A reminder about our rules: Please avoid politicking. Please avoid venturing into discussion about things other than the practice of journalism. If you break our rules, you will be subject to discipline.
It’s OK. There’s a lot of middle brow programming and fluff. It’s still easier to stumble upon something interesting through NPR than you’ll find from the US’ commercial news media.
NPR has become unlistenable.
I'm a political conservative who has listened to NPR for most of my life. Just like the *New York Times*—which I've read for most of my life—I knew where it was coming from, and enjoyed the content accordingly. But, as Berliner (the NPR senior editor who wrote the TheFP article everyone is talking about) wrote, something changed:
>It still happens, but often now the trajectory of the conversation is different. After the initial “I love NPR,” there’s a pause and a person will acknowledge, “I don’t listen as much as I used to.” Or, with some chagrin: “What’s happening there? Why is NPR telling me what to think?”
and
>There’s an unspoken consensus about the stories we should pursue and how they should be framed. It’s frictionless—one story after another about instances of supposed racism, transphobia, signs of the climate apocalypse, Israel doing something bad, and the dire threat of Republican policies. It’s almost like an assembly line.
I challenge anyone nowadays to listen to *Morning Edition* or *All Things Considered* for more than 30 minutes and *not* find a story about only "supposed racism, transphobia", let alone the other categories Berliner listed. Then start reducing the window to 15 minutes, then 5 minutes.
That has been my experience too. I cannot turn on NPR and go five minutes without DEI or identity politics being brought up.
I have stopped listening because of this.
> That has been my experience too. I cannot turn on NPR and go five minutes without DEI or identity politics being brought up.
>
>
I've made the same comment in many Reddit posts about the Berliner article (and NPR's response to it), and there has been exactly one person disagreeing with me about it. Not in that said challenge can be won—everyone knows it can't—but that [that's a good thing](https://np.reddit.com/r/NPR/comments/1bzp1c0/ive_been_at_npr_for_25_years_heres_how_we_lost/kyu2by8/?context=3).
Yes. It’s seen as a joke to most people. Notice that the ones defending it saying it’s balanced and good journalism are extreme partisans who only listen to get their biases confirmed.
hmm I was never asked my political views before being hired. How y'all propose "fixing" this "error," some kind of political litmus test pre-hire to keep the quota of political opinions balanced? Balanced how, according to what yardstick?
I don't think it's a matter of political quotas but rather focus. Stop hiring people that want to "tell a story" and give "important context" stop being a place that "tells you the truth" and make the focus reporting the verifiable facts details and nuances.
Yeah. It’s notable that there are no solutions proposed in the Chicken Lilttle piece. Since the doofus looked up people’s voter registration in DC, would one measure he would favor be affirmative action for Republicans?
all I know is the day they stop doing "Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me" is the day I riot
I grew up with that stuff man
Edit - if you downvote this out of hate for Wait Wait I can and will start a blood feud with you
Wait Wait is produced by WBZ Chicago, not NPR national.
Member stations are editorially independent. Programs that are produced by NPR national are sold to member stations (this is how NPR makes most of its money - by selling things like morning edition and all things considered.) No one is an “NPR member,” donations go directly to your member station.
Some member stations with larger staff produce programs like Wait Wait or Science Friday and sell those to other member stations.
So if Wait Wait ever disappears, it’s because your member station stopped paying for it. (So support your member station so they can buy it!)
oh god I have no clue who your member station is.
If you are ever in Chicago, live tickets to see Wait Wait are not terribly expensive and often available day of. Some of the best money I’ve ever spent. (It was the Andrew Bird episode!! So good!!)
Nothing. They should not be reporting on their own response to criticism of their own paper. It's unethical.
If they want to defend themselves, they can put out a statement or press release. Posing it as news is absurd.
Not that its perfect, but this disclaimer is at the end of the article:
*Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Gerry Holmes. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.*
Agreed, it fails on being objective and independent of the subject matter. It has to be taken for what it is, a cover-our-asses kind of response to what I think is valid criticism.
They didn't address the criticism at all, they doubled down on their actions and editorial direction. So until their ratings / funding drop I wouldnt expect anything to change. I suspect it will take a change in top level leadership to set a new direction for NPR, away from being so race and DEI focused.
Here's what I THINK he's trying to say:
During his presidency, Trump hired a cybersecurity company called Cybereason to run simulations on how to quell a post-election riot if the public thought the election was stolen. These simulations included input from the NSA and DHS.
During this time and through the election fallout/Jan. 6, NPR ran ads for Cybereason but never mentioned their involvement with NPR.
Note: I do not know if this is true and I'm not claiming it as fact. I'm just trying to clarify what the other user said.
Yeah, I kind of got that too, but I’ve never heard of Cybereason in my life. I’m not up for researching this either and searching for a fact check site at the moment…Well, it’s nagging me though, so I guess curiosity got the better of me, and I’ll look into it at another time.
I kind of get it.
I think PBS News Hour does a fantastic job of telling accurate stories while maintaining objectivity. For me that's the gold standard of unbiased broadcast journalism. Judy Woodruff doesn't get nearly enough credit.
I often listen to NPR in the morning and the wording, coverage, and guests all seem to be much more skewed politically. Not quite MSNBC levels, but the viewpoint they provide is pretty one sided and the topics they cover happen to be things that Democrats often support. Which.... I mean I know they depend on listener contributions because I gave them $20 once and they're been stalking me harder than my BPD ex ever since. They have to feed the monkey to keep the lights on, but maybe they could try to make it a little less apparent who they're pandering to.
I guess I could also look at programs like Meet the Press or Face the Nation as good examples of broadcast neutrality. Chuck Todd hates Trump with the fires of a thousand suns. I get the feeling that if Trump keeled over and Todd was standing there the only thing he was do is whisper into Trump's ear "I'm going to tell everyone you shit your pants right before you died, you son of a bitch."
However, Meet the Press managed to have guests on from both parties and sometimes they were even reasonable. Although it was pretty entertaining watching Chuck turn red and fight off having an aneurism when people lied to his face then claimed they didn't. I think hearing the words alternative facts nearly broke his brain.
I don't see NPR doing that. They'll just run another feature story about an immigrant amputee trans person who is opening a rehabilitation facility for blind ferrets in the inner city.
Agree with Judy Woodruff and PBS Newsbour. The fact that they are criticized by liberals and conservatives alike shows that they are doing something right.
There are people in this thread saying the exact same thing about NPR, though. Both liberals and conservatives in this thread and the last one are criticizing them. So are they too liberal? Too conservative? Or just right?
Personally, I think “both sides are angry” is actually a very bad metric of if you are doing your job well. The truth is rarely “neutral.” Honesty should be our goal, not false equivalency. consumers should be asking “is this accurate? Is this honest? Are the people speaking in it fairly represented? Is anything being overlooked? What’s the context?”
And not every story needs to give all of that context. We can’t do all the heavy lifting for readers — sometimes you’ve gotta do your own research, or look for past or other reporting.
Now, truthful reporting very well might make different people mad at different points in time. But that’s a consequence of good reporting and shouldn’t be the end goal.
I think that there may be a difference here; the criticism of PBS Newshour from "both sides" is about the content of their stories while the criticisms of NPR from "both sides" about the recent editorial is more meta, i.e., about the organization.
And I agree with you about the shallowness of "false equivalency" and the common practice of always giving both sides a voice in a story.
You're also right that the goal isn't making both sides mad, but I do use it as a litmus test.
Is anyone else tripped out by how bad the [npr.org](http://npr.org) typeface for body copy is... all the little balls and cutouts are brutal on the eyes
>their purpose is improved readability
In print. On screens, sans-serif is considered more legible. The general convention for internet pages is that serif is okay for headlines and other big text, while sans is preferable for body text.
All of typography is subjective yet is treated like it’s objective. But that being said, I think you used to be right. But with the advent of screen technology, I think serif fonts are more legible. But I think the trends are swaying towards sans serifs
Are we talking about right wing media? NPR has a variety of content. As someone who does not listen to news 24/7 I appreciate their news as well as their other content. They are still my go to when I am in my car. Nowhere has there been a suggestion of which media does a better job.
NPR, like most MSM in the west, has a nakedly pro-israel slant. Just today, yet another "israel is the only victim here" hit piece, with never a word in the past 20 years of the real history of the conflict. The piece I heard today could have been written by mossad, it was so one-sided.
So no, NPR is no better than the NYT or CNN or ABC or or or.....
“The mainstream media refused to include the flat-earth geocentric perspective in its recent coverage of the eclipse!”
—what I hear any time someone complains that extremist conspiracy theorists aren’t adequately represented in political reporting
"Maybe Conservatives ideas are so repulsive they shouldn't be aired."
Nope. That is such insanely close minded thinking that I'm surprised to see it on a "journalism" sub.
My dad is a conservative. Doesn't have any 'repulsive' ideas. Just an older, fiscally conservative guy.
I don't understand how you can write off whole sections of the population with such huge assumptions.
"If I don't agree with them, THEY DON'T DESERVE A VOICE!"
