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.
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?
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?