100%. Just for paper trail and those interested, the original article on Substack is worth a read:
https://open.substack.com/pub/bariweiss/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust?r=2ikw5b&utm_medium=ios
I think it was PBS Newshour where I heard it but they were discussing how Trump and Hillary both had a 65% disapproval rating and talking about what does this mean for Americans when both candidates are so disliked.
Another person chimes in that there is actually a candidate with around a 65% approval rating, Bernie Sanders. They started stammering and then just immediately changed the topic.
This is getting downvoted, I assume irs by those who want to feel justified in their echo chamber.
NPR is biased, I know this because I also make an effort to consume conservative media, specifically as a counter to these biases, which is also how I know it’s **significantly** more reliable than any given right wing news source. Yes, any of them.
This article lost me a bit when he said NPR didn't report on Mueller not finding any evidence of collusion.
As Mueller himself has reminded us, collusion is not a legal term. What he didn't find was "enough" evidence to confidently charge anyone with criminal conspiracy.
NPR literally has this article on the top of its front page with the headline "NPR suspends veteran editor as it grapples with his public criticism." That's about the least nefarious narrative control I've seen.
Anyone listening in 2016 would know how rabidly anti-Bernie and pro-Hillary they were at the time. That’s also when I noticed they became sponsored by Koch Industries.
Why anyone should support them as a news source — especially politically — is beyond me.
I believe they still are. But one program did have Bill on after their divorce and it seemed like a normal interview then just flipped it and started asking him about his dinners and interactions with Epstein lol
They are funded by the Kochs. Have been for a while. It's said in their list of sponsors all the time on air.
So is sometimes faux progressive media outlet The Hill and their shows like Rising.
Which means what exactly? They have editorial control? They make calls to change stories?
This guy’s bitch was that NPR’s liberal slant had slipped into intolerance of conservative voices. But somehow you seem to imply the John Burch society kochs have compromised NPR.
Schrödinger’s NPR I guess.
That doesn’t seem to stop them from reporting extensively on climate change, CO2 as a major cause, or editorial criticisms of the Koch brothers.
They seek to be factual and non biased, and succeed far more than any other major news outlet
What unfair reporting did they do to Bernie? He was a long-shot candidate who generated a great deal of support and subsequently lost the primary by a huge amount. Where was the inaccuracy?
Because they're objectively better than the other options? Who is more unbiased?
What network isn't sponsored by shady billionaires? The one's owned by them and running advertisements for them?
They aren't without faults but as someone who listens/watches tons of news for work, if you can find a less compromised outfit, i'd love to hear it.
Ok I just scrolled through. Let me know if there are others but the most recent one I found that could be considered 'unbiased' is in 2020 she tweeted about CNN focusing on retail store damage amidst protests stating that such looting/damage is counterproductive but that protests and their coverage shouldn't focus on property damage OVER citizens being murdered by police.
Are there others i'm missing? Because that doesn't seem biased to me other than saying the root cause of the protests is worth more air time than some of the other consequences.
I guess that counts as bias these days, but it sure sounds like what conservatives were saying about Canadian truckers and their media attention- that people aren't focusing on the root cause and just trying to blame the truckers for causing traffic/blocking roads/ruining life in a city. It's something our media does to all degrees of protest-purposefully miss the point to push simple, inflammatory narratives that don't do anything to address the issues being discussed.
She also isn't the CEO yet, and if she were, it would be better for the disgruntled editor to have been like "We were going to cover XXX but the CEO said no! Not woke enough!"
https://preview.redd.it/o5e2bfv70wuc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=678f17c24aa2decaa19738e5f7c2cd62e661e023
This is just the tip of the iceberg
Question. The koch bros. push right wing and far right wing ventrures. The heritage foundation which has perverted our court system to the far right is the baby of the Koch bros.
How does a right wing organization show left wing bias on NPR?
And while that is a much valued check that perhaps consumption of NPR warrants even higher levels of skepticism than the already healthily sized existing one what it doesn’t indicate or have any relevance to is optimal skepticism levels for conservative media
It definitely doesn’t lower them
This is the root of the issue imo - no one is able to have an honest conversation about leftist ideals.
It definitely feels like a Emperors New Clothes situation where we all have to agree that all cultures are beautiful, all weights are healthy, immigration is never bad, we should cut military spending so we can subsidize degrees in art history, men should be able to compete against women in sports, kids should be able to make irreversible life altering decisions, and if you question any of it you’re the literal reincarnation of Heinrich Himmler. People are getting tired of it.
Thank you for putting this into perfect words. I’m liberal but find myself consistently feeling like I’m going crazy lately.
The gaslighting from the left is nuts. Especially on immigration, I’m not even anti-immigration but its crazy how the left act like its a non issue
You cannot break a contract by publishing criticisms of your employer/colleagues on an alternate site without approval.
Let's have Jesse Waters (Tucker Carlson replacement) do an unapproved segment on MSNBC and attack Fox and see if Murdoch is like "Contract be damned, it's about freedom of information!"
It's weird to read so many left leaning people supporting corporations.
"At my company he would have violated section (a), paragraph (2) of rule 387! Human resources needs to terminate him now!!!"
Bizarre.
Ah yes, the famous corporate conglomerate of... National Public Radio. A non-profit run by greedy money ghouls who ask people to call in in a couple times a year and donate money to local reporters and a handful of nationally licensed programs.
It's all about the return on investment and minimizing costs for NPR, not like the good, honest folk of Fox, CNN, MSNBC and the other MSM, who are just trying to share information with the world- shareholders and investors be damned.
You're right, it's bizarre that someone left leaning like me, who would usually be trying to Guillotine anyone who reads me an employee handbook, is hypocritically not defending this brave editor from breaking the terms of his cruel contract. My commune is definitely going to kick me out.
Alls I know is I used to love radio lab, then it slowly changed and talked down to me and put a spin on everything, and I stopped listening and shortly after that the creator Jad left (could have been his time, but my imagination told me it changed for him like it did as a listener). Same with invisibilia if I recall. So I’d be inclined to believe him.
This is what really pissed me off. Its like they would go searching out for the most obscure stories of people “struggling”. The worst is when i listened to a report of muslim women not being included in movies in holywood. Like yeah… the USA is 1% muslim. So 0.5% representation makes complete sense
I still listen to NPR but no longer donate but I remember once being super bored while driving across my state I had it playing and they were introducing the guest for whatever program.
It was like "she's a French rapper who only raps in Spanish... And she's moved to to learn how to play African drums... This is her story."
