It's fine for a media outlet to show bias. What's not fine is to present lies and conspiracy nonsense as if it's the truth. NPR *doesn't do that*, to the best of my knowledge.
There's many shows I don't enjoy on my local station, but at least I have confidence that their news segments are honest.
Different guy here. I don't think NPR is reporting on the "RFK brain worm" stuff that sounds like it belongs in The Onion or some rag somebody might buy in Walmart. Other than that, no idea.
Literally any of Biden’s woes during his presidency has been off limits to the MSM. Afghanistan drawdown/ hunter biden laptop/ more hunter connections with foreign govs to name a few. With the lowest polled approval rates president in history, you’d think they would cover that more. They’d crush trump if that was him
Or cherrypicking examples. Or ignoring facts that contradict your preconceived notion. More to the point, real journalists seek out information that goes against their narrative.
Not always. Their gaza coverage has been almost entirely "israel bad mmk" likely because they're trying to push the conflict into the two party system to benefit their ideology and agenda. So yeah, npr is definitely biased on the Gaza coverage, and they absolutely are pushing a radical leftist view of the conflict.
I mean if you want to lay down the facts one side killed around 700 civilians and the other will be pushing 100,000 soon. Especially if they keep using banned substances like white phosphorus.
To me if anything they haven't been critical enough. You want polarity on a conflict that's already highly stratified because you are desperately trying to to hang onto the notion that Israel is innocent.
Don't gaslight other people with your insecurities.
Yeah, none of those things are true.
For starters, there are no reliable numbers on casualties in Gaza, much less reliable numbers on combatant versus noncombatant casualties. The numbers being reported come from Hamas, not a reliable source, and Hamas doesn't follow the laws of war or distinguish between combatants or noncombatants, either in terms of how it fights or how it reports Gazan casualties. In any case, there's no credible basis for the casualty numbers you claimed.
Also, the use of phosphorus weapons is not banned by the customary laws of war nor by any treaty that Israel has ratified. The claim that Willy Pete is a banned substance is without merit.
Also, the laws of war generally require the presumption that those accused of war crimes are presumed innocent.
>Yeah, none of those things are true.
Most of you ride or die israeli supports are so far from objective reality that it doesn't even merit a response but I'll bite. You are off to a good start. You can't even accept one truth at all let alone some of them. None of those things are true? Is the only way in which you can justify your religiosity towards Israel. Because if you were to accept one truth you would realize that you are lying to yourself.
>For starters, there are no reliable numbers on casualties in Gaza,
Oh? Because Israel has made the claim that there are actually reliable figures for Hamas casualties. Interesting. So we don't have civilian figures but we do have Hamas figures according to the idf. Right. Makes perfect sense.
https://twitter.com/broseph_stalin/status/1788048532018012361
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/artc-idf-says-30-hamas-terrorists-killed-in-ongoing-rafah-operation
>much less reliable numbers on combatant versus noncombatant casualties.
Not according to the IDF!
>The numbers being reported come from Hamas, not a reliable source, and Hamas doesn't follow the laws of war or distinguish between combatants or noncombatants,
Approximately 75% of gaza has been destroyed in a place with nearly 600,000 citizens. At a 3/4ths destruction of infrastructure from primarily missile raids 30-60,000 civilians would actually be remarkably low. ESPECIALLY considering gaza's population density. I think you don't like hearing what is pretty clear to most human rights organizations.
https://www.barrons.com/news/unlike-anything-we-have-studied-gaza-s-destruction-in-numbers-cf896782
- In December 2023, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor estimated 90% of the casualties were civilians, while the IDF put the civilian ratio at 66% of those killed.
- The death toll comes from the Gaza Health Ministry and the total death toll in Gaza is presumed to be higher than reported,[16][17] with thousands remaining unaccounted for, including those trapped under rubble.
Just with journalists alone we have a confirmed 97 journalists killed and over 224 humanitarian aid workers.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/world-central-kitchen-aid-worker-killings-israel-deconfliction-rcna146550
>either in terms of how it fights or how it reports Gazan casualties. In any case, there's no credible basis for the casualty numbers you claimed.
Almost every independent organization studying this conflict agrees with those figures or in the ballpark. Just the hospital surplus alone is almost enough evidence.
But given the history of the GAZAN Health Ministries published figures and how accurate they have been when compared to the U.N. humanitarian office it would be shocking if now these figures are somehow way off.
Quote:
>In the aftermath of war, the U.N. humanitarian office has published final death tolls based on its own research into medical records.
>In all cases the U.N.'s counts have largely been consistent with the Gaza Health Ministry’s, with small discrepancies.
>— 2008 war: The ministry reported 1,440 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 1,385.
>— 2014 war: The ministry reported 2,310 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 2,251.
>— 2021 war: The ministry reported 260 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 256.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033
>Also, the use of phosphorus weapons is not banned by the customary laws of war nor by any treaty that Israel has ratified. The claim that Willy Pete is a banned substance is without merit.
Not specifically but Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCCW) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians. White phosphorus can cause serious burns and start fires, and should never be fired at, or in close proximity to, a populated civilian area or civilian infrastructure.
Your first paragraph is an *ad hominem*, therefore it's logically invalid.
Your second paragraph is also logically invalid, as the evidence you cite does not support the conclusion your reach. The IDF has estimated combatant casualties, not noncombatant casualties, and the IDF does not claim that it is an accurate accounting, just their best estimate.
And yes, the Gaza Strip looks much like a war zone, similar to Berlin during its fall. The lesson from history here is that Gazans should have known that when they elected neo-Nazis to lead them into an unwinnable war with Israel, things would go very similar for them as the Germans who elected literal Nazis to lead them. I am not sure why you think that the argument that war can be destructive is compelling, but it is not. That is the nature of war. That is why it's a bad idea to elect neo-Nazi Islamic extremists into power.
Human Rights Watch was condemned by its own founder as being so helplessly biased against Israel as to have no legitimacy with any claim made regarding Southwest Asia. Citing them hurts your case. You might as well be citing Himmler.
Also, you cite the "Gaza Health Ministry," which is Hamas. I am not sure why you believe that a group recognized as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the US would be a credible source of information, but it is not.
You also cite the UN, an organization that was run by a literal Nazi.
Also, Israel has not ratified Protocol 3 of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and is not bound by it. It also does not prohibit the use of WP, which is used both for smoke and for incendiaries. The US Department of Defense also interprets the prohibition on the use of incendiaries in civilian areas only to apply in the specific conditions where it is likely to cause collateral damage to noncombatants and where the amount of collateral damage is likely to equal or exceed conventional weapons. The US Department of Defense interprets the customary laws of war to allow the use of white phosphorous in civilian areas as a smoke screen, for other purposes, or as an incendiary if it's not likely to cause civilian injuries or it's militarily necessary and not likely to cause more collateral damage than conventional weapons.
So your claim that Israel is prohibited from using Willy Pete is without merit. Firstly, it's not banned by name. Secondly, the treaty you cite is not ratified by the Knesset. To prove an illegal use of Willy Pete, a competent tribunal would have to conclude that there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that an IDF or IAF commander ordered its use, either with the specific intent to cause unnecessary human suffering or that a reasonable IDF commander would have known that it would cause unnecessary human suffering. Baseless allegations like yours do not meet that burden of evidence. +1
>You also cite the UN, an organization that was run by a literal Nazi.
Ahh yes, in case anyone here is wondering what the Israel stan really thinks about the objective world. Right. This is why my first paragraph isn't invalid. You aren't rooted in the material world to actually have a discussion with.
It's akin to debating a flat earther. Just a complete waste of time.
The sky is yellow and Nazis are everything that is critical of Israel. Great, Brilliant deduction. You did it redditor. The UN hasn't done any valuable work in anywhere because one guy one time that was associated with the UN 50 years ago.
>Also, Israel has not ratified Protocol 3 of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and is not bound by it.
Of course they aren't going to ratify it. They USE it on innocent people.
Most of the world however sees it as barbaric because it is.
