Steve, you say: "Is there a “larger point” that too many elite journalists share similar backgrounds, and think the same way in assigning and shaping stories? Yes, I think so, but it’s a subtle issue that has more to do with people’s educations, experiences and associations than with partisan registration."
Steve, you say: "Is there a “larger point” that too many elite journalists share similar backgrounds, and think the same way in assigning and shaping stories? Yes, I think so, but it’s a subtle issue that has more to do with people’s educations, experiences and associations than with partisan registration."
But the partisan registration matters precisely because it reflects their educations, experiences, and associations, and that's why Uri is right to bring the registrations up. It shapes how the stories themselves are told. This isn't subtle in the least.
I listen extensively to NPR and the local station in my area that carries its shows, and I can tell you that programs like All Things Considered, and Morning Edition, and Here and Now, and On Point consistently frame the news through the lens of:
- Are progressive values being upheld or attacked?
- How will Biden withstand the attacks of Republicans?
- Can Democrats pass the bills they favor or will obstructionist Republicans stop them?
- Look at all the infighting among Republicans. How unhealthy that is.
EVERYTHING is framed through this lens. You don't see it because it's normative to you. No one interviewing a Democrat thinks to challenge them about an issue -- it's taken as a given that their position in the right one, and the only story is the horse race between them and the evil Republican antagonist. It's a rare occurance for a conservative to be given equal air time or treated as if their ideas are just as valid as those of their Democrat colleagues.
Just recently, I listened as Mary Louise Kelly sounded like she was in PAIN learning from a correspondent that Trump's wealth increased through Truth Social's IPO. You have Robin Young on Here and Now affirming that January 6 was an attempted coup as she breathily emotes with interviewees she favors.
When people like Nina Totenberg report on the Supreme Court, it's in the context of the "conservative court," and the used in a way to invalidate it. NPR would NEVER describe a majority liberal court in the same way. Because that would just be normal to you and your listeners.
Your stories frame the abortion issue entirely from the point of view of progressives and not at all through anyone who thinks children are being saved. I'm listening to a teaser right now for a story about guns -- can you guess what the perspective is? Do you think it's interviewing people who believe in gun ownership as a valid right? Not a chance. IT'S ABOUT FRAMING.
And I can't understand what argument you think you're making by contending to a.) be NPA, and b.) that Uri somehow misrepresents the aggregate because of this.
Your "no party" political affiliation hardly proves you to be some open-minded moderate. And even if it did, that would be but one instance in a sea of progressives.
But we can see clearly that the dominance of registered Democrats affects the choice of what stories to cover and how to cover them.
You talk about poor NPR being put-upon by other outlets telling their audiences not to trust you. Steve, NPR does a good job of that all by itself.
I used to defend my listening to and support of my NPR station by saying certain reporters, like Totenberg who admitted it, are clearly biased, but most of them are not. And most of the short newscasts are factual accounts of what's happening. Like you say, it's all about what is covered, how it's covered, and framing. I stopped listening and donating about ten years ago because NPR just didn't even try to tell both or several sides of stories in longer pieces, two-ways, and analysis. Many reporters routinely decide what viewpoint to promote in a piece BEFORE even starting to gather facts and do interviews. They choose interviewees not based on getting the facts but rather based on getting sound bites to reflect their preconceived ideas about the subject. I appreciate your comment very much!
I agree that NPR does its best work in the brief news updates between shows and during breaks -- I think that's what you're referencing with regard to the short newscasts. It's the closest to "just the facts" we're going to get.
But as you said, the longer form coverage has the bias baked into it. They know the ideas and people they want to promote and will find the sources that agree with them. It's why the story was chosen for coverage -- to advance a viewpoint. And you won't hear a conflicting POV given equal time.
I was thinking of the generally 4-5 minute stories broadcast during Morning Edition and All Things Considered. Those are reported and produced by NPR and sometimes by reporters from member stations.