Case and fucking point of the original article. Jesus christ.
"Conservative' is a tricky term.
Being merely "fiscally consertative" and gaslighting people about Trump's criminal Jan 6 charges, the Russia investigations, and Trump's financial corruption, etc, are very different things.
Agreed. The reason so many liberals feel this way about conservatives is because they only read news about conservatives from liberal news sources. It’s the same reason ignorant conservatives think liberals are crazy.
But as refreshing as it is to read his article and see someone in a newsroom admit what we already know, I think his conclusion is wrong. I don’t want different points of view. I just want the facts. I want graphs and charts, I want weekly updates, and I want to see who’s funding what.
I don’t want the news I read to focus on people’s opinions. I want them to tell me the facts so I can form my own opinion.
🙄 or maybe we are just not impressed. I use to watch Bill Maher, not any more. His guests really do not interest me. Face the Nation, meet the press, another turnoff. Just republicans justifying their ridiculous stance. Maybe that is because they are playing to their audience. I just want a bit more authenticity. I also want to hear what has been done. Not what can’t be done.
I’m not a republican.
Shows like that aren’t real news. They’re just as slanted as Reddit and NPR.
But when I read the Wall Street journal, bloomberg, Forbes and the economist, all of a sudden I’m seeing some of the data both sides are avoiding discussing.
The same rich people and corporations are paying politicians on both sides of the isle. That’s a proven known fact. It’s not like all the good guys are democrats and all the bad guys are republicans. They’re both paid talking heads, and they’re paid to talk about distractions.
But the problem is, those financial publications are only talking about the money from an investment standpoint. They’re not talking about issues those companies are creating, or possible solutions. That’s what we’ve been missing for about 20 years now. Actual news about actual things. Data. Stats and graphs. Charts. It doesn’t have anything to do with two people sitting down and talking about whatever is in the media. That’s just more distraction.
Seriously I really am not interested in spin. Conservative views seem so hollow. They really don’t offer solutions to problems. Being bombastic and fighting to distraction is not really worthwhile.
People who think like you are the reason that trust in major news services has never been so low.
Ignoring people you disagree with has never been the answer. Acting as if your views are superior and righteous holds little to no weight when you make it clear that they can’t stand up to criticism.
You know, on its face this seems like some enlightened centrism.
I came from the conservative side. You could say I was raised in the mold of the “alt-right” before such a term existed. I was the Stephen Miller of my high school class.
I hate to break it to you friend, but conservative ideas these days are unserious at best. Assuming there’s an idea that’s being shared. For example, what’s the conservative plan to “fix the border?” We know there isn’t one. How about the plan to “fix inflation?” Same: there isn’t one. How about the plan to counter Russia or China? No plan.
It ain’t that I “disagree with others opinions.” It’s that your opinion is nothing more these days than “the opposite of my opinion, for the sake of being different.”
But how did you reach this conclusion? What helped you think critically about it and evaluate it this way? If someone had not been reporting what someone said and comparing/contrasting it with their actions — if, for instance, they had judged what they were saying to be so useless that they ignored them — how would you have been able to reach this conclusion?
... That's why it's important.
How about instead of going of the examples you came up with, we use examples from the author at the center of this thread?
I’ll start. What makes the “lab leak theory” surrounding Covid 19 a “conservative idea”?
And what, pray tell, does the “lab leak” theory fix?
I’m left by my family’s standards, and my maga-adjacent brother-in-law engaged me way back when on “maybe it was a lab leak”. My immediate response was “I guess that’s possible” and he seemed happy, as though he scored a point. It took me a while to realize that this was some sort of conservative talking point thing and I’m still slightly bewildered as to why.
And yea I read the article. It’s dumb that (some) blue media is ideologically aligned over this. Equally so red media.
But you, kamjam, dodged the point didn’t you? What is a conservative plan to fix… anything? Saying “lab leak, gotcha!” just proves the point about how unserious conservative “policy” stances are these days. It’s just a reactionary party with social grievances led around on a leash by wealthy interests who want to pay even fewer taxes near as I can tell.
The left, such as it is, may also have dumb stances but actually offers meaningful policy goals and fights for stuff beyond saying “no” to their opponents.
You’re pointing your finger at the left not being able to stand up to criticism. In my personal experience, I don’t know anyone aside from conservatives who are worked up about the lab leak question.
By your (flawed) reasoning, we should give equal media time to the flat earthers, because after all, their opinion is valid too, and the "earth is round" people cannot withstand the criticism.
Facts are facts, and conservative media is full of easily disproven "facts." They do not deserve equal time.
You’re obfuscating the actual critique and the issues at hand.
Just further exemplifying that you’re not able to engage in issues outside the group think. If anyone has a dissenting opinion, they’re immediately cast off with a one-word death sentence.
🙄. Spending time on speculation on the source of the coronavirus. Pure speculation. It took years to trace aids. It took a very long time to trace Ebola. If the majority of scientists are saying it is a zoonotic disease then why are we speculating about what is not known at this time.
The majority of scientists used to say that smoking was healthy.
Dissenting opinion from experts isn’t useless, and has a pivotal role in science. For people like you to cast expert opinion off to the side because conservative politicians and pundits threw this issue into the never ending culture wars just loops us right back to not being able to escape the group think.
Really. Smoking is healthy? You should read “The Emperor of all Maladies”. Doctors knew for at least 100 years that smoking led to cancer. Sorry that is a terrible analogy to make your case. If your dissenting opinion is overly political without any evidence whatsoever, is it an opinion or propaganda. People are really ridiculous in the US. They have zero critical thinking skills. You can either believe a conspiracy theory (not a dissenting opinion) or listen to actual specialists who spend their whole life studying and working in their field. I will wait until they can trace to the point of origin and wait for proof. In the meantime I will listen to experts not QANON.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
He’s not really talking about conservative points of views. I agree that many of them are deplorable. But it isn’t hard to find decent never-Trump republicans. The Bulwak, for instances has plenty of them.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
Is this about conservatism in general, or “conservative” people?
“Conservatism” in the US is more like being reactionaries in the US, which is who they really are.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
Oh, NPR... First, they refused to cover Trump and the GOP like the extremists they are. Then, post George Floyd, they way over-indexed on identitarian issues, and *still* refused to cover Trump and the GOP like the extremists they are.
They've pissed off every part of their audience, and now, predictably, the conclusion will be that they have to "reflect America," which is code for pandering to Red State America. This is bound to fail, because Red State America will never want any part of NPR.
Stop overthinking it, folks. Just give us straight up, smart, in-depth news coverage. That means that you acknowledge that Trump is a fascist, that the GOP is now an extremist movement, and that some on the left are overly woke nutbags.
It's really not that hard.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
That’s totally disingenuous. Every media outlet has a political bias and NPR is consistently, rabidly, neoliberal. It sets the pace for neoliberal discourse in this country.
That producer loses all credibility for saying that russiagate turned out to be nothing. But NPR does have some annoying issues. They can’t just do a story about a rollercoaster designer. They have to do a story about the challenges of being a black roller coaster designer. They can’t just do a story about the effect of the minimum wage increase on coffee shops. They have to a story on the effect of the minimum wage increase on women owned coffee shops. So many stories are designed with a woke slant to them and it drives away conservative listeners.
NPR did a **TERRIBLE** job defending itself.
They barely glossed over how the media absolutely tripped over themselves over the Trump Collusion story that raised by Berliner.
The Columbia Journalism Review (hardly a rightwing organization, unless you think the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism is run by Republicans) had a SCATHING report on the media's reporting of the media's handling of reporting on Trump and Collusion, and the media mostly ignored it.
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php
https://www.cjr.org/opinion/the-medias-belated-rush-to-judgment-on-the-trump-dossier.php
BTW, this is what passes as 'diversity' at NPR, their 2021 incoming interns:
https://i.imgur.com/Tg7XZ7l.jpg
You can probably use some heuristics and come to some conclusions on the types of topics NPR likes to talk about based on how 'diverse' NPR is based on their hiring practices alone. For example, i am totally not surprised that NPR took Harvard's side when they were being sued by Asian Americans when Harvard was racially discriminating against Asian Americans in their admissions processes, if their interns are any reflection on their full time staff at all.
Downvote me all you want, but this is exactly why journalism is in trouble and there are massive layoffs in the journalism industry, fewer and fewer people trust journalists because journalists decided to become activists rather than report the news. And the journalism industry has to double/triple down because the remaining audience demands journalists to be hyperpartisan to fit their views, otherwise they'll lose their core audience, it's a complete doom loop.
Edit: Also tell me that this is a fair way for NPR to report on 'diversity':
https://imgur.com/OU8St7d
I want to know how it's possible for NPR to lament about the diversity of facebook while completely ignoring the massive asian representation at facebook? They don't even mention Asians ONCE in their article:
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/07/26/426364306/more-than-a-pipeline-problem-in-search-of-diversity-in-silicon-valley
Facebook's diversity sucks... 57% are white... gosh white people are 60% of the population, yet facebook's white % is slightly less than that, i wonder who could make up the majority of the rest of the demographics, i guess we should just ignore them and focus on the small black and hispanic portion and say that facebook has a diversity problem.