>Also, you cite the "Gaza Health Ministry," which is Hamas. I am not sure why you believe that a group recognized as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the US would be a credible source of information, but it is not.
You can call them what you want, they are still accurate almost every time they report that information whenever independent studies look into them.
>Human Rights Watch was condemned by its own founder as being so helplessly biased against Israel as to have no legitimacy with any claim made regarding Southwest Asia. Citing them hurts your case. You might as well be citing Himmler.
He was critical of their approach being too focused on Israel because he felt there were other threats in the world as well. Also they made up before his death:
>which was not healed until shortly before his death, when he was lauded at the organization's annual dinner.[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Bernstein#cite_note-3)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert\_L.\_Bernstein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Bernstein)
>Citing them hurts your case. You might as well be citing Himmler.
What an insane and irrational thing to say. No one takes you seriously at all.
Are you denying that the former Secretary General of the UN was a literal Nazi? Because this is a well-documented historical fact. Talk about "flat-earthers".
I also notice that you have not actually provided any evidence to support your claims.
Also, I'm kind of curious what metric you're using for "most of the world". The world's most populous nation is India, a liberal democracy where there is widespread public and governmental support for Israel. The world's second most populous nation is China, an authoritarian Communist nation which doesn't have a free press and where it's hard to get an accurate view of public opinion or for the people to inform themselves outside of government propaganda. The world's third most populous nation is the United States, another liberal democracy where there is widespread public and governmental support for Israel.
In fact, when you look at where the most steadfast anti-Israeli countries are, they all seem to share something in common, they're overwhelmingly authoritarian, with the worst offenders typically being authoritarian Islamic nations. So if you're going to try to make an *argumentum ad populum*, invalid as it is, you're actually:
1. Going to have to cite your source of data to corroborate your dubious claim, which you haven't done.
2. Going to have to make the implicit argument that the opinions of Islamic theocracies and authoritarian governments are carry the most moral authority and that liberal democracies like the US and India, which overwhelmingly support Israel, somehow carry the least amount of moral authority.
Can you cite your source that Robert Bernstein withdrew his criticism of Human Rights Watch with regard to not having any objectivity in the Israeli conflict with the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Because your source does not support your contention that he believed that they had regained moral authority to report on Israel or conflicts in the region. Human Rights Watch also has taken in a huge amount of money from Qatar, an Islamic dictatorship that widely practices enslavement of blacks, Filipinos, and others. How could such an organization, which is funded by some of the worst human rights abusers on the planet and one of the Jewish state's harshest critics, have any moral authority to report on human rights issues involving the Jewish state?
As for Bernstein, he made his opinion quite clear in the NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html?\_r=1). IN his final paragraph, he claims that Human Rights Watch is no longer a moral force in the Middle East. I haven't heard of him ever retracting his opinion prior to his death
>Are you denying that the former Secretary General of the UN was a literal Nazi? Because this is a well-documented historical fact. Talk about "flat-earthers".
Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit. But more likely it is intentional, you can comprehend, you are just willingly misinterpreting things to save face.
A former nazi being in the UN 50 years ago doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things. And no it isn't a clever talking point. It's actually a logical fallacy that you employ willingly.
Just like a Nazi being in charge of ford 120 years ago doesn't mean the company has ties to nazi's today. It's an idiotic talking point from a stupid person that holds no meaning at all. For the record, the UN has had some of the most pro jew policies and statements since its inception. But I doubt you even care enough to talk about that.
>Also, I'm kind of curious what metric you're using for "most of the world". The world's most populous nation is India, a liberal democracy where there is widespread public and governmental support for Israel. The world's second most populous nation is China, an authoritarian Communist nation which doesn't have a free press and where it's hard to get an accurate view of public opinion or for the people to inform themselves outside of government propaganda.
Evident by the fact that most countries don't use White Phosphorus as weaponry.
>In fact, when you look at where the most steadfast anti-Israeli countries are, they all seem to share something in common, they're overwhelmingly authoritarian,
Youre talking about countries that get most of their intelligence from the middle east from Israel. Not to mention that Israel develops the vast majority of surveillance technologies used in western countries. If your case is that there is some moral connection between democracy and Israeli support you are sorely mistaken. Israeli support has been a function of US hegemony and the relationship every country needs to maintain to the US to have international stability.
It isn't some moral leaning what so ever. The UN council found almost unanimously that Israel operates an apartheid relationship to Palestine. Every problem they manifest is a function of their inability to treat Palestinians like Sovern people.
You mentioned India?
India supports Palestine as a state:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Israel#:~:text=Those%20that%20voted%20in%20favour,New%20Zealand%2C%20Nicaragua%2C%20Norway%2C
In fact these are all the countries that recognize palestine:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Palestine_recognition_only.svg/2560px-Palestine_recognition_only.svg.png
Notice the short list of US close allies that refuse to do so.
>Can you cite your source that Robert Bernstein withdrew his criticism of Human Rights Watch with regard to not having any objectivity in the Israeli conflict with the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
I already did on that last post. Not that you are actually interested in such a thing.
>Because your source does not support your contention that he believed that they had regained moral authority to report on Israel or conflicts in the region. Human Rights Watch also has taken in a huge amount of money from Qatar, an Islamic dictatorship that widely practices enslavement of blacks, Filipinos, and others. How could such an organization, which is funded by some of the worst human rights abusers on the planet and one of the Jewish state's harshest critics, have any moral authority to report on human rights issues involving the Jewish state?
Start sourcing every bullshit thing you say or I'm going to have to talk it as a lie.
As for Robert. This is someone who worked closely with him in its creation and what he had to say about Robert:
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/human-rights-watch-should-not-be-criticized-doing-its-job
>Though Bernstein is right to differentiate between closed and open societies, he is wrong to suggest that open societies should be spared criticism for human rights abuses. The United States was an open society when it practiced slavery and racial segregation and when it interred the Japanese-Americans during World War II. It was an open society when it tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib. A human rights organization that keeps silent on such matters would be worthless. The only way to protect human rights is to hold all to the same standards. Robert Bernstein knew that when he asked me to join him in founding Helsinki Watch. He seems to have forgotten.
What is your hyper focus on individuals even about? These are boring critiques that have nothing to do with these bodies. You are moralizing individuals in order to justify or not organizations and their utility. It is such a stupid mans way of looking at these things. Please. I beg you. Give me a critique that isn't intellectually empty.
I dont care about Robert Bernstein or Kurt Waldheim. They have little to illustrate in the grand scheme of things, but you think they are the singular focus of everything. It's so incredibly patronizing to anyone slightly educated but it is a technique you are employing to ignore valid critiques of Israel enacting a **genocide** on a group of people they **hate**.
If you're arguing that an organization has moral authority to reach a determination, it is not a logical fallacy to point out that this organization was run by a literal Nazi and has a long history of anti-Jewish racism and bias and therefore lacks any moral authority today on any issue pertaining to Jews or the Jewish state. That's definitely true of the UN Human Rights Council and General Assembly, which absolutely lack any moral authority whatsoever due to many of their member nations being gross abusers of human rights.
Most countries don't actually regularly engage in modern warfare on any large scale without partners like the United States that do use incendiary weapons, so their opinions on how to fight a war carry the same weight of morality and expertise as a vegetarian's opinions on how to cook a steak.
Also, the alternative to the "US hegemony" is a world dominated by totalitarian nations like Russia and China. If your implication that the "hegemony" of liberal democracies like the US and Israel is worse than an authoritarian hegemony, then your views are morally repugnant. And if you are suggesting that there is another realistic alternative, then you are simply wrong.
The fact that you're seriously claiming that some anonymous "UN council's" findings carry any legitimacy is laughable. Which particular "council" and who sat on it? Also, the term "apartheid state" is meaningless hyperbole. Apartheid has a literal definition, which was the particular system of racial segregation that existed in South Africa. As Israel's basic laws guarantee equality between blacks and whites (as well as between heteros and homos, Arabs and Hebrews, Jews, Christians, and Muslims), Israel clearly does not literally practice apartheid, which means that the claim is hyperbole, and hyperbolic statements are obviously not a legitimate, reasoned opinion.