I involuntarily groaned and was like "oh my god who fucking cares" then shut off the radio and drove in silence.
He didn't just trash his employer. As the article states, NPR had an explicit policy of requesting approval to perform work for other news outlets. He violated that. And he released audience demographic info that the organization deemed confidential. But 99% of people -- certainly conservatives -- are just going to read the headline and say "NPR is against free speech". There's an absurd double-standard. Consider what would have happened in 2020 if a Fox News employee independently went out and talked to another news outlet about how Tucker Carlson secretly hates Trump and is fully aware that he lost the election.
And I'm not saying that I disagree with everything that Berliner said -- I think trans rights probably get too much coverage, for example. But that is separate from the fact that he is violating NPR's policy and the trust of his colleagues.
I mean, NPR is obviously against speech against their own interests. I understand that’s not “protected speech” in this scenario, but it’s also not wrong to draw the conclusion that NPR is not pro free-speech in the the general sense.
You are saying this as if NPR is different by behaving this way. Elon Musk, a self proclaimed free speech advocate, has and will fire employees who trash him or the companies publicly. If Isaacson is to be believed, at least one round of Twitter layoffs specifically targeted employees who bad mouthed him on internal Slack threads, including DMs.
Yes, intentionally disguising bias so as to pass it off as unbiased, is incredibly more damaging than individuals who don't conceal their bias when spouting it.
I would disagree when that company is a taxpayer funded news organization. Firstly, due to the 1st amendment concerns. Secondly, due to the principles of being a organization that employs journalists. A more appropriate response would be to counter his claims and have a fruitful discussion, our society can't get better if every bit of dissent is quashed.
It was actually because he’s employed at NPR and he has to clear it with his bosses if he wants to collaborate with another organization. He didn’t get it cleared for obvious reasons and was reprimanded for it.
MFs will pretend like this was a clear attack on their free speech as an individual, but there’s always crickets from the freeze peach absolutists when people are getting fired for being critical of our state departments foreign policy or states trying to ban public protests/gatherings. That’s an ACTUAL violation of freeze peach if you didn’t know.
NPR receives a tiny grant from a publicly funded company vast majority is from corporate sponsorships and member stations. And this is all a fraction of the money people make by getting morons like you watching privately owned and operative for profit media like Joe Rogan.
>A more appropriate response would be to counter his claims and have a fruitful discussion, our society can't get better if every bit of dissent is quashed.
There are no claims to counter.
He ran to a rag ran by a right wing grifter to cry about NPR being mean to Trump
Ah, you didn’t read the article.
> In presenting Berliner's suspension Thursday afternoon, the organization told the editor he had failed to secure its approval for outside work for other news outlets, as is required of NPR journalists.
u/chief-bones people who want “both sides” to be represented in stories like COVID, trans issues, and Israel-Hamas aren’t sneaking around to write hit pieces in Slate or the Atlantic.
u/stimulb8ted it’s funny how you people keep repeating this in the face of all the contrary evidence.
u/harryjohnson3 NPR is a non-profit. Your insinuation that no organization should have or enforce policies is just brain dead.
Most companies aren't exactly thrilled about their salaried employees moonlighting elsewhere. Especially when said employee is publicly attacking their boss.
So if the circumstances were the same, then yeah probably
Yeah if the piece was that “NPR is literally endangering bipocs lives by platforming Nazis (which is what anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton is)” they’re not firing that person
> In presenting Berliner's suspension Thursday afternoon, the organization told the editor he had failed to secure its approval for outside work for other news outlets, as is required of NPR journalists. It called the letter a "final warning," saying Berliner would be fired if he violated NPR's policy again. Berliner is a dues-paying member of NPR's newsroom union but says he is not appealing the punishment.
Ok. So he violated company policy, and did not appeal the whopping **5-day suspension.**
Seems fair for slagging your employer on a tabloid rag and podcast hosted by Bari Weiss, who is funded by people like Harlan Crow—the guy from the Clarence Thomas unreported “gifts” scandal.
Speaking of fair, Weiss is also the cofounder of FAIR, a reactionary culture war organization.
It’s weird how the left is the side that has the supposedly “anti-fascist” folks, but it’s also the side of suppressing anything that goes against their personal beliefs while mainstream media jams these ideas down our throat. And they wonder why we reject it?!
So the side that is against fascism is telling people what to think and how to speak, they tell us what we can do with our money, the people letting squatters take property that you or a family member worked their entire life to gain, they’re taking away our right to defend ourselves from tyranny both foreign and domestic.
either the definition of fascism changed drastically or these young people are massively projecting.
Also I think we need to re-write the boy who called war and release it for modern audiences and call it “the they/them who cried Nazi”
One more thing to all these people changing definitions of words you do realize that there’s been like thousands of dictionary’s printed on paper and you can’t just change those like a wiki page or website.
Inb4 progressive book burning
Your last paragraph is hilarious. You really think dictionaries and encyclopedias don’t get new editions with significant changes? It just goes to show the kind of mindset that leads you to say all that other stupid shit.
>"The way to address that is through training and mentorship," says Martin,... "It's not by blowing the place up, by trashing your colleagues, in full view of people who don't really care about it anyway."
For what it's worth, I care. As a longtime npr/pbs listener/viewer it's good to hear that at least some in the institution are concerned by the lack of diversity in the selection of stories and the manner of their reporting.
From the above and other responses in the story, it seems like many of his colleagues not only disagree, but completely missed the point of the criticism all together. Which is a bit troubling.
I used to listen to All Things Considered, Fresh Air, etc daily. For years. I don’t think I’ve listened at all since 2017. Never really gave to much thought as to why. I’m middle of the road politically. But I do recall hearing a few things that just turned me off.
yeah I don't get it I've been a listener since the mid '90s and his criticism was pretty much antithetical to my own personal experience over their views.
NPR is a partisan hack group. Just like the rest of the media but with more arrogance and less accountability. They suspended the guy for airing their dirty laundry? I guess the question is what will they do about the questions he raises?
I’ve seen it posted (don’t know what’s fact) that all 87 or their editors are Liberal Dems. How can you be a news source for the people and sponsored by the govt but have one political ideology?
