NPR Watch – 2/1/19 – Environmentalist Fake News


Yep. More Fake News from National Public Radio.

Yesterday evening, I was listening to their regular weekday evening Fake News broadcast called, absurdly, “All Things Considered,” when they did a story on the aftermath of the “Camp Fire.” Here’s how Wikipedia describes the Camp Fire:

The Camp Fire was the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California history to date. It is also the deadliest wildfire in the United States since the Cloquet fire in 1918, and is high on the list of the world’s deadliest wildfires; it is the sixth-deadliest U.S. wildfire overall. It was the world’s costliest natural disaster in 2018. Named after Camp Creek Road, its place of origin, the fire started on November 8, 2018… [Editor’s Note: and it continues on from there to provide descriptions, history, statistics.]

Burned area‎: ‎153,336 acres (62,053 ha)
Fatalities‎: ‎86 civilians
Non-fatal injuries‎: ‎12 civilians and 5 firefighters Location‎: ‎Butte County, California

The Camp Fire was horrible, and actual reporting about it made a lot of sense. It said that the principal reason for the Camp Fire was forest mismanagement in recent decades.

You see, for decades in California the policy has been — for reasons of corruption, land development, graft, greed, stupidity, bribery, and the exchange of lots and lots and lots of money, at thousands of different levels — to prevent, suppress, squash forest fires as soon as they arose. The result has been a steady build-up of ready-to-ignite tinder in the forests of California for a very long time.

The inevitable result of all that was: the Camp Fire.

So, on comes NPR with their feature on the aftermath of the Camp Fire. And in that feature the idiot reporter said something very close to the following: “in an area prone to increasingly intense forest fires due to climate change.”(1)

So, no, NPR-doofus reporter, the area is not prone to increasingly intense forest fires due to climate change. If it’s prone to increasingly intense forest fires at allthat’s due to… government mismanagement of the lands. That’s my opinion, just as the “Climate Change” thing is your… opinion.

Regardless of whether you even believe, first of all, that the area is prone to increasingly intense forest fires in the first place… why that might be is always a matter of… opinion.

Opinion is not news. It never was, and it never will be. Opinion is what someone believes, not what someone… knows. It’s funny that a non-journalist would have to point that out to a hoity-toity, nose-in-the-air, oh-so-sophisticated “news” organization like National Public Radio! You know, the ones who are always telling you how “in-depth” their “reporting” is, and how you should turn to them for “objective reporting” of the “news?” And how they’d always give it to you straight, and never, ever spin anything? Yeah, that NPR.(2)

Really, though, only a pathetically amateurish hack “news” organization would ever include, in something called a news feature, a schlock phrase like “in an area prone to increasingly intense forest fires due to climate change.”

Furthermore, what virtually all climate and forestry scientists now say is that, far from “prone to increasingly intense forest fires” the area of the Camp Fire is now nearly completely immune from serious forest fires!

And why might that be? Anyone? Anyone at all?

That’s right: it’s because there’s no more material to burn in that area, and there won’t be any burnable material in that area for a very long time to come.

And, there was a whole bunch of really burnable material in that area just before the Camp Fire. Then the Camp Fire happened. Hmmm… well, well. It’s almost as if conditions in that area were set up to allow for a massive, catastrophic, deadly forest fire to take place.

Simple as that. Sometimes real science can actually be pretty simple.

“Climate Change” — capital “C’s” — is not science(3), it’s religion…  and politics. It allows people who say they’re reporting “news” to put obvious opinion into their stories and still call those flights of fancy “news.” Maybe that’s why they call them “stories.”

When my daughter was very young, each night before bedtime, I used to tell her a bedtime story of my own devising. She heard thousands of these stories, and I made up every last one of ’em… just like National Public Radio does.

— xPraetorius

 

Notes:


(1) I don’t know whether that’s the exact quote, but it’s very close, and the meaning has been preserved.

(2) I’m amazed at how often one has to put scare quotes around words like news and reporting when one speaks or writes about National Public Radio. The reason, of course, is that there’s no news on NPR at all… it’s merely cleverly, and sometimes not so cleverly, disguised leftist opinion.