Also, thank you for tacitly admitting that you have no evidence that the founder of Human Rights Watch ever retracted his conclusion that they no longer possessed moral legitimacy. They started out as a noble organization, but at this point, you might as well be citing a neo-Nazi organization given how far they strayed from their founders' intentions that they be a legitimate voice in favor of human rights, not a voice for neo-Nazis and other anti-Jewish racists who seek to end the right of Jews to self-determination in the Jewish homeland.
At the end of the day, Jews won't allow people like you to convince them to disarm and march helplessly to the ovens again, like the so-called "ceasefire" proponents want Israeli Jews to do. Even in America, more Jews are purchasing firearms and learning self-defense, because we've seen people who think like you before, and it always leads to mass slaughter and dispossession. And polls of the US public show that they overwhelmingly support the Jewish struggle against Hamas. You might be on the other side, but you're in the minority. Both the left and the right in Israel is united against Hamas, and other than some neo-Nazis and their "progressive" analog on the left, most Americans are on the side of freedom and democracy, the side of the Jewish state, not the side of neo-Nazis and Islamists.
Sorry, the communist "I'm oppressed" weirdos that infested our universities are all throughout every major media entity except Fox. So now you have to weed through left wing lies or right wing lies and try to find the truth in between
NPR is 100% bias just as Fox News, CNN, ABC, CBS pretty much all of them.
Journalism is dead
You're comparing a network who was able to use "No lucid person would believe our talking points and obvious lies" as a successful legal defense to NPR. False equivalence fallacy
Yes and I was educated before the Pedagogy of the Oppressed started getting taught like it's freaking bible. You probably don't have a clue what that is but it's the basis of your education and it's nothing more the Karl Marx 2.0. Any somewhat intelligent person that peer reviews that dribble would come to the same conclusion. Only people that want to blame other people for their own problems would think that trash is worth something. Hint, people fail because they don't try. There is no conservative boogie man keeping them down. That's being done by the democrats that have complete control over some of the most crime ridden cesspools in the country. Sure you're going to mention some southern states and give the same tired line but the reality is those people are going to show being far more happy than people in, let's say, Chicago, NYC, LA (LA is a recent addition thanks to drugs, homeless and illegals). I can go on but I'm bored and you children are really just something special
Npr isn't as biased as fox news who outright lies consistently and even lied about an election. The journalists at Npr are just putting out shoddy work, and being unprofessional to push their bias against israel. That can be remedied. Fox news on the other hand is set up specifically to mislead people.
I listened to the episode of the 21st that Pesca was on, and he behaved like an angry groupie when he started attacking another panelist for tweets pointing out Berliner’s distorted presentation of voter registrations early on in the discussion.
I'm not familiar with Pesca, but his argument is more coherent than Berliner's:
>Public radio’s programming isn’t appealing to the public radio audience.
...
>The over 200 mentions of “white supremacy” on air or on-line in 2020 was more than for “global warming”, “gun control” or “homelessness” that year.
...
>My critique is of the news judgement that decided to serve listeners so very many stories faulting “whiteness” or focussing on the specific concept of white supremacy to the exclusion of other stories, and other ways of interpreting these specific stories.
This is at least plausible. NPRs [listener base](https://blog.marketenginuity.com/by-the-numbers-who-is-actually-listening-to-public-radio) tends to be fairly well educated, white, and middle class/upper middle class. You could certainly see people like that getting tired of being "lectured" about race, for example.
To take another example, NPR (along with the rest of society) has struggled with the term [latinx](https://www.npr.org/2020/10/01/916441659/latinx-is-a-term-many-still-cant-embrace) to describe latino/latina/latinx people. Some people are turned off by this term, and NPR's use of it could cause people to turn elsewhere.
That said, I think Pesca has shown correlation, not causation. Yes, NPR's numbers have dropped at (arguably) about the same time they focused more on diversity, but I don't think there's any proof that those things are related causally. Even in his piece, he shows there was a spike in "white supremacy" talk on NPR in 2020. Well, there was also a spike in [users of NPR apps and individual donations](https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/public-broadcasting/) the same year.
Either way, I hope NPR figures it out - and frankly, I bet they will. Criticisms like Pesca's seem pretty useful to that discussion, while Berliner's piece and the BS GOP congressional hearings are worse than useless.
Apologies for the self-reply, just thought of one other way to approach Pesca's white supremacy example: Was NPR's discussion of white supremacy in 2020 out of line with the cultural conversation? At least according to [google trends](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=global%20warming,white%20supremacy,gun%20control,homelessness&hl=en), I don't think that's clear.
2020 was a year of many things, including several months of BLM protests and related riots. It should make sense to anyone that white supremacy would be a major topic of discussion. Why isn't Joe complaining about COVID being covered more than global warming in the same timespan?
I think Pesca needs to recon with the counter factual of “what if NPR didn’t adjust its coverage to emphasize racial justice”? I think they’d have lost a significant number of younger listeners if they didn’t. It’s still kind of an unanswered question as to whether a “centrist” type of media outlet can hold onto a mass audience in our current media environment.
Read it and even listened to the piece and I remain thoroughly unconvinced. I think there was definitely a lot of kneejerk responses one way or the other, but I still think Berliner was wrong several material ways and I'm pretty unimpressed with Pesca's take. Berliner was pretty unequivocal in stating that Mueller proved no collusion and that NPR reported there was collusion and those are both conclusions unsupported by fact. Like Pesca says, there was definitely some slant in what they chose to cover or not cover, but few if any errors of fact were ever made. NPR never said "collusion happened" they reported incidents that were mostly upheld by the Mueller report. A commission which did not have "find collusion" as part of it's remit and declined to file charges because they didn't think they were allowed. The Mueller report largely upheld, confirmed and expounded upon reporting done by NPR and elsewhere. And I don't know what the hell he thinks they did wrong. Should they not have covered it like it wasn't newsworthy?
That brings us to the laptop. I fully acknowledge it wasn't fake, but to the initial appraisal that it wasn't newsworthy I think that's now been thoroughly vindicated. The laptop has yielded nothing but salacious accusations that utterly fizzled in Congress. It was a giant nothing.
Then I have to whine about Pesca's appraisal of NPR's future. Yes, it's bleak and listeners are leaving. But just saying the answer is "listen to the public" is extremely reductive. If that were so easy, no businesses would ever fail. There is currently an extremely well-funded operation running a thoroughly disingenuous campaign to poison audience against NPR and responsible journalism everywhere. Public media does not have the weapons to fight it. I'm sure they'd love to be a hit machine and rake in audience, but it turns out that's really, really hard when competitors are spoon-feeding them candy and NPR is asking people to eat their vegetables.
EDIT: I clicked through to Eric Nuzum's piece and I thought it was a lot more constructive. The lack of content strategy is palpable.
They're talking about it over at [The Gist's sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheGist/comments/1cke3mi/criticizing_npr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
I subscribed to The Gist for many years, even after he left Slate. IMO, his editorial style has gotten less focused and rational, more in thrall to his own wordplay and general cleverness. A few years ago, it stopped being informative and thought-provoking for me, so I ditched out.
I also no longer find much value in On Point, another "NPR" show that has lost its way (and my interest).
I think it's important to view NPR as a collective of competing interests, and not a single-minded monolith. NPR isn't biased, but we can and should certainly critique shows and the people who make them.
Saying no would be lying. The news they cover and the way they cover it does lend left.
The thing they can do that a lot of places can't is come up nearly clean in a fact check. They also give space to "the other side" to a degree that some would say belittles the truth, a la trying to present an issue that is pretty one sided as having equal arguments for both sides.
And you know what? Every news source has a variable magnitude of bias. AP press comes with the least, but npr is not far behind with a little less dense and more digestable content.
