BaseLine Reports News Service LLC

22/08/2026

The Wall Street Journal published an article challenging the prudence of the Army's decision to close down a unit developing lesson on drone warfare. Ryan McBeth lays out in this video just how much they got wrong -- mostly because the reporters have no clue how any of this works. Not drones. Not collecting lessons learned. Not training against an opfor. Nothing. Their work reminds me of line in a song used in a skit on Hee-Haw back in the day, "You'll never hear one of us repeating gossip, So you better be sure to listen close the first time!"

This is the state of the profession of journalism today, and shows yet another reason why the public can't trust the reputation of any newspaper for what's published. The whole profession needs to step back, regroup, rethink what it's mission is and how to deliver what the public needs.

Get my SIGINT shirt here: https://www.bunkerbranding.com/pages/ryan...

22/08/2026

Just watched a video from CBS Evening News, typical presentation looking at a military topic. And complete nonsense. Gossip as the basis for a reporter who clearly has no understanding about how the Army works, how it learns and passes on lessons, how it builds unit combat competence. I know it's challenging, I've worked at most levels of the process, from collecting info, conducting training and adapting to new missions. This reporter and this anchor are clueless, and even worse, seem to have no awareness of how little they know. Instead they imply some nasty things, looking down on Army leaders as incompetents doing things they, the journalists, find puzzling. Who has how much experience? Training? Education? Responsibility? Accountability? Not the journalists! Posting an excellent video by Ryan McBeth after this, on the same topic but as reported (almost as poorly) by the Wall Street Journal. People deserve better reporting that this. Hope to get it to them, and soon...

The U.S. Army is phasing out an experimental specialist battalion m...

17/08/2026

A bit sharp and barbed with politics but with reasons as stated. What’s germane to this page is identifying critical flaws in how research is conducted, reviewed by peers, published and reported. Very solid observations that carry broadly into many other subjects, and not just medical or scientific.

It starts to add up

17/08/2026

In case you're at all curious, I use a lot of YouTube videos because they are easy to access and generally a quick view. Newspaper articles and other publications tend to keep everything behind pay walls, making them far less useful for what I want to do with this page. Hope this makes good sense! Thnx!

17/08/2026

Interesting, close but overlooks the obvious. The video questions the findings of a famous study comparing university faculty looking at identical resumes differing only by name, one male, one female. In 2012 the study found significant bias favoring the male, in 2025 another study found a significant lean towards the female. Neither study actually looked into what faculty was thinking in making an evaluation, nothing about their actual considerations, concerns, experience, motivations, attitudes, whatever. Instead all we get is conjecture about motives, and without having a real idea of what's actually going on in people's heads, it's just not possible to form a reliable understanding or take effective action. Feynman would probably say as much.

Similar problems with any opinion poll -- no idea what people know about the things the poll is looking at. Even what a person is thinking when they give an answer, you can "disapprove" of something for completely opposite reasons, too much is just as solid as too little.

The press needs to learn to evaluate these things much more scientifically, what they look at, what they overlook, what they assume and what they imagine.

16/08/2026

This is an excellent example of what reporting should look like on medical and scientific research. The doc explains the problem, what’s been tested, what those tests show and what they don’t, next steps, challenges, even fake news on social media. Not headline nonsense either for miracle cure or money-grubbing “big pharma”, not aiming to build hope or attack anyone. Just solid reporting. I feel confident that I know more now than I did before. Good stuff!

Could an eye drop really replace cataract surgery? The first Americ...

11/08/2026

Aren't there newspapers in South Dakota? Shouldn't the quality of mail delivery warrant some kind of attention by the news? There could be all kinds of reasons why mail takes a circuitous route to get from one place to another, or why it's slow or even not delivered at all, I can image all kinds of reasons, and most of them have nothing to do with salaries or cover-ups. Newspapers are always, always in the best position to see what's going on, to keep track of problems, to verify problems or invalidate excuses -- that is, if they chose to... Did they? Can't tell, not obvious, could be a pay wall in the way... And if it's a problem in South Dakota, can anyone be sure it's not a problem elsewhere? Like where you live? Is there anyplace you could check up on it? In my mind that should be a fundtion and service of your local newspaper... If not now, maybe someday!

08/08/2026

This is a terrific presentation on something I had no idea was going on -- and I can say I learned something watching it! When I was at the Pentagon in domestic support, flooding along the Red River was a regular thing, some years more destructive than others, but almost never more than a random note in the news. Seeing a huge civil engineering project to limit this destruction is huge! And in this video the young guy lays it all out -- what the problem was, what's in the work, the environmental effects, the current status of the project. I knew about canal projects in China and Europe, it seems it's easier to report on things anywhere in the world than here in the US -- unless there's a protest or a scandal, of course... Or it's something sexy like a bridge or a high-rise tower in a major city. Love it!

06/08/2026

Sorry, yet another YouTube video, but it has iimportant content that extends beyond the immediate subject. Data and statistics are reliable only to the extent that you can see and understand the real-world actions they relate to. USAID programs, the immediate subject, are not just line items on a budget sheet, they relate to actual people doing actual things with actual stuff -- like getting food from warehouses here to hungry people there for them to eat it. Or putting trainers in fields with real farmers to grow real crops. These actions may save lives -- and those lives can be counted. Real numbers. Real connection. Sophisticated math is just a sorry, insufficient, unreliable substitute for a messy, meaningful analysis. Journalists should have the judgement and skill to judge whether a publication or study is meaningful or just a bunch of smoke and mirrors proving nothing. Didn't happen with the study discussed in this video, unfortunately doesn't happen very often at all. The professions need to step up their game, the world shouldn't have to put up with such nonsense.

02/08/2026

Nate generally does terrific work presenting law and evidence clearly, fairly and objectively, and this is no exception. Ignore the title for a moment, he provides several minutes of clips from news from back in 2020 that in retrospect show exactly why people have justifiably and reasonably decided they can't trust what the news media tells them.

Unfortunately, they have so few alternatives that they often just listen to or read things that they already agree with or find agreeable -- no matter that these sources may not be much more reliable than those they don't like.

Clearly, there is a tremendous need for news that is thorough, accurate, relevant and current, from sources that are trustworthy and treat the public with respect for their intelligence and fairness. Someday, someday...

Take Control of Your Money and claim $20 in US Stablecoin (USA₮)! D...