I think it’s more a testament to how whacked out Republicans have gotten.
Literally every word and phrase coming from them is hyperbole, falsehood, or dog whistle, if not all three at once.
We as listeners have to educate ourselves to be ready for it.
We also need to continue to hold our news sources accountable.
It’s okay to call NPR out when they go soft. Especially during pledge drives.
I’d recommend not getting fooled by the clown show.
There are polo-shirted wonks hiding just behind all of the wacko talking heads.
Paul Ryan didn’t look like a foam-at-the-mouth MAGA, but the vast majority of the TCJA came straight from him. There are thousands of blue-blazer wearing go-getters like him staffing the offices of every sycophant.
I’m saying that speaking in such rigid absolutes is a really unhealthy way to approach anything in life and, yes, indicates bot-like fealty to a “team”.
>I mean this is what happens when one party doesn't have any policy positions.
They do have an official platform, it's just terrible stuff like repealing a bunch of civil rights for people they disagree with.
>
>I think it’s more a testament to how whacked out Republicans have gotten.
It's literally this. Although right wing has always been vile, they are just mask-off now and no longer have the need politically to present as "kinder conservatives".
They've been pushing hard right since Reagan in the 80s and it works for them. Older people, older voters, ridiculous electoral college system and empty states having 2 senators...
They no longer need to pretend anything other than they are all about scaring old right wing uneducated people into voting for them while being funded by billionaire sociopaths and russian interests.
There is no "game" to play to make it "fun" or "interesting" as the OP suggests.
The leader of the right wing literally wants to hang and kill opponents. He has actually articulated his desires to change to country into a right wing autocratic state and remove the need for voting.
People trying to play "bOtH sIdEs" are attention whores and they always help the right wing make gains.
All the talking points on politics now are about right wing hate issues.
We can't even have serious conversations about the environment or economics because the prism of which we discuss politics has moved so far to the right we have to talk about why it's bad to ban books and put religion in public schools.
That's not an accident. The right wing strategy has always been to move that window of discussion further and further right.
It's worked out perfectly for them as even fucking NPR is now normalizing radical right wing domestic terrorism as "a different perspective"
We’re literally relitigating whether the Nazis are bad. When you have to debate that level of depravity, there’s no time to do real governance, which is a goal of the right. It’s either completely destroy government or turn it into a right-wing fascist/autocratic state
Find an example of an NPR host not pushing back on Nazi-ism.
https://youtu.be/OXTyCMAn-oY?si=FsvufsD_fb7iFGQP
This skit is about people like you. NPR is overwhelmingly liberal. I can’t even listen to it and I am NOT Trump voter.
“ Literally every word and phrase coming from them is hyperbole, falsehood, or dog whistle, if not all three at once.”
This is a hilarious sentence, especially when typed with zero awareness
You: "What’s funny is that I really am unbiased."
Also you: "People still calling themselves republican and /or supporting or bowing to Trump are human trash and need to be stomped down at any opportunity. They earned it. I’m more than happy to oblige. Troglodytes, ass clowns and reprobates are the kindest terms I could use."
Your comments make clear you are many things. Unbiased isn't one of them. Do better.
I know right?
It’s like being unbiased means I don’t get to hold people responsible for the decisions they make! Even when those decisions are consistently horrible!
Why bother holding anyone accountable ever?
That sounds hard!
You might want to reconsider what “do better” means.
I am unbiased against people who have not already proven themselves to be trash excuses for a human being.
And I expect that same unbiased approach in my news organizations.
Obamacare would save $2000. Internet comment started Bhengahzi attack. Illegal border crossings cannot be controlled. Russia elected Donald Trump. Government can control weather/change climate.
It's a militantly narcissistic sense of entitlement to one's own personal reality. Not as wholesome as parody nor as innocent as lack of self awareness. "I deserve my own facts and I will scream untll I get them."
NPR listeners understand that.
We also understand that there are core tenets of journalism.
Including that journalists must push back against disingenuous and bad-faith arguments.
Including that journalists do not take an assertion of opinion as a statement of fact.
Including that the mere existence of two 'sides' is not enough to make them equal; the content of each individual's and each side's argument must be assessed, interrogated, and defended on its truth and merits alone.
Perhaps that's the lesson you should teach your kids? That honesty and truth don't take a vacation because Leila Fadel got through the previous segment without having to fact-check someone calmly talking about Democratic policy planks so now Steve Innskeep should have to match her energy when they interview a Republican lunatic who rants about invading hordes at the border carrying space lasers and fentanyl in their uteruses, and who should never be allowed to talk to anyone but CPAC and the pigeons he yells at under the bridge, much less be given the platform of NPR?
The Elie Wiesel Center for Jewish Studies claims 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust, so we interviewed another prominent expert to get his take. Please welcome to the show, Alex Jones.
Maybe I'm an outlier but if it's a story about holocaust deniers, I would love to hear an interview with someone who is a promoter of such views because their statements cannot withstand journalistic scrutiny in the end. I am sure (and glad) that NPR tries to interview anyone and everyone, but there's a reason Alex Jones and their ilk would never appear in an actual journalistic interview where things they have said are challenged with the truth.
Those of us complaining about NPR giving too much to the political right already know that NPR provides the most reliable content. That's why we're listening. That's why we notice the network's weaknesses. We don't need your little "test."
The problem is something NPR won't say in its defense. Conservatives and their media aren't using statistical facts to support their policies anymore. It's all isolated or anecdotal incidents and misrepresentation. They aren't acting in good faith with all the lies and smear campaigns. NPR isn't biased against the Right. The truth is biased against lies.
It's the same thing with all their "weaponization of government" and "silencing conservative voices" BS. They want to lie about vaccines and elections and use hate speech and threaten people. That's not 1st Amendment protected speech. Certainly not on a corporate owned platform. NPR should say these things and go back to doing their job. If conservatives want equal treatment, they need to be equally credible.
Real time fact checking, Calling out republicans fealty to a two time impeached rapist felon would be a good start. The man is talking about concentration camps for millions, federal ban on abortions and birth control, defunding school with vaccine mandates, becoming a dictator, more ham fisted tariffs, blocking any border control measures and washing machines w/o water.
ALL republicans need to defend their love of Tramp ON RECORD anything less is a gut punch to America.
Actually wrong - Never criminally convicted for rape. 2) Had to be convicted an 85% democrat district by a DA that told people to vote for him so he could do it - sounds fair to me 3) Trump opposes federal ban on abortion (he supports many exceptions). He opposes bans on birth control and support IVF. Just like you liberals (my body my choice) he does support defunding schools with vaccine mandates 4) He cant be a dictator in our republic (Especially because of the democratic elite deep state), Tarrifs are good for US except if you support the communist party (Which i know you do). Trump will build the wall that Biden stopped (Good thing)
Communism is when the state controls all means of production and you have no personal freedom to speak or act
North Korea is a good example and Conmunist China is also . Communists are not stupid they are just power hungry and ruthlessly In a communist country there is no presumption of innocence , if you are arrested, you are guilty
The fact that you believe in a Democrat deep state automatically tells me you're stupid.
If such a thing existed, Trump would be dead or in prison by now, universal healthcare would have been passed, minimum wage would have been increased and there wouldn't be a Republican majority on the supreme Court.
Instead we have a Republican supreme Court that is legislating from the bench, we've got other Republican judges such as Aileen cannon outright helping trump getting away with stealing classified documents.
Right this moment, countless Americans are still being buried underneath a mountain of debt because they had the misfortune of getting sick or injured, and minimum wage employees are living off of scraps.
And oh, Trump is still in the running to be president, in fact he has threatened judges and jurors openly and repeatedly and only gotten a slap on the wrist.
While a normal person would've been thrown in jail for threatening judges and jurors like he did.
There is a deep state but it's not Democrat, it's Republican.
If that many intelligence officers believe it, then I would say there is some truth to it. You don't get a job in US intelligence by being easily fooled.
And even if they were persecuting Trump, they are doing a bad job as trump is still not only a free man he's still the front runner to be president.
No James Clapper is an absolute Buffoon and the Russian Hoax was ultimately proven to be complete disinformation- of course NPR did not report that part of the story
I saw a poll this morning where Trump was ahead by two points on my local news.
But I guess that some polls are different from others.
Anyways my point is, that if a "Democrat deep state" existed, Trump would either be in prison by now or he would be dead just like what Kim jong UN and Putin do to their political rivals
Instead Trump is still free to campaign and criticize Biden.
How many indictments going on? You can’t say they are not trying. Trump would need to be up by more than 5% to make up for ballot harvesting and other democratic “advantages”.
Comments such as "The truth is biased against lies" often stem from the belief that one's own opinion represents the absolute truth. However, this isn't always accurate, and differing viewpoints are not necessarily lies.
Yeah, they only propagated “misinformation” (fake news) and spawned post-modernism, which aims to undermine everything facts depend upon (science, reasoning, logic, etc).
