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

[Gotosleepho]

NPR is leftist filth

 

[moreorless87]

To be fair, that's kind of true, isn't it? Remember she was running against President Camacho.

Nothing to do with her being a highly uninspiring establishment stooge.

 

[panamaican]

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.

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.

 

[andnowweknow]

The idea of "open minded" in America today, especially on the right, is lurching towards giving the same weight to retarded CTs as is given to factual analysis. It's the "let's hear both sides" nonsense...if one side is peddling lie after lie after lie, no, we shouldn't play the "let's hear em out game"...it's basically "let us lie and muddy the waters, it's only fair!"

 

[panamaican]

So Hillary was not elected because she was too intelligent for USA? even though Obama is clearly more intelligent than she is. Don't carry the water here there is no need, she was unpopular for a reason. it's intellectually dishonest (not you but the articles that came out) because they talk about how she just talked policy and Trump was more about culture topics. As if that is too sophisticated for the audience, boring would be the right word. Policies like us having a no-fly zone in Syria. Which is ridiculous. Policy discussion is a good thing. it was the person not the subject.

Was Hillary Clinton Too Smart To Get Elected? can’t help but wonder in retrospect if Hillary Clinton was really too smart to lead given the state of the current U.S. political ecosystem​

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/was-...rt-to-lead-in-this_b_5846fa0ae4b0b261c83427a3

Hillary was smart. But she lacked the charisma of Bill or Barack or Donald. And she was too arrogant to understand that campaign rhetoric can't be delivered in the way she chose to do it.

She was like that smart person who can't ever stop letting you know just how smart they are and how smart they think they are (yes, I get that some people will find ironic humor in me posting that here).

Smart but tone deaf.

 

[irish_thug]

I think this story is lacking one key detail: where did the conservative consumers go?

AM talk radio

 

[Belaya Smert]

If you have listened to NPR for the last decade it’s pretty obvious. MSM has followed suit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I will have to check that out I remember reading about the secret service agents saying she's a total bitch to everyone.

The secret service agent who said that turned out to be lying.

Here's the kind of thing that you regularly hear from people who actually work with her:

Why Electing Hillary in ’16 Is More Important Than Electing Obama in ’08

A former Obama ’08 speechwriter explains how and why Secretary Clinton is a lot more compelling than you might think.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[Jack V Savage]

Nothing to do with her being a highly uninspiring establishment stooge.

I think that's exactly the kind of contentless attack you expect from Camacho voters.

 

[Jack V Savage]

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.

Well, no. Donors and lobbyists are not in newsrooms or part of the process. Wouldn’t surprise me if they exaggerated their influence.

 

[moreorless87]

I think that's exactly the kind of contentless attack you expect from Camacho voters.

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.

 

[panamaican]

Well, no. Donors and lobbyists are not in newsrooms or part of the process of process. Wouldn’t surprise me if they exaggerated their influence.

A statement which completely misunderstood what I said previously. I never said that they were in the newsroom. What I said is that the pressure from donors on the individuals responsible for generating donations results in those individuals putting pressure on management, management puts pressure on editors, subtle but there. And that leads to editors influencing what happens in the newsrooms and the meetings.

If you're thinking this is Donor X walking into a newsroom and demanding stories about Y while editors bow their head in acquiescence then you don't understand how this works.

Influence is a subtle thing and you seem stuck in thinking about it like a club or a hammer.

Let me put it in the context of an issue that you understand. Clarence Thomas. No one is bribing Clarence Thomas directly. But it is impossible for Clarence Thomas to benefit from the economic largesse of those who pay for his trips and RVs without becoming more sympathetic to their political positions. And once Clarence Thomas is sympathetic, the other justices might be swayed by arguments that Thomas makes that are sympathetic to the perspective of those who are financing Thomas beneficially, even though they're not taking the trips or riding in the RV.

Does that mean that Thomas is corrupt? Of course not. Does is mean that the other members of the Court are corrupted by the benefits that they haven't received? Of course not. But it does mean that the influence provided by the money can slowly alter the perspectives of those on the receiving end and ultimately the perspectives of the people they work with.

