1. Are you disputing Uri's claim there are 87 registered Dems and 0 Republicans in editorial positions? You use yourself as an example of "No Party" as a way of discrediting the numbers. Do you dispute the idea that having no Republicans in that particular grouping might be a problem for a public news organization that purpo…
1. Are you disputing Uri's claim there are 87 registered Dems and 0 Republicans in editorial positions? You use yourself as an example of "No Party" as a way of discrediting the numbers. Do you dispute the idea that having no Republicans in that particular grouping might be a problem for a public news organization that purports to embrace diversity? You imply that it is an omission and misleading to not include you (given your outsize influence and importance in Washington). But he specifically mentioned editors....are you an editor? I'm asking because there is no mention of editor on your official NPR bio page, perhaps it needs updating?
2. Why did you select the last 90 days to search for instances of LatinX? A simple search on "All Dates" at NPR.org reveals Latinx appeared 28,878 times versus 18,348 for Latino(s). Given the relative newness of the term, it would seem that the numbers don't dismiss Berliner's point but rather make it more compelling.
3. You completely sidestep perhaps his most damning criticism around the vital question of Covid origins. Why did you not address this one, I wonder? Is it perhaps growing increasingly difficult to defend NPR's repeated insistence that "overwhelming evidence" renders a lab leak unlikely? Why not offer another explanation (beyond bias, partisanship or just poor journalism) for NPRs clinging to this dogmatic assertion, despite varied and highly credible evidence to the contrary?
Finally, here's hoping you got approval to write this on "another platform" lest you risk suspension.(Oops, silly me, suspension is only for dissenters!) For your next article, however, I suggest you get a better editor.
It's not a problem if there are a bunch of conservatives who are registered as unaffiliated. That's what younger people do nowadays. Whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. Who the hell wants to be registered as a Republican today and be tarred with Donald Trump?
You ask a fair question as it's entirely possible that conservatives are reluctant to be "outed", or affiliated with the party of Donald Trump. But that is a very different tack from the one that Inskeep is taking here. He implies not only that Berliner's numbers are inaccurate, but that he is lying: "If Uri told the truth, then I could only be a registered Democrat." Meanwhile, Inskeep is the one who misrepresents Berliner's data and overall argument! Berliner never spoke of his data set as being "unanimous" as Inskeep falsely claims. Berliner's broader point, which Inskeep never really addresses, is that there is very little viewpoint diversity at NPR, and over 25 years Berliner has seen the organization he loves become more and more out of touch with, and often adversarial toward, a large percentage of the public that they are meant to serve.
Can't argue with you on that, technically. But the failure to account for the unaffiliateds looms over the entire debate, especially since they are the largest voting bloc in the country. Seems like there is some dishonesty on both sides. Why did Berliner not go further with his inquiry? Could it be he knew what he'd find?
It's only one of many elements and illustrations in the article. It would have been weird for him go further and fixate on voter registration. Even if there had been 100 independents, the 0 Republicans would have stood out to me. In fact, it probably would have been even more notable.
The idea that a lab leak was highly unlikely was promoted by the administration. If NPR didn’t push back sufficiently against that narrative, it doesn’t seem at all related to liberal bias. It could be that they are sometimes too credulous of official government sources, which I do think is sometimes the case.
It is undeniably true, as you say, that NPR (as well as many other new outlets) were too credulous of certain government sources on Covid. It is a journalist's job to question and investigate the facts, poke holes in prevailing narratives and actively seek out credible, opposing points of view. Perhaps it was something other than bias that influenced NPRs dogmatic adherence to a flawed theory, I have no way of knowing. But whatever the reason, journalism's failure to objectively and doggedly investigate the origin of the greatest global health disaster of our time should be at the top of every journalist's "WHERE AND HOW DID WE GO SO WRONG?" list. This is the essence of what Berliner was calling for in his essay: he loved NPR and after repeated attempts internally, made a public appeal to restore NPR's culture of curiosity and inquiry. Unfortunately, rather than a reckoning or any soul-searching on NPRs part, there has only been deflection and denial as they turn and shoot Uri, the messenger. And oh the irony of Inskeep doing it in a newlsetter bearing the affected title "Differ We Must"? Shame on Inskeep, and shame on NPR.
