An NPR reporter speaks out against NPR

In reply to jharry3 :

Oh that brings up a side point I'd like to share, if case anyone was interested, the Library of Congress has been doing a massive effort to scan and digitize old newpapers (and many many other archives) then processing with some AI scanning tech to make them all text searchable. I was doing some genealogy work and found it to have a ton of old hisorical content and such. https://www.loc.gov/. Example below - whole 1st generation of the fam was caught in a massive train wreck in 1907, interesting to read the real time coverage of the stories.

jharry3 said:

The press has been used to push agenda since printing was invented.   Either a despot published the current "truth" to follow or the practice of a free press allowed multiple people to publish their version of "the truth" .    I have been reading old newspapers on line that my GG Grandfather published in the 1840's for the Whig Party in Yazoo City,Mississippi.

Articles about politics were slanted towards the Whig Party and made fun of Democrats.  His rival newspaper in Yazoo City was published by Democrats.  Their political articles were slanted towards Democrats and made fun of Whigs.   Balance was not important.  If  you wanted another opinion you read a different newspaper.     

Multiple editors and citizens in Mississippi at the time challenged each other to duels, with pistols, over editorial disagreements or articles they thought slanderous.   The Headmaster of an elite college in Claiborne County,  Mississippi (1840's) was murdered with a Bowie knife because he self published a leaflet condemning slavery.  

My GG grandpa avoided the fights.  Probably because he was a drunk who everyone liked because of his good nature (not making this up).

Man, that's really crazy.

So what changed during that period of the 20th century where we had a smaller number of regulated news outlets that allowed for more objective journalism,  enabling a shared version of the truth in society?

In reply to CrustyRedXpress :

There was some regulations around news- like the Fairness Doctrine, which sought to reduce the possibility of an information monopoly.  But that ended in 1987.

That was rooted in the Radio Act of 1927.

So a lot of the "glory years" of radio was regulated to be even and not biased.  Let alone many of us grew up in an era when TV was also regulated to be balanced, PLUS the media connections between paper, radio, and TV were tightly regulated.  

Now, one media company can own all of it in one community, control the flow of news, and therefore have some control over opinion.

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

My dream is to see some zillionaire or  such do something like buy the bones of UPI and create a media source where unbiased information is seen as sacred. Where instead of being told what to think, or steered down a prescribed path, journalists give us the information and tools to make up our own minds. A gold standard of "bringing the tech" (as a formerly favorite forum would have put it). But no, the most significant recent media buy was a E36 M3show of a social media site.

It's ironic that Al Jazeera and the Christian Science monitor are two of the best news sources.

 

Usually when a zillionaire buys media, he buys an already successful paper, fires half the staff and then makes sure that anybody who's left doesn't write articles advocating tax increases for zillionaires.

I heard a discussion about this article yesterday, but haven't read it yet, though I will. I found it interesting that NPR's listenership has fallen by something like 2/3 over the past 4 years or so. That speaks volumes. 

As far as the left-right divide, it seems that there is a difference in exposure. Those who listen to right-leaning sources know they are right leaning, and are also aware of the opposing view, as they are generally exposed to it in some way.  Those on the left, however, view their source as more-or-less "the center" and are only aware of the existence of the right-leaning view as characterized by their own left-leaning sources. 

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

That's how my mother-in-law relates to it.

Toyman! said:

NPR leadership has reassured us that nothing will change. 

 

NPR's top news executive defended its journalism and its commitment to reflecting a diverse array of views on Tuesday after a senior NPR editor wrote a broad critique of how the network has covered some of the most important stories of the age.

"An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don't have an audience that reflects America," writes Uri Berliner.

A strategic emphasis on diversity and inclusion on the basis of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, promoted by NPR's former CEO, John Lansing, has fed "the absence of viewpoint diversity," Berliner writes.

NPR's chief news executive, Edith Chapin, wrote in a memo to staff Tuesday afternoon that she and the news leadership team strongly reject Berliner's assessment.

"We're proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories," she wrote. "We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world."

Well, that is sad, but (obviously based on my previous post) not surprising.

While I suspect some of it is a bit of "you don't notice your own stink" problem (because you are surrounded by it). I think the bigger factor is a belief that what they are doing is right, or more correctly righteous, in that you know you are going beyond reasonable journalism, but you are doing that because you are "fighting an evil" and when you fight evil, you certainly don't have to play by any rules, it's way too important.

As noted previously, this is certainly present in many outlets, more so in some than others of course.