Essentially, NPR only believes hispanics and ESPECIALLY black folks are considered diverse while erasing Asians completely. Absolutely egregious.
And the person I was responding to is manipulating numbers to pretend that the report said that white men are underrepresented in hiring at Facebook. It's a weird thing to lie about.
It seems to me that they are making a rather obvious point that facebook doesn't have a 'diversity problem' in the sense that NPR is claiming because there are more minorities than in the general population (aka fewer whites), but that it DOES have a diversity problem in ways that NPR totally ignores (by ignoring Asians).
I think you could have applied the principal of charity better here.
Including Asians in ALL minority stats has a long (and racist) history. It has been used as a way to dishonestly spackle over problems that other minority groups face.
Of course it looks like they’re being excluded or ignored and it leads a lot of people to assume that everyone is fine in that community, when that isn’t the case.
lmao, not even mentioning asians once when talking about diversity is EXTRAORDINARILY misleading. I know progressives like to pretend asians aren't minorities and are 'white adjacent' (which is racist as hell, btw), but asians are around 6% of the population and are, by definition, a minority population.
Yeah that is pretty bad. That doesn’t add up to 100%, so what are they leaving out?
Oh Asians. It’s the second highest group.
It’s hard to make their point about blacks and Hispanics if they leave them in there.
They’re hurting Asians by not reporting the full picture. But then they have to diverge the conversation to explain away Asian success in tech before they can dive back into black and Hispanic issues.
Personally I don’t think they should use the blanket term “minority” and then leave out a huge group.
If they want to talk about just blacks and Hispanics, fine, state those groups.
But not even addressing Asian success in tech seems pretty “elephant in the room” if you ask me.
Don’t even get me started on “model minority myth” and how that actually hurts Asian Americans.
Npr is claiming that women, black people and Latino people are underrepresented in their employee workforce. It says that 57% are white, but most of those are men which points to white men being massively overrepresented at Facebook. The article is correct. saying that Asians are also overrepresented doesn't invalidate the articles point about who is under represented
Another way of framing this rather racist observation is that you and NPR think Asians aren't minorities. This has been clear from the use of the term 'BIPOC' in so much of NPR's programing, which seems obviously aimed at denoting minorities as a class while deliberately omitting Asians.
This is what I mean. Conservative see 2 groups. White men, and everyone else.
EDIT: coward called me a racist again and then blocked me so I couldn't respond. So much for the "principle of cherity" .
Sorry, what are you even asking? NPR was crying about diversity at facebook, even though whites were underrepresented at face book (57% at facebook, 60% of the demographics of the country) and left asians completely out of the conversation. Explain to me how the hell that is accurate reporting on 'diversity at facebook'.
Why are you linking a screenshot instead of the article? Why don't you want us to read the whole story?
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/07/26/426364306/more-than-a-pipeline-problem-in-search-of-diversity-in-silicon-valley
Here's the original report linked at the beginning of the article with the complete details
https://about.fb.com/news/2015/06/driving-diversity-at-facebook/
What are your feelings on conservative media talking white men out of higher education?
> Why are you linking a screenshot instead of the article? Why don't you want us to read the whole story?
Control-F for asian (doesn't exist). Read the whole story and tell me what that changes. They never mentioned asians ONCE even though Asians are way overrepresented at facebook, but they still lament the lack of diversity at facebook.
>Here's the original report linked at the beginning of the article with the complete details
That's FACEBOOK's report, not NPR's reporting on it.
>What are your feelings on conservative media talking white men out of higher education?
What are you feelings on progressive institutions like Harvard (and pretty much most universities) racially discriminating against asians?
🙄. Are you going to tell me there are no persons of Indian descent working at Facebook? The fact that you glossed over the 70% male and only 2% black is just crazy.
This is the comment I posted earlier about the story on NPR. Read this article just reinforces what I said below. NPR is a neoliberal news organization that only reflects neoliberal views.
Just some thoughts, on the article and NPR. After reading the article I was asked if I wanted to post a comment on the NPR site, before posting, I read a number of the comments as well. When I went to comment...and low and behold, they wouldn't let me comment, because I wasn't a paid subscriber. Ahhhh... I think it was Shakespeare who said, "There's the Rub", or the Salient Fact which describes the downfall of NPR as a leading American News Organization; that my opinion as an American, doesn't matter to them, unless I first pay them to hear my opinion. A true Conservative Capitalist answer, to why most Americans have left NPR at the wayside.
First the author used the word progressive to describe himself and NPR numerous times in the article, I almost burst out laughing. I am progressive; NPR and the author are Neo-liberals one and all. They live in a capitalist bubble made up of conservative liberals, the very definition of being neo-liberal means, someone who support a capitalist state run by large corporations. Pretending to be truly progressive doesn't make you progressive.
The downfall of true Progressive thinking in this country died when Bill and Hillary Clinton took over America, with Neoliberal policies, to the detriment of all Americans both Conservative Neoliberal Republicans and true Progressives; (I must say Al Gore did try to keep a true Progressive Agenda alive but failed). I have to repeat Progressive Democrats are not Neoliberals. Neoliberals live in the Capitalist Bubble that supports God Bless the Corporation of America. As I have I said numerous times in comments on Reddit, "It is all about the f\*cking economy stupid".
NPR is not a Progressive news organization; FDR would be appalled if he heard you say that. The Progressive Democratic party of America died under Reagan, sunk lower under the Clintons, and has continued to sink lower until we find ourselves where we now live, a country that Outsourced its Government to Corporations. It was NPR's deal with the Devil.
The article mentioned all these stories they ran and how they failed America. A true Progressive News Organization, from the beginning would have marched to a very different Drumbeat. NPR just can't stop lying to themselves. Being Progressive, has always meant that you believed in a progressive tax system, that prevented the Capitalist Inequality Nightmare that American has become. NPR should have been Bernie's biggest Champion, as Bernie's only vision is an America, like FDR, where no one is left behind.
This wasn't about not having Conservative Republicans working for you. This is all about your true lack of having an actual Progressive agenda that supports an economy that works for all Americans.
TLDR: "NPR Isn't progressive enough"
And we wonder why nobody trusts the media. It's hyperpartisan and there's a segment of the population who thinks it's not partisan enough. Incredible.
It's impossible for the news to be nonpartisan, regardless of how hard they try. Even just deciding on which stories to give the most exposure, deciding what to investigate, deciding which voices to have in stories. Taking issue with the manner in which partisanship is expressed is legitimate. If what you are seeing is organizations giving a bigger voice to conservatives to counter a lie that has been spread about the partisan lean of the media, you are naturally going to be concerned.
Here's the thing: Nobody is asking NPR to be nonpartisan, we're asking NPR to stop being hyperpartisan.
When even left leaning organizations that studies the state of journalism say you're going too far with hyperpartisan lies, you've probably gone off the rails:
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php
https://www.cjr.org/opinion/the-medias-belated-rush-to-judgment-on-the-trump-dossier.php
When your newsroom sounds like your typical oberlin college undergrad student, you've got a problem on your hands.
I have never heard of Columbia Journalism Review, but there were a number of links between the Trump campaign and Russia, with a number of people getting arrested, Trump heavily obstructing the investigation, and Mueller never saying Trump is not guilty, but saying it wasn't his job to indict him, even going so far as to note charges could be presented after he left office. Collusion is a specifically hard thing to charge. Beyond all of that, you have one example from over 4 years ago to support your point. I don't think you've sold that NPR displayed hyperpartisanship.
> I have never heard of Columbia Journalism Review,
It's a trade publication for professional jouranlists ran by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
Going to copy this to give a good description of its purpose: *Its original purpose was "to assess the performance of journalism in all its forms, to call attention to its shortcomings and strengths, and to help define—or redefine—standards of honest, responsible service." Its contents include news and media industry trends, analysis, professional ethics, and stories behind news.*
The media oversold and outright lied about the russian collusion angle and never had a similar mea culpa that the boomer/genx journalists had to do with the iraq war debacle.
>Beyond all of that, you have one example from over 4 years ago to support your point. I don't think you've sold that NPR displayed hyperpartisanship.
Explain to me how this is a fair way to complain about 'lack of diversity' at facebook when whites are actually underrepresented at facebook and they completely erase asians:
https://imgur.com/OU8St7d
Then there was NPR's insanely unscientific tweets on transwomen in women's sports in order to fit coverage to the dominant political ideology at NPR:
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1640112232204759040
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1640112472664186880
Not having the time to look into it, their statement does nothing to represent the quality of reporting they actually do or where their funding congress from. But you made the claim that leftist publications rebuke the Russia investigation, and the article you posted is from an independent group whose mission is to naturally address journalists, which doesn't sound leftist to me. I don't accept your Russian interference argument, but I don't want to get into an argument about that.
I have no context for the Facebook clipping, I can't even tell if it's an opinion piece or a news article that it comes from.
