, why ever would they 'take on' the US?

Not to mention the fact that they totally OWN us. Why would you want to destroy your own property?

3/26/09, 1:56 PM
geoff said...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102371098

This story asserts that the biggest mystery surrounding 911 is how the 19 hijackers got on the planes. That is laughable. There are plenty other mysteries: such as why NORAD was stood down and why the buildings collapsed into neat little piles and ¿Cui bono?

3/26/09, 5:59 PM
Anonymous said...

Oh boy, the "let's shill for the Republicans" quotient was very high on Morning edition this Friday morning. All day yesterday it was made clear by several solid sources in the Blogosphere that the republican budget plan was basically a blank piece of paper with a few introductory words to cover that fact. Ezra Klien said this:
"If you're having a bad day, I highly encourage you to spend some quality time with the Republican budget proposal. It's reads like what would happen if The Onion put together a budget. "Area Man Releases Proposal for 2010 Federal Spending Priorities." (Though, to paraphrase William F. Buckley, it turns out that I'd prefer a federal budget written by an area man than the first six names on the House Republican Leadership roster.) ... "

So what does ME do, they interview the ranking Republican member of the House budget committee and throw a bunch of softballs to spin this nothing proposal as some grand answer to the economic problems. All we really heard was the same tired bunk that ignores the fact that for eight years the Republicans grew our deficit to the highest levels ever. No probing questions from NPR, just an open forum for more tired Republican crap. ugghh.

3/27/09, 6:58 AM
Juan "Toss" Ensalada said...

All,

David Kestenbaum compares his car to a toxic asset on Planet Monkey. And, Steve Inskeep is part of the morning zoo.

Also, I'd add David Kestenbaum to that group of "men," including Ira Glass, Adam Davidson, Ari Shapiro and Jim Zaroli, who have cultivated that not-so-unique NPR "sound."

-JET

3/27/09, 8:19 AM
Juan "Toss" Ensalada said...

@Steve,

NPR listeners are pounding that "interview" right up Renee's... Listen to it and read about here, if you dare.

-JET

3/27/09, 8:49 AM
Juan "Toss" Ensalada said...

All,

“The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers,” Robert McChesney on Democracy Now today.

What would happen to NPR without newspapers? From where else, besides corporate and governmental sources, would they aggregate conventional wisdom?

-JET

3/27/09, 9:51 AM
Anonymous said...

it's laugahable that Kstenbaum is now covering financial matters.

David Kestenbaum is a physicist, for goodness sake.

There is a real irony here.

Wall Street is chock full of former mathematicians and physicists (many who were not good enough to work in those fields). These were some of the very people who concocted the toxic brew of "derivatives". The very word "derivative" comes from theoretical mathematics/physics.

3/27/09, 9:55 AM
Anonymous said...

"The very word 'derivative' comes from theoretical mathematics/physics."

Ummm... It's true, both terms derive from the word "derive" (the value of a mathematical derivative is "derived" from other function(s); the value of a financial derivative is "derived" from other financial instrument(s)). But the idea that the financial term was itself derived from the mathematical one seems ridiculous.

3/28/09, 12:47 PM
Anonymous said...

"the idea that the financial term was itself derived from the mathematical one seems ridiculous."

OK, I'll admit "derived from' is not accurate, but there is an obvious and strong connection between pricing economic "derivatives" and mathematical derivatives.

The Black-Scholes equation is a differential equation (ie, equation involving mathematical "derivatives") that is widely (if not almost exclusively) used to price options (which are financial "derivatives").

http://plus.maths.org/blog/2008/10/mathematical-moments-how-to-price.html

3/30/09, 10:44 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)