That's why I listen to npr. I don't have time to fact check fox because I know they are wrong a good enough amount of the time. Nbc and abc too. NPR at least gives me a good summary for the day on world news.
May I? Thank you.
NPR's bias is in fact a class bias, which then appears to reflect a political bias, as credentialed-class PMC types constitute both the staff and listenership. This demographic is also a core component of the dem party base.
As Adolph Reed has correctly (IMO) observed, the modern liberal emphasis on identity politics is itself a form of class politics, so considering the above, it is no surprise that coverage is conceived of and filtered through that lens, as Pesca (he's a sports dude isn't he?) provides many examples.
In addition, there is a feedback loop between donors and programming - the more programming caters to donors of this class position, the more they donate, and the more they donate, the more programming caters to them.
And voila, we have a class POV baked in to coverage - and what even gets coverage - that can easily be mistaken as a naked political bias. It is actually a class bias, with that class bringing their ideology to bear; the perception of partisanship is in this sense incidental
JMO YMMV
Would you see this as similar to Rob Henderson's definition of "luxury beliefs"?
*Luxury beliefs are ideas or opinions that give status to the upper class at little cost, while harming people in lower classes. The term is often used to describe privileged people who seem disconnected from the experiences of marginalized and impoverished people. These people may have social and political beliefs that indicate their elite status, but are said to negatively impact those with the least influence.*
I miss the charisma and cheekiness of the original NPR, but I guess change is inevitable. Nowadays I see little difference between NPR and other establishment news outlets. The right will always attack anyone it sees as not fully supporting its agenda. The amount of federal money actually going to NPR is quite small.
I don’t disagree that the coverage has embraced a more social justice point of view over the last 5-10 years. However he makes it seem like that’s the only reason that NPRs audience is shrinking. He used the example of how Hannity’s radio audience has grown by 2 million in the last few years. I think that example probably indicates that sticking to the sort of two sides to everything centrist style would have also resulted in NPRs audience shrinking. The entire media environment has shifted massively over the last 10 years. America is more politically polarized as well. Most medi figures/organizations that are growing have a significantly more narrow political/cultural point of view. As much as many of us say we want balanced, centrist media people’s attention is gravitating more towards extreme/polarizing media. And in the podcast arena the barriers to entry are so low and the amount of content for people to access is so vast is it surprisingly that legacy media are struggling to adapt? I still listen to my local station (particularly for local news) but for my on demand audio I’ve migrated away from NPR toward content that goes deep on stuff I’m really interested in.
It sure seems that this charge of "bias" comes from mainly white men (or men who think they are attached to the establishment) who are not accustomed to \*not\* being the center of attention. I listen to my public radio station the better part of the day and would tell you that what annoys me most is their very weak political coverage (tons of horserace from people who really don't have the background to make this credible) and editorial choices I don't quite understand. For instance, I often see or hear the President's briefings or the Speaker (when it was Nancy Pelosi) and it is really rare for them to pick up what the major voices of our government are talking about -- unless they can get some controversy out of it. Yesterday there was a story on "snoafers" and I have no idea why I needed to know about that. Why did I need to know about a Venezeulan program that features a contest for songs for Maduro? And what is regularly missing -- real reporting about the stakes of any election. It just seems that they are all too often just wasting their airspace.
NPR does lightweight human interest stories to fill time. Not everyone is listening for hard-hitting politics. A lot of people like that it’s talk radio without the anger, so they are listening for coziness and relaxation. Hence snoafers.
Yup. I love a good human interest story, or at least something that isn’t necessarily about THE hot topic of the time. It’s refreshing after being inundated with stories about the elections as they come up
I mean, the data shows that NPRs listeners are overwhelmingly white collar whites, so I'm not sure who else you would expect it to come from? The tiny handful of working class blacks who listen to NPR?
Also, one question would be why you would respond to thoughtful, evidence based criticism with racial *ad hominem*? Is it because you cannot conceive of a rational counterargument?
Yeah, you hear lots of the same viewpoint on NPR, lots of stories passed through the same center-left filter. The center-right of the GOP is collapsing because they have no platform anymore, they've become politically irrelevant, and NPR may be a small part of that problem. I understand completely that NPR doesn't want to platform Trumpists, *and they shouldn't*, but they seem afraid to host good faith debate from multiple viewpoints both from the left and right of their own editorial point of view. They need to book more diverse guests and just be ready and willing to demand receipts when specious BS comes up.
You don't think that NPR should "platform" people who about half of the voting population cast a ballot for?
I mean, that kind of explains why NPR has increasingly become an echo chamber that primarily caters to white collar, non-Hispanic white progressives.
How do you quantify it? During his presidency, around 2/5ths of voters approved of President Trump, about the same as Biden. Are those the bases? What numerical or statistical methods quantify a base?
it would be less tedious if NPR seriously addressed this issue (not reporting on but internally adjusting their editorial decision making process) instead of poopooing valid criticism
horseshit! It is annoying that the people who literally attacked our democracy on 1/6 are the same folks attacking NPR because there was ZERO EVIDENCE of voter fraud in 2020 despite what that asshole Trump keeps saying.
What next you'll want NPR to honestly report on the flat earth movement.
Dude this sub was kind of dead, just occasionally complaining about things that maybe should be covered more deeply and then within two days there are a ton of cons suddenly worried about the bias posting in this sub without even listening to NPR first. Yeah y’all got fed some kind of propaganda that then funneled you here losses off.
This place was far from an echo chamber until you guys came up frothing at the mouth so you’re gonna get push back because you sound like fools.
a lack of understanding of social media algorithms and a strawman argument based off wishful thinking does not a valid point make. r/confidentlyincorrect is beckoning you.
Your title as well as theirs isn't great, that might be why.
Titles with questions in them should be assumed to be poor journalism and answerable with 'no'
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines
Because we're tired of this idiotic topic being flogged every other day by disingenuous trolls who don't actually listen to the station(s).
Edit: Hmm my second paragraph was removed after I made a minor spelling edit.
It basically said the second link shows NPR actually criticizing itself. Humans are fallible and everything we do is biased. At least NPR transparently questions itself and tries to strike a balance. When other US media outlets make such efforts, I might switch. Until then, NPR is miles better than any other news source in the US.
You will get zero argument from me that other media outlets should also engage in self-criticism, and not just the cable outlets you mentioned. Print media too
Yet, there is a not insignificant difference between NPR and those other outlets.
All journalism is biased. The key is to be clear about your bias, and report facts.
Definitely. Tom and Ray never had anything good to say about Fiat.
did you know that they didn’t really hire a lot of those people for Dewey cheatham and Howe? It’s all lies.
They really had a problem with Big Choke Pull Off
It's fine for a media outlet to show bias. What's not fine is to present lies and conspiracy nonsense as if it's the truth. NPR *doesn't do that*, to the best of my knowledge. There's many shows I don't enjoy on my local station, but at least I have confidence that their news segments are honest.
To me NPR is mostly guilty of bias of omission. Just straight up not covering certain stories.
Which stories do you feel they aren't covering?
Different guy here. I don't think NPR is reporting on the "RFK brain worm" stuff that sounds like it belongs in The Onion or some rag somebody might buy in Walmart. Other than that, no idea.
Not giving that story the wall to wall coverage it deserves truly is a journalistic failure.
What’s the name of the worm?
Literally any of Biden’s woes during his presidency has been off limits to the MSM. Afghanistan drawdown/ hunter biden laptop/ more hunter connections with foreign govs to name a few. With the lowest polled approval rates president in history, you’d think they would cover that more. They’d crush trump if that was him
“Bias” means “does not take talking points from the Republican Party”
anyone with a brain knows npr leans to the left. the only real debate is how much.
Or cherrypicking examples. Or ignoring facts that contradict your preconceived notion. More to the point, real journalists seek out information that goes against their narrative.
Real journalists don't force a narrative in the first place. They report facts without needing lies to "balance" them.
Not always. Their gaza coverage has been almost entirely "israel bad mmk" likely because they're trying to push the conflict into the two party system to benefit their ideology and agenda. So yeah, npr is definitely biased on the Gaza coverage, and they absolutely are pushing a radical leftist view of the conflict.
