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

[Jack V Savage]

I see what you're talking about and I would say Ari Shapiro has the most annoying voice.

But that's completely separate from the issue of journalistic integrity. Even if they're similarly grating you wouldn't argue that Joe Rogan is roughly comparable to NPR in terms of journalistic integrity would you?

I think for a certain type of rightist, there is no stone at the center of the fruit. It's an onion. Form is all. But to even think about "integrity" or "bias" implies some kind of real standard. That might be why these discussions degenerate to just screeching at heretics.

 

[Andy Capp]

How often do you listen to NPR?



Nothing special comes to mind. Give it a shot. Listen to the news and shows like Wait Wait Don't Tell Me (a good light-hearted show btw).

What do you mean by strong left wing bias: Strong case of TDS. Shows where everyone is a liberal (they do have the token Republican here and there).

Love that show.

 

[evansusmc2]

I'm faceless, but you are Mark Kerr?

OH wow, usually everyone has already seen this but... Nice try

Social - Who Here Has The Guts To Post Their Pic?

Much love big dog. Right back at you Sherbuddy!

forums.sherdog.com

Also, shut the hell up and stop whining.

When in doubt and you got nothing else... give em' the "stop whining" cliché. Even if you know it doesn't makes since.

 

[panamaican]

I tried to address this with @panamaican who said he didn't know or care if NPR was biased or bad. How is that not all that matters here?

Because whether or not they're biased or bad has nothing to with my opinion. The person who wrote the article in the OP felt that they were biased and had lost their open-minded approach.

How I feel about NPR is irrelevant because I don't listen to NPR. So the better question is why would you argue about my opinion on NPR instead of acknowledging that the bias question was already answered by the person who wrote the article?

 

[panamaican]

It doesn't get to the point of being a massive echo chamber like Fox.

You don't have to be obese to be overweight, lol. Just because it's not the worst at something, it doesn't mean it's blameless either.

 

[AWilder]

Because whether or not they're biased or bad has nothing to with my opinion. The person who wrote the article in the OP felt that they were biased and had lost their open-minded approach.

How I feel about NPR is irrelevant because I don't listen to NPR. So the better question is why would you argue about my opinion on NPR instead of acknowledging that the bias question was already answered by the person who wrote the article?

the examples of bias the author used were mostly bullshit right wing vibes nonsense and most, if not all, were demonstrably false or extremely misleading at best.

 

[Jack V Savage]

the examples of bias the author used were mostly bullshit right wing vibes nonsense and most, if not all, were demonstrably false or extremely misleading at best.

And there have been multiple pieces quoted here that point out (different) errors that Berliner made. No one wants to engage with that because they have a strong emotional attachment to the idea that NPR is biased and they can't separate the facts from their attachments.

I gave the example earlier of a Yankee fan saying that his team is awesome because they have six .300 hitters. You can point out that they don't, in fact, have six .300 hitters, but then fans read that as you saying they're not awesome, which angers them.

 

[Zankou]

I see what you're talking about and I would say Ari Shapiro has the most annoying voice.

But that's completely separate from the issue of journalistic integrity. Even if they're similarly grating you wouldn't argue that Joe Rogan is roughly comparable to NPR in terms of journalistic integrity would you?

Depends what you mean by biased. The NPR is mostly listened to and made by a certain center-left cosmopolitan personality type and that does show in some of the stories they choose and how they cover them. I can understand if you don't like the NPR aesthetic like the voice thing Zank mentioned above and some of the story selection like the spinster host interviewing the spinster author about being a spinster that I mentioned earlier. But in general you get dry, sober analysis that is held to high standards of journalistic integrity. What source of news do you believe is less prone to bias and adheres to similar if not higher levels of journalistic integrity? Personally I think if you could only have one source of news NPR would be one of your best bets. To the extent that there is bias there I find it very easy to filter out while still getting nuanced coverage of current events.

I don’t think there’s much NPR bias besides story selection. Actually I think ‘is it true’ is rarely the issue with reporting anyways; it’s a common claim that media is lying, but mostly what it’s doing is not outright lying but rather selecting stories that accord with packaged world views.

New NY Times article just came out on the subject.

Inside the Crisis at NPR

Listeners are tuning out. Sponsorship revenue has dipped. A diversity push has generated internal turmoil. Can America’s public radio network turn things around?

www.nytimes.com

 

[panamaican]

the examples of bias the author used were mostly bullshit right wing vibes nonsense and most, if not all, were demonstrably false or extremely misleading at best.

That's not what he was describing imo. It read like he was describing bias in the process itself. Bias in how stories were selected or promoted.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don’t think there’s much NPR bias besides story selection. Actually I think ‘is it true’ is rarely the issue with reporting anyways;

Depends who is taking issue. I don't think any outlet that reports as if human-caused climate change is true, regressive tax cuts aren't self-funding, the 2020 election was legitimate, vaccines work, Trump is potentially guilty (i.e., the indictments are not part of a conspiracy against him), and economic data reflects reality (among many other things I could say) is going to be seen as credible by most Republicans. Whatever less-crazy criticisms are out there, they're on top of and secondary to the high level of distrust that non-partisan outlets get for simply getting things factually right. People who try to spin away from that reality are left saying ridiculous things like that they're bad and biased because the speakers' voices aren't manly enough.