Yes, and it’s all part of the CPB/NPR space. When listening to 1A, I think of NPR as issues and topics are so often national and global. When listening to The Politics Hour on Friday at Noon, I think of WAMU as issues are very localized to D.C., NoVa and the like.
Your point about the “conservative court” is perfect. It’s so insidious that people don’t even see it for what it is. When the court was mostly liberal, it was just “the court” , not “the liberal court” to NPR and other MSM, because liberals see liberal news as “normal”. Roe v Wade was never the a political “liberal decision” - it was just a decision. But Dobbs is a “conservative decision”.
There are many other examples… word choices (“anti-abortion rights activists”, presuming that extreme gender ideology is the accepted norm, referring to race in stories only when the victim is a POC or the perpetrator is white, the promotion of lived experience (AKA bias, for God’s sake) in journalism), the elevation of identity over pure facts and objectivity). These choices are not objective… yet they aren’t picked up by typical NPR listeners because, to them, it’s normal. The author of this critique probably doesn’t see the logical errors of bias and subjectivity that others see, because he thinks his subjective choices are objective facts because he lives in the very bubble Mr Berliner criticizes.
Spot on observation, Butch -- no one in MSM refers to Roe v. Wade as a liberal decision. It's just "the correct decision."
And your observations about how NPR covers race tie into substantive critiques of what "woke" means -- to sacralize those considered to be "marginalized." And this is used over and over by NPR as a means of elevating certain viewpoints: type in "NPR" and "lived experience" in Google and see how often the term makes its way into its news coverage.
Not true. It has often been described as a decision by a liberal court, but it stood the test of time over many courts and so was accepted as unlikely to change.
To whatever extent it's acknowledged as a liberal decision, it's done so as a way of affirming its correctness. That it is normative, and thus deserving of credit.
When NPR describes the court as "conservative" it's not doing so in a neutral viewpoint way. It's signaling that the court's decisions are, on that basis, wrong. I've never heard NPR use "liberal court" in the same way it applies "conservative court." The former is used as shorthand for "This was the correct decision," the latter as "This was wrong and based on specious reasoning."
While it isn't a news report, Terri Gross's interview with Adam Cohen on his book "Supreme Inequality" is instructive. Cohen makes reference to the "great liberal court" and "great liberal justice," while his thesis is that the Court is "right wing" and that is, in and of itself, a problem.
He's entitled to feel that way, but NPR platforms him in a way it would never do for someone who thought a left-wing court was a problem. In her "interview," Gross challenges him on nothing. He's on precisely because NPR as an institution agrees with him. That's a problem with an organization that aspires to be a prestige news outlet. It would be fine if we occasionally got a different POV. But that never happens.
It's telling that NPR used to use the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice," because those were the labels preferred by each side. That was in keeping with the general policy of using preferred labels. There were endless complaints from NPR listeners about "pro-life" as a label, though not about the equally problematic "pro-choice. (This was back when NPR allowed comments on its content.)
Then the NPR Ombudsman led a move to change that to the current clearly biased language, partly because she (incredibly) couldn't find anyone at NPR who could explain why the former policy was in place. Evidently no one at NPR could see a problem with treating the right to abortion as the issue, not the right to life.
"No one interviewing a Democrat thinks to challenge them about an issue -- it's taken as a given that their position in the right one, and the only story is the horse race between them and the evil Republican antagonist." To be a little cynical, the most important question would be "well that's nice you feel that way about the issue, but given that we can't get the House to to literally anything, and McConnell will hold up a SCOTUS appointment, why bother even asking what your position is on high speed rail?"
I'm being hyperbolic to make a point -- the politics today mean that Trump is running around lying faster than anyone can fact check, and that's "one side of the story", and given all that, what's the point of caring at all about any specific other issue if they're never going to come to pass?
I understand the spirit behind your hyperbole, and I would say that:
- It should matter to journalists what our elected representatives think and why they hold those ideas so that those who do and don't elect them understand their reasons/non-reasons and can make informed decisions at the ballot box. So we don't start filling in the blanks about why we imagine people we don't like do the things they do.
