Opinion NPR Senior Editor Blasts Lack of ‘Viewpoint Diversity’ After Leftward Lurch: ‘Open-Minded Spirit No Longer Exists’

[panamaican]

And also to reality. But I can tell you're getting too emotional to keep on track here.

I think it's fascinating that your response to multiple sources that investigated this very subject is to claim that I'm too emotional to keep on track. My emotionality has led all of these investigators to fabricate their findings...yeah, ok.

Jack, I'm not one of these simple simon mf'ers that just says things to say them. I put up the sources and the stats. That's reality.

Continuing to argue against the data without anything to support your position doesn't make the other person "too emotional", it just demonstrates that you prefer to argue from the same position of ignorance as those you like to criticize. You like to guess and you refuse to do the homework to make sure you're right outside of a very narrow range of issues.

 

[Loiosh]

And when you hear of some of the corporate or business donors to your local NPR station it'll be something like a local car dealership or law firm.

Its true that NPR has a center left bias but I think that's mainly because the kind of personality types that enter journalism generally and NPR in particular happen to be center left leaning. More important than any supposed partisan bias to me is journalistic standards and on that end I don't think you can equate NPR with Fox news much less the insanity that you see in the alternative media sphere which skews heavily to the right and has next to no real journalistic standards.

Project Veritas ran a hit on NPR, as you probably know. They sent fake investors who offered huge investments with the caveat NPR had to run as much news that made Fox look bad as possible.

NPR replied in no uncertain terms six times that no donation could influence reporting, ever. The seventh time they were asked they laughed as if it were a joke and answered in a way that could be construed as friendly. Guess what answer PV published and conservatives believed?

If the GOP wants to tear NPR down they should attack the quality of their reporting, but they can't do that because NPR's reporting is pretty damned good. Complaining about the lab leak and the laptop gives away the game because those stories were completely unsubstantiated and failed to meet journalistic standards on every level.

 

[Loiosh]

I think it's fascinating that your response to multiple sources that investigated this very subject is to claim that I'm too emotional to keep on track. My emotionality has led all of these investigators to fabricate their findings...yeah, ok.

Jack, I'm not one of these simple simon mf'ers that just says things to say them. I put up the sources and the stats. That's reality.

Continuing to argue against the data without anything to support your position doesn't make the other person "too emotional", it just demonstrates that you prefer to argue from the same position of ignorance as those you like to criticize. You like to guess and you refuse to do the homework to make sure you're right outside of a very narrow range of issues.

What's your point, exactly? That donors influence content?

Just how biased do you consider NPR and do you think their reporting has been adversely effected?

 

[HereticBD]

What's your point, exactly? That donors influence content?

Yeah, I believe that's his point. Odd how you would challenge him and not the guy speaking absolute nonsense, and saying that donors don't have any influence whatsoever over the product they're funding.

 

[panamaican]

What's your point, exactly? That donors influence content?

Just how biased do you consider NPR and do you think their reporting has been adversely effected?

Go up a few posts. I posted plenty of sources that say exactly that -- donors influence content. And more importantly, donors frequently donate specifically to influence content.

This is all in response to someone else who said that they think the increased reliance on private funding might have something to do with the change in tone. Someone claimed it was impossible. The research says that not only is it possible, it is often intended.

Me personally? I don't listen to NPR. I don't know how biased they are or aren't...and I said as much on the first page.

But arguing against uncomfortable truths doesn't make them disappear and that's true regardless of which side of the political aisle one sits on.

 

[Lord_Impaler]

You were able to hang on listening to Amy Goodman drone on about Covid?

Brave man

The one in Europe, around 2014 I think. Shortly after the CIA destabilized the entire world with their “Arab spring”.

 

[deviake]

And I've worked with lobbyists and donors and that side of the table knows the difference between the ideals as professed and the reality as practiced.

He's always denies the influence of donors. To a suspicious degree in my opinion.

