NPR's Reporting on the Space Force

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/26/791414989/the-reasons-for-a-space-force

I don't listen to NPR a lot these days but I did catch this report the other morning and in some ways it typifies just why I've more or less abandoned NPR as a news source.

The story is on the newly created Space Force, a Sixth Branch of the US military. The congressional approval for the Space Force, along with increased defense spending, provisions made for the border wall and an invite to give the State of the Union address are all political victories for the president. A strange thing considering he was just impeached. Why is the Democratically controlled congress helping and empowering the president?

These realities demonstrate once again the largely fraudulent nature of the impeachment case which rests on the claim that Trump is a threat, a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States.

Apparently not. For the Democrats continue to support him and have repeatedly capitulated on these various points. If they really thought he was a danger they would be moving to curtail his power and ability to manage US resources and in particular the military apparatus. An expansion of the military grants more power to the president who is also commander-in-chief.

But as the NPR report all but indicates, the Establishment supports this trajectory and specifically the creation of the Space Force. This is also made clear by the less than adversarial interview regarding what is actually a highly controversial topic.

But you wouldn't know that listening to Morning Edition. The interview chose to completely ignore the controversies and skirted around any issues that might be raised. The interviewer allowed the colonel to belittle such fears, stoke fear and of course they (NPR) didn't bother to provide another point of view. It didn't need to be an on-air debate but it would have been good to hear from some kind of analyst or academic that could help to frame the issue. Shouldn't the audience at least know that there are respectable and informed people that are actually rather opposed to the creation of the Space Force? Instead all we hear is the colonel's dismissive and even disdainful attitude toward anyone who might oppose it. All in good humour of course.

This question arose in the 1980's when Reagan proposed his 'Star Wars' programme. There was a great deal of resistance to the militarisation of space and the potential dangers that came with it. In addition to putting the atmosphere at risk, there is the danger of endless proliferation as space itself is virtually limitless.

But it would seem the debate is over. The Establishment believes China is enough of a threat that they want to go ahead a militarise space. And it must be said that Russia is not the primary threat in this instance. While the Soyuz rockets are probably the best ever built, the Russian state which after all has a GDP ranked somewhere between Italy and Spain does not have the money to pursue any kind of serious space ventures. Beijing on the other hand does and has been in the process of developing a space programme.

There has been opposition to Trump's China policy coming from some Wall Street sectors but the Democratic opposition has been tepid at best and in fact it has become increasingly clear that many in the leadership support the policies... at least in spirit.

The interview was totally biased, pro-American and pro-military and thus NPR is revealed as not some kind of activist-leftist media outlet but is rather a key pillar of the Establishment's news media, one of its mouthpieces.

Yes, the network is certainly pro-sodomite and feminist but at the same time is also pro-Empire and its stories largely support Wall Street and the Pentagon.

The news outlet has undergone a steady downgrade. The reporting during the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq was less the stellar and something less than robust but it was one of the few outlets that was even questioning the bogus WMD narrative and would give voice to dissenting opinions and allow guests to argue against the Neo-Conservative agenda, the agenda that today has become (in many ways) the orthodox camp.

It was (as now expected) a disappointing interview but it reminded me just why I hardly listen to the station anymore. The BBC has gone through similar transformation. Lately, some of their documentary radio shows (like The Compass) have been nothing less than terrible... veritable whitewashes of historical events. These outlets can say all they want about RT. If RT is biased and tends toward propaganda, then they're all in the same boat.