Users Can Sue Facebook Over Facial Recognition Software, Court Rules

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said Thursday that Facebook users in Illinois can sue the company over its use of facial recognition technology.
Richard Drew/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Richard Drew/AP
A U.S. court has ruled that Facebook users in Illinois can sue the company over face recognition technology, meaning a class action can move forward.
The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued its ruling on Thursday. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, it’s the first decision by a U.S. appellate court to directly address privacy concerns posed by facial recognition technology.
“This decision is a strong recognition of the dangers of unfettered use of face surveillance technology,” Nathan Freed Wessler, an attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, said in a statement. “The capability to instantaneously identify and track people based on their faces raises chilling potential for privacy violations at an unprecedented scale.”
Facebook told NPR that the company plans to ask the full circuit court to review the decision of the three-judge panel. “We have always disclosed our use of face recognition technology and that people can turn it on or off at any time,” said Joe Osborne, a Facebook spokesman. Information about its facial recognition technology is available in the company policy online.
The case concerns Facebook users in Illinois who accused the social media giant of violating the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Facebook argued that the users had experienced no concrete harm. But the 9th Circuit panel noted that intangible injuries can still be concrete, and it noted the Supreme Court has said advances in technology can lead to more personal privacy intrusions.
The appeals panel decided that Facebook’s technology “invades an individual’s private affairs and concrete interests.”
In 2011, Facebook launched a feature called “tag suggestions.” It allowed technology to analyze the details of people’s faces in uploaded photos — the distance between their eyes, their nose and other features. Users could choose to opt out of the feature. Facebook said it only builds face templates of Facebook users who have the feature turned on.
“Once a face template of an individual is created,” the judges wrote, “Facebook can use it to identify that individual in any of the other hundreds of millions of photos uploaded to Facebook each day, as well as determine when the individual was present at a specific location.”
They noted that Facebook keeps a database of users’ face templates, which are stored on servers in states that include Oregon, Iowa, Texas and California.
Facebook argued before the judges that its collection of biometric data happened outside of Illinois, and outside of the privacy law’s purview.
The panel disagreed, saying it was reasonable to conclude that the law was meant to protect people in Illinois, “even if some relevant activities occur outside the state.”
Privacy advocates have long expressed concern that face recognition technology can be used for mass surveillance and to target protesters, setting a dangerous environment in countries where democracy is failing or never existed at all.
Note: Facebook is one of NPR’s financial sponsors.
MLB’s Yankees And White Sox To Play At ‘Field Of Dreams’ Farm

In Iowa, a temporary ballpark will be built to host a game between the New York Yankees and Chicago White Sox next summer.
Major League Baseball
hide caption
toggle caption
Major League Baseball
If they appear, “Shoeless” Joe Jackson and Archibald “Moonlight” Graham will only be there in spirit. But for one night, big leaguers will play baseball at the Iowa farm that was made famous in the beloved film Field of Dreams.
The New York Yankees and Chicago White Sox will face off at the Dyersville, Iowa, farm next August, Major League Baseball announced Thursday. The game will count as part of the regular season — starting a three-game series between the Yankees and White Sox. The two teams will then have one day off as they travel to Chicago to finish out the series.
The game is slated for the night of Aug. 13, 2020 — three decades after Field of Dreams debuted in 1989. But Aaron Judge and his fellow MLB stars won’t be playing on the same diamond that was created for the Kevin Costner movie. Instead, they’ll play at a temporary 8,000-seat ballpark.
“As a sport that is proud of its history linking generations, Major League Baseball is excited to bring a regular season game to the site of Field of Dreams,” MLB Commissioner Robert D. Manfred Jr. said. “We look forward to celebrating the movie’s enduring message of how baseball brings people together at this special cornfield in Iowa.”
According to MLB, the facility will be built adjacent to rows of corn like those that lined the outfield in the movie — and from which the mythical players appeared, fulfilling the whispered prophecy, “If you build it, he will come.” A pathway will connect the site with the movie location.
Celebrating the plan for what will be the first MLB game ever played in her state, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds echoed a famous exchange from the film:
“Hey! Is this heaven?”
“No, it’s Iowa.”
In a tweet from MLB, that exchange has now been reedited to show the Yankees’ Judge asking that question of Costner’s character.