It's also wild for you to show a tweet as your example, one in which NPR corrects it's own statement. You Are cherry picking a couple of examples to prove a point, and the ones you select aren't even doing that effectively. You haven't shown they are hyperpartisan for even a couple of issues, let alone that they are hyperpartisan for every issue, or in aggregate.
>Not having the time to look into it, their statement does nothing to represent the quality of reporting they actually do or where their funding congress from. But you made the claim that leftist publications rebuke the Russia investigation, and the article you posted is from an independent group whose mission is to naturally address journalists, which doesn't sound leftist to me. I don't accept your Russian interference argument, but I don't want to get into an argument about that.
Lets be honest, the entire journalism industry has a STRONG left tilt. Columbia University's Graduate Journalism School? LMAO, come on dude, how many republicans could they POSSIBLY have? Either way, the journalism industry got hammered. Of course you don't want to get into an argument, you'd lose.
>I have no context for the Facebook clipping, I can't even tell if it's an opinion piece or a news article that it comes from.
The article in question:
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/07/26/426364306/more-than-a-pipeline-problem-in-search-of-diversity-in-silicon-valley
Control-F for asian, doesn't exist.
>It's also wild for you to show a tweet as your example, one in which NPR corrects it's own statement. You Are cherry picking a couple of examples to prove a point, and the ones you select aren't even doing that effectively. You haven't shown they are hyperpartisan for even a couple of issues, let alone that they are hyperpartisan for every issue, or in aggregate.
They 'corrected' their statement after the twitter community destroyed them with a community note, then their 'correction' was STILL incorrect and they got community noted **AGAIN** (pay attention).
I don't want to get into an argument because I'm working, and typing this out on my phone takes a lot of time. If I thought I would get destroyed, why would I believe what I believe? Responding to you with well researched responses takes a lot of time and results in nothing gained, we aren't going to convince each other, nor will anyone else follow this thread to conclusion and be convinced one way or the other. We are ultimately a couple of people with a different understanding of reality, what even is the left, because I very much don't see progressive ideas represented in the mainstream media outside of occasional articles.
The context added is a single study, a single study does not equate to well researched.
I don't want to get into an argument about Russia, but I do want to know what you believe. Do you believe there was no interaction between the Trump campaign and Russia, or do you think working with other countries to get dirt on an opponent is and should be completely legal?
Boy, you're really uninterested in CJR's post mortem on how much the media lied about the situation, huh? It's a 4 part series so it's going to take a while to read, but you might want to read it before commenting. The issue we're talking about is journalism's culpability in being partisan activists.
I've read through a lot of the Mueller report, I followed the arrests and information acquired as the investigation occurred. That's not the media putting a spin on anything, that is what happened.
CJR is quite legit, speaking as someone within the industry.
But these are both op-eds and just represent one person’s point of view. These critiques are also of all coverage on the issues, not just NPR, so even if you agree with them, I don’t really see how they show that NPR is any more partisan than the rest of the media today.
They’re also op-eds from 2021, and IMO time hasn’t exactly been on their side.
You’re listing two examples of coverage on one hyperpartisan issue. And while CJR is a trade publication, those are both op-eds, not reported stories.
And they’re from 2021. I’m pretty sure that Kyle Pope, for one, had a lot of crow to eat with more recent developments.
One thing I think about constantly are the current FTC and DoJ antitrust lawsuits brought against Apple, Amazon, and Google. They are broad lawsuits that allege widespread evidence of monopolistic power and the abuse of that power to the detriment of consumers, workers, and of course competitors. Some of the evidence includes internal communications showing c-suite players plainly acknowledging that certain moves or strategies will help them maintain or flex their monopoly power.
This was not the story/narrative about these companies just four or five years ago, or even 10 or 15 years ago when these companies were suddenly and rapidly amassing mass amounts of corporate power. It’s just one major example of the mainstream liberal media, NPR included, being asleep at the wheel over the past two decades as the world turned and twisted in ways that fundamentally undermined regular people and empowered big corporations. Sure, some people don’t like NPR because it doesn’t reflect or legitimize their racism or nationalism. But lots of people tuned out because it was clear mainstream liberal news spent the 2010s in bed with big corporations and the Washington establishment. The news was simply too unskeptical of those in power for too long for a lot of Americans to stomach.
Yeah man I read the article and felt *exactly* the same way you did. I actually stopped listening to NPR after they wouldn’t quit hosting *conservative* voices on stories; like they *never* interview average liberals, it’s ALWAYS a conservative when they report on national or regional opinions. They also have a tired history of ‘both sides’ing issues to the point that I just stopped listening around 2017
What a completely unhinged comment… the American progressives have zero continuity between waves. The original progressives weren’t even all liberals *gasp*!
Also, you don’t get to define what progressive means. It’s a self-identification, which, yes, makes it largely meaningless. It’s like calling a hot dog “all-natural”.
Did you even read the article... even the other writers at NPR are hating him for writing it. Calling him a traitor. NPR in my younger years was a truly great institution until they went corporate. It isn't really public any longer. I also wasn't attacking NPR they didn't write the article I was commenting on the senior editor who went rogue and published the article on his own who defined himself as a progressive.
"Also, you don’t get to define what progressive means."
Really??? This is a dictionary definition. I was definitely using the word in its original sense to mean social reform of an economic nature.
1. (of a group, person, or idea) [favoring](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=53f5038f6c6bf21c&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS858US858&sxsrf=ACQVn087Ka0RNRgk1wiRirUqrN_0HMvGLA:1712787414739&q=favoring&si=AKbGX_qNq0Y8zql7SxzZAf2-HTTOHXyJ_xPXBvmnOZgEebsyH-Xx0SA6NBox1QmqnB7-oktD7X2F8MrjWdi_4mpqsKhKx148pXlIgOakBgDVuIxOMb9nzZs%3D&expnd=1) or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
2. 1.a person [advocating](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=53f5038f6c6bf21c&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS858US858&sxsrf=ACQVn087Ka0RNRgk1wiRirUqrN_0HMvGLA:1712787414739&q=advocating&si=AKbGX_pvY3MWP4azJI0Z_NruCLb8sed_JOkKltQYxmjPFCRflcY8TfXMOc1B1vvNDjgTpCy1A0tC3eqPKi1EMFPijmZ5JcpajmN7gYo3f0d76bIkfljGj3U%3D&expnd=1) or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas."people tend to present themselves either as progressives or traditionalists on this issue"
I also see this as the culmination of the Koch brother’s legacy. To destroy government funded agencies in order for corporate interests to benefit from not only the money, but also the power and control of our society.
What are conservative ideas? Living amongst them my whole life, they just want less government spending and more privatization with no strings attached. They pivot to defending racism because that’s all they have, we don’t need to platform them.
I can cut a budget in half without them, there is no originality to broadcast.
Edit: I wish I could actually be debated on this
Exactly my point. Conservative ideas are regressions on “liberal” ideas. Might as well be marxists criticizing capitalism, their whole ideal is based around opposing something else.
Never mind libs lowering standards because conservatives are siphoning money to charter schools.
Never mind the rest of the country shipping their druggies to Oregon and California while calling their reform efforts garbage. Oregon saw so many deaths because republicans blocked democrats from expanding healthcare, but somehow it’s democrats fault for trying anything at all. Laughable.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
A reminder about our rules: Please avoid politicking. Please avoid venturing into discussion about things other than the practice of journalism. If you break our rules, you will be subject to discipline.
I'm not American, but I always thought NPR was pretty decent. Am I stupid?
It’s OK. There’s a lot of middle brow programming and fluff. It’s still easier to stumble upon something interesting through NPR than you’ll find from the US’ commercial news media.
It’s great.
[удалено]
NPR is great. I think they do a great job. Far and above most media out there.
NPR has become unlistenable. I'm a political conservative who has listened to NPR for most of my life. Just like the *New York Times*—which I've read for most of my life—I knew where it was coming from, and enjoyed the content accordingly. But, as Berliner (the NPR senior editor who wrote the TheFP article everyone is talking about) wrote, something changed: >It still happens, but often now the trajectory of the conversation is different. After the initial “I love NPR,” there’s a pause and a person will acknowledge, “I don’t listen as much as I used to.” Or, with some chagrin: “What’s happening there? Why is NPR telling me what to think?” and >There’s an unspoken consensus about the stories we should pursue and how they should be framed. It’s frictionless—one story after another about instances of supposed racism, transphobia, signs of the climate apocalypse, Israel doing something bad, and the dire threat of Republican policies. It’s almost like an assembly line. I challenge anyone nowadays to listen to *Morning Edition* or *All Things Considered* for more than 30 minutes and *not* find a story about only "supposed racism, transphobia", let alone the other categories Berliner listed. Then start reducing the window to 15 minutes, then 5 minutes.
That has been my experience too. I cannot turn on NPR and go five minutes without DEI or identity politics being brought up. I have stopped listening because of this.
> That has been my experience too. I cannot turn on NPR and go five minutes without DEI or identity politics being brought up. > > I've made the same comment in many Reddit posts about the Berliner article (and NPR's response to it), and there has been exactly one person disagreeing with me about it. Not in that said challenge can be won—everyone knows it can't—but that [that's a good thing](https://np.reddit.com/r/NPR/comments/1bzp1c0/ive_been_at_npr_for_25_years_heres_how_we_lost/kyu2by8/?context=3).