You know its the truth, Hilary and Biden being right wing establishment stooges standing up for the status quo(or a move further to the right and more foreign wars) are whats allows Trump benefit from the anti establishment vote, you make sure any genuinely progressive option is supressed and you will feed support to a right wing demagogue like Trump selling an anti establishment fantasy.

The Democrats could very easily beat Trump if they for example shifted towards socialised healthcare or stopped facilitating genocide(both of which have a large majority of public support) but its clear were Biden's priorities are.

Curiously he's always on brand with his narrative. Always. If there's plants on this forum (why anyone would care about this site I don't know, but to entertain the idea...), he is one. Otherwise, I'd say his career and opinions are very likely intertwined. The way he plants his feet on certain things is just too strange.

 

[Zankou]

It’s become targeted almost entirely to old, white, female, urban professional listeners.

If that’s your jam, then there you are. But it’s long since lost any attempt to present ideological or social diversity.

Ironically it professes to support diversity … within the constraints of supporting the interests of the audience outlined above.

 

[moreorless87]

Curiously he's always on brand with his narrative. Always. If there's plants on this forum (why anyone would care about this site I don't know, but to entertain the idea...), he is one. Otherwise, I'd say his career and opinions are very likely intertwined. The way he plants his feet on certain things is just too strange.

I suspect more just ego, you do see quite a lot of people with similar positions who have built up this idea of themselves as "big brained pragmatists", that there following the smart path for the greater good with any compromise justified. Ultimatelty though for me they've just bought hype which has been hard sold to them by the political/media establishment, the equivalent to nodding a long at a party to try and seem smart. I mean look at this thread, his main argument is how much dumber everyone else is than himself.

I think the giveaway he's probably not a plant but someone sticking to his ego is that he almost entirely avoids the Gaza thread because he knows he'd have to answer questions he doesnt want to and avoided doing so here when I brought them up plus of course that he'd find himself on the same "side" as the right wing racists he defines himself as being in opposition to.

If your looking for a plant I would say a certain person in that thread seems more likely, someone who spent years and years parroting the UFC corporate line on Sherdog without fail then suddenly stopped and instead spent all his time pushing the Israel line instead. Honestly I put him down to an over obsessed fan of UFC hype before who there are plenty of on Sherdog but the way he tried to stay "professional" was always different and this sudden switch looks rather dodgy, like he has got a promotion from pushing a MMA brand(which would make sense on Sherdog) to pushing Israel(maybe could point to his history on Sherdog).

 

[terrapin]

He's always denies the influence of donors. To a suspicious degree in my opinion.

Curiously he's always on brand with his narrative. Always. If there's plants on this forum (why anyone would care about this site I don't know, but to entertain the idea...), he is one. Otherwise, I'd say his career and opinions are very likely intertwined. The way he plants his feet on certain things is just too strange.

I agree and have suspected the same thing often. He's a sophist either way.

 

[Hdfi]

Are we ever getting back to honest reporting and balance of opinions?

"back"? That never existed. If anything, people are more aware now that governments and corporations have been lying and manipulating them since forever and will continue to do so. This skepticism is a good thing, at least on an individual level (on a social level it's a bad thing because without uneducated people and naive fools society would collapse).

 

[Loiosh]

Go up a few posts. I posted plenty of sources that say exactly that -- donors influence content. And more importantly, donors frequently donate specifically to influence content.

This is all in response to someone else who said that they think the increased reliance on private funding might have something to do with the change in tone. Someone claimed it was impossible. The research says that not only is it possible, it is often intended.

Me personally? I don't listen to NPR. I don't know how biased they are or aren't...and I said as much on the first page.

But arguing against uncomfortable truths doesn't make them disappear and that's true regardless of which side of the political aisle one sits on.

The effect of their bias on the quality and honesty of their reporting are all that matters. The direction of their content as a result of their funding and audience is irrelevant.