I also do wonder what will become of the author at this point.  I don't think they will try to get rid of him.  I suspect he will be generally considered "corrupted by the evil" and generally politely ignored. I do hope he keeps up the fight for diversity there though (which is wildly ironic, as noted in the article).

alfadriver said:

In reply to CrustyRedXpress :

There was some regulations around news- like the Fairness Doctrine, which sought to reduce the possibility of an information monopoly.  But that ended in 1987.

That was rooted in the Radio Act of 1927.

So a lot of the "glory years" of radio was regulated to be even and not biased.  Let alone many of us grew up in an era when TV was also regulated to be balanced, PLUS the media connections between paper, radio, and TV were tightly regulated.  

Now, one media company can own all of it in one community, control the flow of news, and therefore have some control over opinion.

Agreed.  The fairness doctrine basically said, if you're going to be able to call yourself "news," you have to present all sides in (if not unbiased) a manner that presents equal space for arguments from both sides.  As soon as it went away, you started getting hundreds of self-proclaimed news outlets with limited or no accountability.

It used to be that a reporter would report.  Mild commentary often followed, but it was presented as their opinion.  Now many of them will express an opinion and then argue that it's a fact.

aircooled said:

Toyman! said:

NPR leadership has reassured us that nothing will change. 

 

NPR's top news executive defended its journalism and its commitment to reflecting a diverse array of views on Tuesday after a senior NPR editor wrote a broad critique of how the network has covered some of the most important stories of the age.

"An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don't have an audience that reflects America," writes Uri Berliner.

A strategic emphasis on diversity and inclusion on the basis of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, promoted by NPR's former CEO, John Lansing, has fed "the absence of viewpoint diversity," Berliner writes.

NPR's chief news executive, Edith Chapin, wrote in a memo to staff Tuesday afternoon that she and the news leadership team strongly reject Berliner's assessment.

"We're proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories," she wrote. "We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world."

Well, that is sad, but (obviously based on my previous post) not surprising.

While I suspect some of it is a bit of "you don't notice your own stink" problem (because you are surrounded by it). I think the bigger factor is a belief that what they are doing is right, or more correctly righteous, in that you know you are going beyond reasonable journalism, but you are doing that because you are "fighting an evil" and when you fight evil, you certainly don't have to play by any rules, it's way too important.

As noted previously, this is certainly present in many outlets, more so in some than others of course.

I also do wonder what will become of the author at this point.  I don't think they will try to get rid of him.  I suspect he will be generally considered "corrupted by the evil" and generally politely ignored. I do hope he keeps up the fight for diversity there though (which is wildly ironic, as noted in the article).

I think the line that says  and now, predictably, we don't have an audience that reflects America, can be true and not sad.  If NPR reports a certain flavor of truth, they would have lost most of their audience for sure, leaving only a minority representation behind.  Given the notion that there are now millions of clickbait "news" outlets that people follow instead of reality, I would imagine that a truthful news outlet would certainly lose audience.  As an analogy, we used to have Nokia, Blackberry, and Motorola.  Now we have 50+ phone manufacturers and some people drink the Pixel kool aid, others drink the iPhone or OnePlus kool aid, but it's no surprise that Motorola loyalists have become more rabid in their faith as the audience grew smaller.

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

alfadriver said:

In reply to CrustyRedXpress :

There was some regulations around news- like the Fairness Doctrine, which sought to reduce the possibility of an information monopoly.  But that ended in 1987.

That was rooted in the Radio Act of 1927.

So a lot of the "glory years" of radio was regulated to be even and not biased.  Let alone many of us grew up in an era when TV was also regulated to be balanced, PLUS the media connections between paper, radio, and TV were tightly regulated.  

Now, one media company can own all of it in one community, control the flow of news, and therefore have some control over opinion.

Agreed.  The fairness doctrine basically said, if you're going to be able to call yourself "news," you have to present all sides in (if not unbiased) a manner that presents equal space for arguments from both sides.  As soon as it went away, you started getting hundreds of self-proclaimed news outlets with limited or no accountability.

It used to be that a reporter would report.  Mild commentary often followed, but it was presented as their opinion.  Now many of them will express an opinion and then argue that it's a fact.

The Fairness Doctrine, when it existed, it only covered broadcast news on radio and television. Cable news that was not broadcast over the public airwaves was never covered by the Fairness Doctrine. Newspapers were actually protected from regulation by the Federal Government by the First Amendment and it has been a wild and wooly business since before the days of William Randolph Hearst.

The Internet is regulated by the Common Carrier rule but that is now being litigated in courts all over the country, so who knows.

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

 

Agreed.  The fairness doctrine basically said, if you're going to be able to call yourself "news," you have to present all sides in (if not unbiased) a manner that presents equal space for arguments from both sides....

