Look, all journalism is at least a little bit biased, not because of partisanship, but because journalism is an activity that requires. subjective human judgment about what's important and what's not. Even the most scrupulous reporters are human beings with personal opinions and with conscious and unconscious biases and blind spots. The …
Look, all journalism is at least a little bit biased, not because of partisanship, but because journalism is an activity that requires. subjective human judgment about what's important and what's not. Even the most scrupulous reporters are human beings with personal opinions and with conscious and unconscious biases and blind spots. The scrupulous ones will look past their conscious biases, like party affiliation, in their reporting, but the unconscious ones (those tied to personal identity and lived experience, and those built into the newsrooms where they work and the business model and established practices of journalism)) are harder to overcome because they're unconscious. The political bias of individual reporters is much less impactful on an outlet's reporting than those institutional biases. They skew coverage at NPR, as at most other outlets, toward familiar narrative, expedience, and capital. Corporate sponsorship pays a plurality of the bills (38%) at NPR, so you're not likely to hear coverage that challenges the confirmation biases of corporate or individual donors, no matter how individual reporters may vote. Read Alicia Montgomery's Slate article (https://slate.com/business/2024/04/npr-diversity-public-broadcasting-radio.html ) for a more nuanced insider perspective than Berliner's or Inskeep's on NPR's institutional biases and how they skew coverage there. In her experience, editors at NPR try to keep coverage centrist to a fault, both sides-ing every story even when there really aren't two equally valid and credible sides. This performative objectivity is many reporters' and editors' way of responding to criticism like Berliner's, which the right wing has been leveling at mainstream journalism for more than 50 years, that they are not scrupulous enough to overlook their conscious partisan biases. Berliner thinks truth is not being served because of how his colleagues vote; Montgomery thinks truth is not being served because her colleagues have abdicated their editorial judgment. Since I have worked in a lot of newsrooms where this has happened, where management has effectively handed over the job of assignment editor to sponsors, shareholders, algorithms, focus groups, and bad-faith critics who don't want journalism that holds the powerful accountable to exist, I find her critique more plausible than his, but YMMV.
Your first three sentences show why this is a problem. NPR believes in magic, that a staff that isn't diverse ideologically can magically be as unbiased as one that is. Obviously not. And it matters, a lot.
I disagree that institutional factors such as you mention matter more than individual ones, but it doesn't matter to Berliner's point. Individual political biases matter for the same kinds of reasons that diversity of race, gender, etc matter.
But NPR does also have powerful institutional biases as well. It has always interpreted its mission to include voices that aren't usually included as a progressive one, and understood it only as progressives understand it.
About the Slate piece, I agree that that Berliner've view seems skewed about the past at NPR, and ignores other factors that might have contributed to the further decline in conservative trust in NPR. Conservatives have distrusted NPR for a lot longer than he believes, according to Pew data. But that doesn't alter his point that things have gotten markedly worse in some ways. Progressive language and ideology about race and gender has become more strident and acquired a stronger scent, and that's made the problem even more noticeable.
In a couple other places where she seems to think she's arguing against Berliner, she's only reinforcing his points, for example in regard to how the newsroom regarded Trump. in 2016.
But the piece as a whole simply passes over the elephant in the room. It's general explanation for what Berliner points out is that it was due to NPR's general reticence and conservative approach, etc. No. That doesn't explain most of what he pointed out at all.
She doesn't address the overwhelming lack of diversity of political ideology in any substantial way.
And that's typical of NPR staff and its defenders. They believe in magic.
>Your first three sentences show why this is a problem. NPR believes in magic, that a staff that isn't diverse ideologically can magically be as unbiased as one that is. Obviously not. And it matters, a lot.
Your whole argument here is garbage. Affiliation isn't ideology, and doesn't even show bias. That's even taking Berliner as being honest, which is dubious as if he had actually "found" the political registrations of 87 people at NPR he would have found at least one independent. This is a stat he found in his own rear end, not at the office.
You're avoiding the obvious. Affiliation is obviously highly correlated with ideology.