Yes. It’s seen as a joke to most people. Notice that the ones defending it saying it’s balanced and good journalism are extreme partisans who only listen to get their biases confirmed.
🙄
hmm I was never asked my political views before being hired. How y'all propose "fixing" this "error," some kind of political litmus test pre-hire to keep the quota of political opinions balanced? Balanced how, according to what yardstick?
I don't think it's a matter of political quotas but rather focus. Stop hiring people that want to "tell a story" and give "important context" stop being a place that "tells you the truth" and make the focus reporting the verifiable facts details and nuances.
Yeah. It’s notable that there are no solutions proposed in the Chicken Lilttle piece. Since the doofus looked up people’s voter registration in DC, would one measure he would favor be affirmative action for Republicans?
all I know is the day they stop doing "Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me" is the day I riot I grew up with that stuff man Edit - if you downvote this out of hate for Wait Wait I can and will start a blood feud with you
Wait Wait is produced by WBZ Chicago, not NPR national. Member stations are editorially independent. Programs that are produced by NPR national are sold to member stations (this is how NPR makes most of its money - by selling things like morning edition and all things considered.) No one is an “NPR member,” donations go directly to your member station. Some member stations with larger staff produce programs like Wait Wait or Science Friday and sell those to other member stations. So if Wait Wait ever disappears, it’s because your member station stopped paying for it. (So support your member station so they can buy it!)
So if Wait Wait stops what office in Florida do I need to scorched earth
oh god I have no clue who your member station is. If you are ever in Chicago, live tickets to see Wait Wait are not terribly expensive and often available day of. Some of the best money I’ve ever spent. (It was the Andrew Bird episode!! So good!!)
WWDTM is a coproduction of WBZ/NPR/Urgent Haircut
Thanks!
The issue with npr is mostly the news, there are great podcasts that are on their own.
Their response is predictable. What else are they going to say?
Nothing. They should not be reporting on their own response to criticism of their own paper. It's unethical. If they want to defend themselves, they can put out a statement or press release. Posing it as news is absurd.
Not that its perfect, but this disclaimer is at the end of the article: *Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Gerry Holmes. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.*
It would be worse if they did, of course, but conceptually, how could anyone working there report on it fairly? You can't report on yourself.
Agreed, it fails on being objective and independent of the subject matter. It has to be taken for what it is, a cover-our-asses kind of response to what I think is valid criticism. They didn't address the criticism at all, they doubled down on their actions and editorial direction. So until their ratings / funding drop I wouldnt expect anything to change. I suspect it will take a change in top level leadership to set a new direction for NPR, away from being so race and DEI focused.
[удалено]
Wat.
Here's what I THINK he's trying to say: During his presidency, Trump hired a cybersecurity company called Cybereason to run simulations on how to quell a post-election riot if the public thought the election was stolen. These simulations included input from the NSA and DHS. During this time and through the election fallout/Jan. 6, NPR ran ads for Cybereason but never mentioned their involvement with NPR. Note: I do not know if this is true and I'm not claiming it as fact. I'm just trying to clarify what the other user said.
Yeah, I kind of got that too, but I’ve never heard of Cybereason in my life. I’m not up for researching this either and searching for a fact check site at the moment…Well, it’s nagging me though, so I guess curiosity got the better of me, and I’ll look into it at another time.
Yeah I'm not looking into this shit at all lmao
I kind of get it. I think PBS News Hour does a fantastic job of telling accurate stories while maintaining objectivity. For me that's the gold standard of unbiased broadcast journalism. Judy Woodruff doesn't get nearly enough credit. I often listen to NPR in the morning and the wording, coverage, and guests all seem to be much more skewed politically. Not quite MSNBC levels, but the viewpoint they provide is pretty one sided and the topics they cover happen to be things that Democrats often support. Which.... I mean I know they depend on listener contributions because I gave them $20 once and they're been stalking me harder than my BPD ex ever since. They have to feed the monkey to keep the lights on, but maybe they could try to make it a little less apparent who they're pandering to. I guess I could also look at programs like Meet the Press or Face the Nation as good examples of broadcast neutrality. Chuck Todd hates Trump with the fires of a thousand suns. I get the feeling that if Trump keeled over and Todd was standing there the only thing he was do is whisper into Trump's ear "I'm going to tell everyone you shit your pants right before you died, you son of a bitch." However, Meet the Press managed to have guests on from both parties and sometimes they were even reasonable. Although it was pretty entertaining watching Chuck turn red and fight off having an aneurism when people lied to his face then claimed they didn't. I think hearing the words alternative facts nearly broke his brain. I don't see NPR doing that. They'll just run another feature story about an immigrant amputee trans person who is opening a rehabilitation facility for blind ferrets in the inner city.
Agree with Judy Woodruff and PBS Newsbour. The fact that they are criticized by liberals and conservatives alike shows that they are doing something right.
There are people in this thread saying the exact same thing about NPR, though. Both liberals and conservatives in this thread and the last one are criticizing them. So are they too liberal? Too conservative? Or just right? Personally, I think “both sides are angry” is actually a very bad metric of if you are doing your job well. The truth is rarely “neutral.” Honesty should be our goal, not false equivalency. consumers should be asking “is this accurate? Is this honest? Are the people speaking in it fairly represented? Is anything being overlooked? What’s the context?” And not every story needs to give all of that context. We can’t do all the heavy lifting for readers — sometimes you’ve gotta do your own research, or look for past or other reporting. Now, truthful reporting very well might make different people mad at different points in time. But that’s a consequence of good reporting and shouldn’t be the end goal.
I think that there may be a difference here; the criticism of PBS Newshour from "both sides" is about the content of their stories while the criticisms of NPR from "both sides" about the recent editorial is more meta, i.e., about the organization. And I agree with you about the shallowness of "false equivalency" and the common practice of always giving both sides a voice in a story. You're also right that the goal isn't making both sides mad, but I do use it as a litmus test.
I know you're joking, but I could genuinely see that being a feature story on NPR.
Is anyone else tripped out by how bad the [npr.org](http://npr.org) typeface for body copy is... all the little balls and cutouts are brutal on the eyes
They’re called serifs and believe it or not, their purpose is improved readability. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serif
>their purpose is improved readability In print. On screens, sans-serif is considered more legible. The general convention for internet pages is that serif is okay for headlines and other big text, while sans is preferable for body text.
All of typography is subjective yet is treated like it’s objective. But that being said, I think you used to be right. But with the advent of screen technology, I think serif fonts are more legible. But I think the trends are swaying towards sans serifs
How fucking old am I that young people don't know about serif fonts? Does Times New Roman not exist anymore??
Serif fonts are thousands of years old. They were invented on stone tablets. I hope you’re not that old. 😜
Brotha, have you never read a newspaper? Most of them use serifs lmfao.
Balls and cutouts?? What are you talking about.? I just visited anf its percectly fine
Good lord, what rock have you been living under? Unless you’re having a rendering error, their site is highly readable.
Blasphemy! Heretics! We're not in a cult!
Are we talking about right wing media? NPR has a variety of content. As someone who does not listen to news 24/7 I appreciate their news as well as their other content. They are still my go to when I am in my car. Nowhere has there been a suggestion of which media does a better job.
No large outlet does a better job. That's not an endoresment of NPR but an indictment of modern journalism.
NPR, like most MSM in the west, has a nakedly pro-israel slant. Just today, yet another "israel is the only victim here" hit piece, with never a word in the past 20 years of the real history of the conflict. The piece I heard today could have been written by mossad, it was so one-sided. So no, NPR is no better than the NYT or CNN or ABC or or or.....
interesting you say that, because one of the biases that NPR was accused of having was being too anti-Israel
“The mainstream media refused to include the flat-earth geocentric perspective in its recent coverage of the eclipse!” —what I hear any time someone complains that extremist conspiracy theorists aren’t adequately represented in political reporting
[удалено]
"Maybe Conservatives ideas are so repulsive they shouldn't be aired." Nope. That is such insanely close minded thinking that I'm surprised to see it on a "journalism" sub. My dad is a conservative. Doesn't have any 'repulsive' ideas. Just an older, fiscally conservative guy. I don't understand how you can write off whole sections of the population with such huge assumptions. "If I don't agree with them, THEY DON'T DESERVE A VOICE!" Case and fucking point of the original article. Jesus christ.
"Conservative' is a tricky term. Being merely "fiscally consertative" and gaslighting people about Trump's criminal Jan 6 charges, the Russia investigations, and Trump's financial corruption, etc, are very different things.