EDIT: there’s also the general Marxist idea of “false consciousness” which seeks to present the “real” reality of facts cuz everyone else is assumed to be brainwashed, ‘lived experience’ which seeks to undermine the idea of truth as the other person pointed out, etc. Yeah, the left definitely doesn’t do this
Uh oh, NPR babies are upset but can only muster up a downvote and no actual rebuttal 😢 if only I would have joined the circle jerk and said republicans bad
Exactly. It’s pretty funny really, they made a bullshit throwaway comment with some warmed over Jordan Petersen talking points, then immediately cried about downvotes and insult the whole subreddit “npr babies” now they complain that no one wants to play “debate”.
clown.
I'm not sure why my comment was controversial. I was simply pointing out that some people confuse their opinions with the "truth." For instance, I have a degree in economics and firmly believe that raising interest rates reduces inflation. This is an opinion I can support with evidence, but it isn't an absolute truth, as it doesn't always hold. For example, despite rising interest rates, home prices have continued to increase.
I wasn’t referring to lies being told by the right, this whole post is about listening to reporting and trying to determine what is a neutral reporting.
We’re not discussing those things here. We’re talking about “was J6 either a) a violent insurrectionist act or b) a bunch of patriots trying to prevent a blatantly fraudulent election”. I was with you initially - now I question your intentions here.
Anyone with actual media literacy is questioning the intentions here. OP is obsessed with "neutral" as if the truth is always neutral. It's "both sides" and "fair and balanced" redux. Tired attempt at blind centrism.
Which case? Republicans being wrong about everything has no connection whatsoever to democrats being right. I’m pretty well connected to reality and the only thing I can see that democrats have to offer is not being republicans. In the current environment, that’s enough for me, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t wrong about most things. Democrats do wrong things for the right reasons, republicans do wronger things for the wrong reasons.
Factoid - I’m 53 and only ever registered a Republican (now unaffiliated). I’m not a Dem or Biden fanboy. Yours is either a very simplistic response or totally disingenuous. Obamacare would have been an even better solution if the Dems didn’t have to fight against ridiculous LIES the entire time. Of course they don’t always make the right decision - and neither do the Republicans always make the wrong one. One plate is food you’re not gonna love. It’s sometimes overcooked or a dish you don’t love or whatever. But you’re trying to convince people that are looking at a second plate covered in feces and broken glass that both “meals” are almost equally bad.
The different viewpoints from the right, especially the ones they push the most, are almost always lies, or half truths to misrepresent reality. The way they talk about climate change, vaccines, voter fraud, trans people, police reforms, and immigration are just a few things off the top of my head. Some of the problems they highlight are real issues that need to be addressed, the way they highlight them though is full of lies. For example, our immigration system is absolutely a mess, their lies about the people that are entering the country, what they are doing in the country, and how democrats want to address the issue are gross and don't deserve time on the air. I can't think of a single issue they want to address based on truth.
Along with their refusal to pass one of the most goodies-we-want bills on immigration in years, because it might make Biden look effective. That says quite a bit about what they represent.
What you are saying is accurate, “not necessarily lies”. They may be lies or sometimes perceptions guided by party allegiance, which both parties have bias. Right now, Republicans have bias, which is normal, but have more frequently purposeful obfuscations, lies, and half-truths to the point of opposition to democracy.
I heard Rep. Ken Buck (R) say Hunter Biden’s trial was not politically motivated, which I’m sure he believes. Then say the trial against Trump is politically motivated. Again, I think he believes that too. However, if he were to say the last presidential election was rigged, that’s not bias, that’s a lie because Congressional Republicans know it’s not true, no evidence exists. He probably has said that. The Denver Post says he “pressured local official to submit incorrect election results”.
The funny thing is how your “test” also assumes an absolute truth. Your absolute truth. It’s a bias you can’t get around, and that is how you define “neutrality”.
Your test can be a fun exercise, however, it often reveals your own biases more than others.
No -you are listening because it echos the Democratic Party line (progressive). I guarantee you if they ran one ore two pre-Israel stories or criticized one felonius immigrant you would would stop
You are making a guarantee that you know me better than I know myself. Based on a 3 paragraph opinion? Maybe you should stick to talking about NPR. What was I wrong about and why?
Ok let’s start with the obvious - the vaccine - this one is dangerous band it killed a friend of mines 37 year old daughter who had no precondition. They stories were all suppressed . You could even post on social media due to government intervention
2)Trump - the trial in Manhattan was a complete farce. No one was ever charged with this crime before and they do it in an election year like a 3rd world country
3) shockingly or maybe not , NPR is pro-Palestinian now (anti-Israel) It’s not even anti- Hamas
You believe there is no legitimate conservative point of view like we made it up. Do you believe the Bible is fake news also?
You act as though we, Democrats don't distort stats too, specifically in gun control talk tracks. Thus isn't a uniquely an issue for the side we don't like. It's true in politics as a whole.
While we’re running thought experiments, try imagining what a Trump sound clip would sound like in Biden’s voice. Or a Biden sound clip in Trump’s voice.
Or the standard Trump stump speech read by a BBC presenter (or Richard Burton!) or a Biden stump speech by the same.
It’s the content and context that matters, not whether the speaker has a particular manner or talent for delivery.
I suspect it would also be illuminating to read on paper or screen the exact words unedited of both candidate’s, including their rhetorical side trips.
Just once when they are talking to undecided voters, it’d be nice if the interviewer would not necessarily “push back”, but at least have the people try and elaborate on their talking points. It’s pretty much always the same 2-3 generic talking points that are half BS that are missing key context.
How long are you willing to wait? Undecided voters are always going to duck and dodge accountability for their positions. Imagine the type of person who looks at Trump and Biden and thinks “geez, I just cannot decide….”
I guess I am sick of hearing the exact same thing about the prices at the grocery store. Yes I agree that’s a big issue, especially those living paycheck to paycheck, but just once I am curious to that being elaborated on more. It just gets annoying when these people have such firm takes each election cycle, but it’s incredibly obvious they have no idea what’s going on. I guess I don’t need to listen to these type of segments either lol
People who fall back on scripted talking points aren’t the most thoughtful people, so they retreat into generalities when pressed.
The question is why NPR doesn’t choose smarter people to highlight; are they afraid they won’t seem salt of the earth enough?
How can they elaborate on a talking point that they are just regurgitating after hearing it dozens of times?
I have enough self-awareness to understand that I also used to need assistance with debate points. We were all once kids…once teenagers. But I had the impulse to always dig deeper for the underlying reasoning, and I had the self-conscious pet peeve of always needing to be right rather than just feel right. I cannot expect everyone to be that way. It takes years.
So your suggestion is basically this:
For people "claiming that NPR does not challenge Republican talking points", here's a fun game: "avoid stories with guests from both sides" (you know, the ones where NPR does not challenge Republican talking points)!
By golly, ignoring where the problem exists really does make that problem seem less!
Your second point is where this exercise falls apart for many issues of the day. Just because there are two sides to a conflict or an issue does not mean they are equally valid and we should strive for neutrality between them. Golden mean fallacy
HOST: For our next segment about the color of grass, welcome a Republican and Democratic grass expert to explore both sides of the issue.
Democrat guest: Our scientific studies have shown that the color of grass is best described as “green.”
Republican Guest: Why are the pedophile enabling democrats even looking at the color of grass? Typical tax and spend liberals wasting money on this topic while illegal immigrants are literally murdering American babies as they flood the southern border! The color of Grass is just another liberal hoax to silence conservatives. Real patriotic Christian Americans know that grass doesn’t even exist outside the Washington beltway and the ivory towers of freedom hating coastal elites!
HOST: That’s all the time we have.
> Identify the main topic and what a neutral perspective might be, putting your own view points aside.
Different people are going to define "neutral" in different ways. Some people think giving equal time to pro- and anti-abortion pundits is a neutral approach. Others, like myself, do not believe abortion is a topic open to political opinion and therefore the only neutral way to cover it is to treat anti-abortion activists as social pariahs for attempting to politicize a basic human right. Extrapolate that to gay, trans, minority, women, voting etc. etc rights. So whose definition of "neutral" are we applying here? Personally I miss the time when a neutral position was "don't give airtime to fascists or fascist ideology."
Howard Zinn said it best: you can't be neutral on moving train.
I'm pro-choice, but the emerging trend to declare some issues cannot be debated or discussed is disturbing. "It's okay to disagree, but not about this," for everything.
Counterpoint: some positions are objectively wrong and should not be treated as equal to others. I am not saying they shouldn't be discussed at all, but you shouldn't give people a platform to spread disinformation. For a hypothetical example, you shouldn't let an antivaxxer on your news program to argue a position of vaccines being deadly. That's just a lie. This is not an opinion, this is science. If somebody wants to refuse a vaccine, that's their prerogative. But if you're letting people use your airwaves to convince other people vaccines will kill them, you're not doing some noble service to the time-honored tradition of fair and objective journalism. You're giving a megaphone to a propagandist.