Is this heaven?@Yankees–@WhiteSox, see you in Iowa on 8.13.20. pic.twitter.com/5GGbH7TWuq
— MLB (@MLB) August 8, 2019
In addition to the prediction that legendary ballplayers would come to play ball in an Iowa cornfield, Field of Dreams also predicted people would flock to the site. And for years, they’ve done just that, making pilgrimages to soak in the field’s timeless character and to feel the buoyancy that sports can bring.
Now, MLB is hoping fans will want to watch baseball at the Iowa farm. The idea, as James Earl Jones said when he portrayed the character Terence Mann, is that people will come to see their heroes:
“And they’ll watch the game, and it’ll be as if they’ve dipped themselves in magic waters,” Jones said in the film. “The memories will be so thick they’ll have to brush them away from their faces.”
How The CDC’s Reluctance To Use The ‘F-Word’ — Firearms — Hinders Suicide Prevention
In the U.S., firearms kill more people through suicide than homicide.
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
The nation’s foremost public health agency shies away from discussing the important link in this country between suicide and access to guns.
That’s according to documents obtained by NPR that suggest the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention instead relies on vague language and messages about suicide that effectively downplay and obscure the risk posed by firearms.
Guns in the United States kill more people through suicide than homicide.
Almost 40,000 people died from guns in 2017 alone — 60% of those deaths were suicides. Guns are the most common method used for suicide.
If you or someone you know may be considering suicide, contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 (En Español: 1-888-628-9454; Deaf and Hard of Hearing: 1-800-799-4889) or the Crisis Text Line by texting HOME to 741741.
Suicide rates are going up in nearly every state, even though research shows that suicide is preventable. Access to guns is such an important risk factor that any effective public education campaign to prevent suicide would surely need to address it.
The trouble is, the CDC is operating under something known as the Dickey Amendment, legislation passed by Congress in 1996 that prohibits the CDC from spending any of its funds to “advocate or promote gun control.”
A lot of attention has been paid to how this has stopped the CDC from funding certain kinds of gun violence research. The law also had another effect: It led the CDC to tiptoe around guns as it tries to tackle the increase in suicides.
“CDC staff do their best to provide the very latest science and evidence-based data to the public so they can protect their health,” a CDC spokesperson told NPR, declining to make any agency official available for an interview.
NPR reviewed early drafts and editing notes of a major 2018 CDC suicide report and a guide on suicide prevention, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, along with the agency’s public anti-suicide messages.
The internal documents reveal detailed staff deliberations over wording that resulted in the agency weakening language that might suggest restricting access to guns as a way to prevent suicides.
“Lethal means”
Guns get used in slightly more than half of all suicides. And people who try to kill themselves with a gun almost always die.
But the word “gun” is frequently absent when the CDC presents information on suicide prevention.
A CDC fact sheet published in 2018 on “Preventing Suicide” does not include the word “gun” or “firearm.” Instead, it advises people to “reduce access to lethal means among persons at risk of suicide.”
Where the CDC’s website lists the risk factors for suicide, it also does not include the word “gun.” It says instead “easy access to lethal methods.”
Internal texts exchanged between CDC suicide researchers show why a generic term like “lethal means” is preferred: It “is probably less likely to create issues compared to using the f-word,” which is firearms. A phrase like “access to firearms” would “raise a few red flags.”
Here is one text exchange:
LiKamWa, Wendy (CDC/CCEHIP/NCIPC) 2:56 PM:
haha one of the police articles I saw listed “access to firearms” and I was like, that would raise a few red flags!
Stone, Deborah (CDC/ONDIEH/NCIPC) 2:56 PM:
it’s ok. that’s fair territory!
that’s a big reason why their rates are so high.
we aren’t saying take away their guns!
at least not explicitly!
LiKamWa, Wendy (CDC/CCEHIP/NCIPC) 2:57 PM:
actually, the tiesman et al article (i.e. NIOSH) talks about firearms and access to firearms a lot
Stone, Deborah (CDC/ONDIEH/NCIPC) 2:59 PM:
yeah, it’s more of an issue if we are advocating for gun control. it’s a fact that access is a risk factor.
LiKamWa, Wendy (CDC/CCEHIP/NCIPC) 3:00 PM:
still, “lethal means” is probably less likely to create issues compared to using the F-word
Stone, Deborah (CDC/ONDIEH/NCIPC) 3:00 PM:
very true.