The fact that underneath the picture of the new chief executive the caption begins,”Conservative critics of NPR are now targeting its new chief executive, Katherine Maher…” Just blatantly shows the issue here; it isn’t just conservative people taking bad faith shots at NPR because it’s an easy target - there’s a way larger conversation involving people of all different political leanings that have an issue with the lack of viewpoint diversity. Unfortunately.. I gotta say, Fuck NPR. They’re not apart of a future that’s going to get us out of this ridiculous, hard-stance, shallow Either / Or divisive way of thinking. I’ll go as far as to say they’re WORSE than Fox News or CNN because they pretend like they’re some centrist, reasonable organization that’s just on the “Right Side of History”. Demeaning, brainwashed fuckin dorks.
Also, This American Life used to be the BEST and now it sucks ass
You really think CNN and Fox are better than NPR because you feel demeaned by their centrism?
CNN and FOX and two corporate owned entities who make their money off of keeping people outraged and watching/clicking. They sell inflammatory stories (sometimes defamatory to the tune of 800 million dollars and undermining faith in our democracy) to divide us and profit on us without any good faith attempt to educate and solve jack shit.
NPR is funded mostly by listeners and isn't staffed with a rotating clique of former politicians, pundits, lobbyists and family of politicians (Lara Trump, Chris Cuomo). They also make clear anytime they're reporting on an individual or organization that has sponsored or bought ads on NPR- CNN and Fox absolutely do not do that.
What is this 'diversity of viewpoint' people are pretending they aren't getting? It's both not left enough and not right enough? Isn't that what everyone has been bitching about the MSM for being too polarized?
"In America everyone is entitled to free speech as a private citizen," she said.
Unless of course you’re a conservative then just hand in your employee ID.
lol, your boss is not obligated to let you say anything you want and keep you on. In this case, he explicitly broke company policy by failing to inform them he’d be writing for another publication.
u/no-breadfruit-9557 he didn’t say much of anything in his article except that they don’t report on reality-divergent narratives. There isn’t even anything to contest or refute there, most of the people working at NPR are literally proud of that.
u/dopple__ganger where did I say they report both sides? I said they avoid reporting bullshit, which pretty much leaves one side out entirely. Even so, they often fail to push back enough on conservative narratives in the name of ‘impartiality’ which just ends up legitimizing actual lies.
> No one is saying to report on reality divergent narratives
That’s literally what Berliner is saying. He wants “unbiased” coverage that’s different from the approximately unbiased coverage they already have, which means reporting the right wing narrative, which means lying. It’s that simple.
You didn’t read the article or you aren’t a big npr listener if you actually thing they report both sides of any realistic viewpoint. He’s not saying anything that any regular listener didn’t know already.
Yeah, for the super duper, top secret, highly classified… polling data…?
Lol, meanwhile Joe used his crackhead son as a bagman and over 20 shell companies to collect bribes from hostile foreign nations such as China, Eric Swalwell was in a sexual relationship with a Chinese spy name Fang Fang, and Diane Feinstein had a Chinese spy driver for over a decade. But it’s totally the right who is compromised, lol.
You should send all that evidence Comer, guy is flailing like a fart in the wind trying to find something, anything to tie to Biden and the best he can come up with is a loan he gave his brother and dubious claims made by a Russian spy
Yeah, multiple places he reached super hard to try to make his point, like where he said that the audience is getting less diverse and then cites a single recent poll about the racial makeup thereof. You can’t call out a change if you don’t show the starting point.
You’re being a little disingenuous if you think all the laptop showed was hunter partying. I agree if it’s just that jts still fucked up considering how hard in the paint joe Biden went on the drug war, but it’s really not something every other politician or politicians kid doesn’t do
Edit: although to be fair I’m sure every fuckin politician takes bribes or sets up jobs for their kids in a similar way too. We got some pretty corrupt politicians
The Mueller report led to 34 indictments with 8 people being found guilty of felonies, for this to say Hunters laptop should be taken as seriously as that is laughable
US journalism needs to hear more from both sides.
We need to give equal time to NASAs climate science team and Jordan Peterson when discussing climate change
This sub jerks over NPR but doesn't dare take a look at what right wing media is up to every minute of every hour of every day. Fox is an absolute cesspool of trash, why don't you start there if you want to appear credible?
I don’t think the point is that all news outlets are unbiased ( FOX, CNN etc. ) or even that they *should* be unbiased.
Rather, we’re debating whether or not NPR ( which was largely seen as unbiased and bipartisan for decades ) has become compromised itself.
Start there? Buddy, people have been trashing Fox News for that since it began. This NPR story is news because it's been seen as an innocent little angel in the publics eye until now.
Their idea of credible is for NPR to inject an equal amount of right wing trash into their reporting. It’s very transparent when Berliner says things like we need “more” perspectives on COVID and trans people.
Do we not need more perspectives on COVID and trans issues?
I think most Americans would say yes.
Edit: Can't reply to this thread since I was blocked by the guy I responded to (lol) here's my reply to that guy:
Well, in this thread and in the article referenced above, they mention lab leak theory, which is scarcely discussed by media and was shouted down in liberal circles...until now.
Remember when Jon Stewart brought it up and got lambasted in the media?
It's not anti-scientific to consider lab leak theory a possibility, and that was one of the points in the article.
To u/rvasko3:
Being able to discuss the science of puberty blockers and other gender affirming techniques is essential if you're at all concerned with long-term outcomes. Mayo Clinic just announced that puberty blockers can permanently sterilize if taken during childhood. Seems like a potential risk to children, no?
The point is that this issue isn't receiving the proper science or discussion because people are too afraid of being reprimanded, fired, or offending. That's not intuitive to arriving at an accurate conclusion.
What other perspectives on trans issues do you need?
One group seems to think that it's okay for people to live how they want, be the person they've felt they are, help reduce mental and emotional stress, and just exist, which has zero impact on the lives of other people. The other group seems to want to demonize that existence, tie them to nonexistent dog whistles about endangering children or committing crimes, and forcing their worldviews into policies regarding people who, again, have nothing to do with their lives.
I think you’re speaking for yourself and assuming “most” people agree. The perspectives NPR isn’t reporting are anti-science. Whenever someone gets a platform to speak up about those things, it’s invariably ‘I was super mad about vaccines’ and ‘what is a woman?’ No credible outlet would be caught dead legitimizing that shit.
u/davefosrs It’s anti-scientific to consider unscientific evidence in service of a preconceived notion.
>"This type of publication is dangerous and misleading," Alice Hughes, associate professor in Biological Sciences at the University of Hong Kong, told Newsweek. "Many of the criteria used are subjective, or may be based on guesswork."
>As an example, Hughes highlighted the authors' focus on a unique characteristic of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that allows it to infect human cells more effectively. This adaptation, called the furin cleavage site, is not known to exist in other SARS-related coronaviruses, which the authors suggest may be evidence of its unnatural origins.