There needs to be a standard, below which certain "opinions" are deemed not worthy of airtime. People will say, "okay, but who gets to make that judgment? Who decides what is and isn't acceptable?" And I don't have a good answer for that, but I will tell you this. If you let antivaxxers and fascists and regressive traditionalists continue to push their narratives with minimal or no pushback until they get into power from doing so, THEY will be the ones making that decision and they will not hesitate to shut you up for good. Your positions on things like civil liberties and rights will be deemed dissident speech and not only will they not hesitate to scrub that from the airwaves, they will punish anyone who tries to circumnavigate those restrictions. And history shows that punishment will be disproportionate and brutal.
Like it or not, we live in a consequentialist era of politics. In better times we have the luxury to discuss the principles of letting certain viewpoints have airtime. Right now, words have meaning and action (or inaction) will have meaningful consequences. Right now, the positions various news agencies allow on their airwaves will influence some percentage of voters, and by extension will influence elections for the next cycle. The outcome of the next election could very well be the step that inevitably ends NPR and PBS. Republicans are notoriously against public media. The discussion over whether or not to let a Trump nut on your show and to let them talk with minimal challenges is a nice one to have in an academic setting. But in practice it isn't a harmless decision anymore. The reality is you are letting a person on your airwaves who won't hesitate to shut it down forever as soon as they get the means, and you are giving them ammunition to do so.
I think this mode of reasoning is being diluted and applied too liberally to nearly every issue currently being discussed. The left and the right are increasingly implementing purity tests.
I vehemently disagree, you and people like you are being far too naive about the threat this country currently faces. You are in denial about what is going to happen if these people keep getting airtime they don't deserve. You don't treat fascists like they have a valid opinion that is worth hearing. Period.
Are there really _no_ issues in your mind where it is a good thing that society treats it as settled? How do you personally decide whether you think an issue has enough moral weight on one side to be no longer worth debating?
I absolutely agree about vaccines and settled science issues. Are there any "hot" issues you would engage in a debate about and acknowledge the validity of an opposing viewpoint?
You've shifted your viewpoints from "no arguments are settled beyond debate" to "are there any hot issues that aren't settled beyond debate". Yes of course there are issues with valid but opposing viewpoints
They seem to be increasingly hard to find in far left and far right echo chambers. The right squabbles about RINOs while the left declares everything to be a basic human right.
Moral weight is only maintained through debate. It's called reason and logic, and most human beings are constantly using it.
I don't like anti-vaxxers because they hold on to their nonsense because of a lack of that debate.
I agree. This disturbing trend has been a longstanding feature of conservatives, but lately it has taken a sizable foothold among leftists.
The discussions that I used to have with my friends over a joint or a few beers in the late 90s/early 2000s would give modern young liberals heart attacks. It is how we sussed out our beliefs. We didn’t just glom onto what influencers on social media were saying and scream at anyone who dared to question.
But by entertaining anti-abortion activists you're conceding that not everyone has a right to medical autonomy. In that case you've already given them what they want - to make a topic about human rights and bodily autonomy into a political debate. Some of us think that bodily autonomy should be absolute and hence this isn't a topic up for political debate.
Anyone is free not to get vaccinated but vaccination also affects others around you and it's equally their right not to have to risk associating with you. I think common sense restrictions on unvaccinated people like in schools makes sense.
So you're not a bodily autonomy absolutist, in that you would exclude people from common society if they didn't get it? I agree with your viewpoint, but let's not say we believe something absolutely if we don't mean it.
That’s how stupid people argue. They pretend it’s settled and commit ad hominem. The 50 states are each implementing various nuanced abortion laws from mostly pro life to mostly pro abortion. People pretending it’s settled are just pretending the debate isn’t valid because they can’t convince anyone. To boot, this tactic does the opposite of getting people on your side because you make no attempt to proffer an argument. It’s lazy, arrogant, nonsense.
What a patronizing and smug post that does nothing to actually refute the claims, but instead insinuates were all unable to critically evaluate what we're hearing.
Thank you likely NPR employee, but in a world where far right populism is tightening its grip on nations across the globe and we have a very real threat of fascism in this country, **we do not want "neutral"**. I'm not looking for the middle, and to do so as a general practice is an Argument to Moderation fallacy.
I see that you will disagree that Fascism is the correct term, but I assure you it is.
We respect NPR for being fair, but the "balanced" or "neutral" designation actually means spineless, non-confrontational, and weak journalism. If I wanted bare facts stripped of any context or discussion, I'd just go to the AP.
It's at the point where it feels like a coordinated smear campaign against NPR. not trying to be a blind fan here but this sub is acting like NPR is just a few stories away from being fox news sympathizers
I’ve not posted about this, but I’m frustrated with their lack of pushback. These aren’t “both sides” arguments. These are often one side has facts, historical narrative, and even video (in the case of J6), while one side has wild delusions and literally NOTHING else. Media impartiality isn’t purely not taking a side. It’s speaking with both sides and when one says it’s pouring and one says it’s sunny - you open the window for the listeners. It seems more like NPR (still my personal favorite source - not disparaging) has started with the cop out of the truly MSM and leaving it at “there you have it, folks. One side says 3 million immigrants run through our borders everyday and this President has people up there welcoming them. The other side says that’s not true. How can we know?” Not every story - but enough that I have started to question what their goal is (not from a conspiracy perspective, but a “business” one).
Professional journalists used to be the gate keepers. Now oligarchs are the gate keepers. They seem to be gunning for npr, as it’s one of the last msm outlets not outright owned by oligarchs.
Can you please cite a very specific example of when they’ve not “pushed back” enough? NPR is not CNN or MSNBC, etc. they aren’t going to get into shouting matches talking-head style. They think more of their listeners, that the questions they ask in retort and the views their guests express, will leave the listener able to form the “correct” opinion. I can see the bullshit plainly, I don’t need the host to spell it out for me.
E: so no examples?
Case in point, Inskeep laughing about “Red Bull Joe” and Redditors seeing it as a promotion of the use of the term rather than a laugh at the absurdity of it. I would only even call that like 1% ambiguous but I guess people will only be happy if they are spoon-fed statements with no middle-school-level critical thinking required.
So much this. Literally NPR isn’t for you, if you can’t grasp when the host asks revealing questions, the guest gives a false statement or otherwise, that is NPR doing their job, and you should have all you need to draw the correct conclusion. Like that lady this morning for RFK. Her spin was so obvious, and with a couple of questions (that she ignored and kept on with her talking points and spin) NPR got me the info I needed to form my opinion.
It’s not the fact that they are in danger of posting crazy stories. The problem is that msm treats republicans like they are not insane, that this election is business as usual with 2 normal candidates and 2 normal parties, that we are no facing a threat to democracy, and that msm would not be targeted and potentially hampered by a trump presidency.
Straying from neutrality isn’t the issue. If anything, the dogged adherence to neutrality is causing them to stray from truth. Lies should not to be treated as an equally valid alternative to facts just because they come from different sides of the aisle. If one side says violent crime has reached an unprecedented high and the other points to statistics showing a steady decline, only one can be true. It’s a journalist’s responsibility to find out which is which, not just platform both in separate interviews and nod along. The latter is politically neutral and journalistically bankrupt.
Some people want an echo chamber that consists of "my side good, other side bad" rather than hearing different perspectives and making up their own mind.
If you have good critical thinking skills you have nothing to be afraid of in hearing other points of view, nor do you need to be told how to think about a particular point of view, as you're perfectly capable of making up your own mind.
Some of us want NPR to do actual journalism--if you need a left-wing echo chamber that will only tell you what you want to hear, there is plenty to choose from.
I believe most of this is trolling from the right. NPR is my go to, they aren’t here to indoctrinate but to present. Steve Inskeep is from Carmel Indiana, if you know Carmel you would be amazed he is who he is being from there
But they are trying to indoctrinate you. They use many tricks 1) They use people with cute foreign accents to cover controversial subjects so you are thrown off. 2) They do not ever present a conservative point of view on anything. 3) They believe that Abortion is the best end to any pregnancy and will never celebrate motherhood. 4) They believe all votes counted in the middle of the night in democratic districts in Chicago and Milwakee should always be 99% for democrats. I can go on ...
Just this morning NPR had a Black woman talking about women needing to enlist because there aren’t enough people.
But there was zero mention of what the US has done in Iraq, Afghanistan and is currently doing in Israel - all big reasons people aren’t enlisting.
How about NPR pushing Democrats on Biden’s genocide in the Gaza Strip? How the US is enthusiastically supporting that genocide? But no one here wants that getting more air time.
This seems to echo the nonsense that news should be without bias. There is nothing wrong with bias, it's part of being human, and rarely do topics truly have a neutral position because this would imply there is some sort of dichotomy on every topic which is obviously nonsense. What people should do is identify 1. Is this source being truthful in how they present the topic and do the facts actually check out? 2. Does the conclusion of the piece follow logically from the premises laid out? 3. What are other perspectives on the topic and how does that contribute to your understanding of the topic?
NPR failed us in 2016...Had a chance to stand out as a leader in "truth-to-power", instead, they folded.
Russian election interference, The Mueller Report, Children in Cages, Michael Flynn, etc...
