Entry tags:
Planet Money, Still Wrong!
Damn, but I am getting tired of correcting them here. I write them directly, but suspect that their letters get dumped. Haven't heard a damned thing, even when I'm absolutely right.
Here's the wrongness in all its indignity. It's a small wrongness, but significant. Why?
The entire piece is entitled "Me and Mr. Jones" because it supposedly relates to an act that restricts which vessels can carry passengers called the Jones Act. Ah, but look at that propeller spinning cavitation and remember! I was a professional mariner for years. I served under the Jones Act (and others which, in this case, will prove more relevant).
The story opens with a woman and her family who missed the boat for their vacation. They frantically call to see if they can join the boat elsewhere. They can! One catch: it will cost them $300 bucks to join the cruise. Why? "The Jones Act," the cruise line receptionist tells them.
And Planet Money, rather than do some, I don't know, journalism and check the facts, just runs with that story. Trouble is, it's wrong.
Oh, there is something called "The Jones Act," and it is called that exactly because it was submitted by Mr. Jones, a Senator from Seattle, just as they said. It is more properly called The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, just as PM declared. What's my beef, then? Here's an excerpt from the wiki:
Looks jake to you, doesn't it? So, what's the problem, you ask? Observe that the Act deals with "all goods transported by water."
The people they focused on for their story were people. You know, what we in the trade call "passengers," not "goods." In my career, I drove passengers about. I can tell you that passengers traveling between US ports are not covered by an act that covers "goods," but by the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886. Here's an excerpt from that:
Why did I underline that $300 number? It's exactly the number the poor woman in their story had to pay. Yes, the cruise ship company told her wrong. That was silly of them. But reporters have to confirm the information they are told.
Did they go to a merchant mariner? No, no they did not. Did they go to someone in the marine trade? Kinda, but they asked him about the Jones Act, not about the woman forced to pay a fee and why. And their report focused on the conditions of the merchant fleet after WWI, conditions which have nothing to do whatsoever with the actual experiences of people living dependent upon ferries to take them off their island or deliver them elsewhere by water.
Historically, a few "bad apples" decided to undercut US flagged vessels and worm into the ferry business. Since these vessels were foreign flagged, there was no way to inspect them to make sure a run of a few miles between Bainbridge Island and Seattle, for example, was done in a safe ship. The PVSA was the response.
More and more, PM's focus on economists as the be-all and end-all of knowledge fountains is starting to grate. I guess if they must portray these idjits as seers, maybe they should frame their stories in ways that don't make the reporters themselves look like total tools in the process, undermining any point they might have wanted to highlight.
Here's the wrongness in all its indignity. It's a small wrongness, but significant. Why?
The entire piece is entitled "Me and Mr. Jones" because it supposedly relates to an act that restricts which vessels can carry passengers called the Jones Act. Ah, but look at that propeller spinning cavitation and remember! I was a professional mariner for years. I served under the Jones Act (and others which, in this case, will prove more relevant).
The story opens with a woman and her family who missed the boat for their vacation. They frantically call to see if they can join the boat elsewhere. They can! One catch: it will cost them $300 bucks to join the cruise. Why? "The Jones Act," the cruise line receptionist tells them.
And Planet Money, rather than do some, I don't know, journalism and check the facts, just runs with that story. Trouble is, it's wrong.
Oh, there is something called "The Jones Act," and it is called that exactly because it was submitted by Mr. Jones, a Senator from Seattle, just as they said. It is more properly called The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, just as PM declared. What's my beef, then? Here's an excerpt from the wiki:
Section 27 of the Jones Act . . . requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents.
Looks jake to you, doesn't it? So, what's the problem, you ask? Observe that the Act deals with "all goods transported by water."
The people they focused on for their story were people. You know, what we in the trade call "passengers," not "goods." In my career, I drove passengers about. I can tell you that passengers traveling between US ports are not covered by an act that covers "goods," but by the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886. Here's an excerpt from that:
No foreign vessels shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, either directly or by way of a foreign port, under a penalty of $200 (now $300) for each passenger so transported and landed.
Why did I underline that $300 number? It's exactly the number the poor woman in their story had to pay. Yes, the cruise ship company told her wrong. That was silly of them. But reporters have to confirm the information they are told.
Did they go to a merchant mariner? No, no they did not. Did they go to someone in the marine trade? Kinda, but they asked him about the Jones Act, not about the woman forced to pay a fee and why. And their report focused on the conditions of the merchant fleet after WWI, conditions which have nothing to do whatsoever with the actual experiences of people living dependent upon ferries to take them off their island or deliver them elsewhere by water.
Historically, a few "bad apples" decided to undercut US flagged vessels and worm into the ferry business. Since these vessels were foreign flagged, there was no way to inspect them to make sure a run of a few miles between Bainbridge Island and Seattle, for example, was done in a safe ship. The PVSA was the response.
More and more, PM's focus on economists as the be-all and end-all of knowledge fountains is starting to grate. I guess if they must portray these idjits as seers, maybe they should frame their stories in ways that don't make the reporters themselves look like total tools in the process, undermining any point they might have wanted to highlight.