This is why -- to answer your last question about "what's the point" -- the point for journalists is to reveal the "why" or "why not" on issues they think voters care about. And do so without making value judgments. So, in your example, if a bill on high-speed rail is being held up, I'd want to know why that is. Why drives those for/against? Help people understand why it can't come up for a vote.
What I don't want is someone playing the part of a journalist, wearing the mantle of objectivity, and then writing news stories that could have been press releases from the DNC. At least not in one that has the pretense to being a mainstream outlet.
I get most of my news from.....NPR. I can consume news and still be aware that it's intentionally providng a limited perspective in terms of the voices it chooses to amplify, who it decides should be heard as experts, and why the story matters and what is or isn't settled about its predicates. I can also compare it to the news sources from outlets across Substack and that show up in my YouTube feed.
Others across these comments have given detailed instances of bias in the reporting. If your contention is that bias is always with us, I would agree. But that's not to say a reporter can't challenge themselves to look beyond what they think the story is about or what they think are settled issues.
NPR caters to an audience that skews reliably left, is upper middle class, and is highly educated relevant to the rest of the population. I'm probably center-left (though I test further left), highly educated, and usually solidly middle class. It doesn't mean I can't see past NPR's obnoxious condescenscion, assumptions, and certainty on an array of social and political issues.
If you agree with all or most of NPR's coverage, then you might be in that audience and you've found your ideal news outlet. My critiques -- and Uri Berliner's critiques -- aren't going to change the smugness at NPR one whit In fact, the opposite will happen. Berliner has resigned. There's nothing to worry about -- Keep Calm and Carry On.
Your critiques and uri's critiques aren't going to change anything at NPR, because those critiques are incorrect. I get that you don't think so. But, you obviously have no interest in the possibility of any other position, so I won't bore you with an attempt.
You do realize, there are two ways to lose an audience right? Either you move, or they move.
If you're gonna tell me the right hasn't moved further right in the last 6 years, I'm gonna spend the next week laughing whenever I'm reminded of your name.
The entire predicate of this thread is the observation -- and pushback against -- the idea that NPR sees no other position except its progressive worldview as applied to stories of interest to the public. All other POVs are inherently invalid. That's my critique. That's Uri's critique. That's the critique of the majority of those in these comments.
Our position is not -- "Change your coverage to reflect my ideology." It's "Show respect for ideologies that your default mode is set to dismiss." That's the reason for my handle -- self-awareness of my own biases and the intellectual curiosity to surpass them.
And you've somehow flipped this to "it's really you guys who have no interest in any other position." That's just wrong. Flat. Out. Wrong.
Look, if NPR specialized in covering news stories the way I'm assuming you think Fox covers the news, then I would still have a critique -- that it is leaving out important, valid perspectives shared by those among the left.
I want journalists who are intellectually curious about how the people of all stripes feel about current issues. Even if those people aren't devoted readers to their news. Because they should be trying to reveal not just the "truth" of things, which can be a fruitless endeavor -- but the variety of perspectives that animate this life. The very thing NPR has the pretense to fulfilling but does not.
And really -- you know what you can do with your personal attack at the end. I responded respectfully because you asked a question.
I notice, at no point did you refute the idea that the audience walked away from NPR,.
You simply assume it's the other way around, over and over, without presenting any reason to think it iis so other than feels.
What reason do you have to think NPR journalists aren't intellecutally curious about anything in particular? Are you saying it's a democratic trait not to be interested in thing X? Seriously?
First, I agree with your use of the phrase "personal insult." That's more accurate than my framing it as an attack.
Second, I'm saying NPR's journalists, in the main, are not intellectually open-minded or curious about ideas and explanations that do not align with their political priors. I have no reason to think this is a Democratic trait, though it may be among a certain subset of Democrats, just as I'm sure it is among Republicans.