In the past, members of Congress have asked the CDC if agency staffers were told to avoid using the word “gun.” Here’s how the CDC replied:
“To ensure scientific integrity, technical accuracy, consistency with appropriations language, and usefulness to the intended audience, CDC has a standard agency review process for any manuscript or report produced by CDC scientists. … In the course of reviewing manuscripts or reports on firearm violence, CDC has asked employees to use correct terminology — for example, to say ‘died as a result of a firearm-related injury’ vs. ‘died from a firearm’ in the same way as one would write ‘died as a result of a motor-vehicle crash’ vs. ‘died from a car.’ “
But one former CDC official told NPR that of course employees know to censor themselves when it comes to guns.
“There were staff who would say you couldn’t even say the word ‘gun,’ ” recalls Linda Degutis, who used to serve as director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. “They would tell other people, or even new people sometimes, you can’t say the word ‘gun’ here.”
She says higher-ups would review documents, “because there would be a thought that if guns were mentioned too often, that would be violating this intent not to do any kind of research or work around guns.”
She says the problem with language like “lethal means” is that it doesn’t convey what people should actually be worried about and what actions they should take when it comes to suicide prevention, such as offering to remove guns from the home of a friend or relative who is going through a personal crisis.
“I think when you say ‘lethal means’ to the general public, they don’t know what you’re saying,” adds Degutis. “They don’t know that you might mean guns.”
“Safe storage” vs. “restricting access”
Another noticeable feature of the CDC’s suicide prevention messaging is the emphasis on “safe storage.”
By that, the agency means keeping guns and ammunition securely locked in a safe. Unlike other measures that could make it more difficult to obtain a gun, “safe storage” isn’t likely to be politically controversial.
Consider the edits made to one internal document prepared to help guide CDC staff in responding to questions about suicide.
The original answer included the words “restricting access to lethal means among those at risk for suicide has been proven effective for preventing suicide.”
One passage got edited to remove any reference to “restricting access.” Instead, the revised answer focused on “safe storage,” saying, “safe storage practices can help reduce the risk for suicide by separating vulnerable populations from easy access to lethal means.”
In a teleconference that the CDC held with reporters in June 2018, when the CDC released a report on rising suicide rates, CDC Principal Deputy Director Anne Schuchat said that “one of our recommendations is assuring safe storage of medications and firearms as one of the approaches to prevention. Very important to — you know, have safe storage.”
Research does show that locking up guns and ammunition can prevent suicidal adolescents from being able to access their parents’ guns.
But the “safe storage” approach doesn’t address the suicide risk that a gun poses to its owner, who presumably has the key or combination to a locked safe or cabinet.
And most gun suicides happen when the owner of the gun turns it on himself or herself.
“I’m a little bit dubious that safe storage will be relevant to the vast majority of suicides with firearms. Because the owners of those firearms are the ones storing the guns and locking the guns,” says Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Research and Policy. “I certainly don’t know of any research that shows that safe storage of firearms reduces risks for adult suicide.”
David Gunnell, an epidemiologist at the University of Bristol, was perplexed by the CDC’s focus on safe storage.
“It was all about, if you like, putting the blame on the owners, making them store their firearms safely,” says Gunnell, “rather than seeing this large pool of firearms available in the community in the United States contributing to the heightened use of firearms for suicide.”
In his research on a common means of suicide in Sri Lanka, pesticide ingestion, Gunnell has found that providing locked storage boxes hasn’t been an effective form of prevention. Eventually, he says, families just stop bothering to use the secure box.
What has produced dramatic reductions in suicide rates, he says, has been regulatory bans that took the most dangerous pesticides off the market in certain places.
“So there’s a body of evidence that if you regulate, to make the environment safer by taking out of the broader environment the most toxic products, that results in a fall in deaths,” says Gunnell, because suicide research shows that people do not tend to substitute one suicide method for another.
In fact, Gunnell says, most international reviews of the research literature on suicide have found that the strongest evidence about how to bring down death rates “is around those interventions that restrict access to commonly used, high lethality suicide methods.”
In other countries, that approach has lowered suicide rates by as much as 30% to 50%.
These dramatic decreases are not mentioned in the CDC’s main guide to preventing suicide, described as “a resource to guide and inform prevention decision-making in communities and states.”
It does talk about the need to create “protective environments” and includes the example of “safe storage” of guns. But as the document got edited inside the CDC, its message about the importance of restricting access to “lethal means” got weakened. One early draft stated:
“The evidence for the effectiveness of means restriction and other ways to establish protective environments is some of the strongest in the field.”
The sentence got changed to:
“The evidence for the effectiveness of preventing suicide by reducing access to lethal means and otherwise establishing protective environments for individuals at risk of suicide is strong, particularly compared to existing evidence for other prevention strategies.”