The only issues specified in these criticisms are the Hunter laptop and lab leak stories, which barely meet the standards of tabloid journalism. If not reporting on those is considered partisan, why not complain about the lack of stories on Trump Junior's rampant drug use or the billions of dollars the Saudis sent to Kushner after his involvement in Middle East mediation?

You can't divorce this point from the politics, it's ALL about the politics. If you're going to drill down and prove that NPR is influenced, it's probably important to understand what effect it's having and how much better or worse they are than comparable institutions. As I pointed out in another post, conservatives painted a target on NPR a few years ago and have gone to great lengths to attack them.

Ironically, NPR has been criticized for a heavy conservative bias in the past. This is probably why it's being targeted now and conservatives in this thread are saying they don't listen to it any more as NPR spent twenty years correcting from those criticisms.

 

[SoSo]

I've actually worked in a newsroom (multiple jobs, including editor) and maintain contact with other people who do, and this is just not how it works at all. Avoiding that kind of thing part of the reason for the type of layering that exists. Anyone who tried to run a serious newsroom (that isn't explicitly ideological, like Mother Jones or Breitbart) that way would have a revolt on their hands.

Jack, just what haven't you done me lad?
Except laboring/trade craft. Or are you going to tell me you've also been journeyman Jack the philosopher plumber in addition to your myriad of white collar professions?

 

[panamaican]

The effect of their bias on the quality and honesty of their reporting are all that matters. The direction of their content as a result of their funding and audience is irrelevant.

The only issues specified in these criticisms are the Hunter laptop and lab leak stories, which barely meet the standards of tabloid journalism. If not reporting on those is considered partisan, why not complain about the lack of stories on Trump Junior's rampant drug use or the billions of dollars the Saudis sent to Kushner after his involvement in Middle East mediation?

You can't divorce this point from the politics, it's ALL about the politics. If you're going to drill down and prove that NPR is influenced, it's probably important to understand what effect it's having and how much better or worse they are than comparable institutions. As I pointed out in another post, conservatives painted a target on NPR a few years ago and have gone to great lengths to attack them.

Ironically, NPR has been criticized for a heavy conservative bias in the past. This is probably why it's being targeted now and conservatives in this thread are saying they don't listen to it any more as NPR spent twenty years correcting from those criticisms.

You're making a bunch of comments that have nothing to do with any point that I made. I've said already that I, personally, have no idea how biased NPR is or isn't. Arguing that they're not biased is just wasting your time. I don't listen to NPR.

Let me simplify what I've commented on so that you stop trying to convince me of something that I don't care about:

1. Panamaican does not listen to NPR. Panamaican does not know anything about the level of bias in NPR's broadcasting. Something to be safely assumed: Panamaican does not care if NPR is biased or not.
   1. Do not try to convince Panamaican that NPR is or is not biased -- he doesn't care.
2. Donors donate to news organizations to influence content. Donors have an effect on content as result of their donations, even indirectly. There is plenty of research into this subject.
   1. Do not try to convince Panamaican that newsrooms are immune to the effects of donations, it is not true.
   2. Do not try to convince Panamaican that NPR is uniquely different from all other news organizations when it comes to donor effects. There is no evidence that NPR is better or worse than any other major news organization.
   3. Do not try to convince Panamaican that NPR's donor related biases are minimal or irrelevant. Why? See Section 1.1 -- he does not care if NPR is biased or neutral because he doesn't listen to NPR.

 

[ferrisjso]

I think it's fascinating that your response to multiple sources that investigated this very subject is to claim that I'm too emotional to keep on track. My emotionality has led all of these investigators to fabricate their findings...yeah, ok.

Jack, I'm not one of these simple simon mf'ers that just says things to say them. I put up the sources and the stats. That's reality.

Continuing to argue against the data without anything to support your position doesn't make the other person "too emotional", it just demonstrates that you prefer to argue from the same position of ignorance as those you like to criticize. You like to guess and you refuse to do the homework to make sure you're right outside of a very narrow range of issues.

