[schiffern]

Yes, when the media lies it's bad. People used to understand that fact.

Now media gets a free pass on certain lies because Bad Man Bad, and (evidently) people aren't even allowed to point out the lie.

Hint: when the media can make up whatever they want about someone, they can quickly twist perception to make anyone into the Bad Man.

[mlyle]

Did DOGE not ditch hundreds of probationary employees at NOAA, cancel numerous contracts, get 1000 people to take early retirement offers, get rid of buildings, etc?

And now the current funding request enacts a ~30% funding cut.

I'm not sure the factual issue you're seeing. Is it that the statement wasn't definitive enough in saying that DOGE apparently was a large part of instituting these cuts?

(Yes, I know OPM implemented many of these programs, but they're apparently at DOGE's request, named after the "Fork in the Road" initiative at Twitter, using data gathered by DOGE IT staffers, &c. If we give credit for any cuts, we have to give them credit for significant cuts at NOAA.)

[msgodel]

My understanding is this was set up to happen roughly a decade ago and is just now manifesting. It has pretty much nothing to do with DOGE.

[counters]

We don't if, or to what extent, DOGE was involved or influential in the decision-making here.

Yes, the DMSP program was aging and slated to wind down as replacements - both federal and commercial - came online in the second half of the 2020's. But in general, if valid and useful data continues to stream from these types of satellites, you use it and monitor for disruption.

As someone who uses the DMSP data every single day, let me be very clear: there was no warning or expectation that such an abrupt change was going to happen. Yes, we all have contingency plans for if a satellite fails or a data link goes down. But to be given basically 5 days notice that a significant, mission-critical asset would be taken offline? That doesn't - and shouldn't - happen.

[freejazz]

The sentence that is quoted is about how both of these things are simultaneously happening right now, even if one was precipitated earlier

[lynndotpy]

Your premise that they're "lying" is unsubstantiated. Your comments read only like dress around the "fake news" bit.

[schiffern]

Before you claim there's nothing happening and The Guardian didn't mean it, check social media comments elsewhere to see how many people misinterpret this news item into "DOGE/Elon did it."

I would bet you, but that money's too easy. :)

Again, this exact conversation is the genius behind 'lying _without lying_.' You can always claim in high-literacy communities like HN that no, nobody would ever be silly enough misread it like that, all while watching your misinformation spread across the low-literacy communities like facebook and reddit.

The Guardian et al has done this too often for plausible deniability. Even I can pick up on the pattern, and that's without access to the big boy's social media engagement and sentiment tracking tools.

[Larrikin]

>check social media comments elsewhere to see how many people misinterpret this news item into "DOGE/Elon did it."

No, post news sources and researched articles. Your vibes about the Internet are irrelevant

[schiffern]

>[How real people actually interpret the article] is irrelevant

I don't think that's true, and I don't think The Guardian is so naive and/or innocent.

I love how people are simultaneously replying to my comment with "of course The Guardian didn't mean to say X, you're lying" and "of course X is true." Really proves my point, thanks.

[mh-]

> high-literacy communities like HN [..] low-literacy communities like facebook and reddit

I see this sentiment a lot lately, and I see your HN join date is similar to mine. HN is more mainstream than it used to be, for better or worse. There is a lot more overlap between commenters on HN and Reddit nowadays, especially in certain categories of subreddits.

Personally, I lament the web being a high-literacy community.

[pstuart]

It's an agreeable assessment that "the media" suffers from accuracy and bias in its reporting. Being that humans are involved, that's unavoidable.

But a couple of things should be considered here:

  * Intention
  * Degree
  * Impact

Intention is a core element of assessing "crimes", with homicide being the most serious one of all we factor it out into: accidental, intentional but clouded by mental conditions in the heat of the moment, and pre-meditated. This is a reasonable metric to apply to the crime of "misreporting" as well.

Degree is likewise to be noted, where it can range from lost nuance to outright lies.

Impact is also a concern if it is a concern. A news article that compels people to randomly attack their neighbors is more of an issue than one that tempts you to buy a new snack.

And most importantly of all: "the media" is not a singular entity and they vary strongly in their veracity and scope, as well as their agendas. Some are at their core intending to serve the public, others are a business to sell advertising, and others are literally propaganda outfits to serve vested interests (e.g., Fox News was created to be the PR arm of the GOP -- this is a fact and not conjecture).

So yes, the NYT can get things wrong (like the lead up to the Iraq invasion), I trust them more than Fox News (which destroyed a community by spreading lies about their new immigrant neighbors eating people's pets).

Hope this helps!