(3) Real climate science would start with the premise that the climate does nothing but change. If that extremely basic understanding were widely known, then the politics of Climate Change becomes very, very different. Very, very much less favorable to the Environmentalist movement.

 

 

2 thoughts on “NPR Watch – 2/1/19 – Environmentalist Fake News

  1. Hi, I like what I read thus far.

    I am a “r” “C” (conservative)

    I have a talent for “decoding” and catigorizing NPR programing.

    It takes a skilled ear to listen to and determine the objectives of the program and host.

    Maney programs are actually prepatory in nature, preparing the listener, by tuning them to a particular position or narritive designed by the host. Many times, the total of the daily programming will be tuned to achieve a listener adherence to a particular position or ideology.

    It takes approximately two hours to decode a 20 minute broadcast, to decipher what was said, from the actual intended message.

    NPR has actually been very successful in it’s subterfuge, except for a few of us.

    Feel free to contact me for an example of a decoding analysis.

    My overall desire to publically defund NPR.

  2. Hi, Greg! Thanks for your comment! I’d love to hear more about how you decode NPR broadcasts.

    Our approach here has been to take the straightforward meaning of their words and examine that by itself/i> to point out what NPR does so frequently: take something that might be )or might not) true, and is generally accepted as fact by NPR (wage gap, for example) and use that dubious fact to arrive at a conclusion that is <i<actually unsupported by the fact.

    NPR assumes that all facts, political or otherwise, point to leftist conclusions. This is their bias. I assume that all facts, point to a Conservative conclusion, and that is my bias. Where NPR is wrong, is in their failure to envision the possibility that there can be other conclusions stemming from the facts they present.

    This can lead them to astonishingly stupid stories, features and assertions that are absolutely howlingly moronic, but that NPR’s listenership — packed to overflowing with self-obsessed pseudo-intellectuals as it is — swallows uncritically.

    For example: NPR is still flogging “The Wage Gap” as accepted fact, and that’s how they present it: as “The Wage Gap.” Well, there is no “wage gap between properly compared men and women, and it’s easy to discover this. One would think that NPR with its reputation for in-depth, knowledgeable reporting and analysis would at least report on the very definite fact that there is highly credible dissent in the realm of the “wage gap,” and even over whether there even is one. Nope. NPR rep’orts that #1: there is a “wage gap” and goes immediately from there to the conclusion that #2: it’s sexist discrimination against women causing this “wage gap.”

    Another example: NPR continues to “report,” ever so matter-of-factly, that “Global Warming” is an established fact, and that there are certain to be massive and catastrophic effects resulting from it. Their “reporting” then goes directly to a conclusion that we must curtail greenhouse emissions, and pretty much implement a Socialist government in order to “save the planet.”

    Even if Global Warming were established fact, there’s so much wrong with the conclusions NPR then advances that it’s nearly impossible to know where to start. Certainly, though, there’s nothing in hypothetical Global Warming that leads to a Socialist conclusion, particularly when one realizes that by far the cleanest places on the planet are those with the freest economies.

    A last example: One of NPR’s long-time reporters/anchors — Lulu Garcia-Navarro — seems so caught up in the feminist notion that women are simply superior to men in all ways, that she wondered why all-time tennis great John McEnroe would refer to Serena Williams as the greatest woman player ever, and not the greatest player ever, full stop. The bemused McEnroe pointed out what everyone with more than a cursory knowledge of any of the major sports, already knew: Williams wouldn’t even be able to play on the men’s tour, much less win there, or be the greatest player ever.

    This is true in all the sports where there are “Men’s” and “Women’s” leagues, conferences, associations, etc. In fact, this is the very reason there even are women’s leagues, conferences, etc. in the first place!

    However, so aggressive is the leftist/feminist control over speech within the ranks of the Left, that it does amount to indoctrination, and it does lead to howlers the likes of which we see often on NPR.

    There are so many more! We’re about to publish another installment of NPR Watch in which they make plain their leftist biases, and in which they demonstrate that they’re unable to escape from those biases to present clear, credible, informative material — as they claim to do — instead ending up as nothing more than a cheap propaganda outlet for the American Left.

    We love to point these things out.

    I’d love to hear how you approach your decoding of NPR.

    Best,

    — x

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s