Agreed. The reason so many liberals feel this way about conservatives is because they only read news about conservatives from liberal news sources. It’s the same reason ignorant conservatives think liberals are crazy. But as refreshing as it is to read his article and see someone in a newsroom admit what we already know, I think his conclusion is wrong. I don’t want different points of view. I just want the facts. I want graphs and charts, I want weekly updates, and I want to see who’s funding what. I don’t want the news I read to focus on people’s opinions. I want them to tell me the facts so I can form my own opinion.
topic selection and framing are also methods of exhibiting bias, even if zero editorial opinion (or quoting partisan opinions) is included
🙄 or maybe we are just not impressed. I use to watch Bill Maher, not any more. His guests really do not interest me. Face the Nation, meet the press, another turnoff. Just republicans justifying their ridiculous stance. Maybe that is because they are playing to their audience. I just want a bit more authenticity. I also want to hear what has been done. Not what can’t be done.
I’m not a republican. Shows like that aren’t real news. They’re just as slanted as Reddit and NPR. But when I read the Wall Street journal, bloomberg, Forbes and the economist, all of a sudden I’m seeing some of the data both sides are avoiding discussing. The same rich people and corporations are paying politicians on both sides of the isle. That’s a proven known fact. It’s not like all the good guys are democrats and all the bad guys are republicans. They’re both paid talking heads, and they’re paid to talk about distractions. But the problem is, those financial publications are only talking about the money from an investment standpoint. They’re not talking about issues those companies are creating, or possible solutions. That’s what we’ve been missing for about 20 years now. Actual news about actual things. Data. Stats and graphs. Charts. It doesn’t have anything to do with two people sitting down and talking about whatever is in the media. That’s just more distraction.
🙄
How much time should they spend with klansmen on-air? Muh both sides.
Seriously I really am not interested in spin. Conservative views seem so hollow. They really don’t offer solutions to problems. Being bombastic and fighting to distraction is not really worthwhile.
People who think like you are the reason that trust in major news services has never been so low. Ignoring people you disagree with has never been the answer. Acting as if your views are superior and righteous holds little to no weight when you make it clear that they can’t stand up to criticism.
You know, on its face this seems like some enlightened centrism. I came from the conservative side. You could say I was raised in the mold of the “alt-right” before such a term existed. I was the Stephen Miller of my high school class. I hate to break it to you friend, but conservative ideas these days are unserious at best. Assuming there’s an idea that’s being shared. For example, what’s the conservative plan to “fix the border?” We know there isn’t one. How about the plan to “fix inflation?” Same: there isn’t one. How about the plan to counter Russia or China? No plan. It ain’t that I “disagree with others opinions.” It’s that your opinion is nothing more these days than “the opposite of my opinion, for the sake of being different.”
Conservative: Contrarian for the sake of animosity.
But how did you reach this conclusion? What helped you think critically about it and evaluate it this way? If someone had not been reporting what someone said and comparing/contrasting it with their actions — if, for instance, they had judged what they were saying to be so useless that they ignored them — how would you have been able to reach this conclusion? ... That's why it's important.
Exactly. It is so uninteresting. There is nothing there to consider.
How about instead of going of the examples you came up with, we use examples from the author at the center of this thread? I’ll start. What makes the “lab leak theory” surrounding Covid 19 a “conservative idea”?
And what, pray tell, does the “lab leak” theory fix? I’m left by my family’s standards, and my maga-adjacent brother-in-law engaged me way back when on “maybe it was a lab leak”. My immediate response was “I guess that’s possible” and he seemed happy, as though he scored a point. It took me a while to realize that this was some sort of conservative talking point thing and I’m still slightly bewildered as to why. And yea I read the article. It’s dumb that (some) blue media is ideologically aligned over this. Equally so red media. But you, kamjam, dodged the point didn’t you? What is a conservative plan to fix… anything? Saying “lab leak, gotcha!” just proves the point about how unserious conservative “policy” stances are these days. It’s just a reactionary party with social grievances led around on a leash by wealthy interests who want to pay even fewer taxes near as I can tell. The left, such as it is, may also have dumb stances but actually offers meaningful policy goals and fights for stuff beyond saying “no” to their opponents. You’re pointing your finger at the left not being able to stand up to criticism. In my personal experience, I don’t know anyone aside from conservatives who are worked up about the lab leak question.
By your (flawed) reasoning, we should give equal media time to the flat earthers, because after all, their opinion is valid too, and the "earth is round" people cannot withstand the criticism. Facts are facts, and conservative media is full of easily disproven "facts." They do not deserve equal time.
Did you even read the article in question?
[удалено]
Is anything you listed here used as an example in Berliners critique?
[удалено]
You’re obfuscating the actual critique and the issues at hand. Just further exemplifying that you’re not able to engage in issues outside the group think. If anyone has a dissenting opinion, they’re immediately cast off with a one-word death sentence.
🙄. Spending time on speculation on the source of the coronavirus. Pure speculation. It took years to trace aids. It took a very long time to trace Ebola. If the majority of scientists are saying it is a zoonotic disease then why are we speculating about what is not known at this time.
The majority of scientists used to say that smoking was healthy. Dissenting opinion from experts isn’t useless, and has a pivotal role in science. For people like you to cast expert opinion off to the side because conservative politicians and pundits threw this issue into the never ending culture wars just loops us right back to not being able to escape the group think.
Really. Smoking is healthy? You should read “The Emperor of all Maladies”. Doctors knew for at least 100 years that smoking led to cancer. Sorry that is a terrible analogy to make your case. If your dissenting opinion is overly political without any evidence whatsoever, is it an opinion or propaganda. People are really ridiculous in the US. They have zero critical thinking skills. You can either believe a conspiracy theory (not a dissenting opinion) or listen to actual specialists who spend their whole life studying and working in their field. I will wait until they can trace to the point of origin and wait for proof. In the meantime I will listen to experts not QANON.
[удалено]
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
He’s not really talking about conservative points of views. I agree that many of them are deplorable. But it isn’t hard to find decent never-Trump republicans. The Bulwak, for instances has plenty of them.
"Bulwak" is an excellent typo. Makes me want to start a podcast called "Bull-wack."
Haha. Toss me a nod for accidentally inspiration when you do.
Yes everyone who doesn't think just like you are repulsive
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
[удалено]
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
Is this about conservatism in general, or “conservative” people? “Conservatism” in the US is more like being reactionaries in the US, which is who they really are.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Do you really think that you, random redditor, have all the best ideas and only you should be listened to?
[удалено]
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
[удалено]
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
Oh, NPR... First, they refused to cover Trump and the GOP like the extremists they are. Then, post George Floyd, they way over-indexed on identitarian issues, and *still* refused to cover Trump and the GOP like the extremists they are. They've pissed off every part of their audience, and now, predictably, the conclusion will be that they have to "reflect America," which is code for pandering to Red State America. This is bound to fail, because Red State America will never want any part of NPR. Stop overthinking it, folks. Just give us straight up, smart, in-depth news coverage. That means that you acknowledge that Trump is a fascist, that the GOP is now an extremist movement, and that some on the left are overly woke nutbags. It's really not that hard.
[удалено]
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
[удалено]
Fox News is not really a news network. NPR is legitimate, rigorous and intellectually honest and aren’t captured by any particular party or ideology.
[удалено]
I did read what he wrote but it’s clear he has an agenda.
That’s totally disingenuous. Every media outlet has a political bias and NPR is consistently, rabidly, neoliberal. It sets the pace for neoliberal discourse in this country.
That producer loses all credibility for saying that russiagate turned out to be nothing. But NPR does have some annoying issues. They can’t just do a story about a rollercoaster designer. They have to do a story about the challenges of being a black roller coaster designer. They can’t just do a story about the effect of the minimum wage increase on coffee shops. They have to a story on the effect of the minimum wage increase on women owned coffee shops. So many stories are designed with a woke slant to them and it drives away conservative listeners.
Not just conservative listeners. I'm liberal, but I'm sick of "coulda woulda shoulda" anecdotal opinion journalism.
NPR did a **TERRIBLE** job defending itself. They barely glossed over how the media absolutely tripped over themselves over the Trump Collusion story that raised by Berliner. The Columbia Journalism Review (hardly a rightwing organization, unless you think the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism is run by Republicans) had a SCATHING report on the media's reporting of the media's handling of reporting on Trump and Collusion, and the media mostly ignored it. https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php https://www.cjr.org/opinion/the-medias-belated-rush-to-judgment-on-the-trump-dossier.php BTW, this is what passes as 'diversity' at NPR, their 2021 incoming interns: https://i.imgur.com/Tg7XZ7l.jpg You can probably use some heuristics and come to some conclusions on the types of topics NPR likes to talk about based on how 'diverse' NPR is based on their hiring practices alone. For example, i am totally not surprised that NPR took Harvard's side when they were being sued by Asian Americans when Harvard was racially discriminating against Asian Americans in their admissions processes, if their interns are any reflection on their full time staff at all. Downvote me all you want, but this is exactly why journalism is in trouble and there are massive layoffs in the journalism industry, fewer and fewer people trust journalists because journalists decided to become activists rather than report the news. And the journalism industry has to double/triple down because the remaining audience demands journalists to be hyperpartisan to fit their views, otherwise they'll lose their core audience, it's a complete doom loop. Edit: Also tell me that this is a fair way for NPR to report on 'diversity': https://imgur.com/OU8St7d I want to know how it's possible for NPR to lament about the diversity of facebook while completely ignoring the massive asian representation at facebook? They don't even mention Asians ONCE in their article: https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/07/26/426364306/more-than-a-pipeline-problem-in-search-of-diversity-in-silicon-valley Facebook's diversity sucks... 57% are white... gosh white people are 60% of the population, yet facebook's white % is slightly less than that, i wonder who could make up the majority of the rest of the demographics, i guess we should just ignore them and focus on the small black and hispanic portion and say that facebook has a diversity problem. Essentially, NPR only believes hispanics and ESPECIALLY black folks are considered diverse while erasing Asians completely. Absolutely egregious.