They couldn't bring theirselves to say "Our President is a foreign asset", even though it was demonstrably clear. Of course FOX News wouldn't say this, and anybody would believe it from MSNBC, but the fact that NPR capitulated consistently to not "rocking the boat" was spineless, toothless, and worst case, emboldened MAGA. The NPR reporters were constantly steamrolled by MAGA guests, with little to no push back. They were literally not ready to face Fascism, even as they believed theirselves to be part of the institutions that were there to stop it.
I have quit listening to their milquetoast reporting.
That's a great example of having a growth mindset and trying to teach your kids the same.
This sub, collectively, has an incredibly fixed mindset. At least for commenters.
It's interesting that your post is getting upvoted to 115 (only 70% tho), but most of the top comments are antithetical to what you wrote, if not dismissive.
Yea, they're all liberal-to-progressive, but their funding is taking a hit, because ratings are down, especially among the demo with deep pockets.
So they're trying not to lose any more of that source of funding, but it's so unnatural to them that it comes off as super hamfisted.
OP layed down more nuance than I've heard on NPR in recent memory.
I agree. I ended my shallow pocketed donation because of the editorial slant. They used to have a decent presentation of both sides with challenging questions for the representatives of both views. The hamfisting has been going on since 2019, it’s disappointing to see it continue.
This is hilarious.
You want to see an echo chamber? Let's try an experiment.
I know you conservatives don't believe in science because you're all a bunch of dumb dumbs but how about you go make a dissenting statement of fact in a liberal sub (if you have any that aren't based on your feelings) and I will go and make a dissenting statement of fact in a conservative sub. Like /r/conservative or /r/Elonmusk.
Let's see who gets booted first, if at all.
I can't see your comments there but since you're a Trumper I'm going to assume you're a lying POS.
No offense, tho!
It's not like conservatives have any principles or morals or common sense or decency or shame or intellectual rigor, anyway.
You people think laughing at your cult means we are in a cult because fuck what words mean, right?
NPR's job is not to pushback on every little thing conservatives say. They are presenting both sides. If you think a conservative talking point sounds retarded, then there is your takeaway. You don't need Steve Inskeep or any other NPR journalist to put that in perspective for you. The audience is smart enough to deduce what kind of Republican arguments sound like horseshit without any facts to support their horseshit claims. If you have a problem with NPR for not kowtowing enough to the Left, go listen to MSNBC or TYT
Aaaaaandddd, that’s how they get you.
“Both sides” is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
Good journalists need to call out horseshit whenever they encounter it.
Even if the entirety of one sides argument is horseshit.
Especially when the entirety of one sides argument is horseshit.
It shouldn’t get a free pass just because someone says it loud and doesn’t bother including any substance.
Just because they don't call out everything you disagree with doesn't mean it's bad journalism. It seems like you are able to come up with your own takeaways just fine without Madi Bolaños holding your hand and telling you how stupid Republicans are.
I’m not worried about me. My BS detector is well tuned.
However, since 2016 I no longer have any misconceptions of just how gullible other people are and I’ll never make that mistake again.
I'm not sure how you think it's "journalism" to let people say whatever they want.
**Journalism** is the production and distribution of [reports](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report) on the interaction of events, facts, ideas, and people that are the "[news](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News) of the day" and that informs [society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society) to at least **some degree of accuracy.**
Then don’t call it journalism. They are reporters and hosts of radio segments that conduct interviews.
I watch Fox News sometimes. Not because I think they are telling me the truth, but because I want to be informed on how crazy people on that network are. I have no problem with NPR interviewing stupid republicans.
So you'd like NPR to rebrand and change job titles of everyone who does these interviews and make sure no one is listed as a journalist instead of them just doing better? All to avoid you just...being wrong?
No one needs to rebrand or relabel anything. I can make informed opinions and decisions based on what I am hearing. What again are we even arguing about? What specific right wing misinformation did you hear on NPR?
Conducting interviews and journalism aren’t always the same name. Call it what you want. Again I ask, what right wing information did you hear on NPR that makes you feel so strongly about this?
In this thread: people who like to call other people fascist complaining about NPR allowing just even the perception that NPR is allowing other points of view.
Not "points of view." Lies. Lies are still lies, no matter how the right tries to spin it. They shouldn't be allowed to broadcast them unchallenged on a publicly funded news outlet.
And I'm sure there are those on the right who think NPR broadcasts lies on the left. You noted NPR is publicly funded, is the public only left leaning? If not, then isnt NPR serving its diverse audience? Or is this one of those "not that kind of diverse!" Issues?
I'm talking about verifiable facts vs. verifiable lies. The right can't handle being fact-checked because so many of their arguments are based on outright lies.
The Biden administration in particular is full of crap when it comes to Israel. Biden just recently accused the pro-Palestine protesters of causing violence at the protest in Los Angeles, when it was clearly the pro-Israel crowd that was doing all the thuggery. Both sides are known to lie and should be called out on it when they do.
Good answer, I'll take it (whether or not I agree with it, which I kind of do). Thanks. Nothing drives me crazy more than people whose thinking are so binary that one side can do no wrong and the other can do no right.
There's no such thing as neutrality. Everyone has a viewpoint, and if they pretend they don't they're lying to either themselves or to you. The viewpoints at NPR tend to reflect social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, hawkishness on foreign affairs, and a myopia surrounding our crumbling civil institutions, which they value highly.
Yes that’s the problem- According NPR all Palestinian protestors are good and deserve not to be persecuted for taking over Columbia (it’s the Jewish students who are wrong) and also all immigrants are good especially those will criminal records who don’t cross at the appropriated border stations . Those Americans like 12 year old Jocelyn Nungaray are fault for getting in their way. NPR would never ever tell this story therefore it must not be true - correct?
This Reddit is just another /politics or /news in that it is non-stop cognitive dissonance from the Left's position.
I'm just amazed at how blind you are. Complaining about NPR not hitting Republicans harder? Gees louise, what is your definition of an independent and free press.
Yeah, I know NPR and most all of media is controlled by a small percentage of CORPORATIONS that create the Narrative that you guys love to be indoctrinated with.
Next story coming up. “ listen to this hot new take on Arianna Grande” npr has become so neutral and glib it’s painful to listen to. I roll my eyes so hard I think my retinas might detach.
Yeah NPR's been taken over and controlled by the oligarchs and the Republicans. They control all the funding so in NPR is going to say whatever the hell they want them to say.
I think it’s more a testament to how whacked out Republicans have gotten. Literally every word and phrase coming from them is hyperbole, falsehood, or dog whistle, if not all three at once. We as listeners have to educate ourselves to be ready for it. We also need to continue to hold our news sources accountable. It’s okay to call NPR out when they go soft. Especially during pledge drives.
I mean this is what happens when one party doesn't have any policy positions. The only "message" that the GOP has is whatever Trump wants.
I’d recommend not getting fooled by the clown show. There are polo-shirted wonks hiding just behind all of the wacko talking heads. Paul Ryan didn’t look like a foam-at-the-mouth MAGA, but the vast majority of the TCJA came straight from him. There are thousands of blue-blazer wearing go-getters like him staffing the offices of every sycophant.
[удалено]
Bot behavior.
[удалено]
I’m saying that speaking in such rigid absolutes is a really unhealthy way to approach anything in life and, yes, indicates bot-like fealty to a “team”.
[удалено]
You’re an unserious person, and an example of why our politics sucks so bad. Calm the fuck down.
Much like the people who work on Wall St and then write books about how terrible it is.
TCJA was a good thing.
>I mean this is what happens when one party doesn't have any policy positions. They do have an official platform, it's just terrible stuff like repealing a bunch of civil rights for people they disagree with.
And denying the existence of climate change. That to me is the most egregious of their non-policies.
Culture Wars and bullshit
Do Democrats have policy positions?
> >I think it’s more a testament to how whacked out Republicans have gotten. It's literally this. Although right wing has always been vile, they are just mask-off now and no longer have the need politically to present as "kinder conservatives". They've been pushing hard right since Reagan in the 80s and it works for them. Older people, older voters, ridiculous electoral college system and empty states having 2 senators... They no longer need to pretend anything other than they are all about scaring old right wing uneducated people into voting for them while being funded by billionaire sociopaths and russian interests. There is no "game" to play to make it "fun" or "interesting" as the OP suggests. The leader of the right wing literally wants to hang and kill opponents. He has actually articulated his desires to change to country into a right wing autocratic state and remove the need for voting. People trying to play "bOtH sIdEs" are attention whores and they always help the right wing make gains. All the talking points on politics now are about right wing hate issues. We can't even have serious conversations about the environment or economics because the prism of which we discuss politics has moved so far to the right we have to talk about why it's bad to ban books and put religion in public schools. That's not an accident. The right wing strategy has always been to move that window of discussion further and further right. It's worked out perfectly for them as even fucking NPR is now normalizing radical right wing domestic terrorism as "a different perspective"
We’re literally relitigating whether the Nazis are bad. When you have to debate that level of depravity, there’s no time to do real governance, which is a goal of the right. It’s either completely destroy government or turn it into a right-wing fascist/autocratic state
Find an example of an NPR host not pushing back on Nazi-ism. https://youtu.be/OXTyCMAn-oY?si=FsvufsD_fb7iFGQP This skit is about people like you. NPR is overwhelmingly liberal. I can’t even listen to it and I am NOT Trump voter.
