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

RoastBeast said:
Definitely non partisan. She's as centric as it gets. Right down the line.

Apparently she's the perfect representative of how ordinary non partisan Americans talk.

Like I said earlier, when you have Jack, Andy, Wilder and whatever other Sherdog left wingers defending NPR, you don't even need to have ever heard of NPR to automatically know that NPR is a left wing rag.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm defending honesty. If you want to criticize them based on true things, have at it.
 
Fox by the Sea said:
That's the dumbest thing people that think they are smart keep spamming.
Click to expand...
There's a strong basis of truth, though. Like, we know that the real divide is based on opinions, but Republicans don't think that their opinions are popular so they don't end up defending them on their merits, which leads to political debates being more about what is true, and rightists are on the wrong basically across the board (regressive tax cuts aren't self-funding and, in fact, don't noticeably improve growth at all; the climate is changing; the change is a result of human activity; Trump did lose the last election; Trump isn't the innocent victim of a big "lawfare" conspiracy; economic stats do reflect reality; the Earth wasn't created 6,000 years ago by magic; etc.).
 
ShadowRun said:
NPR CEO .

crazy how some of the NPC's are so out of touch.

Click to expand...


Haha, what absolute word salad garbage. And these freaks think they make it true due to their vocal inflections and hand gestures.

"written history is all white male bias, what about more diverse histories like oral histories?"

Uhh, hey lady, you mean like the Odyssy, bible, etc? Or does she mean like the oral stories in places like Malawi that talk about witch craft and lead to killing Albinos, etc?

bg,f8f8f8-flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.jpg
 
Jack V Savage said:
There's a strong basis of truth, though. Like, we know that the real divide is based on opinions, but Republicans don't think that their opinions are popular so they don't end up defending them on their merits, which leads to political debates being more about what is true, and rightists are on the wrong basically across the board (regressive tax cuts aren't self-funding and, in fact, don't noticeably improve growth at all; the climate is changing; the change is a result of human activity; Trump did lose the last election; Trump isn't the innocent victim of a big "lawfare" conspiracy; economic stats do reflect reality; the Earth wasn't created 6,000 years ago by magic; etc.).
Click to expand...
lol @ thinking i'm reading your drivel.
 
Jack V Savage said:
You've seen a Newsmax or Fox thread where people are calling for them to be shut down?
Click to expand...

It's a stated objective of the left.



www.bloomberg.com

Fox News Foes Face Uphill Fight to Get Cable Network Dropped

The fight against election misinformation has a new target: your cable company.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com

www.ctvnews.ca

Canadian regulator launches public consultation on banning Fox News from cable packages

Canadian regulators have launched a public consultation on calls to ban Fox News after receiving complaints saying the network has aired hateful content about LGBTQ2S+ people.
www.ctvnews.ca www.ctvnews.ca

 
ColemanwastheGOAT said:
It's a stated objective of the left.
Click to expand...
But it's not actually a stated objective of the left (nevermind the fact that "the left" is not a single entity that can even state an objective). Read your own links.

"For years, Democrats have been engaged in a debate over whether the party should shun the cable news giant or grudgingly use its airwaves to run counterprogramming. But in the midst of the latest saga, a newer type of reaction has emerged: that they should sever all ties, including any money spent advertising on the network.

...

There is no indication, at this juncture, that major Democratic entities are ready to halt their ad buys on Fox News, let alone its many affiliates."

Your claim was that they want to shut Fox down. That's a piece about how they (understandably!) don't regard it as a legitimate news organization. Very different!

From your second link:

"How to get the Fox News monster under control? I do not believe the government should have any role in regulating what can and can’t be said on the air, although I often hear that proposed. That would be a cure worse than the disease. But let’s not count on the hope that the Fox-controlling Murdochs will develop a conscience."

Looks like you just collected a bunch of links that you didn't read and counted on others not to read them.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Well, I'm defending honesty. If you want to criticize them based on true things, have at it.
Click to expand...

