National Public Radio has suspended an editor who has repeatedly criticized the outlet in recent days, alleging a left-leaning bias that he says is hurting the organization’s journalism. Uri …
Good. Fuck that guy and his bullshit. NPR and PBS are the only ones following the Fairness Doctrine (you have one viewpoint, and then the opposite presented to the listener)
The problem with that stance is, not all ideas are equally credible and deserve airtime. As the adage goes, “If one person says it’s raining outside, and another says it’s sunny, a reporter’s job isn’t to present both as fact. It’s to open the fucking window.”
What the right are really angry about is that their lies aren’t being given the same weight as the truth for the most part at NPR.
I’ve found NPR to be pretty good at that. It’s particularly apparent when it comes to Trump’s lies about the 2020 election; they are consistent about pointing out when claims have been conclusively disproven, and often use the word “lie”.
That said, I agree with Berliner’s fundamental point; I’ve noticed an increasing slant in the stories NPR emphasizes. It’s not that their reporting is unfair, but their choice of what to cover aligns pretty closely with the positions of the progressive left.
Is the slant created by NPR or by the political climate, though?
Let’s use an extreme:
If a person says that all strawberries are red, then another person says “hey, this guy said that strawberries give cancer!” and NPR says “What the first person said was that all strawberries were red,” then all good. Then 1,000 people claim that no, what was said was that strawberries cause cancer. And NPR insists on indicating that no, it’s just a statement about strawberries being red - will you say that the “red strawberry” slant was caused by NPR?
NPR talked a lot about investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign while investigations were ongoing, but was “sparse” in its coverage of the Mueller report’s finding that there was no credible evidence of such collusion.
Hunter Biden’s laptop, containing evidence of influence peddling was deemed non-newsworthy; Berliner believes it was newsworthy.
NPR dismissed the SARS-CoV-2 lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory and failed to report on it seriously. While it is not the leading hypothesis, there’s credible evidence for it, and at some points in the past the evidence looked fairly compelling.
These examples are very different from ignoring someone who claims without evidence that strawberries cause cancer, that the 2020 election was rigged, or that wildfires in California were started by Israeli space lasers.
Okay, I started reading it, and I had to stop because he lost his credibility to me. Here are the notes I made for the beginning of the article.
First, he cites statistics to show how the demographics of listeners moved left between 2011 and 2023. He mentions Trump as related, but doesn’t consider how Trump’s lies about “fake news” caused a massive shift in what news people consume. And he doesn’t mention how during that time all news outlets were being affected by the rise of social media.
But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR’s coverage was notably sparse. Russiagate quietly faded from our programming.
This is what Burr’s summary of the Mueller report said. It’s right wing propaganda. The report actually found all sorts of evidence, but concluded it couldn’t call them crimes because of a policy of the DOJ.
There was really no point in continuing reading once I got to actual lies. It’s not journalism and the author doesn’t come off as credible to me.
Yeah it’s interesting because I actually agree with his overall point that coverage there could try to be a bit more balanced but his essay does a very poor job of supporting this idea and does more to reveal his own biases than NPR’s.
And what biases are those? He’s a legit award winning Journalist, a registered Democrat and he voted against Trump twice.
I don’t know this guy at all but from the outside looking in it really appears as if he’s being tossed under the bus and silenced simply because he’s saying something that his boss, and and quite a few people online, don’t want to hear.
Good. Fuck that guy and his bullshit. NPR and PBS are the only ones following the Fairness Doctrine (you have one viewpoint, and then the opposite presented to the listener)
The problem with that stance is, not all ideas are equally credible and deserve airtime. As the adage goes, “If one person says it’s raining outside, and another says it’s sunny, a reporter’s job isn’t to present both as fact. It’s to open the fucking window.”
What the right are really angry about is that their lies aren’t being given the same weight as the truth for the most part at NPR.
Did you… Read the article? I agree with you, but you may be thinking the headline means something it doesnt since it also agrees with you.
I’ve found NPR to be pretty good at that. It’s particularly apparent when it comes to Trump’s lies about the 2020 election; they are consistent about pointing out when claims have been conclusively disproven, and often use the word “lie”.
That said, I agree with Berliner’s fundamental point; I’ve noticed an increasing slant in the stories NPR emphasizes. It’s not that their reporting is unfair, but their choice of what to cover aligns pretty closely with the positions of the progressive left.
Is the slant created by NPR or by the political climate, though?
Let’s use an extreme:
If a person says that all strawberries are red, then another person says “hey, this guy said that strawberries give cancer!” and NPR says “What the first person said was that all strawberries were red,” then all good. Then 1,000 people claim that no, what was said was that strawberries cause cancer. And NPR insists on indicating that no, it’s just a statement about strawberries being red - will you say that the “red strawberry” slant was caused by NPR?
Have you read Berliner’s article yet? He gives three examples:
These examples are very different from ignoring someone who claims without evidence that strawberries cause cancer, that the 2020 election was rigged, or that wildfires in California were started by Israeli space lasers.
Lol. As soon as you mention the “laptop”, you lose all credibility.
What about Al Capone’s vault!? Why aren’t we focusing on that?!?
You REALLY aren’t giving him enough credit. Have you read his essay? I’ll bet its not at all what you think it is.
https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust
Okay, I started reading it, and I had to stop because he lost his credibility to me. Here are the notes I made for the beginning of the article.
First, he cites statistics to show how the demographics of listeners moved left between 2011 and 2023. He mentions Trump as related, but doesn’t consider how Trump’s lies about “fake news” caused a massive shift in what news people consume. And he doesn’t mention how during that time all news outlets were being affected by the rise of social media.
This is what Burr’s summary of the Mueller report said. It’s right wing propaganda. The report actually found all sorts of evidence, but concluded it couldn’t call them crimes because of a policy of the DOJ.
There was really no point in continuing reading once I got to actual lies. It’s not journalism and the author doesn’t come off as credible to me.
Yeah it’s interesting because I actually agree with his overall point that coverage there could try to be a bit more balanced but his essay does a very poor job of supporting this idea and does more to reveal his own biases than NPR’s.
And what biases are those? He’s a legit award winning Journalist, a registered Democrat and he voted against Trump twice.
I don’t know this guy at all but from the outside looking in it really appears as if he’s being tossed under the bus and silenced simply because he’s saying something that his boss, and and quite a few people online, don’t want to hear.