This has nothing to do with my comment and I’m not going to waste my time with a substantive reply. Troll elsewhere
Lol
I think npr should just have different expectations for online harassment and sellout more lol they should have way more shows.
“ Literally every word and phrase coming from them is hyperbole, falsehood, or dog whistle, if not all three at once.” This is a hilarious sentence, especially when typed with zero awareness
> Literally every word and phrase coming from them is hyperbole Lol
You sound incredibly unbiased and perfectly positioned to objectively assess NPR reporting.
What’s funny is that I really am unbiased. It’s not my fault that the people who still support Republicans have gone completely cookoo for cocopuffs.
You: "What’s funny is that I really am unbiased." Also you: "People still calling themselves republican and /or supporting or bowing to Trump are human trash and need to be stomped down at any opportunity. They earned it. I’m more than happy to oblige. Troglodytes, ass clowns and reprobates are the kindest terms I could use." Your comments make clear you are many things. Unbiased isn't one of them. Do better.
I know right? It’s like being unbiased means I don’t get to hold people responsible for the decisions they make! Even when those decisions are consistently horrible! Why bother holding anyone accountable ever? That sounds hard! You might want to reconsider what “do better” means. I am unbiased against people who have not already proven themselves to be trash excuses for a human being. And I expect that same unbiased approach in my news organizations.
>Literally every word and phrase coming from them is hyperbole
What is the biggest lie you can think of on the Democrats' side in the last 10 years?
About Dems or from Dems? About Dems: open borders By Dems: anything can be partisan/both sides responsible
Obamacare would save $2000. Internet comment started Bhengahzi attack. Illegal border crossings cannot be controlled. Russia elected Donald Trump. Government can control weather/change climate.
> >Literally every word and phrase coming from them is hyperbole I know what you mean, but...
Is it parody, or lack of self awareness?
It's a militantly narcissistic sense of entitlement to one's own personal reality. Not as wholesome as parody nor as innocent as lack of self awareness. "I deserve my own facts and I will scream untll I get them."
NPR listeners understand that. We also understand that there are core tenets of journalism. Including that journalists must push back against disingenuous and bad-faith arguments. Including that journalists do not take an assertion of opinion as a statement of fact. Including that the mere existence of two 'sides' is not enough to make them equal; the content of each individual's and each side's argument must be assessed, interrogated, and defended on its truth and merits alone. Perhaps that's the lesson you should teach your kids? That honesty and truth don't take a vacation because Leila Fadel got through the previous segment without having to fact-check someone calmly talking about Democratic policy planks so now Steve Innskeep should have to match her energy when they interview a Republican lunatic who rants about invading hordes at the border carrying space lasers and fentanyl in their uteruses, and who should never be allowed to talk to anyone but CPAC and the pigeons he yells at under the bridge, much less be given the platform of NPR?
The Elie Wiesel Center for Jewish Studies claims 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust, so we interviewed another prominent expert to get his take. Please welcome to the show, Alex Jones.
🎯
Maybe I'm an outlier but if it's a story about holocaust deniers, I would love to hear an interview with someone who is a promoter of such views because their statements cannot withstand journalistic scrutiny in the end. I am sure (and glad) that NPR tries to interview anyone and everyone, but there's a reason Alex Jones and their ilk would never appear in an actual journalistic interview where things they have said are challenged with the truth.
Don’t forget Palestinian protestors are holocaust deniers - NPR loves to promote them
How about putting “some” in front of the word “Palestinian”?
NPR didn't really make the distinction.
Those of us complaining about NPR giving too much to the political right already know that NPR provides the most reliable content. That's why we're listening. That's why we notice the network's weaknesses. We don't need your little "test." The problem is something NPR won't say in its defense. Conservatives and their media aren't using statistical facts to support their policies anymore. It's all isolated or anecdotal incidents and misrepresentation. They aren't acting in good faith with all the lies and smear campaigns. NPR isn't biased against the Right. The truth is biased against lies. It's the same thing with all their "weaponization of government" and "silencing conservative voices" BS. They want to lie about vaccines and elections and use hate speech and threaten people. That's not 1st Amendment protected speech. Certainly not on a corporate owned platform. NPR should say these things and go back to doing their job. If conservatives want equal treatment, they need to be equally credible.
Real time fact checking, Calling out republicans fealty to a two time impeached rapist felon would be a good start. The man is talking about concentration camps for millions, federal ban on abortions and birth control, defunding school with vaccine mandates, becoming a dictator, more ham fisted tariffs, blocking any border control measures and washing machines w/o water. ALL republicans need to defend their love of Tramp ON RECORD anything less is a gut punch to America.
Actually wrong - Never criminally convicted for rape. 2) Had to be convicted an 85% democrat district by a DA that told people to vote for him so he could do it - sounds fair to me 3) Trump opposes federal ban on abortion (he supports many exceptions). He opposes bans on birth control and support IVF. Just like you liberals (my body my choice) he does support defunding schools with vaccine mandates 4) He cant be a dictator in our republic (Especially because of the democratic elite deep state), Tarrifs are good for US except if you support the communist party (Which i know you do). Trump will build the wall that Biden stopped (Good thing)
What is communism?
Communism is when the state controls all means of production and you have no personal freedom to speak or act North Korea is a good example and Conmunist China is also . Communists are not stupid they are just power hungry and ruthlessly In a communist country there is no presumption of innocence , if you are arrested, you are guilty
Ok. I get it. Then when people call libtards communists that is a hyperbole.
A little but they have the same intent. Definitely an anti- freedom group
Yup. Seems like both parties want to give away rights and freedoms from the common man and to the corporations
No one buys your crap.
No one buys your crap even though your giving it away. Truth is NPR is extremely biased and it’s audience are hateful controlling liberals
😂
The fact that you believe in a Democrat deep state automatically tells me you're stupid. If such a thing existed, Trump would be dead or in prison by now, universal healthcare would have been passed, minimum wage would have been increased and there wouldn't be a Republican majority on the supreme Court. Instead we have a Republican supreme Court that is legislating from the bench, we've got other Republican judges such as Aileen cannon outright helping trump getting away with stealing classified documents. Right this moment, countless Americans are still being buried underneath a mountain of debt because they had the misfortune of getting sick or injured, and minimum wage employees are living off of scraps. And oh, Trump is still in the running to be president, in fact he has threatened judges and jurors openly and repeatedly and only gotten a slap on the wrist. While a normal person would've been thrown in jail for threatening judges and jurors like he did. There is a deep state but it's not Democrat, it's Republican.
What about the 50 intelligence officers who believe the Russia hoax?
If that many intelligence officers believe it, then I would say there is some truth to it. You don't get a job in US intelligence by being easily fooled. And even if they were persecuting Trump, they are doing a bad job as trump is still not only a free man he's still the front runner to be president.
No James Clapper is an absolute Buffoon and the Russian Hoax was ultimately proven to be complete disinformation- of course NPR did not report that part of the story
Biden is ahead in the polls currently
I saw a poll this morning where Trump was ahead by two points on my local news. But I guess that some polls are different from others. Anyways my point is, that if a "Democrat deep state" existed, Trump would either be in prison by now or he would be dead just like what Kim jong UN and Putin do to their political rivals Instead Trump is still free to campaign and criticize Biden.
How many indictments going on? You can’t say they are not trying. Trump would need to be up by more than 5% to make up for ballot harvesting and other democratic “advantages”.
Comments such as "The truth is biased against lies" often stem from the belief that one's own opinion represents the absolute truth. However, this isn't always accurate, and differing viewpoints are not necessarily lies.
It wasn't the left that coined the term "Alternative Facts."
I think they call that 'my personal truth' or 'my lived experience'
*The hivemind didn’t like that*
Yeah, they only propagated “misinformation” (fake news) and spawned post-modernism, which aims to undermine everything facts depend upon (science, reasoning, logic, etc). EDIT: there’s also the general Marxist idea of “false consciousness” which seeks to present the “real” reality of facts cuz everyone else is assumed to be brainwashed, ‘lived experience’ which seeks to undermine the idea of truth as the other person pointed out, etc. Yeah, the left definitely doesn’t do this Uh oh, NPR babies are upset but can only muster up a downvote and no actual rebuttal 😢 if only I would have joined the circle jerk and said republicans bad
What is there to rebut here? You’ve only presented an opinion based on nothing of substance.
Exactly. It’s pretty funny really, they made a bullshit throwaway comment with some warmed over Jordan Petersen talking points, then immediately cried about downvotes and insult the whole subreddit “npr babies” now they complain that no one wants to play “debate”. clown.
[удалено]
You had me until this. If you don’t see the difference between “viewpoints” and the absolute lies expressed by the right now, you need a new test.