Uri gives ample evidence of this -- how NPR covered Russiagate, Covid, the laptop, and who it went to as sources of information. The typical interviewee is someone who is going to give the left/progressive perspective. The story is meant to flatter the audience that their hatred of all things conservative is well deserved. That their politics are always correct.
He documents how one journalist said it was good not to cover the laptop because doing so "could help Trump." That's an atrocious thing to say.
He shows that NPR's leadership put itself fully behind the idea of participating in a racial reckoning. Something I would contend it had no business doing to the extent it is a news outlet. Covering -- yes. But accepting as inarguable truth? No.
He also gives us an insider's take that "There’s an unspoken consensus about the stories we should pursue and how they should be framed. It’s frictionless—one story after another about instances of supposed racism, transphobia, signs of the climate apocalypse, Israel doing something bad, and the dire threat of Republican policies. It’s almost like an assembly line."
Where is that incorrect? We can all see it. Noam Chomsky once educated a flustered British reporter who objected to the idea that he has bias or is censored or censors himself.
And Chomsky explained -- "There are certain things you just don't say" -- tracing it to the educational system. "There's a filtering system...it selects for obedience and subordination."
The reporter -- Andrew Marr -- was indignant. "How can you say I'm self-censoring?"
Chomsky: "I'm sure you believe everything you're saying. But what I'm saying is if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting."
NPR is a system that operates like that. If you aren't sufficiently left and appreciate of left orthodoxies, you wouldn't be working there.
Today, someone in a Substack comment described the NPR elite as "aspiring aristocrats." That's a concise and spot-on description of those who admire NPR as it's presently operating and of those who work there. They clearly see themselves as deserving to rule the world, to define the culture, to establish the parameters of what can and cannot be discussed.
Their motto should be 'We're just better than you."
Your point is far from clear. Why would it matter if the audience moved away from NPR? Why did they move, if not because of some of the points Berliner raises?
Steve, you say: "Is there a “larger point” that too many elite journalists share similar backgrounds, and think the same way in assigning and shaping stories? Yes, I think so, but it’s a subtle issue that has more to do with people’s educations, experiences and associations than with partisan registration."
But the partisan registration matters precisely because it reflects their educations, experiences, and associations, and that's why Uri is right to bring the registrations up. It shapes how the stories themselves are told. This isn't subtle in the least.
I listen extensively to NPR and the local station in my area that carries its shows, and I can tell you that programs like All Things Considered, and Morning Edition, and Here and Now, and On Point consistently frame the news through the lens of:
- Are progressive values being upheld or attacked?
- How will Biden withstand the attacks of Republicans?
- Can Democrats pass the bills they favor or will obstructionist Republicans stop them?
- Look at all the infighting among Republicans. How unhealthy that is.
EVERYTHING is framed through this lens. You don't see it because it's normative to you. No one interviewing a Democrat thinks to challenge them about an issue -- it's taken as a given that their position in the right one, and the only story is the horse race between them and the evil Republican antagonist. It's a rare occurance for a conservative to be given equal air time or treated as if their ideas are just as valid as those of their Democrat colleagues.
Just recently, I listened as Mary Louise Kelly sounded like she was in PAIN learning from a correspondent that Trump's wealth increased through Truth Social's IPO. You have Robin Young on Here and Now affirming that January 6 was an attempted coup as she breathily emotes with interviewees she favors.
When people like Nina Totenberg report on the Supreme Court, it's in the context of the "conservative court," and the used in a way to invalidate it. NPR would NEVER describe a majority liberal court in the same way. Because that would just be normal to you and your listeners.
Your stories frame the abortion issue entirely from the point of view of progressives and not at all through anyone who thinks children are being saved. I'm listening to a teaser right now for a story about guns -- can you guess what the perspective is? Do you think it's interviewing people who believe in gun ownership as a valid right? Not a chance. IT'S ABOUT FRAMING.
And I can't understand what argument you think you're making by contending to a.) be NPA, and b.) that Uri somehow misrepresents the aggregate because of this.