Additional changes produced the final, published version, in which the evidence merely “suggests”:
“The evidence suggests that creating protective environments can reduce suicide and suicide attempts and increase protective behaviors.”
What’s missing?
It’s possible to read the CDC’s materials on suicide and come away not understanding what science shows about how to significantly reduce suicide rates, and the important connection between guns and suicide.
“Half of all suicide deaths in the states are from firearms,” says Gunnell, “and so, as a policymaker, my first step would be to say, ‘Well, what can we do to restrict access to firearms?’ ”
The CDC’s own research shows that simply having a gun in the home is associated with increased risk for suicide, but that isn’t highlighted in its public messages about suicide.
In addition, states that have higher gun ownership rates see higher rates for suicide, “even after you’ve controlled for a range of other factors known to be correlated with suicide risk,” says Webster. “Access to firearms does increase suicide risk. I recognize that is a conclusion that will make people uncomfortable. But that is simply what the facts are.”
When people are going through difficult times or grappling with substance use or mental health issues, says Webster, “it could be, at least temporarily, you can mitigate that risk by having someone else hold the firearms for them.”
Other possible measures might include waiting periods before purchasing guns, licensing processes for gun buyers, or laws that keep firearms from those who are deemed a risk to themselves or others (“red flag” laws).
None of those legislative options get mentioned in the CDC’s guide to strategies for suicide prevention for states and communities.
A spokesperson for the CDC told NPR that “some laws or policies to potentially reduce firearm suicides (e.g., red flag laws) have not been rigorously evaluated. CDC selected examples with ample evaluation using the criteria for inclusion in the front of the technical package. We are always reassessing the evidence and will update the evidence as it becomes available.”
She pointed to one CDC study of firearms and suicides in major metropolitan areas that does briefly mention “safely storing firearms or temporarily removing them from the home.” It also mentions policies to keep firearms away from people under a restraining order for domestic violence, as well as efforts to strengthen the background check system for gun purchases.
Draft documents of the CDC’s guide to suicide prevention show that some researchers at the agency feel that suicide prevention has been hindered by “hesitation to take up strategies known to be effective but perhaps unpopular”:
“Unfortunately, suicide prevention is impeded by barriers including: stigma related to help-seeking, mental illness, being a survivor, or someone with lived experience; fear related to asking about suicidal thought, hesitation to take up strategies known to be effective but perhaps unpopular; misinformation about suicide preventability, harmful messaging about suicide, and disproportionate funding given its public health burden.”
In the final version of that section that was published, some of those barriers to reducing suicide rates go unmentioned:
“There are a number of barriers that have impeded progress, including, for example, stigma related to help-seeking, mental illness, being a survivor and fear related to asking someone about suicidal thoughts.”
What’s actually allowed?
Webster believes that CDC officials have made the choice that it is safest for the agency to tread lightly when it comes to anything related to guns, since Congress controls the CDC’s funding.
“I think that’s a very unfortunate environment that they’ve had to operate in,” says Webster. “But I want people to understand that there is no law in place now that says that CDC can’t talk about the research and what’s been learned about the connection between firearms and suicide risk.”
The exact meaning of what the CDC is or is not allowed to do under the Dickey Amendment has been ambiguous ever since Congress passed the legislation decades ago.
Officials seem inclined to err on the side of caution. The minutes of one meeting to review a report on rising suicide rates showed that one CDC employee told researchers not to mention the often impulsive nature of suicides.
Apparently the official worried that mentioning this fact might turn “it into a removal of lethal means issue,” given that about half the people in the study who killed themselves were not previously known to have a mental health issue. She noted, “I don’t want it to be overly politicized.”
FedEx Is Breaking Up With Amazon, Ending Ground-Shipping Contract
Federal Express is increasingly seeing Amazon as a competitor in the shipping business. FedEx announced Wednesday that it is ending its ground-shipping contract with Amazon.
AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:
The U.S. business world was abuzz today over a high-profile breakup. FedEx is parting ways with Amazon. The logistics company says it will stop making Amazon’s ground deliveries. NPR’s Alina Selyukh reports.
ALINA SELYUKH, BYLINE: As far as breakups go, this one did not seem to break that many hearts. After FedEx announced its plans to stop delivering Amazon packages – both by air and with ground shipping – Amazon issued its own statement, saying basically it happens. Sometimes, things just don’t work out. Amazon’s executive in charge of operations tweeted – and I quote – “we wish them nothing but the best, conscious uncoupling at its finest.”