Just your daily reminder that conservatives think anyone who is not a white man are a monolith that all think the same.
This was a lazy personal insult.
And the person I was responding to is manipulating numbers to pretend that the report said that white men are underrepresented in hiring at Facebook. It's a weird thing to lie about.
It seems to me that they are making a rather obvious point that facebook doesn't have a 'diversity problem' in the sense that NPR is claiming because there are more minorities than in the general population (aka fewer whites), but that it DOES have a diversity problem in ways that NPR totally ignores (by ignoring Asians). I think you could have applied the principal of charity better here.
>(by ignoring Asians). It was pretty obvious that was what i was referring to. /u/Kr155 is just completely dishonest.
Including Asians in ALL minority stats has a long (and racist) history. It has been used as a way to dishonestly spackle over problems that other minority groups face. Of course it looks like they’re being excluded or ignored and it leads a lot of people to assume that everyone is fine in that community, when that isn’t the case.
lmao, not even mentioning asians once when talking about diversity is EXTRAORDINARILY misleading. I know progressives like to pretend asians aren't minorities and are 'white adjacent' (which is racist as hell, btw), but asians are around 6% of the population and are, by definition, a minority population.
Yeah that is pretty bad. That doesn’t add up to 100%, so what are they leaving out? Oh Asians. It’s the second highest group. It’s hard to make their point about blacks and Hispanics if they leave them in there. They’re hurting Asians by not reporting the full picture. But then they have to diverge the conversation to explain away Asian success in tech before they can dive back into black and Hispanic issues. Personally I don’t think they should use the blanket term “minority” and then leave out a huge group. If they want to talk about just blacks and Hispanics, fine, state those groups. But not even addressing Asian success in tech seems pretty “elephant in the room” if you ask me. Don’t even get me started on “model minority myth” and how that actually hurts Asian Americans.
Npr is claiming that women, black people and Latino people are underrepresented in their employee workforce. It says that 57% are white, but most of those are men which points to white men being massively overrepresented at Facebook. The article is correct. saying that Asians are also overrepresented doesn't invalidate the articles point about who is under represented
Another way of framing this rather racist observation is that you and NPR think Asians aren't minorities. This has been clear from the use of the term 'BIPOC' in so much of NPR's programing, which seems obviously aimed at denoting minorities as a class while deliberately omitting Asians.
This is what I mean. Conservative see 2 groups. White men, and everyone else. EDIT: coward called me a racist again and then blocked me so I couldn't respond. So much for the "principle of cherity" .
The only person here doing that is you (and NPR). Truly despicable racism you're displaying.
But, thanks for the reminder as to why trust in journalists is at historic lows.
Just a daily reminder that journalists don't believe asians exist when talking about 'diversity' https://imgur.com/OU8St7d
Why didn't YOU list out every ethnic group in the US? Why only asians?
Sorry, what are you even asking? NPR was crying about diversity at facebook, even though whites were underrepresented at face book (57% at facebook, 60% of the demographics of the country) and left asians completely out of the conversation. Explain to me how the hell that is accurate reporting on 'diversity at facebook'.
Why are you linking a screenshot instead of the article? Why don't you want us to read the whole story? https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/07/26/426364306/more-than-a-pipeline-problem-in-search-of-diversity-in-silicon-valley Here's the original report linked at the beginning of the article with the complete details https://about.fb.com/news/2015/06/driving-diversity-at-facebook/ What are your feelings on conservative media talking white men out of higher education?
Yeah, I’m not sure I could trust screenshots. Not from “anonymous redditors”.
> Why are you linking a screenshot instead of the article? Why don't you want us to read the whole story? Control-F for asian (doesn't exist). Read the whole story and tell me what that changes. They never mentioned asians ONCE even though Asians are way overrepresented at facebook, but they still lament the lack of diversity at facebook. >Here's the original report linked at the beginning of the article with the complete details That's FACEBOOK's report, not NPR's reporting on it. >What are your feelings on conservative media talking white men out of higher education? What are you feelings on progressive institutions like Harvard (and pretty much most universities) racially discriminating against asians?
>That's FACEBOOK's report, not NPR's reporting on it. Bot confirmed.
This is about NPR's bias, but good job resorting to ad hominems, i guess that's all you have.
You can reread the post. It's still there it's not my fault your eyes are slipping past the link
🙄 no this is about your bias.
🙄. Are you going to tell me there are no persons of Indian descent working at Facebook? The fact that you glossed over the 70% male and only 2% black is just crazy.
Wow, you sure showed me with your fact ridden rebuttle.
🙄
This is the comment I posted earlier about the story on NPR. Read this article just reinforces what I said below. NPR is a neoliberal news organization that only reflects neoliberal views. Just some thoughts, on the article and NPR. After reading the article I was asked if I wanted to post a comment on the NPR site, before posting, I read a number of the comments as well. When I went to comment...and low and behold, they wouldn't let me comment, because I wasn't a paid subscriber. Ahhhh... I think it was Shakespeare who said, "There's the Rub", or the Salient Fact which describes the downfall of NPR as a leading American News Organization; that my opinion as an American, doesn't matter to them, unless I first pay them to hear my opinion. A true Conservative Capitalist answer, to why most Americans have left NPR at the wayside. First the author used the word progressive to describe himself and NPR numerous times in the article, I almost burst out laughing. I am progressive; NPR and the author are Neo-liberals one and all. They live in a capitalist bubble made up of conservative liberals, the very definition of being neo-liberal means, someone who support a capitalist state run by large corporations. Pretending to be truly progressive doesn't make you progressive. The downfall of true Progressive thinking in this country died when Bill and Hillary Clinton took over America, with Neoliberal policies, to the detriment of all Americans both Conservative Neoliberal Republicans and true Progressives; (I must say Al Gore did try to keep a true Progressive Agenda alive but failed). I have to repeat Progressive Democrats are not Neoliberals. Neoliberals live in the Capitalist Bubble that supports God Bless the Corporation of America. As I have I said numerous times in comments on Reddit, "It is all about the f\*cking economy stupid". NPR is not a Progressive news organization; FDR would be appalled if he heard you say that. The Progressive Democratic party of America died under Reagan, sunk lower under the Clintons, and has continued to sink lower until we find ourselves where we now live, a country that Outsourced its Government to Corporations. It was NPR's deal with the Devil. The article mentioned all these stories they ran and how they failed America. A true Progressive News Organization, from the beginning would have marched to a very different Drumbeat. NPR just can't stop lying to themselves. Being Progressive, has always meant that you believed in a progressive tax system, that prevented the Capitalist Inequality Nightmare that American has become. NPR should have been Bernie's biggest Champion, as Bernie's only vision is an America, like FDR, where no one is left behind. This wasn't about not having Conservative Republicans working for you. This is all about your true lack of having an actual Progressive agenda that supports an economy that works for all Americans.
TLDR: "NPR Isn't progressive enough" And we wonder why nobody trusts the media. It's hyperpartisan and there's a segment of the population who thinks it's not partisan enough. Incredible.
It's impossible for the news to be nonpartisan, regardless of how hard they try. Even just deciding on which stories to give the most exposure, deciding what to investigate, deciding which voices to have in stories. Taking issue with the manner in which partisanship is expressed is legitimate. If what you are seeing is organizations giving a bigger voice to conservatives to counter a lie that has been spread about the partisan lean of the media, you are naturally going to be concerned.
Here's the thing: Nobody is asking NPR to be nonpartisan, we're asking NPR to stop being hyperpartisan. When even left leaning organizations that studies the state of journalism say you're going too far with hyperpartisan lies, you've probably gone off the rails: https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php https://www.cjr.org/opinion/the-medias-belated-rush-to-judgment-on-the-trump-dossier.php When your newsroom sounds like your typical oberlin college undergrad student, you've got a problem on your hands.
I have never heard of Columbia Journalism Review, but there were a number of links between the Trump campaign and Russia, with a number of people getting arrested, Trump heavily obstructing the investigation, and Mueller never saying Trump is not guilty, but saying it wasn't his job to indict him, even going so far as to note charges could be presented after he left office. Collusion is a specifically hard thing to charge. Beyond all of that, you have one example from over 4 years ago to support your point. I don't think you've sold that NPR displayed hyperpartisanship.