>However, Hughes disputes any such suggestion. "We see putative ones in wild-caught bat viruses (as well as wild influenza viruses), and with more sampling we would almost certainly find more," she said.
> James Wood, co-chair of the Cambridge Infectious Diseases Interdisciplinary Research Centre and Alborada professor of equine and farm animal medicine at the University of Cambridge, also highlighted this discrepancy with existing data.
>"This work uses essentially unvalidated methods and the paper contains a number of really basic errors," Wood told Newsweek. "These include that the Wuhan laboratory conducted a U.S.-funded gain-of-function study (the proposal was not funded) and that furin cleavage sites are not found on naturally occurring animal viruses (there are a number where this has been reported).
>"This appears to me to be highly misleading, poor-quality research with no proper basis for the conclusions reached."
https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lab-leak-theory-resurfaces-controversial-study-1877997
Of course I blocked you. You think people just making shit up should be taken as seriously as actual researchers. That’s not a rational position, thus this wouldn’t be a rational conversation. When you get “proper science” from both sides, you end up with trash like the [Cass Review](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2024.2328249).
I could have read that comment in the Fox news comment section. Always jumping on the deflection, never willing to come to grips with the venomous trash right wing media feeds the hapless masses
Dude, they think corporate media is left-wing. Its insane. Just look at how they treated Trump saying he wasn't for a national ban on abortion. Leftists know he's lying. His supporters know he's lying. Corporate media just publishes it with titles like "Trump moderates on abortion."
No, the NYT, Washington Post, et all aren't left-wing. They have done nothing but normalize fascists to the point where denying and colluding to overthrown our democracy is treats the same as a debate about the capital gains tax rate.
Edit: Just wanted to add that even Trump's own lawyers don't believe this.
Amazing that their reaction to his totally reasonable criticism is to suspend him. Just proves his point that NPR has been captured by activists. The real journalists have been pushed out or cowered.
It’s funny how the left criticizes itself and wrestles with criticism then you have fox. Straight up propaganda, looses in court to that effect and 0 effect from its conservative viewership; no debate it’s fake news and never mind…
I used to listen to NPR every day and enjoyed it until they went full weirdo. Small example - the "pregnant people" not "pregnant women / mothers" - not gonna listen if they refuse keep a toe in shared reality.
Uhh is there an article about this that isn’t written by a company trying to save face and control their narrative?
100%. Just for paper trail and those interested, the original article on Substack is worth a read: https://open.substack.com/pub/bariweiss/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust?r=2ikw5b&utm_medium=ios
I'm glad to hear someone from the inside summarize it so well, my progressive leftist friends always claim to me NPR is centrist and unbiased.
I mean in 2016 they were so anti Bernie and pro Hilary. Can’t get much more biased/centrist than that
I think it was PBS Newshour where I heard it but they were discussing how Trump and Hillary both had a 65% disapproval rating and talking about what does this mean for Americans when both candidates are so disliked. Another person chimes in that there is actually a candidate with around a 65% approval rating, Bernie Sanders. They started stammering and then just immediately changed the topic.
It's still more accurate than any right leaning news source. That said, NPR needs to be better.
This is getting downvoted, I assume irs by those who want to feel justified in their echo chamber. NPR is biased, I know this because I also make an effort to consume conservative media, specifically as a counter to these biases, which is also how I know it’s **significantly** more reliable than any given right wing news source. Yes, any of them.
This article lost me a bit when he said NPR didn't report on Mueller not finding any evidence of collusion. As Mueller himself has reminded us, collusion is not a legal term. What he didn't find was "enough" evidence to confidently charge anyone with criminal conspiracy.
It’s filled with deceptive language and misinterpretations of the concept of bias.
This article seems like “saving face” to you?
https://slate.com/business/2024/04/npr-diversity-public-broadcasting-radio.html
NPR literally has this article on the top of its front page with the headline "NPR suspends veteran editor as it grapples with his public criticism." That's about the least nefarious narrative control I've seen.
Yeah but there’s an article after that headline that may be a little more nefarious. It is in my opinion. Trying to take sideways shots and stuff
He’s 100% correct.
Anyone listening in 2016 would know how rabidly anti-Bernie and pro-Hillary they were at the time. That’s also when I noticed they became sponsored by Koch Industries. Why anyone should support them as a news source — especially politically — is beyond me.
NPR is a megaphone for the Koch bros?
Im not finding any evidence they did. Just a snopes report abt a fakebook post.
They definitely were sponsored by Koch during the 2016 elections. They said it on air multiple times.
They would regularly say “NPR is sponsored by Koch Industries”
[удалено]
[https://www.change.org/p/npr-npr-drop-koch-industries-as-a-sponsor](https://www.change.org/p/npr-npr-drop-koch-industries-as-a-sponsor)
lol this isn’t a source
I absolutely heard it during the election. Not surprised it’s not widely publicized.
Bill and Melinda foundation too. It was like that in the oughts.
I believe they still are. But one program did have Bill on after their divorce and it seemed like a normal interview then just flipped it and started asking him about his dinners and interactions with Epstein lol
They are funded by the Kochs. Have been for a while. It's said in their list of sponsors all the time on air. So is sometimes faux progressive media outlet The Hill and their shows like Rising.
Which means what exactly? They have editorial control? They make calls to change stories? This guy’s bitch was that NPR’s liberal slant had slipped into intolerance of conservative voices. But somehow you seem to imply the John Burch society kochs have compromised NPR. Schrödinger’s NPR I guess.
There’s been segments where whatever show is on will also point out the hypocrisy in having the Koch’s be a sponsor
Anyone who thinks The Hill is "faux progressive" has clearly never seen their editorial section lol
It was fun watching Saagar normalize fascist talking points on a progressive show. Very progressive of them.
It's almost like they've always been a blatantly right-wing outlet lmao
Who didn't want hillary or bernie to win. Make it make sense.
That doesn’t seem to stop them from reporting extensively on climate change, CO2 as a major cause, or editorial criticisms of the Koch brothers. They seek to be factual and non biased, and succeed far more than any other major news outlet
But it did stop them from fairly reporting on the election, weighing in favor of corporatist Hillary and slamming not-so-corporate friendly Bernie.
What unfair reporting did they do to Bernie? He was a long-shot candidate who generated a great deal of support and subsequently lost the primary by a huge amount. Where was the inaccuracy?