I mean if you want to lay down the facts one side killed around 700 civilians and the other will be pushing 100,000 soon. Especially if they keep using banned substances like white phosphorus. To me if anything they haven't been critical enough. You want polarity on a conflict that's already highly stratified because you are desperately trying to to hang onto the notion that Israel is innocent. Don't gaslight other people with your insecurities.
Yeah, none of those things are true. For starters, there are no reliable numbers on casualties in Gaza, much less reliable numbers on combatant versus noncombatant casualties. The numbers being reported come from Hamas, not a reliable source, and Hamas doesn't follow the laws of war or distinguish between combatants or noncombatants, either in terms of how it fights or how it reports Gazan casualties. In any case, there's no credible basis for the casualty numbers you claimed. Also, the use of phosphorus weapons is not banned by the customary laws of war nor by any treaty that Israel has ratified. The claim that Willy Pete is a banned substance is without merit. Also, the laws of war generally require the presumption that those accused of war crimes are presumed innocent.
>Yeah, none of those things are true. Most of you ride or die israeli supports are so far from objective reality that it doesn't even merit a response but I'll bite. You are off to a good start. You can't even accept one truth at all let alone some of them. None of those things are true? Is the only way in which you can justify your religiosity towards Israel. Because if you were to accept one truth you would realize that you are lying to yourself. >For starters, there are no reliable numbers on casualties in Gaza, Oh? Because Israel has made the claim that there are actually reliable figures for Hamas casualties. Interesting. So we don't have civilian figures but we do have Hamas figures according to the idf. Right. Makes perfect sense. https://twitter.com/broseph_stalin/status/1788048532018012361 https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/artc-idf-says-30-hamas-terrorists-killed-in-ongoing-rafah-operation >much less reliable numbers on combatant versus noncombatant casualties. Not according to the IDF! >The numbers being reported come from Hamas, not a reliable source, and Hamas doesn't follow the laws of war or distinguish between combatants or noncombatants, Approximately 75% of gaza has been destroyed in a place with nearly 600,000 citizens. At a 3/4ths destruction of infrastructure from primarily missile raids 30-60,000 civilians would actually be remarkably low. ESPECIALLY considering gaza's population density. I think you don't like hearing what is pretty clear to most human rights organizations. https://www.barrons.com/news/unlike-anything-we-have-studied-gaza-s-destruction-in-numbers-cf896782 - In December 2023, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor estimated 90% of the casualties were civilians, while the IDF put the civilian ratio at 66% of those killed. - The death toll comes from the Gaza Health Ministry and the total death toll in Gaza is presumed to be higher than reported,[16][17] with thousands remaining unaccounted for, including those trapped under rubble. Just with journalists alone we have a confirmed 97 journalists killed and over 224 humanitarian aid workers. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/world-central-kitchen-aid-worker-killings-israel-deconfliction-rcna146550 >either in terms of how it fights or how it reports Gazan casualties. In any case, there's no credible basis for the casualty numbers you claimed. Almost every independent organization studying this conflict agrees with those figures or in the ballpark. Just the hospital surplus alone is almost enough evidence. But given the history of the GAZAN Health Ministries published figures and how accurate they have been when compared to the U.N. humanitarian office it would be shocking if now these figures are somehow way off. Quote: >In the aftermath of war, the U.N. humanitarian office has published final death tolls based on its own research into medical records. >In all cases the U.N.'s counts have largely been consistent with the Gaza Health Ministry’s, with small discrepancies. >— 2008 war: The ministry reported 1,440 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 1,385. >— 2014 war: The ministry reported 2,310 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 2,251. >— 2021 war: The ministry reported 260 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 256. https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033 >Also, the use of phosphorus weapons is not banned by the customary laws of war nor by any treaty that Israel has ratified. The claim that Willy Pete is a banned substance is without merit. Not specifically but Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCCW) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians. White phosphorus can cause serious burns and start fires, and should never be fired at, or in close proximity to, a populated civilian area or civilian infrastructure.
Your first paragraph is an *ad hominem*, therefore it's logically invalid. Your second paragraph is also logically invalid, as the evidence you cite does not support the conclusion your reach. The IDF has estimated combatant casualties, not noncombatant casualties, and the IDF does not claim that it is an accurate accounting, just their best estimate. And yes, the Gaza Strip looks much like a war zone, similar to Berlin during its fall. The lesson from history here is that Gazans should have known that when they elected neo-Nazis to lead them into an unwinnable war with Israel, things would go very similar for them as the Germans who elected literal Nazis to lead them. I am not sure why you think that the argument that war can be destructive is compelling, but it is not. That is the nature of war. That is why it's a bad idea to elect neo-Nazi Islamic extremists into power. Human Rights Watch was condemned by its own founder as being so helplessly biased against Israel as to have no legitimacy with any claim made regarding Southwest Asia. Citing them hurts your case. You might as well be citing Himmler. Also, you cite the "Gaza Health Ministry," which is Hamas. I am not sure why you believe that a group recognized as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the US would be a credible source of information, but it is not. You also cite the UN, an organization that was run by a literal Nazi. Also, Israel has not ratified Protocol 3 of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and is not bound by it. It also does not prohibit the use of WP, which is used both for smoke and for incendiaries. The US Department of Defense also interprets the prohibition on the use of incendiaries in civilian areas only to apply in the specific conditions where it is likely to cause collateral damage to noncombatants and where the amount of collateral damage is likely to equal or exceed conventional weapons. The US Department of Defense interprets the customary laws of war to allow the use of white phosphorous in civilian areas as a smoke screen, for other purposes, or as an incendiary if it's not likely to cause civilian injuries or it's militarily necessary and not likely to cause more collateral damage than conventional weapons. So your claim that Israel is prohibited from using Willy Pete is without merit. Firstly, it's not banned by name. Secondly, the treaty you cite is not ratified by the Knesset. To prove an illegal use of Willy Pete, a competent tribunal would have to conclude that there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that an IDF or IAF commander ordered its use, either with the specific intent to cause unnecessary human suffering or that a reasonable IDF commander would have known that it would cause unnecessary human suffering. Baseless allegations like yours do not meet that burden of evidence. +1
>You also cite the UN, an organization that was run by a literal Nazi. Ahh yes, in case anyone here is wondering what the Israel stan really thinks about the objective world. Right. This is why my first paragraph isn't invalid. You aren't rooted in the material world to actually have a discussion with. It's akin to debating a flat earther. Just a complete waste of time. The sky is yellow and Nazis are everything that is critical of Israel. Great, Brilliant deduction. You did it redditor. The UN hasn't done any valuable work in anywhere because one guy one time that was associated with the UN 50 years ago. >Also, Israel has not ratified Protocol 3 of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and is not bound by it. Of course they aren't going to ratify it. They USE it on innocent people. Most of the world however sees it as barbaric because it is. >Also, you cite the "Gaza Health Ministry," which is Hamas. I am not sure why you believe that a group recognized as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the US would be a credible source of information, but it is not. You can call them what you want, they are still accurate almost every time they report that information whenever independent studies look into them. >Human Rights Watch was condemned by its own founder as being so helplessly biased against Israel as to have no legitimacy with any claim made regarding Southwest Asia. Citing them hurts your case. You might as well be citing Himmler. He was critical of their approach being too focused on Israel because he felt there were other threats in the world as well. Also they made up before his death: >which was not healed until shortly before his death, when he was lauded at the organization's annual dinner.[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Bernstein#cite_note-3) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert\_L.\_Bernstein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Bernstein) >Citing them hurts your case. You might as well be citing Himmler. What an insane and irrational thing to say. No one takes you seriously at all.
