Author on NPR this morning could use some clarification on April 19th

[NavNuke]

Heard this segment on NPR during the morning commute.

American Revolution Reinvents Guerrilla Warfare

The authors bio seems to indicate that he finished is MA in History and almost immediately went to work for the Wall Street Journal. Since 2002, he's been with the CFR think tank. Those responding on April 19th were not the rank amateurs that he believes. He also seem to conveniently forget the face to face on Lexington Green and at the North Bridge. Certainly, Bunker Hill was a classic set piece 18th century battle that Gage's forces suffered severe casualties during.

Its sad that NPR is serving as a platform for this misinformation that is being presented as gospel by an "expert".

NN

[Audrey]

Its sad that NPR is serving as a platform for this misinformation that is being presented as gospel by an "expert".

It is my opinion that literally very press organization does this. Most claim to be unbiased and all claim to have experts. I like to believe people are smart enough to realize that "freedom of the press" means that the news organizations can provide misleading, incomplete or ignorant information. The only way to be knowledgeable on anything is to have repeatable (if possible) empirical experiences or multiple sources of the same data. It's up to each of us to learn about the things that we care about at a personal level, and that is a part of the spirit of Appleseed (I believe).

[TaosGlock]

Much of the media is ignorant.

"Tenured academics", with no one to "peer review" their thesis  or challenge them in the university degree mills are rewriting history. Whether intended or thru ignorance, the result is the same.
We have a nation with no clue as to their proud and unique heritage.
The result is a loss of pride of ownership in their nation.

And as we at Appleseed are fond of saying, a nation mired in apathy, ignorance and laziness.

Keep bailing!

[Audrey]

Another article on NPR today: http://www.npr.org/2013/01/15/169439243/newtown-prompts-gun-buybacks-but-do-they-work

Note this from the last section of the article:

A Harvard University study dating from the mid-1990s concluded that buybacks were largely ineffective in reducing gun violence

I apologize if this feels off-topic. I'm wanting to highlight you should not outright judge a press organization on one poorly done article or interview. Also, I want to stress that multiple sources is the best way to draw conclusions, in my opinion.

[NavNuke]

Its sad that NPR is serving as a platform for this misinformation that is being presented as gospel by an "expert".

It is my opinion that literally very press organization does this. Most claim to be unbiased and all claim to have experts. I like to believe people are smart enough to realize that "freedom of the press" means that the news organizations can provide misleading, incomplete or ignorant information. The only way to be knowledgeable on anything is to have repeatable (if possible) empirical experiences or multiple sources of the same data. It's up to each of us to learn about the things that we care about at a personal level, and that is a part of the spirit of Appleseed (I believe).

NPR has the transcript up at the link now for those who would rather read than listen.

Besides the repeat of "the British are coming", I take issue with the statement that those who fought on April 19th were barely trained and employing equipment that was technically inferior. Clearly the author failed to account for the reorganization and training that occurred following the officer resignations that took place in October of '74. This left the Tory officers nominally responsive to the orders of General Gage while the new officer corps (those resigned) were supported by the Committees of Safety, who immediately restructured the organization and emphasized training.

[Johnnyappleseed]

I would sincerely challenge the term "gun buy back" which implies these guns were owned by the state or organization collecting them.

Maybe we could think of a more accurate phrase such as?