Your "no party" political affiliation hardly proves you to be some open-minded moderate. And even if it did, that would be but one instance in a sea of progressives.
But we can see clearly that the dominance of registered Democrats affects the choice of what stories to cover and how to cover them.
You talk about poor NPR being put-upon by other outlets telling their audiences not to trust you. Steve, NPR does a good job of that all by itself.
I used to defend my listening to and support of my NPR station by saying certain reporters, like Totenberg who admitted it, are clearly biased, but most of them are not. And most of the short newscasts are factual accounts of what's happening. Like you say, it's all about what is covered, how it's covered, and framing. I stopped listening and donating about ten years ago because NPR just didn't even try to tell both or several sides of stories in longer pieces, two-ways, and analysis. Many reporters routinely decide what viewpoint to promote in a piece BEFORE even starting to gather facts and do interviews. They choose interviewees not based on getting the facts but rather based on getting sound bites to reflect their preconceived ideas about the subject. I appreciate your comment very much!
I agree that NPR does its best work in the brief news updates between shows and during breaks -- I think that's what you're referencing with regard to the short newscasts. It's the closest to "just the facts" we're going to get.
But as you said, the longer form coverage has the bias baked into it. They know the ideas and people they want to promote and will find the sources that agree with them. It's why the story was chosen for coverage -- to advance a viewpoint. And you won't hear a conflicting POV given equal time.
The longer form coverage, which NPR doesn't produce?
I was thinking of the generally 4-5 minute stories broadcast during Morning Edition and All Things Considered. Those are reported and produced by NPR and sometimes by reporters from member stations.
Yes, and it’s all part of the CPB/NPR space. When listening to 1A, I think of NPR as issues and topics are so often national and global. When listening to The Politics Hour on Friday at Noon, I think of WAMU as issues are very localized to D.C., NoVa and the like.
Your point about the “conservative court” is perfect. It’s so insidious that people don’t even see it for what it is. When the court was mostly liberal, it was just “the court” , not “the liberal court” to NPR and other MSM, because liberals see liberal news as “normal”. Roe v Wade was never the a political “liberal decision” - it was just a decision. But Dobbs is a “conservative decision”.
There are many other examples… word choices (“anti-abortion rights activists”, presuming that extreme gender ideology is the accepted norm, referring to race in stories only when the victim is a POC or the perpetrator is white, the promotion of lived experience (AKA bias, for God’s sake) in journalism), the elevation of identity over pure facts and objectivity). These choices are not objective… yet they aren’t picked up by typical NPR listeners because, to them, it’s normal. The author of this critique probably doesn’t see the logical errors of bias and subjectivity that others see, because he thinks his subjective choices are objective facts because he lives in the very bubble Mr Berliner criticizes.
It was a long time ago that the court could be described as liberal, and it was indeed described that way at the time.
Spot on observation, Butch -- no one in MSM refers to Roe v. Wade as a liberal decision. It's just "the correct decision."
And your observations about how NPR covers race tie into substantive critiques of what "woke" means -- to sacralize those considered to be "marginalized." And this is used over and over by NPR as a means of elevating certain viewpoints: type in "NPR" and "lived experience" in Google and see how often the term makes its way into its news coverage.
Not true. It has often been described as a decision by a liberal court, but it stood the test of time over many courts and so was accepted as unlikely to change.
To whatever extent it's acknowledged as a liberal decision, it's done so as a way of affirming its correctness. That it is normative, and thus deserving of credit.
When NPR describes the court as "conservative" it's not doing so in a neutral viewpoint way. It's signaling that the court's decisions are, on that basis, wrong. I've never heard NPR use "liberal court" in the same way it applies "conservative court." The former is used as shorthand for "This was the correct decision," the latter as "This was wrong and based on specious reasoning."
While it isn't a news report, Terri Gross's interview with Adam Cohen on his book "Supreme Inequality" is instructive. Cohen makes reference to the "great liberal court" and "great liberal justice," while his thesis is that the Court is "right wing" and that is, in and of itself, a problem.