Berliner nowhere claimed or implied there were no independents. That wouldn't affect his point at all. Inskeep, ironically given his criticism of Berliner, badly misrepresented what Berliner said. And not only on that point.
You need to look inward before lashing out at Berliner.
Your response is nonsensical. Berliner claimed the 87 people at the D.C. office were 87-0 Democrats to Republicans. That certainly does imply there were no independents. He gave no basis for his claim other than to say he "found" that to be so. A finding which is called into heavy doubt by Inskeep being an independent.
Your claim affiliation is highly correlated with ideology is unsupported. You repeating the same allegation over and over again doesn't constitute support for said allegation.
LIkewise, your "wouldn't affect his claim" is idiotic. It debunks his claim. It shatters his credibility about what he "found." There's no reason to believe his "0 GOP," which you illogically seem to think still holds up.
Again, no. Read what Berliner actually said. In the context of what he said it's clear he didn't exclude the possibility of independents. He checked the party affiliation of those registered to vote in DC (public records) and found 87 Dems, no GOP.
I'm not going to argue about points as obvious as that political affiliation and ideology are highly correlated. You're avoiding the obvious. That's your choice, and no one else can fix it for you.
I have read what he actually wrote, which is why I know you're being dishonest about it.
You're not "going to argue" because you don't have an argument to make supporting your claim party affiliation is "highly correlated" with ideology. Many reporters I've read and spoke to about party affiliation deliberately register as independent. That doesn't say anything about their ideological beliefs. Othes might register in either political party- especially in a one-party place like D.C.- in order to vote in primary elections which are far more relevant to determining elections than the general. Which, likewise, wouldn't tell us anything about their ideological leanings.
Since no reporter is capable of reporting on any story without skewing it, and NPR is an organization staffed by liberals, one can assume that NPR articles have a liberal bias, and accommodate for it in our judgment. The same goes for AM talk radio and the National Review.
Berliner (and presumably you) seem to want NPR to intentionally hire and fire so that the median opinion in newsroom on any political issue is close to the median national opinion. Putting aside how one would achieve that, can I ask how it would affect your belief or trust in any NPR reporting?
Look, all journalism is at least a little bit biased, not because of partisanship, but because journalism is an activity that requires. subjective human judgment about what's important and what's not. Even the most scrupulous reporters are human beings with personal opinions and with conscious and unconscious biases and blind spots. The scrupulous ones will look past their conscious biases, like party affiliation, in their reporting, but the unconscious ones (those tied to personal identity and lived experience, and those built into the newsrooms where they work and the business model and established practices of journalism)) are harder to overcome because they're unconscious. The political bias of individual reporters is much less impactful on an outlet's reporting than those institutional biases. They skew coverage at NPR, as at most other outlets, toward familiar narrative, expedience, and capital. Corporate sponsorship pays a plurality of the bills (38%) at NPR, so you're not likely to hear coverage that challenges the confirmation biases of corporate or individual donors, no matter how individual reporters may vote. Read Alicia Montgomery's Slate article (https://slate.com/business/2024/04/npr-diversity-public-broadcasting-radio.html ) for a more nuanced insider perspective than Berliner's or Inskeep's on NPR's institutional biases and how they skew coverage there. In her experience, editors at NPR try to keep coverage centrist to a fault, both sides-ing every story even when there really aren't two equally valid and credible sides. This performative objectivity is many reporters' and editors' way of responding to criticism like Berliner's, which the right wing has been leveling at mainstream journalism for more than 50 years, that they are not scrupulous enough to overlook their conscious partisan biases. Berliner thinks truth is not being served because of how his colleagues vote; Montgomery thinks truth is not being served because her colleagues have abdicated their editorial judgment. Since I have worked in a lot of newsrooms where this has happened, where management has effectively handed over the job of assignment editor to sponsors, shareholders, algorithms, focus groups, and bad-faith critics who don't want journalism that holds the powerful accountable to exist, I find her critique more plausible than his, but YMMV.
Your first three sentences show why this is a problem. NPR believes in magic, that a staff that isn't diverse ideologically can magically be as unbiased as one that is. Obviously not. And it matters, a lot.