(SOUNDBITE OF SONG, “SOMEONE LIKE YOU”)
ADELE: (Singing) I wish nothing but the best for you, too.
SELYUKH: Forget romance. To get mathematical about it, last year, Amazon deliveries accounted for just over 1% of FedEx’s total revenue.
Logistics expert Marc Wulfraat estimates that, for Amazon, FedEx delivers about 4% of packages. Wulfraat runs the consulting firm MWPVL International.
MARC WULFRAAT: It’s kind of the end of a relationship that was never all that big in the first place.
SELYUKH: FedEx didn’t offer much detail but said the change allows them to focus on the, quote, “broader e-commerce market.” In recent months, FedEx shifted how it talks about Amazon, calling it a competitor. And indeed, Amazon already has a web of warehouses, trucking contracts and leased airplanes. And note that Amazon is one of NPR’s financial supporters.
But reading the tea leaves, Wulfraat says it’s all about Amazon’s new push to one-day shipping.
WULFRAAT: Probably Amazon does not want to pay the premium associated with that.
SELYUKH: Wulfraat is speculating. But he says, for FedEx, delivering your last-minute shopping is far less profitable than business shipments. It’s one package to your door versus dozens to the warehouse using the same truck and the driver’s time. He predicts Amazon and FedEx might both suffer from their breakup in the short term. But in the end, they will move on.
Alina Selyukh, NPR News.
(SOUNDBITE OF FAYE WEBSTER’S “SHE WON’T GO AWAY”)
Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
Coordinating Care Of Mind And Body Might Help Medicaid Save Money And Lives

John Poynter of Clarksville, Tenn., uses a wall calendar to keep track of all his appointments for both behavioral health and physical ailments. His mental health case manager, Valerie Klein, appears regularly on the calendar — and helps make sure he gets to his diabetes appointments.
Blake Farmer/WPLN
hide caption
toggle caption
Blake Farmer/WPLN
In modern medicine, the mind and body often stay on two separate tracks in terms of treatment and health insurance reimbursement. But it’s hard to maintain physical health while suffering from a psychological disorder.
So some Medicaid programs, which provide health coverage for people who have low incomes, have tried to blend the coordination of care for the physical and mental health of patients, with the hope that it might save the state and federal governments money while also improving the health of patients like John Poynter of Clarksville, Tenn.
Poynter has more health problems than he can even recall. “Memory is one of them,” he says, with a laugh that punctuates the end of nearly every sentence.
He is currently recovering from his second hip replacement, related to his dwarfism. Poynter is able to get around with the help of a walker — it’s covered in keychains from everywhere he’s been. He also has diabetes and is in a constant struggle to moderate his blood sugar.
But most of his challenges, he says, revolve around one destructive behavior — alcoholism.
“I stayed so drunk, I didn’t know what health was,” Poynter says, with his trademark chuckle.
Nevertheless, he used Tennessee’s health system a lot back when he was drinking heavily. Whether it was because of a car wreck or a glucose spike, he was a frequent flyer in hospital emergency rooms, where every bit of health care is more expensive.
The case for coordination of mind-body care
Tennessee’s Medicaid program, known as TennCare, has more than 100,000 patients who are in similar circumstances to Poynter. They’ve had a psychiatric inpatient or stabilization episode, along with an official mental health diagnosis — depression or bipolar disorder, maybe, or, as in Poynter’s case, alcohol addiction. And their mental or behavioral health condition might be manageable with medication and/or counseling, but without that treatment, their psychological condition is holding back their physical health — or vice versa.
“They’re high-use patients. They’re not necessarily high-need patients,” says Roger Kathol, a psychiatrist and internist with Cartesian Solutions in Minneapolis, who consults with hospitals and health plans that are trying to integrate mental and physical care.
As studies have shown, these dual-track patients end up consuming way more care than they would otherwise need.
“So, essentially, they don’t get better either behaviorally or medically,” Kathol says, “because their untreated behavioral health illness continues to prevent them from following through on the medical recommendations.”
For example, a patient’s high blood pressure will never be controlled if an active addiction keeps them from taking the necessary medication.
But coordinating mental and physical health care presents business challenges — because, usually, two different entities pay the bills, even within Medicaid programs. That’s why TennCare started offering incentives to reward teamwork.
Health Link
TennCare’s interdisciplinary program, known as Tennessee Health Link, was launched in December 2016. The first year, the agency paid out nearly $7 million in bonuses to mental health providers who guided patients in care related to their physical health.