He's entitled to feel that way, but NPR platforms him in a way it would never do for someone who thought a left-wing court was a problem. In her "interview," Gross challenges him on nothing. He's on precisely because NPR as an institution agrees with him. That's a problem with an organization that aspires to be a prestige news outlet. It would be fine if we occasionally got a different POV. But that never happens.
It's telling that NPR used to use the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice," because those were the labels preferred by each side. That was in keeping with the general policy of using preferred labels. There were endless complaints from NPR listeners about "pro-life" as a label, though not about the equally problematic "pro-choice. (This was back when NPR allowed comments on its content.)
Then the NPR Ombudsman led a move to change that to the current clearly biased language, partly because she (incredibly) couldn't find anyone at NPR who could explain why the former policy was in place. Evidently no one at NPR could see a problem with treating the right to abortion as the issue, not the right to life.
"No one interviewing a Democrat thinks to challenge them about an issue -- it's taken as a given that their position in the right one, and the only story is the horse race between them and the evil Republican antagonist." To be a little cynical, the most important question would be "well that's nice you feel that way about the issue, but given that we can't get the House to to literally anything, and McConnell will hold up a SCOTUS appointment, why bother even asking what your position is on high speed rail?"
I'm being hyperbolic to make a point -- the politics today mean that Trump is running around lying faster than anyone can fact check, and that's "one side of the story", and given all that, what's the point of caring at all about any specific other issue if they're never going to come to pass?
I understand the spirit behind your hyperbole, and I would say that:
- It should matter to journalists what our elected representatives think and why they hold those ideas so that those who do and don't elect them understand their reasons/non-reasons and can make informed decisions at the ballot box. So we don't start filling in the blanks about why we imagine people we don't like do the things they do.
This is why -- to answer your last question about "what's the point" -- the point for journalists is to reveal the "why" or "why not" on issues they think voters care about. And do so without making value judgments. So, in your example, if a bill on high-speed rail is being held up, I'd want to know why that is. Why drives those for/against? Help people understand why it can't come up for a vote.
What I don't want is someone playing the part of a journalist, wearing the mantle of objectivity, and then writing news stories that could have been press releases from the DNC. At least not in one that has the pretense to being a mainstream outlet.
So, where do you get your news from, since there is not a single outlet that matches your criteria, and it isn't possible for one to exist?
I get most of my news from.....NPR. I can consume news and still be aware that it's intentionally providng a limited perspective in terms of the voices it chooses to amplify, who it decides should be heard as experts, and why the story matters and what is or isn't settled about its predicates. I can also compare it to the news sources from outlets across Substack and that show up in my YouTube feed.
Others across these comments have given detailed instances of bias in the reporting. If your contention is that bias is always with us, I would agree. But that's not to say a reporter can't challenge themselves to look beyond what they think the story is about or what they think are settled issues.
NPR caters to an audience that skews reliably left, is upper middle class, and is highly educated relevant to the rest of the population. I'm probably center-left (though I test further left), highly educated, and usually solidly middle class. It doesn't mean I can't see past NPR's obnoxious condescenscion, assumptions, and certainty on an array of social and political issues.
If you agree with all or most of NPR's coverage, then you might be in that audience and you've found your ideal news outlet. My critiques -- and Uri Berliner's critiques -- aren't going to change the smugness at NPR one whit In fact, the opposite will happen. Berliner has resigned. There's nothing to worry about -- Keep Calm and Carry On.
Your critiques and uri's critiques aren't going to change anything at NPR, because those critiques are incorrect. I get that you don't think so. But, you obviously have no interest in the possibility of any other position, so I won't bore you with an attempt.
You do realize, there are two ways to lose an audience right? Either you move, or they move.
If you're gonna tell me the right hasn't moved further right in the last 6 years, I'm gonna spend the next week laughing whenever I'm reminded of your name.