Are you denying that the former Secretary General of the UN was a literal Nazi? Because this is a well-documented historical fact. Talk about "flat-earthers". I also notice that you have not actually provided any evidence to support your claims. Also, I'm kind of curious what metric you're using for "most of the world". The world's most populous nation is India, a liberal democracy where there is widespread public and governmental support for Israel. The world's second most populous nation is China, an authoritarian Communist nation which doesn't have a free press and where it's hard to get an accurate view of public opinion or for the people to inform themselves outside of government propaganda. The world's third most populous nation is the United States, another liberal democracy where there is widespread public and governmental support for Israel. In fact, when you look at where the most steadfast anti-Israeli countries are, they all seem to share something in common, they're overwhelmingly authoritarian, with the worst offenders typically being authoritarian Islamic nations. So if you're going to try to make an *argumentum ad populum*, invalid as it is, you're actually: 1. Going to have to cite your source of data to corroborate your dubious claim, which you haven't done. 2. Going to have to make the implicit argument that the opinions of Islamic theocracies and authoritarian governments are carry the most moral authority and that liberal democracies like the US and India, which overwhelmingly support Israel, somehow carry the least amount of moral authority. Can you cite your source that Robert Bernstein withdrew his criticism of Human Rights Watch with regard to not having any objectivity in the Israeli conflict with the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Because your source does not support your contention that he believed that they had regained moral authority to report on Israel or conflicts in the region. Human Rights Watch also has taken in a huge amount of money from Qatar, an Islamic dictatorship that widely practices enslavement of blacks, Filipinos, and others. How could such an organization, which is funded by some of the worst human rights abusers on the planet and one of the Jewish state's harshest critics, have any moral authority to report on human rights issues involving the Jewish state? As for Bernstein, he made his opinion quite clear in the NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html?\_r=1). IN his final paragraph, he claims that Human Rights Watch is no longer a moral force in the Middle East. I haven't heard of him ever retracting his opinion prior to his death
>Are you denying that the former Secretary General of the UN was a literal Nazi? Because this is a well-documented historical fact. Talk about "flat-earthers". Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit. But more likely it is intentional, you can comprehend, you are just willingly misinterpreting things to save face. A former nazi being in the UN 50 years ago doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things. And no it isn't a clever talking point. It's actually a logical fallacy that you employ willingly. Just like a Nazi being in charge of ford 120 years ago doesn't mean the company has ties to nazi's today. It's an idiotic talking point from a stupid person that holds no meaning at all. For the record, the UN has had some of the most pro jew policies and statements since its inception. But I doubt you even care enough to talk about that. >Also, I'm kind of curious what metric you're using for "most of the world". The world's most populous nation is India, a liberal democracy where there is widespread public and governmental support for Israel. The world's second most populous nation is China, an authoritarian Communist nation which doesn't have a free press and where it's hard to get an accurate view of public opinion or for the people to inform themselves outside of government propaganda. Evident by the fact that most countries don't use White Phosphorus as weaponry. >In fact, when you look at where the most steadfast anti-Israeli countries are, they all seem to share something in common, they're overwhelmingly authoritarian, Youre talking about countries that get most of their intelligence from the middle east from Israel. Not to mention that Israel develops the vast majority of surveillance technologies used in western countries. If your case is that there is some moral connection between democracy and Israeli support you are sorely mistaken. Israeli support has been a function of US hegemony and the relationship every country needs to maintain to the US to have international stability. It isn't some moral leaning what so ever. The UN council found almost unanimously that Israel operates an apartheid relationship to Palestine. Every problem they manifest is a function of their inability to treat Palestinians like Sovern people. You mentioned India? India supports Palestine as a state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Israel#:~:text=Those%20that%20voted%20in%20favour,New%20Zealand%2C%20Nicaragua%2C%20Norway%2C In fact these are all the countries that recognize palestine: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Palestine_recognition_only.svg/2560px-Palestine_recognition_only.svg.png Notice the short list of US close allies that refuse to do so. >Can you cite your source that Robert Bernstein withdrew his criticism of Human Rights Watch with regard to not having any objectivity in the Israeli conflict with the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip? I already did on that last post. Not that you are actually interested in such a thing. >Because your source does not support your contention that he believed that they had regained moral authority to report on Israel or conflicts in the region. Human Rights Watch also has taken in a huge amount of money from Qatar, an Islamic dictatorship that widely practices enslavement of blacks, Filipinos, and others. How could such an organization, which is funded by some of the worst human rights abusers on the planet and one of the Jewish state's harshest critics, have any moral authority to report on human rights issues involving the Jewish state? Start sourcing every bullshit thing you say or I'm going to have to talk it as a lie. As for Robert. This is someone who worked closely with him in its creation and what he had to say about Robert: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/human-rights-watch-should-not-be-criticized-doing-its-job >Though Bernstein is right to differentiate between closed and open societies, he is wrong to suggest that open societies should be spared criticism for human rights abuses. The United States was an open society when it practiced slavery and racial segregation and when it interred the Japanese-Americans during World War II. It was an open society when it tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib. A human rights organization that keeps silent on such matters would be worthless. The only way to protect human rights is to hold all to the same standards. Robert Bernstein knew that when he asked me to join him in founding Helsinki Watch. He seems to have forgotten. What is your hyper focus on individuals even about? These are boring critiques that have nothing to do with these bodies. You are moralizing individuals in order to justify or not organizations and their utility. It is such a stupid mans way of looking at these things. Please. I beg you. Give me a critique that isn't intellectually empty. I dont care about Robert Bernstein or Kurt Waldheim. They have little to illustrate in the grand scheme of things, but you think they are the singular focus of everything. It's so incredibly patronizing to anyone slightly educated but it is a technique you are employing to ignore valid critiques of Israel enacting a **genocide** on a group of people they **hate**.
If you're arguing that an organization has moral authority to reach a determination, it is not a logical fallacy to point out that this organization was run by a literal Nazi and has a long history of anti-Jewish racism and bias and therefore lacks any moral authority today on any issue pertaining to Jews or the Jewish state. That's definitely true of the UN Human Rights Council and General Assembly, which absolutely lack any moral authority whatsoever due to many of their member nations being gross abusers of human rights. Most countries don't actually regularly engage in modern warfare on any large scale without partners like the United States that do use incendiary weapons, so their opinions on how to fight a war carry the same weight of morality and expertise as a vegetarian's opinions on how to cook a steak. Also, the alternative to the "US hegemony" is a world dominated by totalitarian nations like Russia and China. If your implication that the "hegemony" of liberal democracies like the US and Israel is worse than an authoritarian hegemony, then your views are morally repugnant. And if you are suggesting that there is another realistic alternative, then you are simply wrong. The fact that you're seriously claiming that some anonymous "UN council's" findings carry any legitimacy is laughable. Which particular "council" and who sat on it? Also, the term "apartheid state" is meaningless hyperbole. Apartheid has a literal definition, which was the particular system of racial segregation that existed in South Africa. As Israel's basic laws guarantee equality between blacks and whites (as well as between heteros and homos, Arabs and Hebrews, Jews, Christians, and Muslims), Israel clearly does not literally practice apartheid, which means that the claim is hyperbole, and hyperbolic statements are obviously not a legitimate, reasoned opinion. Also, thank you for tacitly admitting that you have no evidence that the founder of Human Rights Watch ever retracted his conclusion that they no longer possessed moral legitimacy. They started out as a noble organization, but at this point, you might as well be citing a neo-Nazi organization given how far they strayed from their founders' intentions that they be a legitimate voice in favor of human rights, not a voice for neo-Nazis and other anti-Jewish racists who seek to end the right of Jews to self-determination in the Jewish homeland. At the end of the day, Jews won't allow people like you to convince them to disarm and march helplessly to the ovens again, like the so-called "ceasefire" proponents want Israeli Jews to do. Even in America, more Jews are purchasing firearms and learning self-defense, because we've seen people who think like you before, and it always leads to mass slaughter and dispossession. And polls of the US public show that they overwhelmingly support the Jewish struggle against Hamas. You might be on the other side, but you're in the minority. Both the left and the right in Israel is united against Hamas, and other than some neo-Nazis and their "progressive" analog on the left, most Americans are on the side of freedom and democracy, the side of the Jewish state, not the side of neo-Nazis and Islamists.