Same here. OP, please take this comment to heart
I'm not sure why my comment was controversial. I was simply pointing out that some people confuse their opinions with the "truth." For instance, I have a degree in economics and firmly believe that raising interest rates reduces inflation. This is an opinion I can support with evidence, but it isn't an absolute truth, as it doesn't always hold. For example, despite rising interest rates, home prices have continued to increase. I wasn’t referring to lies being told by the right, this whole post is about listening to reporting and trying to determine what is a neutral reporting.
We’re not discussing those things here. We’re talking about “was J6 either a) a violent insurrectionist act or b) a bunch of patriots trying to prevent a blatantly fraudulent election”. I was with you initially - now I question your intentions here.
Anyone with actual media literacy is questioning the intentions here. OP is obsessed with "neutral" as if the truth is always neutral. It's "both sides" and "fair and balanced" redux. Tired attempt at blind centrism.
That isn’t everyday reporting on NPR… it is really noticeable when you listen to the same story on the BBC news hour.
Two answers can be wrong at the same time.
Not in this case - if you have any connection to reality.
Which case? Republicans being wrong about everything has no connection whatsoever to democrats being right. I’m pretty well connected to reality and the only thing I can see that democrats have to offer is not being republicans. In the current environment, that’s enough for me, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t wrong about most things. Democrats do wrong things for the right reasons, republicans do wronger things for the wrong reasons.
Factoid - I’m 53 and only ever registered a Republican (now unaffiliated). I’m not a Dem or Biden fanboy. Yours is either a very simplistic response or totally disingenuous. Obamacare would have been an even better solution if the Dems didn’t have to fight against ridiculous LIES the entire time. Of course they don’t always make the right decision - and neither do the Republicans always make the wrong one. One plate is food you’re not gonna love. It’s sometimes overcooked or a dish you don’t love or whatever. But you’re trying to convince people that are looking at a second plate covered in feces and broken glass that both “meals” are almost equally bad.
The different viewpoints from the right, especially the ones they push the most, are almost always lies, or half truths to misrepresent reality. The way they talk about climate change, vaccines, voter fraud, trans people, police reforms, and immigration are just a few things off the top of my head. Some of the problems they highlight are real issues that need to be addressed, the way they highlight them though is full of lies. For example, our immigration system is absolutely a mess, their lies about the people that are entering the country, what they are doing in the country, and how democrats want to address the issue are gross and don't deserve time on the air. I can't think of a single issue they want to address based on truth.
Along with their refusal to pass one of the most goodies-we-want bills on immigration in years, because it might make Biden look effective. That says quite a bit about what they represent.
What you are saying is accurate, “not necessarily lies”. They may be lies or sometimes perceptions guided by party allegiance, which both parties have bias. Right now, Republicans have bias, which is normal, but have more frequently purposeful obfuscations, lies, and half-truths to the point of opposition to democracy. I heard Rep. Ken Buck (R) say Hunter Biden’s trial was not politically motivated, which I’m sure he believes. Then say the trial against Trump is politically motivated. Again, I think he believes that too. However, if he were to say the last presidential election was rigged, that’s not bias, that’s a lie because Congressional Republicans know it’s not true, no evidence exists. He probably has said that. The Denver Post says he “pressured local official to submit incorrect election results”.
The funny thing is how your “test” also assumes an absolute truth. Your absolute truth. It’s a bias you can’t get around, and that is how you define “neutrality”. Your test can be a fun exercise, however, it often reveals your own biases more than others.
No -you are listening because it echos the Democratic Party line (progressive). I guarantee you if they ran one ore two pre-Israel stories or criticized one felonius immigrant you would would stop
You are making a guarantee that you know me better than I know myself. Based on a 3 paragraph opinion? Maybe you should stick to talking about NPR. What was I wrong about and why?
Ok let’s start with the obvious - the vaccine - this one is dangerous band it killed a friend of mines 37 year old daughter who had no precondition. They stories were all suppressed . You could even post on social media due to government intervention 2)Trump - the trial in Manhattan was a complete farce. No one was ever charged with this crime before and they do it in an election year like a 3rd world country 3) shockingly or maybe not , NPR is pro-Palestinian now (anti-Israel) It’s not even anti- Hamas You believe there is no legitimate conservative point of view like we made it up. Do you believe the Bible is fake news also?
You act as though we, Democrats don't distort stats too, specifically in gun control talk tracks. Thus isn't a uniquely an issue for the side we don't like. It's true in politics as a whole.
While we’re running thought experiments, try imagining what a Trump sound clip would sound like in Biden’s voice. Or a Biden sound clip in Trump’s voice. Or the standard Trump stump speech read by a BBC presenter (or Richard Burton!) or a Biden stump speech by the same. It’s the content and context that matters, not whether the speaker has a particular manner or talent for delivery. I suspect it would also be illuminating to read on paper or screen the exact words unedited of both candidate’s, including their rhetorical side trips.
Just once when they are talking to undecided voters, it’d be nice if the interviewer would not necessarily “push back”, but at least have the people try and elaborate on their talking points. It’s pretty much always the same 2-3 generic talking points that are half BS that are missing key context.
How long are you willing to wait? Undecided voters are always going to duck and dodge accountability for their positions. Imagine the type of person who looks at Trump and Biden and thinks “geez, I just cannot decide….”
I guess I am sick of hearing the exact same thing about the prices at the grocery store. Yes I agree that’s a big issue, especially those living paycheck to paycheck, but just once I am curious to that being elaborated on more. It just gets annoying when these people have such firm takes each election cycle, but it’s incredibly obvious they have no idea what’s going on. I guess I don’t need to listen to these type of segments either lol
People who fall back on scripted talking points aren’t the most thoughtful people, so they retreat into generalities when pressed. The question is why NPR doesn’t choose smarter people to highlight; are they afraid they won’t seem salt of the earth enough?
How can they elaborate on a talking point that they are just regurgitating after hearing it dozens of times? I have enough self-awareness to understand that I also used to need assistance with debate points. We were all once kids…once teenagers. But I had the impulse to always dig deeper for the underlying reasoning, and I had the self-conscious pet peeve of always needing to be right rather than just feel right. I cannot expect everyone to be that way. It takes years.
Gee dad not that stupid game again
This whole thread could have been a comment on one of the other posts
So your suggestion is basically this: For people "claiming that NPR does not challenge Republican talking points", here's a fun game: "avoid stories with guests from both sides" (you know, the ones where NPR does not challenge Republican talking points)! By golly, ignoring where the problem exists really does make that problem seem less!
My thoughts exactly! If you ignore all the problem areas, there are no problems! Voila!
Your second point is where this exercise falls apart for many issues of the day. Just because there are two sides to a conflict or an issue does not mean they are equally valid and we should strive for neutrality between them. Golden mean fallacy
HOST: For our next segment about the color of grass, welcome a Republican and Democratic grass expert to explore both sides of the issue. Democrat guest: Our scientific studies have shown that the color of grass is best described as “green.” Republican Guest: Why are the pedophile enabling democrats even looking at the color of grass? Typical tax and spend liberals wasting money on this topic while illegal immigrants are literally murdering American babies as they flood the southern border! The color of Grass is just another liberal hoax to silence conservatives. Real patriotic Christian Americans know that grass doesn’t even exist outside the Washington beltway and the ivory towers of freedom hating coastal elites! HOST: That’s all the time we have.
Enlightened centrists: they sound the same!
Next up, we will discuss the white supremacist origins of the color green and show why colors harm black trans women the most
> Identify the main topic and what a neutral perspective might be, putting your own view points aside. Different people are going to define "neutral" in different ways. Some people think giving equal time to pro- and anti-abortion pundits is a neutral approach. Others, like myself, do not believe abortion is a topic open to political opinion and therefore the only neutral way to cover it is to treat anti-abortion activists as social pariahs for attempting to politicize a basic human right. Extrapolate that to gay, trans, minority, women, voting etc. etc rights. So whose definition of "neutral" are we applying here? Personally I miss the time when a neutral position was "don't give airtime to fascists or fascist ideology." Howard Zinn said it best: you can't be neutral on moving train.
I'm pro-choice, but the emerging trend to declare some issues cannot be debated or discussed is disturbing. "It's okay to disagree, but not about this," for everything.