While that seems like a great idea, I think it would still run into some issues:  Who decides what each "side" is, and who decides what's unbiased? And then, you are kind of back to where you started.

In the case of NPR, as described by the author, their answer to that would simply be:  "we don't have to offer another side, we offer the truth" because they are unaware there are other angles that have merit (seemingly because they choose to, consciously or not, ignore them).

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

aircooled said:

Toyman! said:

NPR leadership has reassured us that nothing will change. 

 

NPR's top news executive defended its journalism and its commitment to reflecting a diverse array of views on Tuesday after a senior NPR editor wrote a broad critique of how the network has covered some of the most important stories of the age.

"An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don't have an audience that reflects America," writes Uri Berliner.

A strategic emphasis on diversity and inclusion on the basis of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, promoted by NPR's former CEO, John Lansing, has fed "the absence of viewpoint diversity," Berliner writes.

NPR's chief news executive, Edith Chapin, wrote in a memo to staff Tuesday afternoon that she and the news leadership team strongly reject Berliner's assessment.

"We're proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories," she wrote. "We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world."

Well, that is sad, but (obviously based on my previous post) not surprising.

While I suspect some of it is a bit of "you don't notice your own stink" problem (because you are surrounded by it). I think the bigger factor is a belief that what they are doing is right, or more correctly righteous, in that you know you are going beyond reasonable journalism, but you are doing that because you are "fighting an evil" and when you fight evil, you certainly don't have to play by any rules, it's way too important.

As noted previously, this is certainly present in many outlets, more so in some than others of course.

I also do wonder what will become of the author at this point.  I don't think they will try to get rid of him.  I suspect he will be generally considered "corrupted by the evil" and generally politely ignored. I do hope he keeps up the fight for diversity there though (which is wildly ironic, as noted in the article).

I think the line that says  and now, predictably, we don't have an audience that reflects America, can be true and not sad.  If NPR reports a certain flavor of truth, they would have lost most of their audience for sure, leaving only a minority representation behind.  Given the notion that there are now millions of clickbait "news" outlets that people follow instead of reality, I would imagine that a truthful news outlet would certainly lose audience.  As an analogy, we used to have Nokia, Blackberry, and Motorola.  Now we have 50+ phone manufacturers and some people drink the Pixel kool aid, others drink the iPhone or OnePlus kool aid, but it's no surprise that Motorola loyalists have become more rabid in their faith as the audience grew smaller.

An audience that "reflects America"?? Most of America is watching the Kardashians, Dancing with the Stars, professional sports, beauty tips on Tic Toc, Howard Stern and lots and lots of porn. Some people never watch any news from any source. NPR has never had an audience that reflects America.

In reply to aircooled :

Well stated.  If the opposing side is "basically Hitler", what length is too far to go to defeat Hitler?  

I just saw CBS has fired Catherine Herridge, who just happens to have reported on Hunter Biden's laptop scandal. 

She actually referenced in a response that this happened at the network of Cronkite.   I seems CBS can't handle the truth.  

volvoclearinghouse said:

I heard a discussion about this article yesterday, but haven't read it yet, though I will. I found it interesting that NPR's listenership has fallen by something like 2/3 over the past 4 years or so. That speaks volumes. 

Seems to coincide with a lot of people no longer commuting all at around the same time.  I know I'm in that group.  Listened on my drive into work on the regular, but after things went work from home, it was easy to forget.  

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

alfadriver said:

In reply to CrustyRedXpress :

There was some regulations around news- like the Fairness Doctrine, which sought to reduce the possibility of an information monopoly.  But that ended in 1987.

That was rooted in the Radio Act of 1927.

So a lot of the "glory years" of radio was regulated to be even and not biased.  Let alone many of us grew up in an era when TV was also regulated to be balanced, PLUS the media connections between paper, radio, and TV were tightly regulated.  

Now, one media company can own all of it in one community, control the flow of news, and therefore have some control over opinion.

Agreed.  The fairness doctrine basically said, if you're going to be able to call yourself "news," you have to present all sides in (if not unbiased) a manner that presents equal space for arguments from both sides.  As soon as it went away, you started getting hundreds of self-proclaimed news outlets with limited or no accountability.

It used to be that a reporter would report.  Mild commentary often followed, but it was presented as their opinion.  Now many of them will express an opinion and then argue that it's a fact.

The Fairness Doctrine, when it existed, it only covered broadcast news on radio and television. Cable news that was not broadcast over the public airwaves was never covered by the Fairness Doctrine. Newspapers were actually protected from regulation by the Federal Government by the First Amendment and it has been a wild and wooly business since before the days of William Randolph Hearst.