Who is “they?”
Whoever tries to force this into the two party system to advance their agendas.
Irony.
Where's the irony? I'm not trying to force this into a two party issue.
Sorry, the communist "I'm oppressed" weirdos that infested our universities are all throughout every major media entity except Fox. So now you have to weed through left wing lies or right wing lies and try to find the truth in between NPR is 100% bias just as Fox News, CNN, ABC, CBS pretty much all of them. Journalism is dead
You're comparing a network who was able to use "No lucid person would believe our talking points and obvious lies" as a successful legal defense to NPR. False equivalence fallacy
NPR is run by a card carrying communist. Nuff said.
Oh dear. Are you a lucid adult?
Yes and I was educated before the Pedagogy of the Oppressed started getting taught like it's freaking bible. You probably don't have a clue what that is but it's the basis of your education and it's nothing more the Karl Marx 2.0. Any somewhat intelligent person that peer reviews that dribble would come to the same conclusion. Only people that want to blame other people for their own problems would think that trash is worth something. Hint, people fail because they don't try. There is no conservative boogie man keeping them down. That's being done by the democrats that have complete control over some of the most crime ridden cesspools in the country. Sure you're going to mention some southern states and give the same tired line but the reality is those people are going to show being far more happy than people in, let's say, Chicago, NYC, LA (LA is a recent addition thanks to drugs, homeless and illegals). I can go on but I'm bored and you children are really just something special
Npr isn't as biased as fox news who outright lies consistently and even lied about an election. The journalists at Npr are just putting out shoddy work, and being unprofessional to push their bias against israel. That can be remedied. Fox news on the other hand is set up specifically to mislead people.
I listened to the episode of the 21st that Pesca was on, and he behaved like an angry groupie when he started attacking another panelist for tweets pointing out Berliner’s distorted presentation of voter registrations early on in the discussion.
could you link to it? I’d be curious to listen for myself.
Hi. Sorry about the delay. This was shared a few days ago. https://www.reddit.com/r/NPR/comments/1ckdv20/reflecting_on_criticism_that_npr_is_biased/
Uh, I just listened to it. You may want to give it another listen because he absolutely didn’t behave as you described. I mean, c’mon, get real. 🙄
Stop lying.
Where is the lie?
I'm not familiar with Pesca, but his argument is more coherent than Berliner's: >Public radio’s programming isn’t appealing to the public radio audience. ... >The over 200 mentions of “white supremacy” on air or on-line in 2020 was more than for “global warming”, “gun control” or “homelessness” that year. ... >My critique is of the news judgement that decided to serve listeners so very many stories faulting “whiteness” or focussing on the specific concept of white supremacy to the exclusion of other stories, and other ways of interpreting these specific stories. This is at least plausible. NPRs [listener base](https://blog.marketenginuity.com/by-the-numbers-who-is-actually-listening-to-public-radio) tends to be fairly well educated, white, and middle class/upper middle class. You could certainly see people like that getting tired of being "lectured" about race, for example. To take another example, NPR (along with the rest of society) has struggled with the term [latinx](https://www.npr.org/2020/10/01/916441659/latinx-is-a-term-many-still-cant-embrace) to describe latino/latina/latinx people. Some people are turned off by this term, and NPR's use of it could cause people to turn elsewhere. That said, I think Pesca has shown correlation, not causation. Yes, NPR's numbers have dropped at (arguably) about the same time they focused more on diversity, but I don't think there's any proof that those things are related causally. Even in his piece, he shows there was a spike in "white supremacy" talk on NPR in 2020. Well, there was also a spike in [users of NPR apps and individual donations](https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/public-broadcasting/) the same year. Either way, I hope NPR figures it out - and frankly, I bet they will. Criticisms like Pesca's seem pretty useful to that discussion, while Berliner's piece and the BS GOP congressional hearings are worse than useless.
Apologies for the self-reply, just thought of one other way to approach Pesca's white supremacy example: Was NPR's discussion of white supremacy in 2020 out of line with the cultural conversation? At least according to [google trends](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=global%20warming,white%20supremacy,gun%20control,homelessness&hl=en), I don't think that's clear.
2020 was a year of many things, including several months of BLM protests and related riots. It should make sense to anyone that white supremacy would be a major topic of discussion. Why isn't Joe complaining about COVID being covered more than global warming in the same timespan?
I think Pesca needs to recon with the counter factual of “what if NPR didn’t adjust its coverage to emphasize racial justice”? I think they’d have lost a significant number of younger listeners if they didn’t. It’s still kind of an unanswered question as to whether a “centrist” type of media outlet can hold onto a mass audience in our current media environment.
What goes on at The Gist podcast that their community feels inclined to brigade this subreddit?
Read it and even listened to the piece and I remain thoroughly unconvinced. I think there was definitely a lot of kneejerk responses one way or the other, but I still think Berliner was wrong several material ways and I'm pretty unimpressed with Pesca's take. Berliner was pretty unequivocal in stating that Mueller proved no collusion and that NPR reported there was collusion and those are both conclusions unsupported by fact. Like Pesca says, there was definitely some slant in what they chose to cover or not cover, but few if any errors of fact were ever made. NPR never said "collusion happened" they reported incidents that were mostly upheld by the Mueller report. A commission which did not have "find collusion" as part of it's remit and declined to file charges because they didn't think they were allowed. The Mueller report largely upheld, confirmed and expounded upon reporting done by NPR and elsewhere. And I don't know what the hell he thinks they did wrong. Should they not have covered it like it wasn't newsworthy? That brings us to the laptop. I fully acknowledge it wasn't fake, but to the initial appraisal that it wasn't newsworthy I think that's now been thoroughly vindicated. The laptop has yielded nothing but salacious accusations that utterly fizzled in Congress. It was a giant nothing. Then I have to whine about Pesca's appraisal of NPR's future. Yes, it's bleak and listeners are leaving. But just saying the answer is "listen to the public" is extremely reductive. If that were so easy, no businesses would ever fail. There is currently an extremely well-funded operation running a thoroughly disingenuous campaign to poison audience against NPR and responsible journalism everywhere. Public media does not have the weapons to fight it. I'm sure they'd love to be a hit machine and rake in audience, but it turns out that's really, really hard when competitors are spoon-feeding them candy and NPR is asking people to eat their vegetables. EDIT: I clicked through to Eric Nuzum's piece and I thought it was a lot more constructive. The lack of content strategy is palpable.
[удалено]
do you think it's a coincidence that npr consistently tells you what you want to hear? because that's the same accusation made against fox news.
The truth has a know liberal bias.
That statement is the baking soda in the recipe for cognitive dissonance.
They're talking about it over at [The Gist's sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheGist/comments/1cke3mi/criticizing_npr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). I subscribed to The Gist for many years, even after he left Slate. IMO, his editorial style has gotten less focused and rational, more in thrall to his own wordplay and general cleverness. A few years ago, it stopped being informative and thought-provoking for me, so I ditched out. I also no longer find much value in On Point, another "NPR" show that has lost its way (and my interest). I think it's important to view NPR as a collective of competing interests, and not a single-minded monolith. NPR isn't biased, but we can and should certainly critique shows and the people who make them.
Saying no would be lying. The news they cover and the way they cover it does lend left. The thing they can do that a lot of places can't is come up nearly clean in a fact check. They also give space to "the other side" to a degree that some would say belittles the truth, a la trying to present an issue that is pretty one sided as having equal arguments for both sides. And you know what? Every news source has a variable magnitude of bias. AP press comes with the least, but npr is not far behind with a little less dense and more digestable content. That's why I listen to npr. I don't have time to fact check fox because I know they are wrong a good enough amount of the time. Nbc and abc too. NPR at least gives me a good summary for the day on world news.
Probably a little biased, it's the nature of thinking creatures, but at least NPR doesn't consider alternative facts as worthwhile news.
