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 thes…
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?
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. :)
Still lost and in sheer avoidance of what doesn't fit your politics, I see.
Hi puppy.;
You keep following me around and whining, how much are you making an hour?
And still completely lacking a sense of irony, while pumping up the paranoia.
Also, Do you actually know what a personal insult is?
Because, seriously, that wasn't.