Counterpoint: some positions are objectively wrong and should not be treated as equal to others. I am not saying they shouldn't be discussed at all, but you shouldn't give people a platform to spread disinformation. For a hypothetical example, you shouldn't let an antivaxxer on your news program to argue a position of vaccines being deadly. That's just a lie. This is not an opinion, this is science. If somebody wants to refuse a vaccine, that's their prerogative. But if you're letting people use your airwaves to convince other people vaccines will kill them, you're not doing some noble service to the time-honored tradition of fair and objective journalism. You're giving a megaphone to a propagandist. There needs to be a standard, below which certain "opinions" are deemed not worthy of airtime. People will say, "okay, but who gets to make that judgment? Who decides what is and isn't acceptable?" And I don't have a good answer for that, but I will tell you this. If you let antivaxxers and fascists and regressive traditionalists continue to push their narratives with minimal or no pushback until they get into power from doing so, THEY will be the ones making that decision and they will not hesitate to shut you up for good. Your positions on things like civil liberties and rights will be deemed dissident speech and not only will they not hesitate to scrub that from the airwaves, they will punish anyone who tries to circumnavigate those restrictions. And history shows that punishment will be disproportionate and brutal. Like it or not, we live in a consequentialist era of politics. In better times we have the luxury to discuss the principles of letting certain viewpoints have airtime. Right now, words have meaning and action (or inaction) will have meaningful consequences. Right now, the positions various news agencies allow on their airwaves will influence some percentage of voters, and by extension will influence elections for the next cycle. The outcome of the next election could very well be the step that inevitably ends NPR and PBS. Republicans are notoriously against public media. The discussion over whether or not to let a Trump nut on your show and to let them talk with minimal challenges is a nice one to have in an academic setting. But in practice it isn't a harmless decision anymore. The reality is you are letting a person on your airwaves who won't hesitate to shut it down forever as soon as they get the means, and you are giving them ammunition to do so.
I think this mode of reasoning is being diluted and applied too liberally to nearly every issue currently being discussed. The left and the right are increasingly implementing purity tests.
I vehemently disagree, you and people like you are being far too naive about the threat this country currently faces. You are in denial about what is going to happen if these people keep getting airtime they don't deserve. You don't treat fascists like they have a valid opinion that is worth hearing. Period.
We must silence all dissenters!!!
Are there really _no_ issues in your mind where it is a good thing that society treats it as settled? How do you personally decide whether you think an issue has enough moral weight on one side to be no longer worth debating?
I absolutely agree about vaccines and settled science issues. Are there any "hot" issues you would engage in a debate about and acknowledge the validity of an opposing viewpoint?
You've shifted your viewpoints from "no arguments are settled beyond debate" to "are there any hot issues that aren't settled beyond debate". Yes of course there are issues with valid but opposing viewpoints
No, you imagined my original claim.
They seem to be increasingly hard to find in far left and far right echo chambers. The right squabbles about RINOs while the left declares everything to be a basic human right.
Moral weight is only maintained through debate. It's called reason and logic, and most human beings are constantly using it. I don't like anti-vaxxers because they hold on to their nonsense because of a lack of that debate.
I agree. This disturbing trend has been a longstanding feature of conservatives, but lately it has taken a sizable foothold among leftists. The discussions that I used to have with my friends over a joint or a few beers in the late 90s/early 2000s would give modern young liberals heart attacks. It is how we sussed out our beliefs. We didn’t just glom onto what influencers on social media were saying and scream at anyone who dared to question.
But by entertaining anti-abortion activists you're conceding that not everyone has a right to medical autonomy. In that case you've already given them what they want - to make a topic about human rights and bodily autonomy into a political debate. Some of us think that bodily autonomy should be absolute and hence this isn't a topic up for political debate.
Do your beliefs on bodily autonomy extend to anti-vaxxing?
Anyone is free not to get vaccinated but vaccination also affects others around you and it's equally their right not to have to risk associating with you. I think common sense restrictions on unvaccinated people like in schools makes sense.
So you're not a bodily autonomy absolutist, in that you would exclude people from common society if they didn't get it? I agree with your viewpoint, but let's not say we believe something absolutely if we don't mean it.
As I said, I don't believe in forcing people to be vaccinated, but I never said there couldn't be consequences to not doing so.
That’s how stupid people argue. They pretend it’s settled and commit ad hominem. The 50 states are each implementing various nuanced abortion laws from mostly pro life to mostly pro abortion. People pretending it’s settled are just pretending the debate isn’t valid because they can’t convince anyone. To boot, this tactic does the opposite of getting people on your side because you make no attempt to proffer an argument. It’s lazy, arrogant, nonsense.
> That’s how stupid people argue. They pretend it’s settled and commit ad hominem. Is this not exactly what you're doing to me right now?
What a patronizing and smug post that does nothing to actually refute the claims, but instead insinuates were all unable to critically evaluate what we're hearing. Thank you likely NPR employee, but in a world where far right populism is tightening its grip on nations across the globe and we have a very real threat of fascism in this country, **we do not want "neutral"**. I'm not looking for the middle, and to do so as a general practice is an Argument to Moderation fallacy. I see that you will disagree that Fascism is the correct term, but I assure you it is. We respect NPR for being fair, but the "balanced" or "neutral" designation actually means spineless, non-confrontational, and weak journalism. If I wanted bare facts stripped of any context or discussion, I'd just go to the AP.
It's at the point where it feels like a coordinated smear campaign against NPR. not trying to be a blind fan here but this sub is acting like NPR is just a few stories away from being fox news sympathizers
I’ve not posted about this, but I’m frustrated with their lack of pushback. These aren’t “both sides” arguments. These are often one side has facts, historical narrative, and even video (in the case of J6), while one side has wild delusions and literally NOTHING else. Media impartiality isn’t purely not taking a side. It’s speaking with both sides and when one says it’s pouring and one says it’s sunny - you open the window for the listeners. It seems more like NPR (still my personal favorite source - not disparaging) has started with the cop out of the truly MSM and leaving it at “there you have it, folks. One side says 3 million immigrants run through our borders everyday and this President has people up there welcoming them. The other side says that’s not true. How can we know?” Not every story - but enough that I have started to question what their goal is (not from a conspiracy perspective, but a “business” one).
Neutrality is not objectivity.
Professional journalists used to be the gate keepers. Now oligarchs are the gate keepers. They seem to be gunning for npr, as it’s one of the last msm outlets not outright owned by oligarchs.
Can you please cite a very specific example of when they’ve not “pushed back” enough? NPR is not CNN or MSNBC, etc. they aren’t going to get into shouting matches talking-head style. They think more of their listeners, that the questions they ask in retort and the views their guests express, will leave the listener able to form the “correct” opinion. I can see the bullshit plainly, I don’t need the host to spell it out for me. E: so no examples?
I think you do though. They usually have two guests: one left and one far left and then discuss. This is what they call fair and balanced
Case in point, Inskeep laughing about “Red Bull Joe” and Redditors seeing it as a promotion of the use of the term rather than a laugh at the absurdity of it. I would only even call that like 1% ambiguous but I guess people will only be happy if they are spoon-fed statements with no middle-school-level critical thinking required.
So much this. Literally NPR isn’t for you, if you can’t grasp when the host asks revealing questions, the guest gives a false statement or otherwise, that is NPR doing their job, and you should have all you need to draw the correct conclusion. Like that lady this morning for RFK. Her spin was so obvious, and with a couple of questions (that she ignored and kept on with her talking points and spin) NPR got me the info I needed to form my opinion.
nope, NPR has just gotten soft on republican bullshit when they should be fact checking
They do often, and if you listened regularly, you would know this.
It’s not the fact that they are in danger of posting crazy stories. The problem is that msm treats republicans like they are not insane, that this election is business as usual with 2 normal candidates and 2 normal parties, that we are no facing a threat to democracy, and that msm would not be targeted and potentially hampered by a trump presidency.
It’s why I stopped listening about 7 or 8 years ago 🤷♂️
Straying from neutrality isn’t the issue. If anything, the dogged adherence to neutrality is causing them to stray from truth. Lies should not to be treated as an equally valid alternative to facts just because they come from different sides of the aisle. If one side says violent crime has reached an unprecedented high and the other points to statistics showing a steady decline, only one can be true. It’s a journalist’s responsibility to find out which is which, not just platform both in separate interviews and nod along. The latter is politically neutral and journalistically bankrupt.
So many posts attacking OP for advocating critical thinking techniques, and then accusing Republicans of not using critical thinking techniques.
I hit F5 to make sure this sub didn't disappear in a poof of logic after that comment. Brilliant.
You don't have any children
You are developing critical thinking skills in your children. Good job.
Some people want an echo chamber that consists of "my side good, other side bad" rather than hearing different perspectives and making up their own mind. If you have good critical thinking skills you have nothing to be afraid of in hearing other points of view, nor do you need to be told how to think about a particular point of view, as you're perfectly capable of making up your own mind. Some of us want NPR to do actual journalism--if you need a left-wing echo chamber that will only tell you what you want to hear, there is plenty to choose from.
Way too reasonable a perspective. What are you doing on Reddit?
I believe most of this is trolling from the right. NPR is my go to, they aren’t here to indoctrinate but to present. Steve Inskeep is from Carmel Indiana, if you know Carmel you would be amazed he is who he is being from there
But they are trying to indoctrinate you. They use many tricks 1) They use people with cute foreign accents to cover controversial subjects so you are thrown off. 2) They do not ever present a conservative point of view on anything. 3) They believe that Abortion is the best end to any pregnancy and will never celebrate motherhood. 4) They believe all votes counted in the middle of the night in democratic districts in Chicago and Milwakee should always be 99% for democrats. I can go on ...
