This seems so obvious and easily researched - I'm surprised the author didn't correct it. I can't find any extenuating context. E.g. they don't mention anything about "in the US".
That's not what's going on. It just never occurs to most people that something might have happened outside their home.
There's a popular game, Timeline ( https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/128664/timeline ), involving placing events (represented on cards) in the proper chronological sequence. Due to modern sensitivities, many of the cards have titles of the form "The discovery of America (by Europeans)".
But mostly they don't. "Invention of the printing press", explicitly lacking the "(by Europeans)" rider, is located in the 15th century, several hundred years after the invention of the printing press. None of this stuff is hard to look up.
My understanding is that "invention of the printing press" generally refers to movable type, the thing that caused a revolution in the mass production of written material. Other techniques like block printing or indeed any other method of applying ink in a fixed pattern, came earlier but were not as generally useful.
Porcelain movable type had been used hundreds of years prior in China, but it never quite caught on because of the number of distinct characters needed.
Printing and movable type was first invented in China (though it failed to catch on there and as far as we know was separately reinvented in Europe). However the printing press, which is a mechanical device using movable type, was first invented by Gutenberg.
> However the printing press, which is a mechanical device using movable type, was first invented by Gutenberg.
The printing press is a mechanical device which mass-produces books by pressing inked plates against paper. Movable type is just a way to construct printing plates. It makes no difference to the press.
I'm intrigued that you believe China invented movable type without inventing a press that could use it. But suffice it to say that while movable type did not catch on in China, printing and printing presses were huge.
It's ok for a radio to focus on its own country, but to make a claim for something "in all history" looking for information in at least a few other countries is the bare minimum.
Here where I live I commonly see "touristic museums" and touristic places make claims that can be easily disproven by a google search and that is just not OK.
Imagine in a few decades some museum in US about media goes on to claim Arthur was the longest running kids show in the world and even link to npr as a source?
npr should have known better and put "In US" in their title.
No it isn't. Sandmännchen has been on the air for over 60 years.