I'm confused:
1. Are you disputing Uri's claim there are 87 registered Dems and 0 Republicans in editorial positions? You use yourself as an example of "No Party" as a way of discrediting the numbers. Do you dispute the idea that having no Republicans in that particular grouping might be a problem for a public news organization that purports to embrace diversity? You imply that it is an omission and misleading to not include you (given your outsize influence and importance in Washington). But he specifically mentioned editors....are you an editor? I'm asking because there is no mention of editor on your official NPR bio page, perhaps it needs updating?
2. Why did you select the last 90 days to search for instances of LatinX? A simple search on "All Dates" at NPR.org reveals Latinx appeared 28,878 times versus 18,348 for Latino(s). Given the relative newness of the term, it would seem that the numbers don't dismiss Berliner's point but rather make it more compelling.
3. You completely sidestep perhaps his most damning criticism around the vital question of Covid origins. Why did you not address this one, I wonder? Is it perhaps growing increasingly difficult to defend NPR's repeated insistence that "overwhelming evidence" renders a lab leak unlikely? Why not offer another explanation (beyond bias, partisanship or just poor journalism) for NPRs clinging to this dogmatic assertion, despite varied and highly credible evidence to the contrary?
Finally, here's hoping you got approval to write this on "another platform" lest you risk suspension.(Oops, silly me, suspension is only for dissenters!) For your next article, however, I suggest you get a better editor.
It's not a problem if there are a bunch of conservatives who are registered as unaffiliated. That's what younger people do nowadays. Whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. Who the hell wants to be registered as a Republican today and be tarred with Donald Trump?
You ask a fair question as it's entirely possible that conservatives are reluctant to be "outed", or affiliated with the party of Donald Trump. But that is a very different tack from the one that Inskeep is taking here. He implies not only that Berliner's numbers are inaccurate, but that he is lying: "If Uri told the truth, then I could only be a registered Democrat." Meanwhile, Inskeep is the one who misrepresents Berliner's data and overall argument! Berliner never spoke of his data set as being "unanimous" as Inskeep falsely claims. Berliner's broader point, which Inskeep never really addresses, is that there is very little viewpoint diversity at NPR, and over 25 years Berliner has seen the organization he loves become more and more out of touch with, and often adversarial toward, a large percentage of the public that they are meant to serve.
Can't argue with you on that, technically. But the failure to account for the unaffiliateds looms over the entire debate, especially since they are the largest voting bloc in the country. Seems like there is some dishonesty on both sides. Why did Berliner not go further with his inquiry? Could it be he knew what he'd find?
It's only one of many elements and illustrations in the article. It would have been weird for him go further and fixate on voter registration. Even if there had been 100 independents, the 0 Republicans would have stood out to me. In fact, it probably would have been even more notable.
Nah, because at least half the unaffiliateds would have been Republicans.
More magical thinking.
Life is magical.
Impressive certainty for something you can't confirm.
It's not fixation. It's just a third question.
"if"
More magical thinking.
The idea that a lab leak was highly unlikely was promoted by the administration. If NPR didn’t push back sufficiently against that narrative, it doesn’t seem at all related to liberal bias. It could be that they are sometimes too credulous of official government sources, which I do think is sometimes the case.
It is undeniably true, as you say, that NPR (as well as many other new outlets) were too credulous of certain government sources on Covid. It is a journalist's job to question and investigate the facts, poke holes in prevailing narratives and actively seek out credible, opposing points of view. Perhaps it was something other than bias that influenced NPRs dogmatic adherence to a flawed theory, I have no way of knowing. But whatever the reason, journalism's failure to objectively and doggedly investigate the origin of the greatest global health disaster of our time should be at the top of every journalist's "WHERE AND HOW DID WE GO SO WRONG?" list. This is the essence of what Berliner was calling for in his essay: he loved NPR and after repeated attempts internally, made a public appeal to restore NPR's culture of curiosity and inquiry. Unfortunately, rather than a reckoning or any soul-searching on NPRs part, there has only been deflection and denial as they turn and shoot Uri, the messenger. And oh the irony of Inskeep doing it in a newlsetter bearing the affected title "Differ We Must"? Shame on Inskeep, and shame on NPR.