European Railroad Discussion > Explosion Rips Through Russian Metro Station

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/03/522440272/deadly-blast-rips-through-russian-metro-station-russian-state-media-report?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170403

Not suprisingly, NPR fails to mention why or who.  Hint: the usual.

Or maybe because NPR at that time didn't know. They use the information provided by the authorities, which initially refused to speculate. I, for one, don't want my news sources speculating wildly without basis. Your mileage may vary.

Geodyssey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not suprisingly, NPR fails to mention why or who.
>  Hint: the usual.

If  you want to see why, dial back the wayback machine to the TWA crash off Long Island several years ago.  No less a personage than Senator Alfonse D'Amato shot his mouth off about how it was an obvious hostile act, only to find out it resulted from a bad electrical connection inside the plane.

He, of course, never acknowledged being an inflammatory ass.  If you're a senator, I guess you can get away with that, since nobody believes you anyway. 

But a real news source should at least try to be factual.

Sure.  That's it.  Wouldn't want or "speculate" or "offend".




pennengineer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or maybe because NPR at that time didn't know.
> They use the information provided by the
> authorities, which initially refused to speculate.
> I, for one, don't want my news sources speculating
> wildly without basis. Your mileage may vary.
>
> Geodyssey Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Not suprisingly, NPR fails to mention why or
> who.
> >  Hint: the usual.

Speculation is just that--guessing without any information except maybe a few prejudices and stereotypes.  That is not what a good news organization (that is, one that cares about real facts) does.  When there are facts to report a good news organization will report them, no matter whom it may offend.  That is what NPR did this case.

Geodyssey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure.  That's it.  Wouldn't want or "speculate"
> or "offend".
>
>
>
>
> pennengineer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Or maybe because NPR at that time didn't know.
> > They use the information provided by the
> > authorities, which initially refused to
> speculate.
> > I, for one, don't want my news sources
> speculating
> > wildly without basis. Your mileage may vary.
> >
> > Geodyssey Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Not suprisingly, NPR fails to mention why or
> > who.
> > >  Hint: the usual.

Prejudices and stereotypes, oh no!  Certainly can't have that!

We all know who did it, and why.

RS


BobB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speculation is just that--guessing without any
> information except maybe a few prejudices and
> stereotypes.  That is not what a good news
> organization (that is, one that cares about real
> facts) does.  When there are facts to report a
> good news organization will report them, no matter
> whom it may offend.  That is what NPR did this
> case.
>
> Geodyssey Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sure.  That's it.  Wouldn't want or
> "speculate"
> > or "offend".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > pennengineer Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Or maybe because NPR at that time didn't
> know.
> > > They use the information provided by the
> > > authorities, which initially refused to
> > speculate.
> > > I, for one, don't want my news sources
> > speculating
> > > wildly without basis. Your mileage may vary.
> > >
> > > Geodyssey Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Not suprisingly, NPR fails to mention why
> or
> > > who.
> > > >  Hint: the usual.

Geodyssey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prejudices and stereotypes, oh no!  Certainly
> can't have that!
>
> We all know who did it, and why.

This sounds to me like a dangerous statement to make about any human action.

Recent events in London have reinforced this perspective.
How do you know?  Could you possibly be a bit wrong?

I know from my work how hard it is to explain why we do the things we do, let alone "who" ia responsibe for our attitudes and beliefs. While we cannot have a rose-tinted view of the disinterested nature of any news reporting organisation we must all be sceptical of everything we see and hear!

Geodyssey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not suprisingly, NPR fails to mention why or who.
>  Hint: the usual.

That's because NPR waits for the facts before they report. The talking heads on cable don't.

I wouldn't normally post a NPR link, only because I generally find their "take" on most topics lean a little too far left for my taste. But when I posted this, the NPR story was the only one I could find on this and, not surprisingly since the incident was so fresh, it was light on details. I saw stories from other news outlets pop up later in the day and most of the early ones were also light on details.

Personally I'd rather read news items that are as factual as possible, even if that means they are light on details, than ones full of speculation and so-caled "expert opinions". In this case I think NPR did a fine job of posting what was known at the time and nothing else.

PHall Wrote:

> That's because NPR waits for the facts before they
> report. The talking heads on cable don't.

Talking heads are NOT reporting! They are "speculating" or "commenting." That is NOT news.
I spent too many years as a broadcast journalist -- we had to be accurate!

I would rather wait for accurate details than listen to some dumb-ass cable tv airhead speculating!

 

Will MacKenzie
Dundas, ON

spflow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Geodyssey Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Prejudices and stereotypes, oh no!  Certainly
> > can't have that!
> >
> > We all know who did it, and why.
>
> This sounds to me like a dangerous statement to
> make about any human action.
>
> Recent events in London have reinforced this
> perspective.
> How do you know?  Could you possibly be a bit
> wrong?
>
> I know from my work how hard it is to explain why
> we do the things we do, let alone "who" ia
> responsibe for our attitudes and beliefs. While we
> cannot have a rose-tinted view of the
> disinterested nature of any news reporting
> organisation we must all be sceptical of
> everything we see and hear!

Indeed it was Islamic terrorism, again.

thehighwayman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PHall Wrote:
>
> > That's because NPR waits for the facts before  they report. The talking heads on cable don't.
>
> Talking heads are NOT reporting! They are "speculating" or "commenting." That is NOT news.  I spent too many years as a broadcast journalist -- we had to be accurate!
>
> I would rather wait for accurate details than listen to some dumb-ass cable tv airhead speculating.

I just wish more folks would understand this.   I don't know how many times I've heard from my neighbors about some "Truth" being spewed forth by some talk show flim flam man.

Walter Cronkite must be spinning in his grave.

Brian