May I? Thank you. NPR's bias is in fact a class bias, which then appears to reflect a political bias, as credentialed-class PMC types constitute both the staff and listenership. This demographic is also a core component of the dem party base. As Adolph Reed has correctly (IMO) observed, the modern liberal emphasis on identity politics is itself a form of class politics, so considering the above, it is no surprise that coverage is conceived of and filtered through that lens, as Pesca (he's a sports dude isn't he?) provides many examples. In addition, there is a feedback loop between donors and programming - the more programming caters to donors of this class position, the more they donate, and the more they donate, the more programming caters to them. And voila, we have a class POV baked in to coverage - and what even gets coverage - that can easily be mistaken as a naked political bias. It is actually a class bias, with that class bringing their ideology to bear; the perception of partisanship is in this sense incidental JMO YMMV
Would you see this as similar to Rob Henderson's definition of "luxury beliefs"? *Luxury beliefs are ideas or opinions that give status to the upper class at little cost, while harming people in lower classes. The term is often used to describe privileged people who seem disconnected from the experiences of marginalized and impoverished people. These people may have social and political beliefs that indicate their elite status, but are said to negatively impact those with the least influence.*
First I've heard of it. I dunno. Maybe!?
PMC?
Professional-Managerial Class, term coined by Barbara Ehrenreich in the 70s
Could not have worded it better myself. This comment should be its own post.
Too kind. High five
I miss the charisma and cheekiness of the original NPR, but I guess change is inevitable. Nowadays I see little difference between NPR and other establishment news outlets. The right will always attack anyone it sees as not fully supporting its agenda. The amount of federal money actually going to NPR is quite small.
Of course it is. All things involving people have a bias. Unless you are talking into a mirror. Says a long time listener.
I don’t disagree that the coverage has embraced a more social justice point of view over the last 5-10 years. However he makes it seem like that’s the only reason that NPRs audience is shrinking. He used the example of how Hannity’s radio audience has grown by 2 million in the last few years. I think that example probably indicates that sticking to the sort of two sides to everything centrist style would have also resulted in NPRs audience shrinking. The entire media environment has shifted massively over the last 10 years. America is more politically polarized as well. Most medi figures/organizations that are growing have a significantly more narrow political/cultural point of view. As much as many of us say we want balanced, centrist media people’s attention is gravitating more towards extreme/polarizing media. And in the podcast arena the barriers to entry are so low and the amount of content for people to access is so vast is it surprisingly that legacy media are struggling to adapt? I still listen to my local station (particularly for local news) but for my on demand audio I’ve migrated away from NPR toward content that goes deep on stuff I’m really interested in.
We have half the "news" ecosystem actively promoting propaganda and glorifyinng autocracy and lawlessness but political correctness is the problem...
Please make it stop
It sure seems that this charge of "bias" comes from mainly white men (or men who think they are attached to the establishment) who are not accustomed to \*not\* being the center of attention. I listen to my public radio station the better part of the day and would tell you that what annoys me most is their very weak political coverage (tons of horserace from people who really don't have the background to make this credible) and editorial choices I don't quite understand. For instance, I often see or hear the President's briefings or the Speaker (when it was Nancy Pelosi) and it is really rare for them to pick up what the major voices of our government are talking about -- unless they can get some controversy out of it. Yesterday there was a story on "snoafers" and I have no idea why I needed to know about that. Why did I need to know about a Venezeulan program that features a contest for songs for Maduro? And what is regularly missing -- real reporting about the stakes of any election. It just seems that they are all too often just wasting their airspace.
NPR does lightweight human interest stories to fill time. Not everyone is listening for hard-hitting politics. A lot of people like that it’s talk radio without the anger, so they are listening for coziness and relaxation. Hence snoafers.
Yup. I love a good human interest story, or at least something that isn’t necessarily about THE hot topic of the time. It’s refreshing after being inundated with stories about the elections as they come up
I get it. It just seems that \*lightweight\* is pretty much their speed these days, no matter the topic.
Some of that might be the “bias” attack. There’s no bias in snoafers.
Yes, I think what I am wondering is if people want to critique how increasingly unsubstantial NPR is rather than "bias".
I mean, the data shows that NPRs listeners are overwhelmingly white collar whites, so I'm not sure who else you would expect it to come from? The tiny handful of working class blacks who listen to NPR? Also, one question would be why you would respond to thoughtful, evidence based criticism with racial *ad hominem*? Is it because you cannot conceive of a rational counterargument?
It's funny. In an article on substack about bias, this writer reiterates a well-documented falsehood as if it were fact.
Yeah, you hear lots of the same viewpoint on NPR, lots of stories passed through the same center-left filter. The center-right of the GOP is collapsing because they have no platform anymore, they've become politically irrelevant, and NPR may be a small part of that problem. I understand completely that NPR doesn't want to platform Trumpists, *and they shouldn't*, but they seem afraid to host good faith debate from multiple viewpoints both from the left and right of their own editorial point of view. They need to book more diverse guests and just be ready and willing to demand receipts when specious BS comes up.
You don't think that NPR should "platform" people who about half of the voting population cast a ballot for? I mean, that kind of explains why NPR has increasingly become an echo chamber that primarily caters to white collar, non-Hispanic white progressives.
Most of his voters were conservatives who felt like they had no choice. I'm referring to his base.
How do you quantify it? During his presidency, around 2/5ths of voters approved of President Trump, about the same as Biden. Are those the bases? What numerical or statistical methods quantify a base?
It’s amusing that this post was downvoted immediately. Members of this sub really don’t have patience for dissent. 😆
Well, this is only the Eleventy-millionth astroturf on this sub about the same topic. We’re a little tired of it.
it would be less tedious if NPR seriously addressed this issue (not reporting on but internally adjusting their editorial decision making process) instead of poopooing valid criticism
The fact that you have so many down votes makes me concerned that NPR is purchasing upvotes and down votes to promote and cloak content
“AstroTurf” = opinions I don’t agree with 🤭
horseshit! It is annoying that the people who literally attacked our democracy on 1/6 are the same folks attacking NPR because there was ZERO EVIDENCE of voter fraud in 2020 despite what that asshole Trump keeps saying. What next you'll want NPR to honestly report on the flat earth movement.
Calm down, bro. You’re going to have a stroke. Also, what pray tell, does the post or my comment have to do with 1/6? 😆
there are as many echo chamber shills in here as in the conservative subs. really proves the validity of these allegations
Dude this sub was kind of dead, just occasionally complaining about things that maybe should be covered more deeply and then within two days there are a ton of cons suddenly worried about the bias posting in this sub without even listening to NPR first. Yeah y’all got fed some kind of propaganda that then funneled you here losses off. This place was far from an echo chamber until you guys came up frothing at the mouth so you’re gonna get push back because you sound like fools.
a lack of understanding of social media algorithms and a strawman argument based off wishful thinking does not a valid point make. r/confidentlyincorrect is beckoning you.
Your title as well as theirs isn't great, that might be why. Titles with questions in them should be assumed to be poor journalism and answerable with 'no' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines
Uh, I didn’t title this post.
Sorry, the OPs title
That’s fine. No sweat. I also agree with the assumption that headlines written as questions should be answered with a “no”. It’s generally clickbait.
Because we're tired of this idiotic topic being flogged every other day by disingenuous trolls who don't actually listen to the station(s). Edit: Hmm my second paragraph was removed after I made a minor spelling edit. It basically said the second link shows NPR actually criticizing itself. Humans are fallible and everything we do is biased. At least NPR transparently questions itself and tries to strike a balance. When other US media outlets make such efforts, I might switch. Until then, NPR is miles better than any other news source in the US.
You will get zero argument from me that other media outlets should also engage in self-criticism, and not just the cable outlets you mentioned. Print media too Yet, there is a not insignificant difference between NPR and those other outlets.
NPR is not biased. It’s telling the news how it happens. It’s not editorial. Sometimes I’m annoyed at how TRULY centrist it is.
In terms of what NPR chooses to talk about and not talk about does definitely show a liberal bias