That is what money does and how financial influence works. It's why rich people donate. They don't donate to schools because they want to influence teachers. They donate to schools so they can influence the head of the school. The head of school will eventually, unintentionally, do the rest.

 

[Jack V Savage]

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 fantasy is that there is a left-wing candidate who wouldn't be called "establishment stooges" by their opponents (including fake "left" opponents who are indifferent to policy).

 

[Jack V Savage]

A statement which completely misunderstood what I said previously. I never said that they were in the newsroom.

I didn't say you said they were. I said that you don't understand how newsrooms work and that unless we're talking about an explicitly ideological/political organization, there are layers protecting reporting from that kind of influence.

 

[moreorless87]

The fantasy is that there is a left-wing candidate who wouldn't be called "establishment stooges" by their opponents (including fake "left" opponents who are indifferent to policy).

Hilary and Biden both were running against someone obviously far more progressive than they were, every effort was put out by the Dem establishment to make sure this didnt happen.

There's a difference between a compromise candidate like Sanders who progressives might not back everything he does but he represents a positive movement and people like Hilary and Biden who are clearly the enemies of progressive politics, operate with a thin sheen of liberalism but are clearly sold out lock stock and barrel.

You called me out for lack of substance but now you seem happy to ignore it when I post any jumping back to generalities. Public opinion is clearly against Biden on how he's dealing with Israel, its massively against him when it comes to potential dem voters. He's damaging his chances of beating Trump to help facilitate genocide.

 

[HereticBD]

Y'all just had to bring up Hillary Clinton...

Incoming ten pages of Jackie flicking her bean.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hilary and Biden both were running against someone obviously far more progressive than they were, every effort was put out by the Dem establishment to make sure this didnt happen.

They both ran against Trump. And both of them had agendas that were too left-wing to pass completely (note, for example, that Manchin effectively has full veto power over Biden's legislative agenda). So there's really no relevance to ideological positioning in a primary. What matters is how effectively you can get what you want done not how big your promises are.

There's a difference between a compromise candidate like Sanders who progressives might not back everything he does but he represents a positive movement and people like Hilary and Biden who are clearly the enemies of progressive politics, operate with a thin sheen of liberalism but are clearly sold out lock stock and barrel.

"Clearly." I think you just don't really understand how policy making works and are really convinced about Twitter bullshit.

You called me out for lack of substance but now you see happy to ignore it when I post any jumping back to generalities. Public opinion is clearly against Biden on how he's dealing with Israel, its massively against him when it comes to potential dem voters. He's damaging his chances of beating Trump to help facilitate genocide.

I still don't see any substance. Biden gets attacked as a stooge of Hamas or being too pro-Israel by different people. That's just how the game is played.

 

[panamaican]

I didn't say you said they were. I said that you don't understand how newsrooms work and that unless we're talking about an explicitly ideological/political organization, there are layers protecting reporting from that kind of influence.

And what I stated (and what the original article's author stated) is that influence still happens. I talked about it from the perspective of the donor class. The article talked about it from a more organic perspective. The only person suggesting that external powers don't influence newsrooms is you.

And, frankly, that's never been true at any level or at any point in time. Newspapers have always been tools of political influence and those influencers have always come from outside the newsroom, exerting subtle, or occasionally overt, pressure over the direction of the news organization.

 

[Fluffernutter]

AM talk radio

Or Spotify/podcasts.

 

[Jack V Savage]

And what I stated (and what the original article's author stated) is that influence still happens. I talked about it from the perspective of the donor class. The article talked about it from a more organic perspective. The only person suggesting that external powers don't influence newsrooms is you.

Well, the only person in this discussion. And, not coincidentally, the only person with actual experience here.

And, frankly, that's never been true at any level or at any point in time. Newspapers have always been tools of political influence and those influencers have always come from outside the newsroom, exerting subtle, or occasionally overt, pressure over the direction of the news organization.

Most newspapers don't have "donors" to begin with. They have owners (unless they're owned by public companies, which many are). But serious organizations with a primarily journalistic mission aren't getting ideological cues from owners, and journalists wouldn't generally go for that.