He always does this. Anything that doesn't agree with a neoliberal capitalist world view is based on emotion and is extreme. Its the same play book that someone like Ben Shapiro uses. Hes the sort of person who will try and convince you that you don't exist.

Hes the embodiment of the whole "end of history" technocrat school of thought who see 1991 as their total permanent victory over the world and believe they can speak unipolarity into existence by making their position on everything "the rational thought out view" and that everything bad about the world needs to be that way and thinking otherwise is emotion.

 

[Zankou]

He always does this. Anything that doesn't agree with a neoliberal capitalist world view is based on emotion and is extreme. Its the same play book that someone like Ben Shapiro uses. Hes the sort of person who will try and convince you that you don't exist.

Hes the embodiment of the whole "end of history" technocrat school of thought who see 1991 as their total permanent victory over the world and believe they can speak unipolarity into existence by making their position on everything "the rational thought out view" and that everything bad about the world needs to be that way and thinking otherwise is emotion.

Tbh we will all miss this when it’s completely gone. If I have to choose between the neoliberal ‘graphs and racism’ school of political dominion, which alternates between arguing that neutral policy mandates everything and (where graphs fail) insisting that your opponent is a selfish misogynistic racist, and modern factional politics … which I call ‘prison politics,’ because it’s just blunt factional war … I’ll take the neoliberal shills every time. While they consistently supported their own social status in every scenario, at least their graphs generated some positive externalities.

After all, NPR used to not be atrocious. As much as 20 years ago, during the height of neoliberalism, it was widely enjoyed across the political spectrum, and had a genuine diversity of viewpoints. Nowadays, like everything else, it’s had to choose a faction and sell out to it.

 

[Whippy McGee]

To the extent that there is a left wing bias in journalism generally and at NPR in particular as I said earlier I think it mostly comes down to the fact that certain personality types will gravitate to certain fields and political beliefs. Asking why there are no Republican journalists at NPR is like asking why tehre are no Democrat petroleum engineers at ExxonMobil.

Not exactly. Leftists exclude others once they have the power in their hiring practices. We see it in the News Media, Higher Education, and Bureaucracies as a rule.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Not exactly. Leftists exclude others once they have the power in their hiring practices. We see it in the News Media, Higher Education, and Bureaucracies as a rule.

I think @Islam Imamate underrates the impact of general educational polarization. Educated people in general (not just in any particular field) are increasingly rejecting the GOP, and the effect is stronger at more elite institutions, which is where the top media orgs get the vast majority of their talent. And in turn, they create a product that appeals more to more-educated people. And, again, it doesn't require CTs about evil donors or anything.

 

[Jack V Savage]

He always does this. Anything that doesn't agree with a neoliberal capitalist world view is based on emotion and is extreme. Its the same play book that someone like Ben Shapiro uses. Hes the sort of person who will try and convince you that you don't exist.

Hes the embodiment of the whole "end of history" technocrat school of thought who see 1991 as their total permanent victory over the world and believe they can speak unipolarity into existence by making their position on everything "the rational thought out view" and that everything bad about the world needs to be that way and thinking otherwise is emotion.

Nah, Pan knows he's wrong and is just lashing out with personal attacks. When he gets to that point, I just leave him alone.

 

[Whippy McGee]

I think @Islam Imamate underrates the impact of general educational polarization. Educated people in general (not just in any particular field) are increasingly rejecting the GOP, and the effect is stronger at more elite institutions, which is where the top media orgs get the vast majority of their talent. And in turn, they create a product that appeals more to more-educated people. And, again, it doesn't require CTs about evil donors or anything.

You're so full of shit it's ridiculous. 87-0 - That's systemic discrimination and we all know it. Their bias is 100% reflected in their reporting as Uri Berliner stated with their reliance on Adam Schiff as he told these Clowns / Left Cult what they wanted to hear.

Replace Democrat with White/Male/Straight and Republican with Black/Female/Gay and you guys would be losing your minds.