The Internet is regulated by the Common Carrier rule but that is now being litigated in courts all over the country, so who knows.

When it was overturned, there was only one cable news network (CNN).  So there was barely any time to challenge the rules before it was really gone after in 1985.  

There are (or were) to prevent one group to own multiple media sources in an area- so there would be very little cross influence by one group for print, TV, and radio.  If it exists, it hasn't been enforced for many years.  

Either way, the elimination of the rule returned news to being entertainment more than news.  So there's a vested interest in making people angry so that they keep watching.  There's also a vested interest in keeping people mad, so that solutions to problems are really never reached.

volvoclearinghouse said:

I heard a discussion about this article yesterday, but haven't read it yet, though I will. I found it interesting that NPR's listenership has fallen by something like 2/3 over the past 4 years or so. That speaks volumes. 

As far as the left-right divide, it seems that there is a difference in exposure. Those who listen to right-leaning sources know they are right leaning, and are also aware of the opposing view, as they are generally exposed to it in some way.  Those on the left, however, view their source as more-or-less "the center" and are only aware of the existence of the right-leaning view as characterized by their own left-leaning sources. 

Sorry, but to assume one side is more correct than the other....  I would suggest that you should be more open minded.  From the prospective of being from one side or the other, being in the center is clearly the opposite to you, even if it's not extreme.  So to claim you know how "sided" you are by claiming the other side doesn't. well...    That's kind of why we are where we are.

As for the loss of listenership- I would also point out how WFH has changed a BUNCH of listeners.  I listened to NPR going to and from work, and that stopped 3/20.  We don't listen to the radio at home, just in the car.  So it was a pretty natural result that NPR lost listeners when they stopped commuting.

volvoclearinghouse said:

As far as the left-right divide, it seems that there is a difference in exposure. Those who listen to right-leaning sources know they are right leaning, and are also aware of the opposing view, as they are generally exposed to it in some way.  Those on the left, however, view their source as more-or-less "the center" and are only aware of the existence of the right-leaning view as characterized by their own left-leaning sources. 

I'm going to, ahhh, go ahead and disagree with this pretty comprehensively.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

aircooled said:

Toyman! said:

NPR leadership has reassured us that nothing will change. 

 

NPR's top news executive defended its journalism and its commitment to reflecting a diverse array of views on Tuesday after a senior NPR editor wrote a broad critique of how the network has covered some of the most important stories of the age.

"An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don't have an audience that reflects America," writes Uri Berliner.

A strategic emphasis on diversity and inclusion on the basis of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, promoted by NPR's former CEO, John Lansing, has fed "the absence of viewpoint diversity," Berliner writes.

NPR's chief news executive, Edith Chapin, wrote in a memo to staff Tuesday afternoon that she and the news leadership team strongly reject Berliner's assessment.

"We're proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories," she wrote. "We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world."

Well, that is sad, but (obviously based on my previous post) not surprising.

While I suspect some of it is a bit of "you don't notice your own stink" problem (because you are surrounded by it). I think the bigger factor is a belief that what they are doing is right, or more correctly righteous, in that you know you are going beyond reasonable journalism, but you are doing that because you are "fighting an evil" and when you fight evil, you certainly don't have to play by any rules, it's way too important.

As noted previously, this is certainly present in many outlets, more so in some than others of course.

I also do wonder what will become of the author at this point.  I don't think they will try to get rid of him.  I suspect he will be generally considered "corrupted by the evil" and generally politely ignored. I do hope he keeps up the fight for diversity there though (which is wildly ironic, as noted in the article).

I think the line that says  and now, predictably, we don't have an audience that reflects America, can be true and not sad.  If NPR reports a certain flavor of truth, they would have lost most of their audience for sure, leaving only a minority representation behind.  Given the notion that there are now millions of clickbait "news" outlets that people follow instead of reality, I would imagine that a truthful news outlet would certainly lose audience.  As an analogy, we used to have Nokia, Blackberry, and Motorola.  Now we have 50+ phone manufacturers and some people drink the Pixel kool aid, others drink the iPhone or OnePlus kool aid, but it's no surprise that Motorola loyalists have become more rabid in their faith as the audience grew smaller.

An audience that "reflects America"?? Most of America is watching the Kardashians, Dancing with the Stars, professional sports, beauty tips on Tic Toc, Howard Stern and lots and lots of porn. Some people never watch any news from any source. NPR has never had an audience that reflects America.

I typically read the news from multiple sources. 

The only new I watch is local and that's only if I remember to, or we have the big boy storms rolling in where there is a chance for high winds and hail, or a tornado. 