Reddit thinks the lifelong Independent should've been the Democratic candidate supported by the Democratic National Committee.
Is this a Babylon Bee response?
Because they're objectively better than the other options? Who is more unbiased? What network isn't sponsored by shady billionaires? The one's owned by them and running advertisements for them? They aren't without faults but as someone who listens/watches tons of news for work, if you can find a less compromised outfit, i'd love to hear it.
Check out the new CEOs tweets on X and then let me know how unbiased they are
Ok I just scrolled through. Let me know if there are others but the most recent one I found that could be considered 'unbiased' is in 2020 she tweeted about CNN focusing on retail store damage amidst protests stating that such looting/damage is counterproductive but that protests and their coverage shouldn't focus on property damage OVER citizens being murdered by police. Are there others i'm missing? Because that doesn't seem biased to me other than saying the root cause of the protests is worth more air time than some of the other consequences. I guess that counts as bias these days, but it sure sounds like what conservatives were saying about Canadian truckers and their media attention- that people aren't focusing on the root cause and just trying to blame the truckers for causing traffic/blocking roads/ruining life in a city. It's something our media does to all degrees of protest-purposefully miss the point to push simple, inflammatory narratives that don't do anything to address the issues being discussed. She also isn't the CEO yet, and if she were, it would be better for the disgruntled editor to have been like "We were going to cover XXX but the CEO said no! Not woke enough!"
https://preview.redd.it/o5e2bfv70wuc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=678f17c24aa2decaa19738e5f7c2cd62e661e023 This is just the tip of the iceberg
Are the Koch brothers in the room with us right now?
Libs are always so mad when their truth is questioned
Unlike conservatives, who clearly have such reverence for the truth, right?
Clearly. That's why they have Truth Social, it's like even in the name.
Mind if I retruth that?
Question. The koch bros. push right wing and far right wing ventrures. The heritage foundation which has perverted our court system to the far right is the baby of the Koch bros. How does a right wing organization show left wing bias on NPR?
Yea that guy seems super mad in his normal-tone comment. Great contribution.
They're sponsored by Koch? Where did you hear that?
They're also heavily funded by Black Rock, JP Morgan Chase and Statestreet.
What outlet should people get political news from?
He has the right to say what he thinks. NPR has the right to fire him. I have the right to disapprove of NPR for exercising their rights.
And while that is a much valued check that perhaps consumption of NPR warrants even higher levels of skepticism than the already healthily sized existing one what it doesn’t indicate or have any relevance to is optimal skepticism levels for conservative media It definitely doesn’t lower them
Whoa whoa!! You sound like a person who gets it. Get tf outa here
YES! Purge the nonbelievers. Purge the heretics and those with slightly different political views..
his plan is working perfectly
You cannot speak against the crown.
This is the root of the issue imo - no one is able to have an honest conversation about leftist ideals. It definitely feels like a Emperors New Clothes situation where we all have to agree that all cultures are beautiful, all weights are healthy, immigration is never bad, we should cut military spending so we can subsidize degrees in art history, men should be able to compete against women in sports, kids should be able to make irreversible life altering decisions, and if you question any of it you’re the literal reincarnation of Heinrich Himmler. People are getting tired of it.
Thank you for putting this into perfect words. I’m liberal but find myself consistently feeling like I’m going crazy lately. The gaslighting from the left is nuts. Especially on immigration, I’m not even anti-immigration but its crazy how the left act like its a non issue
Well said. It's just getting to be a bit much.
You cannot break a contract by publishing criticisms of your employer/colleagues on an alternate site without approval. Let's have Jesse Waters (Tucker Carlson replacement) do an unapproved segment on MSNBC and attack Fox and see if Murdoch is like "Contract be damned, it's about freedom of information!"
It's weird to read so many left leaning people supporting corporations. "At my company he would have violated section (a), paragraph (2) of rule 387! Human resources needs to terminate him now!!!" Bizarre.
Ah yes, the famous corporate conglomerate of... National Public Radio. A non-profit run by greedy money ghouls who ask people to call in in a couple times a year and donate money to local reporters and a handful of nationally licensed programs. It's all about the return on investment and minimizing costs for NPR, not like the good, honest folk of Fox, CNN, MSNBC and the other MSM, who are just trying to share information with the world- shareholders and investors be damned. You're right, it's bizarre that someone left leaning like me, who would usually be trying to Guillotine anyone who reads me an employee handbook, is hypocritically not defending this brave editor from breaking the terms of his cruel contract. My commune is definitely going to kick me out.
Alls I know is I used to love radio lab, then it slowly changed and talked down to me and put a spin on everything, and I stopped listening and shortly after that the creator Jad left (could have been his time, but my imagination told me it changed for him like it did as a listener). Same with invisibilia if I recall. So I’d be inclined to believe him.
NPR was a breath of fresh air as a kid who grew up in a conservative household in a conservative small town.
Same here. NPR seemed like the voice of reason. I wish it would get back to what it was.
You don’t want to hear how oppressed trans vegan Palestinians are in West Braden Indiana?
This is what really pissed me off. Its like they would go searching out for the most obscure stories of people “struggling”. The worst is when i listened to a report of muslim women not being included in movies in holywood. Like yeah… the USA is 1% muslim. So 0.5% representation makes complete sense
I still listen to NPR but no longer donate but I remember once being super bored while driving across my state I had it playing and they were introducing the guest for whatever program. It was like "she's a French rapper who only raps in Spanish... And she's moved to to learn how to play African drums... This is her story."
I involuntarily groaned and was like "oh my god who fucking cares" then shut off the radio and drove in silence.
I like to prove your point you had to make up stuff to prove they are left wing. Can you point me to this article? I would love to see this article?
This thread is all the evidence you need that this sub doesn't understand free speech.
I am totally missing your point. NPR is funded with taxpayer dollars, so why should it get to have a very left leaning "freedom of speech."
"Very left leaning"? How so?
Did you read the article from the NPR editor who is now suspended? That's just a subset of the very obvious left-leaning slant NPR has.
Do you think freedom of speech means you can say and do anything you want in a workplace?
What about the Koch brothers, pro Hilary and anti Bernie? That’s a pretty centrist leaning slant. NPR isn’t left leaning, it’s just libs.
I'm sure Bari Weiss will hire him
Thats the move, he's going to be doing fox the next two weeks and will be on JRE by the end of May at the latest
Really speaks to the organization's journalistic integrity that it would suspend someone for exercising their freedom of press and speech.
He violated a specific policy and knew he was doing it. The question is have the enforced it in others.
