"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…
"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?
"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?
I dunno why people choose to become nazi's. Why did you?
Go away. :)
Hi puppy.;
You keep following me around and whining, how much are you making an hour?
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.