I disagree that institutional factors such as you mention matter more than individual ones, but it doesn't matter to Berliner's point. Individual political biases matter for the same kinds of reasons that diversity of race, gender, etc matter.
But NPR does also have powerful institutional biases as well. It has always interpreted its mission to include voices that aren't usually included as a progressive one, and understood it only as progressives understand it.
About the Slate piece, I agree that that Berliner've view seems skewed about the past at NPR, and ignores other factors that might have contributed to the further decline in conservative trust in NPR. Conservatives have distrusted NPR for a lot longer than he believes, according to Pew data. But that doesn't alter his point that things have gotten markedly worse in some ways. Progressive language and ideology about race and gender has become more strident and acquired a stronger scent, and that's made the problem even more noticeable.
In a couple other places where she seems to think she's arguing against Berliner, she's only reinforcing his points, for example in regard to how the newsroom regarded Trump. in 2016.
But the piece as a whole simply passes over the elephant in the room. It's general explanation for what Berliner points out is that it was due to NPR's general reticence and conservative approach, etc. No. That doesn't explain most of what he pointed out at all.
She doesn't address the overwhelming lack of diversity of political ideology in any substantial way.
And that's typical of NPR staff and its defenders. They believe in magic.
>Your first three sentences show why this is a problem. NPR believes in magic, that a staff that isn't diverse ideologically can magically be as unbiased as one that is. Obviously not. And it matters, a lot.
Your whole argument here is garbage. Affiliation isn't ideology, and doesn't even show bias. That's even taking Berliner as being honest, which is dubious as if he had actually "found" the political registrations of 87 people at NPR he would have found at least one independent. This is a stat he found in his own rear end, not at the office.
You're avoiding the obvious. Affiliation is obviously highly correlated with ideology.
Berliner nowhere claimed or implied there were no independents. That wouldn't affect his point at all. Inskeep, ironically given his criticism of Berliner, badly misrepresented what Berliner said. And not only on that point.
You need to look inward before lashing out at Berliner.
Your response is nonsensical. Berliner claimed the 87 people at the D.C. office were 87-0 Democrats to Republicans. That certainly does imply there were no independents. He gave no basis for his claim other than to say he "found" that to be so. A finding which is called into heavy doubt by Inskeep being an independent.
Your claim affiliation is highly correlated with ideology is unsupported. You repeating the same allegation over and over again doesn't constitute support for said allegation.
LIkewise, your "wouldn't affect his claim" is idiotic. It debunks his claim. It shatters his credibility about what he "found." There's no reason to believe his "0 GOP," which you illogically seem to think still holds up.
Again, no. Read what Berliner actually said. In the context of what he said it's clear he didn't exclude the possibility of independents. He checked the party affiliation of those registered to vote in DC (public records) and found 87 Dems, no GOP.
I'm not going to argue about points as obvious as that political affiliation and ideology are highly correlated. You're avoiding the obvious. That's your choice, and no one else can fix it for you.
I have read what he actually wrote, which is why I know you're being dishonest about it.
You're not "going to argue" because you don't have an argument to make supporting your claim party affiliation is "highly correlated" with ideology. Many reporters I've read and spoke to about party affiliation deliberately register as independent. That doesn't say anything about their ideological beliefs. Othes might register in either political party- especially in a one-party place like D.C.- in order to vote in primary elections which are far more relevant to determining elections than the general. Which, likewise, wouldn't tell us anything about their ideological leanings.
That's it. You're calling me dishonest while you're the one you need to look at for that. I'm done.
Seems like you need to start looking inside yourself.
Since no reporter is capable of reporting on any story without skewing it, and NPR is an organization staffed by liberals, one can assume that NPR articles have a liberal bias, and accommodate for it in our judgment. The same goes for AM talk radio and the National Review.
Berliner (and presumably you) seem to want NPR to intentionally hire and fire so that the median opinion in newsroom on any political issue is close to the median national opinion. Putting aside how one would achieve that, can I ask how it would affect your belief or trust in any NPR reporting?