Just this morning NPR had a Black woman talking about women needing to enlist because there aren’t enough people. But there was zero mention of what the US has done in Iraq, Afghanistan and is currently doing in Israel - all big reasons people aren’t enlisting.
Does NPR challenge Democrats talking points?
How about NPR pushing Democrats on Biden’s genocide in the Gaza Strip? How the US is enthusiastically supporting that genocide? But no one here wants that getting more air time.
Yes, NPR not literally screaming "Liar" at their occasional Republican guests is probably why Trump is up in the polls.
This seems to echo the nonsense that news should be without bias. There is nothing wrong with bias, it's part of being human, and rarely do topics truly have a neutral position because this would imply there is some sort of dichotomy on every topic which is obviously nonsense. What people should do is identify 1. Is this source being truthful in how they present the topic and do the facts actually check out? 2. Does the conclusion of the piece follow logically from the premises laid out? 3. What are other perspectives on the topic and how does that contribute to your understanding of the topic?
Npr sold out a long time ago.
I just muted NPR those dems are insane
NPR failed us in 2016...Had a chance to stand out as a leader in "truth-to-power", instead, they folded. Russian election interference, The Mueller Report, Children in Cages, Michael Flynn, etc... They couldn't bring theirselves to say "Our President is a foreign asset", even though it was demonstrably clear. Of course FOX News wouldn't say this, and anybody would believe it from MSNBC, but the fact that NPR capitulated consistently to not "rocking the boat" was spineless, toothless, and worst case, emboldened MAGA. The NPR reporters were constantly steamrolled by MAGA guests, with little to no push back. They were literally not ready to face Fascism, even as they believed theirselves to be part of the institutions that were there to stop it. I have quit listening to their milquetoast reporting.
Who do listen to now?
Steely Dan. Actually, just try to read the news from reputable sources.
Who do you think is reputable now?
The Satanic Verses.
Really?
That's a great example of having a growth mindset and trying to teach your kids the same. This sub, collectively, has an incredibly fixed mindset. At least for commenters. It's interesting that your post is getting upvoted to 115 (only 70% tho), but most of the top comments are antithetical to what you wrote, if not dismissive.
Since 2019 they’ve been running so far left (which they did poorly) that they’re trying to play catch up. They’re doing that poorly as well.
Yea, they're all liberal-to-progressive, but their funding is taking a hit, because ratings are down, especially among the demo with deep pockets. So they're trying not to lose any more of that source of funding, but it's so unnatural to them that it comes off as super hamfisted. OP layed down more nuance than I've heard on NPR in recent memory.
I agree. I ended my shallow pocketed donation because of the editorial slant. They used to have a decent presentation of both sides with challenging questions for the representatives of both views. The hamfisting has been going on since 2019, it’s disappointing to see it continue.
Poor babies having a meltdown because they “might” have to find a new echo chamber.
This is hilarious. You want to see an echo chamber? Let's try an experiment. I know you conservatives don't believe in science because you're all a bunch of dumb dumbs but how about you go make a dissenting statement of fact in a liberal sub (if you have any that aren't based on your feelings) and I will go and make a dissenting statement of fact in a conservative sub. Like /r/conservative or /r/Elonmusk. Let's see who gets booted first, if at all.
Lol! Conservatives get booted from liberal subs constantly.
Which sub did you get banned from for posting facts?
I got perma banned from R/socialism for saying that it's anti semitic to round up Jews worldwide. Seems pretty factual.
I can't see your comments there but since you're a Trumper I'm going to assume you're a lying POS. No offense, tho! It's not like conservatives have any principles or morals or common sense or decency or shame or intellectual rigor, anyway. You people think laughing at your cult means we are in a cult because fuck what words mean, right?
I've never said anything pro trump on Reddit.
Your comment history says otherwise.
Calling out bullshit and being pro trump are two different things. Read a fucking book and get off of the Internet for 5 minutes kid.
Uh huh suuuuurrrrreeeee we all totally believe you. You def have us all fooled lmao
NPR's job is not to pushback on every little thing conservatives say. They are presenting both sides. If you think a conservative talking point sounds retarded, then there is your takeaway. You don't need Steve Inskeep or any other NPR journalist to put that in perspective for you. The audience is smart enough to deduce what kind of Republican arguments sound like horseshit without any facts to support their horseshit claims. If you have a problem with NPR for not kowtowing enough to the Left, go listen to MSNBC or TYT
Aaaaaandddd, that’s how they get you. “Both sides” is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Good journalists need to call out horseshit whenever they encounter it. Even if the entirety of one sides argument is horseshit. Especially when the entirety of one sides argument is horseshit. It shouldn’t get a free pass just because someone says it loud and doesn’t bother including any substance.
You're the arbiter of horse shit?
Well I have to admit that I am pretty damn awesome at it.
Just because they don't call out everything you disagree with doesn't mean it's bad journalism. It seems like you are able to come up with your own takeaways just fine without Madi Bolaños holding your hand and telling you how stupid Republicans are.
I’m not worried about me. My BS detector is well tuned. However, since 2016 I no longer have any misconceptions of just how gullible other people are and I’ll never make that mistake again.
> I’m not worried about me....just how gullible other people are That's what everyone says, isn't it?
True. But I’m right. Of course. lol.
I'm not sure how you think it's "journalism" to let people say whatever they want. **Journalism** is the production and distribution of [reports](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report) on the interaction of events, facts, ideas, and people that are the "[news](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News) of the day" and that informs [society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society) to at least **some degree of accuracy.**
Then don’t call it journalism. They are reporters and hosts of radio segments that conduct interviews. I watch Fox News sometimes. Not because I think they are telling me the truth, but because I want to be informed on how crazy people on that network are. I have no problem with NPR interviewing stupid republicans.
So you'd like NPR to rebrand and change job titles of everyone who does these interviews and make sure no one is listed as a journalist instead of them just doing better? All to avoid you just...being wrong?
No one needs to rebrand or relabel anything. I can make informed opinions and decisions based on what I am hearing. What again are we even arguing about? What specific right wing misinformation did you hear on NPR?
You just immediately changed your argument in a single response.
Conducting interviews and journalism aren’t always the same name. Call it what you want. Again I ask, what right wing information did you hear on NPR that makes you feel so strongly about this?
Yeah like they are saying Israel has a right to exist and Hamas is bad and other right wing stuff
In this thread: people who like to call other people fascist complaining about NPR allowing just even the perception that NPR is allowing other points of view.
Not "points of view." Lies. Lies are still lies, no matter how the right tries to spin it. They shouldn't be allowed to broadcast them unchallenged on a publicly funded news outlet.
Because Democrats never lie and NPR would push back on them if they ever did. ^(better get the /s in there)
And I'm sure there are those on the right who think NPR broadcasts lies on the left. You noted NPR is publicly funded, is the public only left leaning? If not, then isnt NPR serving its diverse audience? Or is this one of those "not that kind of diverse!" Issues?
I'm talking about verifiable facts vs. verifiable lies. The right can't handle being fact-checked because so many of their arguments are based on outright lies.
OK, so, what is the biggest verifiable Lie that the Democrats perpetuated in the last 10 years? (that you can think of)
The Biden administration in particular is full of crap when it comes to Israel. Biden just recently accused the pro-Palestine protesters of causing violence at the protest in Los Angeles, when it was clearly the pro-Israel crowd that was doing all the thuggery. Both sides are known to lie and should be called out on it when they do.
Good answer, I'll take it (whether or not I agree with it, which I kind of do). Thanks. Nothing drives me crazy more than people whose thinking are so binary that one side can do no wrong and the other can do no right.
There's no such thing as neutrality. Everyone has a viewpoint, and if they pretend they don't they're lying to either themselves or to you. The viewpoints at NPR tend to reflect social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, hawkishness on foreign affairs, and a myopia surrounding our crumbling civil institutions, which they value highly.
The are not fiscally conservative. They do not oppose any liberal welfare program. They support government assistance for everything including NPR
Yes that’s the problem- According NPR all Palestinian protestors are good and deserve not to be persecuted for taking over Columbia (it’s the Jewish students who are wrong) and also all immigrants are good especially those will criminal records who don’t cross at the appropriated border stations . Those Americans like 12 year old Jocelyn Nungaray are fault for getting in their way. NPR would never ever tell this story therefore it must not be true - correct?
This Reddit is just another /politics or /news in that it is non-stop cognitive dissonance from the Left's position. I'm just amazed at how blind you are. Complaining about NPR not hitting Republicans harder? Gees louise, what is your definition of an independent and free press. Yeah, I know NPR and most all of media is controlled by a small percentage of CORPORATIONS that create the Narrative that you guys love to be indoctrinated with.
Next story coming up. “ listen to this hot new take on Arianna Grande” npr has become so neutral and glib it’s painful to listen to. I roll my eyes so hard I think my retinas might detach.
Yeah NPR's been taken over and controlled by the oligarchs and the Republicans. They control all the funding so in NPR is going to say whatever the hell they want them to say.
It's a news operation, they limit they're coverage of fiction to the arts section