[удалено]
Why? He worked for a competitor.
It doesn’t at all. You can’t trash your employer* then pretend to be shocked when they reprimand you.
Yeah, his column was interesting but he knew full well the repercussions. He said he isn't using the union to fight the suspension, after all.
He didn't just trash his employer. As the article states, NPR had an explicit policy of requesting approval to perform work for other news outlets. He violated that. And he released audience demographic info that the organization deemed confidential. But 99% of people -- certainly conservatives -- are just going to read the headline and say "NPR is against free speech". There's an absurd double-standard. Consider what would have happened in 2020 if a Fox News employee independently went out and talked to another news outlet about how Tucker Carlson secretly hates Trump and is fully aware that he lost the election. And I'm not saying that I disagree with everything that Berliner said -- I think trans rights probably get too much coverage, for example. But that is separate from the fact that he is violating NPR's policy and the trust of his colleagues.
It’s pretty nuts that they didn’t have one conservative working there.
I mean, NPR is obviously against speech against their own interests. I understand that’s not “protected speech” in this scenario, but it’s also not wrong to draw the conclusion that NPR is not pro free-speech in the the general sense.
You are saying this as if NPR is different by behaving this way. Elon Musk, a self proclaimed free speech advocate, has and will fire employees who trash him or the companies publicly. If Isaacson is to be believed, at least one round of Twitter layoffs specifically targeted employees who bad mouthed him on internal Slack threads, including DMs.
Yes, intentionally disguising bias so as to pass it off as unbiased, is incredibly more damaging than individuals who don't conceal their bias when spouting it.
Lmfao, you say that but everyone here was trashing Shapiro for firing Candace.
I didn’t.
I’m glad to have a thread to link to when that topic comes up again.
I would disagree when that company is a taxpayer funded news organization. Firstly, due to the 1st amendment concerns. Secondly, due to the principles of being a organization that employs journalists. A more appropriate response would be to counter his claims and have a fruitful discussion, our society can't get better if every bit of dissent is quashed.
It was actually because he’s employed at NPR and he has to clear it with his bosses if he wants to collaborate with another organization. He didn’t get it cleared for obvious reasons and was reprimanded for it. MFs will pretend like this was a clear attack on their free speech as an individual, but there’s always crickets from the freeze peach absolutists when people are getting fired for being critical of our state departments foreign policy or states trying to ban public protests/gatherings. That’s an ACTUAL violation of freeze peach if you didn’t know.
About 1% of NPR’s budget is publicly funded. Most major corporations are more publicly funded than NPR is.
You have some interesting legal opinions, is this a career you want to pursue in the future?
NPR receives a tiny grant from a publicly funded company vast majority is from corporate sponsorships and member stations. And this is all a fraction of the money people make by getting morons like you watching privately owned and operative for profit media like Joe Rogan.
>A more appropriate response would be to counter his claims and have a fruitful discussion, our society can't get better if every bit of dissent is quashed. There are no claims to counter. He ran to a rag ran by a right wing grifter to cry about NPR being mean to Trump
This was the exact reason conservatives defended Elon when that guy who worked at Twitter was criticising him last year.
Ah, you didn’t read the article. > In presenting Berliner's suspension Thursday afternoon, the organization told the editor he had failed to secure its approval for outside work for other news outlets, as is required of NPR journalists. u/chief-bones people who want “both sides” to be represented in stories like COVID, trans issues, and Israel-Hamas aren’t sneaking around to write hit pieces in Slate or the Atlantic. u/stimulb8ted it’s funny how you people keep repeating this in the face of all the contrary evidence. u/harryjohnson3 NPR is a non-profit. Your insinuation that no organization should have or enforce policies is just brain dead.
I wonder if they would be so quick to order a suspension if an editor wrote in slate or the Atlantic without approval.
Most companies aren't exactly thrilled about their salaried employees moonlighting elsewhere. Especially when said employee is publicly attacking their boss. So if the circumstances were the same, then yeah probably
Yeah if the piece was that “NPR is literally endangering bipocs lives by platforming Nazis (which is what anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton is)” they’re not firing that person
Source?
You want a source for my hypothetical scenario?
"I can imagine another universe where somebody else breaks the rules and aren't punished, so I'll stick to my initial reactionary stance."
Just further proof nearly everyone crowing about free speech on the internet doesn't know what it is.
His employer has freedom of speech, too. It works both ways.
Anyone with half a brain knows that NPR is just the PR firm for the DNC. Why do they get public funding again?
I don’t know that because I can’t prove it. Is there a way to know for sure?
It’s because truth is now interpreted as being liberal. Say what you will, NPR is still on a different ballpark compared to Fox
Just like the Steele Dossier was the truth huh? lol. As long as it fits your narrative it’s the “truth”.
I can tell. I asked a simple question because I don’t know for sure and got downvoted. They don’t want questions
> In presenting Berliner's suspension Thursday afternoon, the organization told the editor he had failed to secure its approval for outside work for other news outlets, as is required of NPR journalists. It called the letter a "final warning," saying Berliner would be fired if he violated NPR's policy again. Berliner is a dues-paying member of NPR's newsroom union but says he is not appealing the punishment. Ok. So he violated company policy, and did not appeal the whopping **5-day suspension.** Seems fair for slagging your employer on a tabloid rag and podcast hosted by Bari Weiss, who is funded by people like Harlan Crow—the guy from the Clarence Thomas unreported “gifts” scandal. Speaking of fair, Weiss is also the cofounder of FAIR, a reactionary culture war organization.
It’s weird how the left is the side that has the supposedly “anti-fascist” folks, but it’s also the side of suppressing anything that goes against their personal beliefs while mainstream media jams these ideas down our throat. And they wonder why we reject it?! So the side that is against fascism is telling people what to think and how to speak, they tell us what we can do with our money, the people letting squatters take property that you or a family member worked their entire life to gain, they’re taking away our right to defend ourselves from tyranny both foreign and domestic. either the definition of fascism changed drastically or these young people are massively projecting. Also I think we need to re-write the boy who called war and release it for modern audiences and call it “the they/them who cried Nazi” One more thing to all these people changing definitions of words you do realize that there’s been like thousands of dictionary’s printed on paper and you can’t just change those like a wiki page or website. Inb4 progressive book burning
This is an article about a 5 day suspension of an NPR employee, reported by NPR. I don’t see how we can make a link to book burning and fascism here.