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

As far as the left-right divide, it seems that there is a difference in exposure. Those who listen to right-leaning sources know they are right leaning, and are also aware of the opposing view, as they are generally exposed to it in some way.  Those on the left, however, view their source as more-or-less "the center" and are only aware of the existence of the right-leaning view as characterized by their own left-leaning sources. 
 

This sums up exactly the differences as I see them.

Left leaning sources tend to be traditional "news" sources- Network TV news and newspapers. The average person sees it as the "regular" news, and the editorialization is more subtly mixed in with the reporting, in between the weather and the sports scores. One opinion is shared as fact without so much as a hint that there is even an opposing opinion, unless they are calling it "wrong." But most glaring is the omission of big stories that don't even appear on the "regular" news. There is a strong normalization of one opinion and suppression of another. Even worse, rather than just report the news, some outlets have taken it upon themselves to actually create the news. They have purposely reported quotes out context to create a story where none existed. They have edited audio and video to mislead their audience. There has been a lot of "the end justifies the means" to reporting. It's not dissimilar to a cop planting evidence on a suspect "because they just know they are guilty." This all happens because the newsrooms lack a diversity of ideas, there is often no one willing or able to stand up and say "This is wrong."

Right leaning sources are not without fault, but the practice and degree is quite different in my opinion. Most of the editorial and opinion is clearly shared as opinion. It can be very biased, but they come right out and tell you they are biased and why, and they don't disguise it as news. While it can be one sided, they often tell both sides and explain why they believe they are right and why the opposition is wrong, leaving it up to the listener to come to their own conclusion. It can be heavy handed at times, but it's still a stark contrast to the mainstream "there is only one opinion." I've also found the right leaning outlets to be much more likely to challenge their own side, an extreme rarity with left leaning media that appears to just fall in line. They can be just as guilty about taking things out of context and making a story out of nothing, and they are definitely pushing a product. 

The reality is that you should question everything you hear, regardless of the source. It's all more marketing than news, and we are the product. Trusting blindly is like going into a car dealership and saying "give me whatever the salesman recommends." Don't form an opinion until you get all of the info from various sources. On controversial stories, it can take days-weeks-months to get all the info. Once you form an opinion, seek out conflicting rather than confirming reporting and see if your opinion holds up. Unfortunately most people just regurgitate what they originally heard from whatever biased source they heard it from. 
 

As bad as all the above is, social media is many times worse. It's a minefield of misinformation. Not only are we working hard to divide ourselves, but foreign adversaries are doing a tremendous job of driving in the wedge. And we are taking the bait, hook, line, and sinker. And no, it's not because so in so is pro this side and these guys are pro the other. They are all playing both sides to sow division. Worse yet, much of this is targeted towards our children, trying to turn them against their own parents and government. The fact that we as a people fall for this so ignorantly now leaves me really worried about an AI future. 

Speaking of media bias: Interactive Media Bias chart

In reply to Marjorie Suddard :

Curious how the local paper for Casper Wyoming made the cut.  I've never heard of the Oil City News before, but there it is.

In reply to alfadriver :

Sorry, but to assume one side is more correct than the other....  I would suggest that you should be more open minded.  From the prospective of being from one side or the other, being in the center is clearly the opposite to you, even if it's not extreme.  So to claim you know how "sided" you are by claiming the other side doesn't. well...    That's kind of why we are where we are.
 

I  didn't take that as him saying any side was more correct than the other. He said exposure- most people getting right leaning "news" know it's right leaning and seek it out. They are aware of the left leaning views and seeking an alternative. Many people that watch left leaning news don't realize it's left leaning, they think it's just the "normal" news. It doesn't matter which one is more correct for the sake of this discussion, and that is way out of bounds for this forum anyway. This discussion is about the openness and honesty of reporting, not about which side is right or wrong. We should get the full story and form our own opinion, not be fed the opinion of a reporter. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

I agree that most right-leaning people seek out right-leaning news and do so consciously.

I disagree that right-leaning news sources are more likely to present both sides, or to identify editorial comment as such.  I also strongly disagree that they are less likely to take actions or statements out of context for maximum effect.

But that's all I'm going to say about it.  By all means respond if you wish, but I personally don't want to go any farther down this particular side branch.

Nathan JansenvanDoorn said:

How many people are paying for news?  I see that this as a key part of the issue.  If revenue is generated by clicks, then clicks become king.  What drives clicks? Commentary, controversy etc. 

Tried it. I wanted to expose my kids to actual middle of the road news. I subscribed to the paper WSJ.

I had to cancel because they couldn't figure out how to deliver it to my house.