Inskeep's response doesn't even come close to disproving anything Berliner actually said. Instead Inskeep mischaracterizes what Berliner says and then attacks a straw man, over and over. That you missed that and swallowed whole Inskeep's ironically poor response is a useful clue about you, should you be interested in seeing beyond your politics.
But if you don't believe me, please pick a point you think Berliner lied about and I'll show you who was actually misleading you.
No, Berliner didn't say or imply Inskeep is a Democrat. He didn't say or imply "his “editorial” colleagues were unanimously registered Democrats," as Inskeep claimed he did. Inskeep misled you.
What Berliner did say was that he checked the voter registration of NPR editorial staff in DC and *found* 87 Dems, no GOP. He didn't claim he checked everyone, didn't say he checked Inskeep (don't know if he lives in DC), didn't say anything but that he found 87 Dems and no GOP among those he checked.
I wouldn't say Mr Berliner lied exactly. But at the very least he seems to have used cherry-picked data to bolster his claim about lack of viewpoint diversity. As Mr Inskeep mentioned, eighty-seven staffers are just a percentage of the overall D.C. staff, which leads one to question how Mr Berliner arrived at that figure. For all we know the rest of the staff outside of that 87 are registered 'No Party' or Republican.
Also, as others here have pointed out, aside from the problem with the statistic itself, there is a problem with using is as evidence for lack of viewpoint diversity. Party registration does not necessarily translate to bias.
"For all we know the rest of the staff outside of that 87 are registered 'No Party' or Republican."
It's not at all plausible that this was a sampling error large enough to materially affect Berliner's point. Inskeep misrepresented what Beliner said, and then grasped at straws instead of addressing the very real problem.
I mean, it's vaguely arguable if he lied or not. It comes down to intent.
I feel like he lied, you feel like he cherry picked a bit. Either one's reasonable. He's probably the only person who will ever really know which it is.
But, either one also makes it impossible for me to trust anything else he says as accurate anywhere else in his essay, without some pretty persuasive proof.
I have yet to see any evidence from Uri.
I've seen some lies, that claim to be evidence, but as soon as you see those, it becomes hard to credit anything else said in the same essay.
Those lies are absurdly easy to verify as lies, and steve does so in his piece.
Inskeep's response doesn't even come close to disproving anything Berliner actually said. Instead Inskeep mischaracterizes what Berliner says and then attacks a straw man, over and over. That you missed that and swallowed whole Inskeep's ironically poor response is a useful clue about you, should you be interested in seeing beyond your politics.
But if you don't believe me, please pick a point you think Berliner lied about and I'll show you who was actually misleading you.
Deep denial at NPR, and among its core audience.
What is Steve Inskeeps political registration?
Uri said it was democrat.
It is not.
Uri lied.
Period.
Why are you claiming this did not happen?
Amazing.
No, Berliner didn't say or imply Inskeep is a Democrat. He didn't say or imply "his “editorial” colleagues were unanimously registered Democrats," as Inskeep claimed he did. Inskeep misled you.
What Berliner did say was that he checked the voter registration of NPR editorial staff in DC and *found* 87 Dems, no GOP. He didn't claim he checked everyone, didn't say he checked Inskeep (don't know if he lives in DC), didn't say anything but that he found 87 Dems and no GOP among those he checked.
Look inward.
You know you just said you didn't know something that's stated in the article?
You expect people to take you seriously?
*sigh* Yeah, you do, and that's the entire fucking problem. Bye now. You're just entirely worthless to talk to.
What? You're completely lost. Willfully, it appears.
Worthless indeed.
*pat*
I wouldn't say Mr Berliner lied exactly. But at the very least he seems to have used cherry-picked data to bolster his claim about lack of viewpoint diversity. As Mr Inskeep mentioned, eighty-seven staffers are just a percentage of the overall D.C. staff, which leads one to question how Mr Berliner arrived at that figure. For all we know the rest of the staff outside of that 87 are registered 'No Party' or Republican.
Also, as others here have pointed out, aside from the problem with the statistic itself, there is a problem with using is as evidence for lack of viewpoint diversity. Party registration does not necessarily translate to bias.
"For all we know the rest of the staff outside of that 87 are registered 'No Party' or Republican."
It's not at all plausible that this was a sampling error large enough to materially affect Berliner's point. Inskeep misrepresented what Beliner said, and then grasped at straws instead of addressing the very real problem.
Again, the news isn't that Berliner is a whistle blower or exposed disputable facts. The news is that an NPR executive stated the already obvious.
I mean, it's vaguely arguable if he lied or not. It comes down to intent.
I feel like he lied, you feel like he cherry picked a bit. Either one's reasonable. He's probably the only person who will ever really know which it is.
But, either one also makes it impossible for me to trust anything else he says as accurate anywhere else in his essay, without some pretty persuasive proof.
There isn't the slightest evidence Berliner lied or cherry-picked.
There's direct and clear evidence that Inskeep misrepresented what Berliner said more than once, and that he and many NPR fans are in willful denial.