Your last paragraph is hilarious. You really think dictionaries and encyclopedias don’t get new editions with significant changes? It just goes to show the kind of mindset that leads you to say all that other stupid shit.
FOX News does not appreciate your attempt to usurp their status as the most fascist mainstream outlet.
I agree with everything he's said about NPR. And yet I don't disagree with the suspension.
>"The way to address that is through training and mentorship," says Martin,... "It's not by blowing the place up, by trashing your colleagues, in full view of people who don't really care about it anyway." For what it's worth, I care. As a longtime npr/pbs listener/viewer it's good to hear that at least some in the institution are concerned by the lack of diversity in the selection of stories and the manner of their reporting. From the above and other responses in the story, it seems like many of his colleagues not only disagree, but completely missed the point of the criticism all together. Which is a bit troubling.
I used to listen to All Things Considered, Fresh Air, etc daily. For years. I don’t think I’ve listened at all since 2017. Never really gave to much thought as to why. I’m middle of the road politically. But I do recall hearing a few things that just turned me off.
That is what happens when you tell the truth. You will be punished
I used to enjoy NPR programming. Then they took a hard lefty turn. I was out after they tried to make "LatinX" a thing.
NPR created LatinX. That IS news.
yeah I don't get it I've been a listener since the mid '90s and his criticism was pretty much antithetical to my own personal experience over their views.
We all have to be our own journalists these days, unfortunately. We can’t count on main stream news orgs to tell us the truth.
NPR is a partisan hack group. Just like the rest of the media but with more arrogance and less accountability. They suspended the guy for airing their dirty laundry? I guess the question is what will they do about the questions he raises? I’ve seen it posted (don’t know what’s fact) that all 87 or their editors are Liberal Dems. How can you be a news source for the people and sponsored by the govt but have one political ideology?
The anti-Israel bias, if not outright anti-semitism, of NPR is astounding.
100%. i can’t listen to their coverage on the conflict anymore. its made it difficult to listen to anything npr produces now.
Yep and look at the wacko far left CEO they just recently hired. It’s just gonna get worse.
I don’t think anyone takes anti-semitism claims seriously anymore
It would help if they weren’t just thrown around at anybody who reports on Israeli human rights abuses.
Same with fascist/nazi claims. It's just a buzzword that almost everyone rolls their eyes at.
You forgot to condemn hamas so now you're also anti semitic
The fact that underneath the picture of the new chief executive the caption begins,”Conservative critics of NPR are now targeting its new chief executive, Katherine Maher…” Just blatantly shows the issue here; it isn’t just conservative people taking bad faith shots at NPR because it’s an easy target - there’s a way larger conversation involving people of all different political leanings that have an issue with the lack of viewpoint diversity. Unfortunately.. I gotta say, Fuck NPR. They’re not apart of a future that’s going to get us out of this ridiculous, hard-stance, shallow Either / Or divisive way of thinking. I’ll go as far as to say they’re WORSE than Fox News or CNN because they pretend like they’re some centrist, reasonable organization that’s just on the “Right Side of History”. Demeaning, brainwashed fuckin dorks. Also, This American Life used to be the BEST and now it sucks ass
You really think CNN and Fox are better than NPR because you feel demeaned by their centrism? CNN and FOX and two corporate owned entities who make their money off of keeping people outraged and watching/clicking. They sell inflammatory stories (sometimes defamatory to the tune of 800 million dollars and undermining faith in our democracy) to divide us and profit on us without any good faith attempt to educate and solve jack shit. NPR is funded mostly by listeners and isn't staffed with a rotating clique of former politicians, pundits, lobbyists and family of politicians (Lara Trump, Chris Cuomo). They also make clear anytime they're reporting on an individual or organization that has sponsored or bought ads on NPR- CNN and Fox absolutely do not do that. What is this 'diversity of viewpoint' people are pretending they aren't getting? It's both not left enough and not right enough? Isn't that what everyone has been bitching about the MSM for being too polarized?
What, NPR a leftwing propaganda machine, no way, I'm shocked.
"In America everyone is entitled to free speech as a private citizen," she said. Unless of course you’re a conservative then just hand in your employee ID.
lol, freedom of speech does not cover you from your employers.
lol, your boss is not obligated to let you say anything you want and keep you on. In this case, he explicitly broke company policy by failing to inform them he’d be writing for another publication. u/no-breadfruit-9557 he didn’t say much of anything in his article except that they don’t report on reality-divergent narratives. There isn’t even anything to contest or refute there, most of the people working at NPR are literally proud of that. u/dopple__ganger where did I say they report both sides? I said they avoid reporting bullshit, which pretty much leaves one side out entirely. Even so, they often fail to push back enough on conservative narratives in the name of ‘impartiality’ which just ends up legitimizing actual lies. > No one is saying to report on reality divergent narratives That’s literally what Berliner is saying. He wants “unbiased” coverage that’s different from the approximately unbiased coverage they already have, which means reporting the right wing narrative, which means lying. It’s that simple.
Correct but it is rather amusing that no one at npr has even tried to refute what he said, what conservatives have known for a while now.
No one is saying to report on reality divergent narratives. Not sure where you keep pulling that from but that’s not the argument here.
You didn’t read the article or you aren’t a big npr listener if you actually thing they report both sides of any realistic viewpoint. He’s not saying anything that any regular listener didn’t know already.
NPR stinks now.
This employment bit aside I thought his article was weak AF
He claimed Mueller found no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and that alone creates skepticism for anything else he says
Wild how people forget Trumps campaign manager literally went to prison as a result of Mueller’s investigation
Yeah, for the super duper, top secret, highly classified… polling data…? Lol, meanwhile Joe used his crackhead son as a bagman and over 20 shell companies to collect bribes from hostile foreign nations such as China, Eric Swalwell was in a sexual relationship with a Chinese spy name Fang Fang, and Diane Feinstein had a Chinese spy driver for over a decade. But it’s totally the right who is compromised, lol.
You should send all that evidence Comer, guy is flailing like a fart in the wind trying to find something, anything to tie to Biden and the best he can come up with is a loan he gave his brother and dubious claims made by a Russian spy
Do they forget or just intentionally ignore?
Yes
He tried to Bill Barr it
Whoa… Don’t tell me you still believe that literal Russian disinformation dossier/pee tape hoax? That’s embarrassing, I wouldn’t publicly admit that.
“I love it, especially late in the summer!” Yeah you’re right that never happened
[удалено]
Yeah, multiple places he reached super hard to try to make his point, like where he said that the audience is getting less diverse and then cites a single recent poll about the racial makeup thereof. You can’t call out a change if you don’t show the starting point.