TennCare has a five-star metric to gauge a care coordinator’s performance, measuring each patient’s inpatient hospital and psychiatric admissions as well as visits to emergency rooms. Providers are eligible for up to 25% of what’s calculated as the savings to the Medicaid program.
Studies show this sort of coordination and teamwork could end up saving TennCare hundreds of dollars per year, per patient. And a 2018 study from consulting firm Milliman finds most of the savings are on the medical side — not from trimming mental health treatment.
Savings from care coordination have been elusive at times for many efforts with varying patient populations around the U.S. A TennCare spokesperson says it’s too early to say whether its program is either improving health or saving money. But already, TennCare is seeing these patients visit the ER less often, which is a start.
While there’s a strong financial case for coordination, it could also save lives. Studies show patients who have both a chronic physical condition and a mental illness tend to die young.
“They’re not dying from behavioral health problems,” points out Mandi Ryan, director of health care innovation at Centerstone, a multistate mental health provider. “They’re dying from a lack of preventive care on the medical side.”
“So that’s where we really started to focus on how can we look at this whole person,” Ryan says.
But refocusing, she says, has required changing the way physicians practice medicine, and changing what’s expected of case managers, turning them into wellness coaches.
“We don’t really get taught about hypertension and hyperlipidemia,” says Valerie Klein, a care coordinator who studied psychology in school and is now an integrated care manager at Centerstone’s office in Clarksville, Tenn.
“But when we look at the big picture,” Klein says, “we realize that if we’re helping them improve their physical health, even if it’s just making sure they got to their appointments, then we’re helping them improve their emotional health as well.”
Klein now helps keep Poynter on track with his treatment. Her name appears regularly on a wall calendar where he writes down his appointments.
Poynter calls Klein his “backbone.” She helped schedule his recent hip surgery and knows the list of medications he takes better than he does.
Klein acknowledges it’s a concept that now seems like an obvious improvement over the way behavioral health patients have been handled in the past. “I don’t know why we didn’t ever realize that looking at the whole person made a difference,” she says.
This story is part of NPR’s reporting partnership with Nashville Public Radio and Kaiser Health News.
The Thistle & Shamrock: From The Archives, Part 1

Cathie Ryan is one of the artists featured on this week’s episode of The Thistle & Shamrock.
Joe Sinnott/Courtesy of the artist
hide caption
toggle caption
Joe Sinnott/Courtesy of the artist
It’s a bit like browsing through a photo album where the memories are captured in sounds, not images. Join Fiona Ritchie as she delves into her archives to re-visit highlights from the past decade of radio shows featuring artists John Doyle, Peggy Seeger and Cathie Ryan.
Opinion: Speeding Up Baseball To Save It
Sports commentator Mike Pesca wonders whether Major League Baseball will modernize to attract a young audience, and how it will keep them for life.
DAVID GREENE, HOST:
Major League Baseball is on track to set a record for home runs in a season, but the games are taking as long as ever. Sports commentator Mike Pesca says if baseball doesn’t get a little more sprightly, it could start losing some audience.
MIKE PESCA, BYLINE: The following parts of a baseball game are boring – pitching changes, stepping out of the batter’s box, stepping off the pitching rubber, looking the runner back, adjusting the equipment, most foul balls called strikes not resulting in a strikeout and balls not resulting in a walk. You can find a baseball purist to argue that called balls and strikes aren’t boring, but you know how I’d describe that conversation? Boring.
Now, I just described most of a baseball game as being boring, which leads me to believe that baseball is mostly boring. I love it, but it is. To work your way around this fact demands you use words like contemplative, pastoral or timeless, but it’s not timeless. A poet or documentarian may wish to convince you that the clock of a baseball game is something like three outs per inning, but look up there on the scoreboard or on your wrist or on the phone in your pocket. There is an actual clock. And guess what. Major League Baseball games are taking more time than they ever have. Three hours eight minutes – that’s 13 minutes longer than “The Godfather.” Of the 28 shows on Broadway right now, none runs longer than three hours. Of all the videos on Snapchat – yeah, never mind on that one.
Well, you might say, what if baseball is dazzling customers with exciting plays and scintillating feats of heroism between the pitcher stepping off the rubber and batter stepping out of the box? What if this time is well spent on the most exciting play in the game? Here’s the really scary thing for baseball. It is. The home run, decidedly not on the boring list, is ascendant. More than ascendant, it’s out of here. Baseball is on a pace to set a record for home runs by a lot. But this is not delighting and captivating fans. Attendance is on a pace to be the lowest in the last 15 years.
