- Trump’s DOT Is Run By Lobbyists Who Don’t Care If You Die (AP)
- Uber and Lyft Are Congesting Cities and Hurting Transit, Studies Show (AP)
- Seattle Moves in Redfin Transit Rankings; Boston and DC Lose Points (Builder)
- Experts Urge Fayetteville, AR to Slow Traffic on Major Street (Democrat-Gazette)
- Phoenix Suburb Wants to Become More Bike-Friendly (AZCentral)
- Task Force Urges Utah to Raise Sales Tax to Fund Transit (KSL)
- Oklahoman Columnist: Downtown Oklahoma City Streets Are Too Wide
- Maryland Bill Would Make It Easier to Stop Aggressive Drivers (WTOP)
- St. Louis Bike/Ped Path Is in Jeopardy (Post-Dispatch)
- Connecticut Governor Proposes Transit Fare Hikes (Record Journal)
- Federal Cuts Could Threaten Spokane BRT (Spokesman-Review)
“Trump’s DOT Is Run By Lobbyists Who Don’t Care If You Die”
I see StreetsBlog is continuing its mandate for journalistic integrity. I’m assuming you have quotes from those individuals saying as such? No, you don’t? You just disagree with their policies so that makes them murderers, segregationists, fascists and so on?
Interesting work.
WTOP headline includes no link. I think this is the intended story:
https://wtop.com/maryland/2018/02/maryland-lawmakers-consider-streamlining-aggressive-driving-laws/
I don’t know, removing a whole bunch of safety regulations for no other reason that “REGULASHUN BAD! HULK SMASH!” seems like a pretty good example of listening to lobbyists and not caring about lives. If your bar for “is this what someone thinks” is “did they explicitly lay out their plan, Bond villain style”, then good luck.
Also, you called them murderers. The headline merely implies they are callously indifferent to deaths.
They maybe care if you die, but they definitely care more about money.
Is that more accurate?
The article doesn’t get into their reasoning at all. The ‘journalist’ has no interest in that.
So this is in fact a headline created out of either disinterest or laziness.
Instead of looking for a reason, making up *an evil* reason is dishonest, shameful yellow journalism.
And previous headlines on this very blog called people segregationists, accessories to murder, fans of auto traffic among other things.
All baselessly of course.
The article mentions over and over again that
(1) The department is staffed by lobbyists
(2) Rules are being chopped, nothing is being proposed in their place
(3) When evaluating costs, the department is ignoring it’s own guidelines to evaluate lives at $9.6 million each.
There is then some waffle from 3rd parties about “we’re trying to save lives by removing regulations” but, crucially, the actions demonstrate the opposite, and the DoT refused an interview.
As for “shameful yellow journalism”, who are you criticizing now, the Streetsblog headline writer (who seems to have summarized the article well) or the AP writer who seems to have bent over backwards to present both sides of what’s going on?
I’m the lazy disinterested dishonest shameful yellow so-called journalist who wrote that 100 percent accurate headline.
A reasonable person should find the content of that story far more offensive than a stranger’s summation of it.
Fixed. Thanks.
So you’ve spoken to one of them or have inside info or quotes and they agreed that they don’t care if people die? Because you indicate that.
If not, it’s BS.
You see, if it’s purely your opinion you can say something like “Opinion: I think that these lobbyists don’t care if I die.”
That would the the professional thing to do. What a journalist might do.
You’re missing something like this:
(4) We spoke to one of the officials and they confirmed they don’t care if people die.
That’s kind of… ya know. Important.
You are really invested in this.
Spending 45 seconds banging a couple of replies off isn’t ‘invested’.
Though it may be true I’m more concerned with the content of your blog than you are – based on the accuracy and time spent on things.
“Wiping the blood from his axe, Mr Smith refused comment, so we will never know how Mr Jones came to be lying next to him, beheaded”.
Any and all sense of proportion has been lost it seems.
Calm down.
My point, which I think is obvious, is that actions speak louder than words. Just because someone doesn’t openly say “I’m doing X”, you are allowed to infer from their actions that they are, in fact, doing X if you can find a clear set of examples of them doing X. That is how good journalism, and indeed the entire world, works.
No, that’s not how ‘this works’.
People make decisions for many reasons. Picking the worst possible one isn’t a good way to determine the real cause.
Obama cut food aid to Africa.
Did I read articles that said “Obama wants Africans to die of starvation”?
No, of course not because that would be insane.
He cut aid to Africa as part of broader spending cuts. Just like canceling theses DOT programs.
So which is it? Does Obama want Africans to die? Or should we report on facts instead of “infering” evil intentions? You can’t have it both ways.
Another example:
“Jagophile is commenting on news blogs instead of volunteering in a soup kitchen. Simple logic allows us to infer that Jagophile considers fighting on the internet more important than solving our hunger crisis.”
Obviously this is not how ‘the world works”.
*sigh* I repeat, Callous disregard != murderous intent
Okay, so your headline would be:
“Obama doesn’t care if Africans die.”
Roll presses.
lolwut? Was it the mention of Trump in the headline that set you off? When did this site turn into Breitbart? I’m actually kind of sad I missed this thread yesterday.
I’ve pinged the authors a few times over the last few months as their headlines have gotten more and more egregiously out of touch with reality.
I used to enjoy reading this stuff. Also; I’m honestly slightly concerned they might have a carbon monoxide leak in the office or something the way things are reading.