Woof! They don't seem to know what they are doing to themselves.

All the elements are here - gaslighting, reporting as untrue that which is publicly and obviously true, press release journalism, addiction to panic porn.  From How the Colonial Pipeline Became a Vital Artery for Fuel by Clifford Krauss.  

I came across this from an original tweet from the New York Times.

Colonial Pipeline, a vital U.S. fuel artery that was shut down by a cyberattack, said it hoped to restore most operations by the end of the week. Since the shutdown, there have been no long lines or major price hikes for gas.

Here’s what to know. https://t.co/kX58tBAd78

— The New York Times (@nytimes) May 11, 2021

At its most elemental, this is pretty incredible.  There are few things where, if you reduce the supply, the price does not increase.  And for consumption staples, such as fuel for your car, price increases are accompanied by increases in hoarding and lines.  

At the very least - 

Since the shutdown, there have been no long lines or major price hikes for gas.

 - would be entirely unexpected, breaching the laws of economics.

But more than that, even in New York, there were panic purchases, price rises, and lines reported by other sources.  And it would have only taken a phone call, a scan of local papers, or evening listening to NPR, not the most reliable of news sources, to learn about the price rises and lines in southern states.

On the eleventh, my wife and I noted the potential shortages.  Given an upcoming trip, we set out to fill up the cars.  Tuesday the 11th in the morning our local gas station was open but with long lines and higher prices.  From kids and friends, I heard the same from all over the region. 

For the first time in a very long time, NPR had some useful information, reporting what I had suspected might be the case.  Shortages were being experienced in the most high volume locales which work more along just-in-time inventory principles whereas more remote locations were doing fine.  Specifically, while Atlanta had as many as fifty percent of gas stations closed without fuel, across the state, only fifteen percent were closed.

I clicked through to see the article.  If it has been updated there is no note of correction.  

So what is going on?  I read the article and hit several other common modern journalism failings.  One is the compulsion to fit everything into an acceptable narrative.  In this instance the push to cast America's infrastructure as "aging."

But for each day that the shutdown has dragged on, a sense of crisis has grown, testing the country’s aging infrastructure and a new White House administration combating growing cyberthreats.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, every time I look at this claim, it comes back unsupported.  Of course buildings, highways, etc. age.  But is the average age of maintenance cycle declining?  As far as I can tell, no.  And I see similar results from other researchers.   Large construction companies want the government to spend more money on infrastructure maintenance and renewal so they push the narrative.  Big Government proponents want something visible to go with Government spending so they are generally supportive of the "aging infrastructure" storyline.  But it is all one big narrative unsupported by facts.  

This must surely be a correction given the message of the first tweet denying that there were lines or price increases.  The article now has a picture illustrating the long lines.  But no correction is noted.

I think this is the rub of the issue.  How this incident is being deployed for political purposes.

The near hysteria in a few communities has not been seen in years, as some people on social media have begun comparing President Biden to President Jimmy Carter, who was president when gas lines rattled the country after the Iranian revolution and other Middle East troubles.

"In a few communities?"  I am hearing this concern/panic from across all the southeastern cities.  It has been widespread.  Why is the NYT dismissing it as a few communities?  I am guessing that it is because it conflates two other pieces of news to create a narrative which the NYT absolutely wishes to avoid.

In the past week or so we have discovered that inflation is roaring ahead, jobs are stalling, the stock market is unsettled, the nation's debt load is rising at a faster rate than any time in recent decades.  There are jokes and claims that Biden is taking up the  mantle of the miserable Carter years and exceeding them.  

I would guess that in the original tweet that this might have been what the NYT was trying to forestall with its no price rise and no lines claim.  "Claimed without evidence" as NPR so frequently and incorrectly asserts when referencing anything from the prior administration circa 2016-2020.

Why is there such a marked reaction?  According to the NYT:

Experts say the reaction this time, however, is out of proportion with the actual risk.

Really?  After every missed forecast, over-anticipation of doom or underestimation of impact over the past 18 months of Covid-19?  How on earth can the NYT claim that the reaction is out of proportion to the risk.  As recently as yesterday afternoon Wednesday May 12th, it was being estimated that Colonial Pipeline would require another five days to restore operations at all.  Were people overreacting given what the experts thought to be the actual risks?  Not based on the performance of experts for the past 18 months and not based on the information being made available by Colonial Pipeline.  This claim is simply victim blaming by the NYT for its own (and the Governments) lost credibility.  

The NYT opens its article with

The ransomware attack that forced the shutdown of a pipeline delivering fuel to the Northeastern United States highlighted the vulnerability of the American energy system. 

In the article it lists many of the vulnerabilities.  But then it avers:

The current pipeline problem is serious because it has implications for national security, even though the Northeast fuel supply system is flexible and resilient.

So is this a serious threat or not?  Is this low risk or high risk?  Is the fuel supply system vulnerable or flexible and resilient.  The NYT seems unable to make up its mind.

And being the mouthpiece of the DNC and a shill for anyone pushing panic, the NYT ends with a quote:

“The unfortunate truth is that infrastructure today is so vulnerable that just about anyone who wants to get in can get in,” said Dan Schiappa, chief product officer of Sophos, a British security software and hardware company. “Infrastructure is an easy — and lucrative — target for attackers.”

So a company which provides IT consulting services on cybersecurity wants us to know that cybersecurity is a big risk.  Thanks NYT for being a patsy to corporate communications sales and marketing.

We want news reporting and instead we get muddled word salads, mixed with political machinations, spiced with corporate sales efforts, enthusiastic panic porn, while providing only a modicum of reporting and facts.  Oh, and a massive blind spot of their own culpability in fostering an environment where normal Americans have been trained to not believe the media and not believe the Government.

All they have to do is report openly, quickly and honestly but that is apparently no longer a viable business model.  Blaming (without evidence) the great American public is somehow their vision of business success.