Baseball knows it’s lagging. The league has tried to nibble off a few seconds of downtime here and there by, say, lopping off five seconds between innings. They’ve changed the rule so that an intentional walk needn’t require four actual pitches outside the strike zone. That laudable tinkering has been largely counteracted by the emerging trend of baseball teams no longer issuing intentional walks. Oh, well.
The league has done nothing to dissuade players from languidly wandering in and out of the batter’s box like 5-year-olds examining shells at the beach. But mostly blame goes to the trend of every at-bat requiring so many pitches to get a result – ball, adjust gloves, strike, step off the rubber, ball, adjust gloves, look runner over, look runner over. At this point, Snapchat is looking good. The other huge problem for the game, one that is out of step with our celebrity culture, is that it’s very hard to follow individual players. If a football fan loves a quarterback, he handles the ball in every offensive snap. Watching a great NBA player even without the ball, Steph Curry as he curls around the screen, is a thing to behold. But if you’re there to watch a particular player, realize 17 out of every 18 batters aren’t him.
Baseball still has a wonderful sense of history. There is so much intricacy and skill to mastering a knuckle curve or turning a double play. Ballparks have more personality than ever, and generations can bond over the shared love of team. But if the game itself doesn’t realize that it is in – I’ll say it – a crisis of boredom, then we may lose an entire generation of fans. And that lost generation will be the last.
GREENE: He’s never boring. Commentator Mike Pesca hosts the Slate podcast “The Gist.”
Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
U.S.-China Trade War Spreads From Tariffs To A Battle Over Currencies

Currency dealers monitor exchange rates at the KEB Hana Bank in Seoul, South Korea. China’s currency and the U.S. stock market stabilized Tuesday, after a dramatic drop the day before.
Jung Yeon-Je/AFP/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Jung Yeon-Je/AFP/Getty Images
The U.S. and China opened a new front in their trade war this week, when China allowed its currency to fall, triggering a sharp drop in the U.S. stock market.
The seemingly modest adjustment in global exchange rates had a seismic effect on Wall Street confidence, rattling retirement accounts and prompting a new round of bellicose rhetoric from President Trump.
Both the market and the currency stabilized on Tuesday, but not before investors got a stomach-churning preview of what an escalating trade war might look like.
The U.S. Treasury Department formally accused China of manipulating its currency, echoing a complaint the president had made via Twitter. But experts say China’s actions do not amount to currency manipulation, and they warned that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is squandering credibility that the U.S. might need in the future.
“Currency manipulation has a very specific definition under U.S. law,” said David Dollar, a former official with the Treasury Department and the World Bank. “China does not meet the standard.”
Although China does have a trade surplus with the U.S., it does not meet two other Treasury Department tests for currency manipulation, analysts said: It doesn’t have a large surplus in its broader “current account,” and it hasn’t made persistent, one-sided moves to interfere in currency markets.
Dollar, who is now with the Brookings Institution, says currency manipulation usually describes a country that is keeping its currency artificially low, in an effort to make its exports more affordable or to discourage imports.
If anything, China had been propping up its currency until this week. That’s when the government allowed market forces to take over and the Chinese yuan fell below 7 to the U.S. dollar for the first time in over a decade.
“The move down in the yuan on Monday was not artificial — it was an entirely natural market response to newly imposed U.S. tariffs,” wrote former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers in an op-ed for the The Washington Post. Last week, Trump sent a shock through financial markets with plans for a new 10% tariff on $300 billion worth of products imported from China — in addition to previously announced import taxes.
Mnuchin “has damaged his credibility and that of his office” by declaring China a currency manipulator, wrote Summers, who was Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration and an economic adviser to former President Barack Obama. “It will be harder now in the next difficult financial moment for Treasury Department pronouncements to be credited by market participants.”
The Treasury Department said it would consult with the International Monetary Fund about China’s falling currency, but observers said they did not expect much practical effect.
“It’s meaningless,” said Daniel Ikenson, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. “We’re already in a trade war with China. We’re already imposing all sorts of punitive measures. So just calling them a ‘currency manipulator’ is more political and it is an exercise in name-calling.”
The Chinese yuan stopped its slide on Tuesday, and U.S. investors appeared to catch their breath. Stocks regained some of the ground they lost the day before. U.S. stock indexes rose more than 1% on Tuesday, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average closing up 311 points.