The entire predicate of this thread is the observation -- and pushback against -- the idea that NPR sees no other position except its progressive worldview as applied to stories of interest to the public. All other POVs are inherently invalid. That's my critique. That's Uri's critique. That's the critique of the majority of those in these comments.
Our position is not -- "Change your coverage to reflect my ideology." It's "Show respect for ideologies that your default mode is set to dismiss." That's the reason for my handle -- self-awareness of my own biases and the intellectual curiosity to surpass them.
And you've somehow flipped this to "it's really you guys who have no interest in any other position." That's just wrong. Flat. Out. Wrong.
Look, if NPR specialized in covering news stories the way I'm assuming you think Fox covers the news, then I would still have a critique -- that it is leaving out important, valid perspectives shared by those among the left.
I want journalists who are intellectually curious about how the people of all stripes feel about current issues. Even if those people aren't devoted readers to their news. Because they should be trying to reveal not just the "truth" of things, which can be a fruitless endeavor -- but the variety of perspectives that animate this life. The very thing NPR has the pretense to fulfilling but does not.
And really -- you know what you can do with your personal attack at the end. I responded respectfully because you asked a question.
I notice, at no point did you refute the idea that the audience walked away from NPR,.
You simply assume it's the other way around, over and over, without presenting any reason to think it iis so other than feels.
What reason do you have to think NPR journalists aren't intellecutally curious about anything in particular? Are you saying it's a democratic trait not to be interested in thing X? Seriously?
First, I agree with your use of the phrase "personal insult." That's more accurate than my framing it as an attack.
Second, I'm saying NPR's journalists, in the main, are not intellectually open-minded or curious about ideas and explanations that do not align with their political priors. I have no reason to think this is a Democratic trait, though it may be among a certain subset of Democrats, just as I'm sure it is among Republicans.
Uri gives ample evidence of this -- how NPR covered Russiagate, Covid, the laptop, and who it went to as sources of information. The typical interviewee is someone who is going to give the left/progressive perspective. The story is meant to flatter the audience that their hatred of all things conservative is well deserved. That their politics are always correct.
He documents how one journalist said it was good not to cover the laptop because doing so "could help Trump." That's an atrocious thing to say.
He shows that NPR's leadership put itself fully behind the idea of participating in a racial reckoning. Something I would contend it had no business doing to the extent it is a news outlet. Covering -- yes. But accepting as inarguable truth? No.
He also gives us an insider's take that "There’s an unspoken consensus about the stories we should pursue and how they should be framed. It’s frictionless—one story after another about instances of supposed racism, transphobia, signs of the climate apocalypse, Israel doing something bad, and the dire threat of Republican policies. It’s almost like an assembly line."
Where is that incorrect? We can all see it. Noam Chomsky once educated a flustered British reporter who objected to the idea that he has bias or is censored or censors himself.
And Chomsky explained -- "There are certain things you just don't say" -- tracing it to the educational system. "There's a filtering system...it selects for obedience and subordination."
The reporter -- Andrew Marr -- was indignant. "How can you say I'm self-censoring?"
Chomsky: "I'm sure you believe everything you're saying. But what I'm saying is if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting."
NPR is a system that operates like that. If you aren't sufficiently left and appreciate of left orthodoxies, you wouldn't be working there.
Today, someone in a Substack comment described the NPR elite as "aspiring aristocrats." That's a concise and spot-on description of those who admire NPR as it's presently operating and of those who work there. They clearly see themselves as deserving to rule the world, to define the culture, to establish the parameters of what can and cannot be discussed.
Their motto should be 'We're just better than you."
rofl
And, you continue not to refute the entire fucking point.
Oh well.
Your point is far from clear. Why would it matter if the audience moved away from NPR? Why did they move, if not because of some of the points Berliner raises?
Also, Do you actually know what a personal insult is?
Because, seriously, that wasn't.
You have no sense of irony!
I love that you're still following me around like a little dog whining. :)
No sense of irony, and a vivid sense of paranoia! So much work to do.
It is a conservative court. In what way does that invalidate it?