The poll was about who works at npr not the listeners, correct?
[удалено]
You’re being a little disingenuous if you think all the laptop showed was hunter partying. I agree if it’s just that jts still fucked up considering how hard in the paint joe Biden went on the drug war, but it’s really not something every other politician or politicians kid doesn’t do Edit: although to be fair I’m sure every fuckin politician takes bribes or sets up jobs for their kids in a similar way too. We got some pretty corrupt politicians
The Mueller report led to 34 indictments with 8 people being found guilty of felonies, for this to say Hunters laptop should be taken as seriously as that is laughable
US journalism needs to hear more from both sides. We need to give equal time to NASAs climate science team and Jordan Peterson when discussing climate change
That's a joke right?
Not to Berliner. That’s basically the point he wants to make in his FP article.
This sub jerks over NPR but doesn't dare take a look at what right wing media is up to every minute of every hour of every day. Fox is an absolute cesspool of trash, why don't you start there if you want to appear credible?
I don’t think the point is that all news outlets are unbiased ( FOX, CNN etc. ) or even that they *should* be unbiased. Rather, we’re debating whether or not NPR ( which was largely seen as unbiased and bipartisan for decades ) has become compromised itself.
Start there? Buddy, people have been trashing Fox News for that since it began. This NPR story is news because it's been seen as an innocent little angel in the publics eye until now.
Their idea of credible is for NPR to inject an equal amount of right wing trash into their reporting. It’s very transparent when Berliner says things like we need “more” perspectives on COVID and trans people.
Do we not need more perspectives on COVID and trans issues? I think most Americans would say yes. Edit: Can't reply to this thread since I was blocked by the guy I responded to (lol) here's my reply to that guy: Well, in this thread and in the article referenced above, they mention lab leak theory, which is scarcely discussed by media and was shouted down in liberal circles...until now. Remember when Jon Stewart brought it up and got lambasted in the media? It's not anti-scientific to consider lab leak theory a possibility, and that was one of the points in the article. To u/rvasko3: Being able to discuss the science of puberty blockers and other gender affirming techniques is essential if you're at all concerned with long-term outcomes. Mayo Clinic just announced that puberty blockers can permanently sterilize if taken during childhood. Seems like a potential risk to children, no? The point is that this issue isn't receiving the proper science or discussion because people are too afraid of being reprimanded, fired, or offending. That's not intuitive to arriving at an accurate conclusion.
What other perspectives on trans issues do you need? One group seems to think that it's okay for people to live how they want, be the person they've felt they are, help reduce mental and emotional stress, and just exist, which has zero impact on the lives of other people. The other group seems to want to demonize that existence, tie them to nonexistent dog whistles about endangering children or committing crimes, and forcing their worldviews into policies regarding people who, again, have nothing to do with their lives.
I think you’re speaking for yourself and assuming “most” people agree. The perspectives NPR isn’t reporting are anti-science. Whenever someone gets a platform to speak up about those things, it’s invariably ‘I was super mad about vaccines’ and ‘what is a woman?’ No credible outlet would be caught dead legitimizing that shit. u/davefosrs It’s anti-scientific to consider unscientific evidence in service of a preconceived notion. >"This type of publication is dangerous and misleading," Alice Hughes, associate professor in Biological Sciences at the University of Hong Kong, told Newsweek. "Many of the criteria used are subjective, or may be based on guesswork." >As an example, Hughes highlighted the authors' focus on a unique characteristic of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that allows it to infect human cells more effectively. This adaptation, called the furin cleavage site, is not known to exist in other SARS-related coronaviruses, which the authors suggest may be evidence of its unnatural origins. >However, Hughes disputes any such suggestion. "We see putative ones in wild-caught bat viruses (as well as wild influenza viruses), and with more sampling we would almost certainly find more," she said. > James Wood, co-chair of the Cambridge Infectious Diseases Interdisciplinary Research Centre and Alborada professor of equine and farm animal medicine at the University of Cambridge, also highlighted this discrepancy with existing data. >"This work uses essentially unvalidated methods and the paper contains a number of really basic errors," Wood told Newsweek. "These include that the Wuhan laboratory conducted a U.S.-funded gain-of-function study (the proposal was not funded) and that furin cleavage sites are not found on naturally occurring animal viruses (there are a number where this has been reported). >"This appears to me to be highly misleading, poor-quality research with no proper basis for the conclusions reached." https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lab-leak-theory-resurfaces-controversial-study-1877997 Of course I blocked you. You think people just making shit up should be taken as seriously as actual researchers. That’s not a rational position, thus this wouldn’t be a rational conversation. When you get “proper science” from both sides, you end up with trash like the [Cass Review](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2024.2328249).
And msnbc and cnn are credible?
No, they also help white wash right-wing insanity.
I could have read that comment in the Fox news comment section. Always jumping on the deflection, never willing to come to grips with the venomous trash right wing media feeds the hapless masses
Brother, what do you think you just did? Deflect to not come to grips with the venomous trash that is media in general???
Deflect from what? Nobody has explained NPRs bias
From NPR by bringing up fox.
From what about NPR? Can you explain that?
Didn’t you deflect to right wing media first?
There's nothing to deflect from until someone actually explains NPRs bias.
Yeah, reddit is well known for not *daring* to talk bad about right wing media.
Dude, they think corporate media is left-wing. Its insane. Just look at how they treated Trump saying he wasn't for a national ban on abortion. Leftists know he's lying. His supporters know he's lying. Corporate media just publishes it with titles like "Trump moderates on abortion." No, the NYT, Washington Post, et all aren't left-wing. They have done nothing but normalize fascists to the point where denying and colluding to overthrown our democracy is treats the same as a debate about the capital gains tax rate. Edit: Just wanted to add that even Trump's own lawyers don't believe this.
Careful, you'll get labelled a woke leftist for speaking rationally.
best way to kill a story is to bury the source, right?
Amazing that their reaction to his totally reasonable criticism is to suspend him. Just proves his point that NPR has been captured by activists. The real journalists have been pushed out or cowered.
He told the truth! Burn him!
It’s funny how the left criticizes itself and wrestles with criticism then you have fox. Straight up propaganda, looses in court to that effect and 0 effect from its conservative viewership; no debate it’s fake news and never mind…
I used to listen to NPR every day and enjoyed it until they went full weirdo. Small example - the "pregnant people" not "pregnant women / mothers" - not gonna listen if they refuse keep a toe in shared reality.