Still, the market gyrations only add to the uncertainties that have led to a slowdown in U.S. manufacturing and business investment.
“The president’s flailing bluster, in which the treasury secretary is now a full participant, risks real economic damage as businesses and consumers become fearful and hold off spending,” Summers wrote. “The risk of recession going forward might now be as high as any time since the 2008 financial crisis.”
White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow offered reassurance Tuesday, telling CNBC there’s still an opportunity for a negotiated resolution of the trade war.
“The reality is we would like to negotiate,” Kudlow said. “The president has said if you make a good deal, maybe he’ll be flexible on the tariffs.”
Dollar agreed there’s room for compromise.
“It would only take a phone call between the two presidents to put things back on a good track,” he said. “They could just decide this [trade war] is mutually destructive.”
But Trump’s tweets showed little sign that he is backing down on his tariff threats.
“Massive amounts of money from China and other parts of the world is pouring into the United States for reasons of safety, investment, and interest rates,” he wrote Tuesday.
However, as nervous investors seek safety in dollars, that merely strengthens the U.S. currency — encouraging imports and making American exports more expensive. That’s precisely the opposite result of what the president says he wants.
“His protectionist policies are driving down the value of the Chinese currency and driving up the value of the dollar. And that’s just going to encourage trade deficits in perpetuity,” the Cato Institute’s Ikenson said. “If we want the dollar to settle down, we need to have more predictable, level-headed policies in place going forward.”
Treasury Declares China A ‘Currency Manipulator,’ Escalating Trade War

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed down Monday, as did the S&P 500 and Nasdaq, as trade tensions between the U.S. and China increased.
Richard Drew/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Richard Drew/AP
The Treasury Department formally labeled China a currency manipulator Monday, after Beijing allowed its currency to fall to an 11-year low. The tit-for-tat moves mark the latest escalation in the two countries’ trade war, which triggered a sharp sell-off on Wall Street.
While President Trump has long accused China of tinkering with its currency to gain an unfair advantage on world markets, this is the first time in a quarter century the U.S. has formally accused Beijing of currency manipulation.
The Treasury secretary will work with the International Monetary Fund “to eliminate the unfair competitive advantage created by China’s latest actions,” the department said in a statement.
China’s devaluation came days after Trump announced plans to level new tariffs on some $300 billion in Chinese imports, beginning in September. China also responded by suspending its already limited purchases of U.S. agricultural products.
Signs the two sides are digging in for an extended trade battle rattled investors on Monday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 767 points, or 2.9%. The S&P 500 fell nearly 3%.
“Any investor who had anticipated that President Xi and President Trump would shake hands and reach some kind of an agreement by year-end is probably scratching that scenario off their blackboard,” said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer of Cresset Capital in Chicago.
This Time, Franky Zapata Makes It Across The English Channel On A Hoverboard

French inventor Franky Zapata has successfully flown over the English Channel on a personal flying machine.
Steve Parsons/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Steve Parsons/AP
French inventor Franky Zapata made history as the first person to cross the English Channel by hoverboard, taking off Sunday from Sangatte on France’s northern coast and touching down near Dover, England.
The elite jet skier’s daring display over the 22-mile channel between France and the U.K. took just over 20 minutes. It seems nobody else has ever tried to cross the body of water by hoverboard, which in Zapata’s case was powered by a backpack full of fuel.
“I’m feeling happy. … It’s just an amazing moment in my life,” Zapata told reporters after landing, according to The Associated Press.
The board moved quickly — almost immediately after takeoff, Zapata rose high in the sky and blasted forward, standing up on his invention as he faded off into the distance above the water. The crowd clapped as they saw him off from the beach.
YouTube
The wind above the channel posed challenges, he said, because gusts required him to constantly adjust his body’s position.
“Your body resists the wind, and because the board is attached to my feet, all my body has to resist to the wind,” Zapata told reporters in England. “I tried to enjoy it and not think about the pain.”
The accomplishment probably felt especially sweet because a previous attempt last month ended dramatically. Zapata attempted to land on a platform on a boat to refuel in the middle of that journey but ended up plunging into the water.
This time, Reuters reported, he used a larger boat and a larger platform.
This type of hoverboard isn’t Zapata’s first invention. One of them, called a Flyboard, enables users to fly out of the water and up into the air, shooting out jets of water and even doing flips.

Zapata celebrates on Sunday after crossing the English Channel on a jet-powered hoverboard.
Steve Parsons/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Steve Parsons/AP