There's nothing to debate. It would be like me attempting to say Fox is non partisan. I know they're partisan just like I know NPR is partisan.

A media corporation can be wildly partisan while still only reporting the truth. Usually it's what they don't report on or don't criticize that makes them partisan.
 
RoastBeast said:
There's nothing to debate. It would be like me attempting to say Fox is non partisan. I know they're partisan just like I know NPR is partisan.

A media corporation can be wildly partisan while still only reporting the truth. Usually it's what they don't report on or don't criticize that makes them partisan.
Click to expand...
But there is something to debate. The piece linked in the OP makes a bunch of objectively false claims to make his point. I understand that it speaks to something that feels emotionally true to you--that non-Republican sources of information are not reliable. But a serious examination of the issue would have to involve evaluating the claims separate from your feelings about the overarching narrative.
 
Jack V Savage said:
But there is something to debate. The piece linked in the OP makes a bunch of objectively false claims to make his point. I understand that it speaks to something that feels emotionally true to you--that non-Republican sources of information are not reliable. But a serious examination of the issue would have to involve evaluating the claims separate from your feelings about the overarching narrative.
Click to expand...

I thought you were the honest one here? Sounds like you're back to your usual dishonest ways. When you can start acting like an adult and being honest, we can talk. Until then, I'll just go back to ignoring the troll.

Like I said, zero amount of research has to be done on any topic you're debating. All one needs to know is if you're defending it, then it's progressively ideologically driven and if you're criticizing it, then it's right leaning and conservative.
 
RoastBeast said:
I thought you were the honest one here? Sounds like you're back to your usual dishonest ways. When you can start acting like an adult and being honest, we can talk. Until then, I'll just go back to ignoring the troll.

Like I said, zero amount of research has to be done on any topic you're debating. All one needs to know is if you're defending it, then it's progressively ideologically driven and if you're criticizing it, then it's right leaning and conservative.
Click to expand...
You're saying I'm not honest just because I believe in getting facts right. Like I said, I understand that you want NPR to be more supportive of GOP narratives, but that doesn't have any bearing on the fact that the piece that Berliner wrote was riddled with factual errors. It's not even clear to me that you understand that there is a difference between factual errors and having an opinion someone doesn't like.
 
@RoastBeast, try to think of it in terms you're not so emotional about. Say someone said that the Yankees are awesome because they have six .300 hitters this year. This exchange is like if someone else pointed out that they don't have six .300 hitters this year, and a Yankees fans was like "you're a liar! The Yankees are too awesome!"

Your position on the ideal ideological or partisan positioning of NPR is noted but not relevant to the truth or falsity of Berliner's specific claims. Also not relevant: Whether I'm a (insert nasty name), whether anyone else agrees that NPR should be more right-wing, and anything anyone else involved with NPR has said about anything.
 
RoastBeast said:
I thought you were the honest one here? Sounds like you're back to your usual dishonest ways. When you can start acting like an adult and being honest, we can talk. Until then, I'll just go back to ignoring the troll.

Like I said, zero amount of research has to be done on any topic you're debating. All one needs to know is if you're defending it, then it's progressively ideologically driven and if you're criticizing it, then it's right leaning and conservative.
Click to expand...

You don't really need to read his posts. Just think to yourself, what would Nancy Pelosi slur... I mean say... and that's Jack's position on virtually anything / everything. He's a straight up Democratic Party shill.
 
Islam Imamate said:
Do you think that in terms of journalistic integrity that NPR is more or less comparable to Fox News?
Click to expand...

Fox News at least employs Democrats. However, if you choose specific Fox Shows like Hannity, then Fox is more partisan (not by much), but they are not trying to hide it. Fox's hard news shows are superior to NPR is bias and content.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,369
Messages
55,486,213
Members
174,789
Latest member
This Island Earth

Share this page

Back
Top