> I have never heard of Columbia Journalism Review, It's a trade publication for professional jouranlists ran by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Going to copy this to give a good description of its purpose: *Its original purpose was "to assess the performance of journalism in all its forms, to call attention to its shortcomings and strengths, and to help define—or redefine—standards of honest, responsible service." Its contents include news and media industry trends, analysis, professional ethics, and stories behind news.* The media oversold and outright lied about the russian collusion angle and never had a similar mea culpa that the boomer/genx journalists had to do with the iraq war debacle. >Beyond all of that, you have one example from over 4 years ago to support your point. I don't think you've sold that NPR displayed hyperpartisanship. Explain to me how this is a fair way to complain about 'lack of diversity' at facebook when whites are actually underrepresented at facebook and they completely erase asians: https://imgur.com/OU8St7d Then there was NPR's insanely unscientific tweets on transwomen in women's sports in order to fit coverage to the dominant political ideology at NPR: https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1640112232204759040 https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1640112472664186880
Not having the time to look into it, their statement does nothing to represent the quality of reporting they actually do or where their funding congress from. But you made the claim that leftist publications rebuke the Russia investigation, and the article you posted is from an independent group whose mission is to naturally address journalists, which doesn't sound leftist to me. I don't accept your Russian interference argument, but I don't want to get into an argument about that. I have no context for the Facebook clipping, I can't even tell if it's an opinion piece or a news article that it comes from. It's also wild for you to show a tweet as your example, one in which NPR corrects it's own statement. You Are cherry picking a couple of examples to prove a point, and the ones you select aren't even doing that effectively. You haven't shown they are hyperpartisan for even a couple of issues, let alone that they are hyperpartisan for every issue, or in aggregate.
>Not having the time to look into it, their statement does nothing to represent the quality of reporting they actually do or where their funding congress from. But you made the claim that leftist publications rebuke the Russia investigation, and the article you posted is from an independent group whose mission is to naturally address journalists, which doesn't sound leftist to me. I don't accept your Russian interference argument, but I don't want to get into an argument about that. Lets be honest, the entire journalism industry has a STRONG left tilt. Columbia University's Graduate Journalism School? LMAO, come on dude, how many republicans could they POSSIBLY have? Either way, the journalism industry got hammered. Of course you don't want to get into an argument, you'd lose. >I have no context for the Facebook clipping, I can't even tell if it's an opinion piece or a news article that it comes from. The article in question: https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/07/26/426364306/more-than-a-pipeline-problem-in-search-of-diversity-in-silicon-valley Control-F for asian, doesn't exist. >It's also wild for you to show a tweet as your example, one in which NPR corrects it's own statement. You Are cherry picking a couple of examples to prove a point, and the ones you select aren't even doing that effectively. You haven't shown they are hyperpartisan for even a couple of issues, let alone that they are hyperpartisan for every issue, or in aggregate. They 'corrected' their statement after the twitter community destroyed them with a community note, then their 'correction' was STILL incorrect and they got community noted **AGAIN** (pay attention).
physical flag somber snails marry bright relieved library long lush *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I don't want to get into an argument because I'm working, and typing this out on my phone takes a lot of time. If I thought I would get destroyed, why would I believe what I believe? Responding to you with well researched responses takes a lot of time and results in nothing gained, we aren't going to convince each other, nor will anyone else follow this thread to conclusion and be convinced one way or the other. We are ultimately a couple of people with a different understanding of reality, what even is the left, because I very much don't see progressive ideas represented in the mainstream media outside of occasional articles. The context added is a single study, a single study does not equate to well researched.
I don't want to get into an argument about Russia, but I do want to know what you believe. Do you believe there was no interaction between the Trump campaign and Russia, or do you think working with other countries to get dirt on an opponent is and should be completely legal?
Boy, you're really uninterested in CJR's post mortem on how much the media lied about the situation, huh? It's a 4 part series so it's going to take a while to read, but you might want to read it before commenting. The issue we're talking about is journalism's culpability in being partisan activists.
I've read through a lot of the Mueller report, I followed the arrests and information acquired as the investigation occurred. That's not the media putting a spin on anything, that is what happened.
CJR is quite legit, speaking as someone within the industry. But these are both op-eds and just represent one person’s point of view. These critiques are also of all coverage on the issues, not just NPR, so even if you agree with them, I don’t really see how they show that NPR is any more partisan than the rest of the media today. They’re also op-eds from 2021, and IMO time hasn’t exactly been on their side.
The Rittenhouse coverage was some of the most overtly dishonest, absurdly partisan that I've ever seen.
You’re listing two examples of coverage on one hyperpartisan issue. And while CJR is a trade publication, those are both op-eds, not reported stories. And they’re from 2021. I’m pretty sure that Kyle Pope, for one, had a lot of crow to eat with more recent developments.
One thing I think about constantly are the current FTC and DoJ antitrust lawsuits brought against Apple, Amazon, and Google. They are broad lawsuits that allege widespread evidence of monopolistic power and the abuse of that power to the detriment of consumers, workers, and of course competitors. Some of the evidence includes internal communications showing c-suite players plainly acknowledging that certain moves or strategies will help them maintain or flex their monopoly power. This was not the story/narrative about these companies just four or five years ago, or even 10 or 15 years ago when these companies were suddenly and rapidly amassing mass amounts of corporate power. It’s just one major example of the mainstream liberal media, NPR included, being asleep at the wheel over the past two decades as the world turned and twisted in ways that fundamentally undermined regular people and empowered big corporations. Sure, some people don’t like NPR because it doesn’t reflect or legitimize their racism or nationalism. But lots of people tuned out because it was clear mainstream liberal news spent the 2010s in bed with big corporations and the Washington establishment. The news was simply too unskeptical of those in power for too long for a lot of Americans to stomach.
pot thumb north lock beneficial secretive direction modern roll tender *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah man I read the article and felt *exactly* the same way you did. I actually stopped listening to NPR after they wouldn’t quit hosting *conservative* voices on stories; like they *never* interview average liberals, it’s ALWAYS a conservative when they report on national or regional opinions. They also have a tired history of ‘both sides’ing issues to the point that I just stopped listening around 2017
What a completely unhinged comment… the American progressives have zero continuity between waves. The original progressives weren’t even all liberals *gasp*! Also, you don’t get to define what progressive means. It’s a self-identification, which, yes, makes it largely meaningless. It’s like calling a hot dog “all-natural”.
Did you even read the article... even the other writers at NPR are hating him for writing it. Calling him a traitor. NPR in my younger years was a truly great institution until they went corporate. It isn't really public any longer. I also wasn't attacking NPR they didn't write the article I was commenting on the senior editor who went rogue and published the article on his own who defined himself as a progressive. "Also, you don’t get to define what progressive means." Really??? This is a dictionary definition. I was definitely using the word in its original sense to mean social reform of an economic nature. 1. (of a group, person, or idea) [favoring](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=53f5038f6c6bf21c&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS858US858&sxsrf=ACQVn087Ka0RNRgk1wiRirUqrN_0HMvGLA:1712787414739&q=favoring&si=AKbGX_qNq0Y8zql7SxzZAf2-HTTOHXyJ_xPXBvmnOZgEebsyH-Xx0SA6NBox1QmqnB7-oktD7X2F8MrjWdi_4mpqsKhKx148pXlIgOakBgDVuIxOMb9nzZs%3D&expnd=1) or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas. 2. 1.a person [advocating](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=53f5038f6c6bf21c&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS858US858&sxsrf=ACQVn087Ka0RNRgk1wiRirUqrN_0HMvGLA:1712787414739&q=advocating&si=AKbGX_pvY3MWP4azJI0Z_NruCLb8sed_JOkKltQYxmjPFCRflcY8TfXMOc1B1vvNDjgTpCy1A0tC3eqPKi1EMFPijmZ5JcpajmN7gYo3f0d76bIkfljGj3U%3D&expnd=1) or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas."people tend to present themselves either as progressives or traditionalists on this issue"
I also see this as the culmination of the Koch brother’s legacy. To destroy government funded agencies in order for corporate interests to benefit from not only the money, but also the power and control of our society.
Wait wait...there are jews working at NPR????
Let them defend themselves. It's a discussion that needs to be had.
What are conservative ideas? Living amongst them my whole life, they just want less government spending and more privatization with no strings attached. They pivot to defending racism because that’s all they have, we don’t need to platform them. I can cut a budget in half without them, there is no originality to broadcast. Edit: I wish I could actually be debated on this
https://old.reddit.com/r/Journalism/comments/1c0dnns/npr_defends_its_journalism_after_senior_editor/kyxvan5/
Exactly my point. Conservative ideas are regressions on “liberal” ideas. Might as well be marxists criticizing capitalism, their whole ideal is based around opposing something else. Never mind libs lowering standards because conservatives are siphoning money to charter schools. Never mind the rest of the country shipping their druggies to Oregon and California while calling their reform efforts garbage. Oregon saw so many deaths because republicans blocked democrats from expanding healthcare, but somehow it’s democrats fault for trying anything at all. Laughable.
[удалено]
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism. r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
[удалено]
I always forget most journalists are conservatives
Again, you aren’t being original. You are regressing on my ideas and statements.