118
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
118 points (93.4% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2560 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Good. Fuck that guy and his bullshit. NPR and PBS are the only ones following the Fairness Doctrine (you have one viewpoint, and then the opposite presented to the listener)
The problem with that stance is, not all ideas are equally credible and deserve airtime. As the adage goes, "If one person says it's raining outside, and another says it's sunny, a reporter's job isn't to present both as fact. It's to open the fucking window."
What the right are really angry about is that their lies aren't being given the same weight as the truth for the most part at NPR.
I've found NPR to be pretty good at that. It's particularly apparent when it comes to Trump's lies about the 2020 election; they are consistent about pointing out when claims have been conclusively disproven, and often use the word "lie".
That said, I agree with Berliner's fundamental point; I've noticed an increasing slant in the stories NPR emphasizes. It's not that their reporting is unfair, but their choice of what to cover aligns pretty closely with the positions of the progressive left.
Is the slant created by NPR or by the political climate, though?
Let's use an extreme:
If a person says that all strawberries are red, then another person says "hey, this guy said that strawberries give cancer!" and NPR says "What the first person said was that all strawberries were red," then all good. Then 1,000 people claim that no, what was said was that strawberries cause cancer. And NPR insists on indicating that no, it's just a statement about strawberries being red - will you say that the "red strawberry" slant was caused by NPR?
Have you read Berliner's article yet? He gives three examples:
These examples are very different from ignoring someone who claims without evidence that strawberries cause cancer, that the 2020 election was rigged, or that wildfires in California were started by Israeli space lasers.
Lol. As soon as you mention the "laptop", you lose all credibility.
What about Al Capone's vault!? Why aren't we focusing on that?!?
I’ve read it and all of the examples are misleading at best. These are all thoroughly flawed and it’s been covered by many others.
Mueller didn’t say there was no collusion, it said that they found some coordination, collusion itself isn’t a legal term and the DOJ can’t prosecute a sitting president.
The Hunter Biden laptop is a different beast than the contents there of. Even if you prove the device is his and some of the data is his, because of the poor forensic practices in handling it you have to prove that any incriminating data is also his and that’s not been done yet.
You don’t have to give time to every theory, especially ones that are still waiting on actual validation. Just because his political pet theory wasn’t covered with the same vigor when it’s considered less likely by general consensus of experts, doesn’t mean it was suppressed.
Odd, I listen to NPR regularly and they definitely mentioned all three of those. But, not extensively because each ended up being a bit of a nothing burger.
I specifically recall talking about the lab leak when that got mentioned, since I thought the prospect was interesting. It eventually got dismissed and NPRs stance, iirc, was that there wasn't enough evidence to really say any particular explanation was definitely true. They mostly moved on since everyone else moved on in that story.
Yes, I've read it, and I was scratching my head because I've definitely heard NPR cover those in a reasonable manner.
Did you.. Read the article? I agree with you, but you may be thinking the headline means something it doesnt since it also agrees with you.
You REALLY aren't giving him enough credit. Have you read his essay? I'll bet its not at all what you think it is.
https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust
Okay, I started reading it, and I had to stop because he lost his credibility to me. Here are the notes I made for the beginning of the article.
First, he cites statistics to show how the demographics of listeners moved left between 2011 and 2023. He mentions Trump as related, but doesn't consider how Trump's lies about "fake news" caused a massive shift in what news people consume. And he doesn't mention how during that time all news outlets were being affected by the rise of social media.
This is what Burr's summary of the Mueller report said. It's right wing propaganda. The report actually found all sorts of evidence, but concluded it couldn't call them crimes because of a policy of the DOJ.
There was really no point in continuing reading once I got to actual lies. It's not journalism and the author doesn't come off as credible to me.
Same, bro. I wanted to know what they had to say, so I read a couple paragraphs of "I'm a liberal elite democrat, just like you" followed by "Trump did nothing wrong" and knew I had to stop. It is dishonest to look at the Mueller report and come to the conclusion that there was nothing worth investigating when Mueller explicitly said that he recommends charges against the then president -- specifically several counts of obstruction by him and his administration that effectively stonewalled the investigation about collusion with Russia.
If that's how they felt was the strongest opening argument, it reveals how weak that whole angle was. It certainly did reveal a bias, but not on the part of NPR, and it is certainly clear that this author deserves no more time or attention.
Well said. I can't believe how long that article was for the quality.
I have this strong suspicion that nobody read the whole thing, even the guy who challenged us by saying "Have you read his essay?" and linked it.
Yeah it’s interesting because I actually agree with his overall point that coverage there could try to be a bit more balanced but his essay does a very poor job of supporting this idea and does more to reveal his own biases than NPR’s.
And what biases are those? He's a legit award winning Journalist, a registered Democrat and he voted against Trump twice.
I don't know this guy at all but from the outside looking in it really appears as if he's being tossed under the bus and silenced simply because he's saying something that his boss, and and quite a few people online, don't want to hear.
Oh friend. Please tell me you've heard of people switching stances.
I mean, one of his main complaints is that NPR tried to improve racial equality internally and in their coverage. To me that is common sense and opposition indicates bias. That’s just one example, but I think the way he describes other stories and issues here also reveals a biased viewpoint on the world.
That’s not to say his point is completely incorrect. As I said, I somewhat agree with him, mainly from my own experience of npr coverage. But he does a poor job of supporting his thesis.
I agree that he’s getting punished for speaking out, but unfortunately that’s the way corporate power structures operate (including at non-profits like NPR). And I think he should probably have been more thoughtful in his criticism if he wanted people to defend him.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion. Strange world we live in though when someone with a Peabody Award is being silenced and ignored because they're not toeing an imaginary line.
The Mueller report isn't imaginary. Pretending it says there is no evidence of wrongdoing is.
It's exactly what you think it is. Just because the man keeps trying to say he's liberal, doesn't mean he actually is. He keeps throwing out old and tired and debunked maga talking points such as the 'covid's a bioweapon' lie, or the Hunter Biden laptop lie, and then attacks DEI as some boogie man without actually showing any real harm being done by the initiative except to act like older white men's views (read: his views) aren't getting more respect. He also makes the same old tired accusation that NPR and of course "liberal media" is hiding information when in reality, it's only reporting information that it can confirm as factual. It isn't "Steve Inskeep said that covid isn't a bioweapon" it's "XYZ Scientists say covid is not a bioweapon".
In other words, he wants NPR to report on MAGA conspiracy theories like conservative media does. His complaints boil down to claiming that NPR's integrity in journalism isn't fair to conservatives who want to hear unsubstantiated claims that make them feel good, and that's why they lost conservative listeners. He keeps referring to 'viewpoint diversity' as a coded phrase to really mean conservative viewpoints. He keeps trying to act like diversity means having to let nazi's take over the conversation, and to not let them do so makes the organization a hypocrite. Again, that's a tired and old conservative talking point. And of course like every white guy surrounded by diversity initiatives, he thinks he's the only rational person in the room and must call out the insanity of diversity initiatives as some secret evil that only his eyes can see.
Dude should go work at Fox. He'd do great there.
And this is NPR's fault how?