An NPR reporter speaks out against NPR

A topic near and dear to my heart.

As I've said here in the past, I quit the news media almost 40 years ago and I was called a nutjob.

At the time I thought there were two problems, bias and incompetence. I now believe they are the same thing. The news media in this country is in bad shape, really bad shape. It's disappearing and nobody cares. I think it's good, and I'm quite happy to see them fail because they've brought it on entirely on their own. The current government, in their wisdom, came up with a brilliant plan to save them, I posted about it here in the past, and it did exactly what I said it would, made the problem worse.

The (I used to say mainstream, it's now called legacy) media's biggest problem in this country is that they think they're doing a good job, and think we, the public, are the problem.

Good riddance.

In reply to Marjorie Suddard :

To me that chart does not pass the smell test. I think there are some problems with their methodology. There should not be many outlets in the center, as there are few unbiased outlets. I dug into it a bit, but came away with more questions then answers. Weighting is my number one concern. If an outlet produces a lot of middle of the road fluff, but leans hard on controversial topics, does that average to the middle? If another outlet is more consistent but has an open bias, that pushes them farther from the middle? The fact that so many outlets are clustered in the middle leads me to believe that the definition of middle is skewed a bit, as others have said above. Many of those outlets have been exposed as anything but impartial and middle. Again, how do they decide which articles are correct? What if today's truth is reversed as more facts come to light- do they go back and reverse their findings? 

Maybe some more recommendations for centralist/unbiased/or comprehensive news sources? So far I've seen these in the post:

Al Jazeera, Christian Science Monitor, Allsides, Ground News 

Seems like a task made for AI.  Have it aggregate all the unbiased/central news sources you tell it to, and present them in a summary format that's easy to digest.  Oh, wait a minute... is AI biased?   

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Marjorie Suddard :

To me that chart does not pass the smell test. I think there are some problems with their methodology. There should not be many outlets in the center, as there are few unbiased outlets. I dug into it a bit, but came away with more questions then answers. Weighting is my number one concern. If an outlet produces a lot of middle of the road fluff, but leans hard on controversial topics, does that average to the middle? If another outlet is more consistent but has an open bias, that pushes them farther from the middle? The fact that so many outlets are clustered in the middle leads me to believe that the definition of middle is skewed a bit, as others have said above. Many of those outlets have been exposed as anything but impartial and middle.

These outlets have been exposed by who? Another news source that I don't agree with? A think tank that I don't agree with? Definitions are subjective. 

Meh. Everybody has to listen each source and decide for themselves who to believe.

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

These outlets have been exposed by who? Another news source that I don't agree with? A think tank that I don't agree with? Definitions are subjective. 

By their own employees. Reference the original post that started this discussion. There are many more like it by many more outlets. What they don't print is almost as telling as what they do print. Some of the biggest stories of this century were buried by the legacy news agencies. 
 

Meh. Everybody has to listen each source and decide for themselves who to believe.

Yes, definitely. It amazes me sometimes how two outlets can report the same story in an entirely different way. If they were reporting correctly, their stories would match. 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

These outlets have been exposed by who? Another news source that I don't agree with? A think tank that I don't agree with? Definitions are subjective. 

By their own employees. Reference the original post that started this discussion. There are many more like it by many more outlets. What they don't print is almost as telling as what they do print. Some of the biggest stories of this century were buried by the legacy news agencies. 
 

There was not a single story referenced in the NPR Article that wasn't covered by other media outlets even though it was buried by NPR. And I have to admit that NPR run some stories that make me want to turn off the dial. But the fact that NPR is left of center is hardly news. 

With the Internet, multiple Cable channels, radio and even podcasts, we actually have more news from more different perspectives than ever before. It's hard to bury anything. In reality, we have too much news. Read enough sources from enough different perspectives and you can figure out what's going on.

All news coverage is subjective. What one person may think is the "Story of the Century", makes another person want to tune out. Most people find media that suits the biases the already have. You make your choices and take your chances.

I am not anti media in the slightest, but I feel that we have lost the capacity to differentiate fact and opinion. Maybe we need a large opinion icon to go with a giant sarcasm one.

lateapexer said:

I am not anti media in the slightest, but I feel that we have lost the capacity to differentiate fact and opinion. Maybe we need a large opinion icon to go with a giant sarcasm one.

Yep. Many can't even differentiate between possibility and probability. 

z31maniac said:

lateapexer said:

I am not anti media in the slightest, but I feel that we have lost the capacity to differentiate fact and opinion. Maybe we need a large opinion icon to go with a giant sarcasm one.

Yep. Many can't even differentiate between possibility and probability. 

I think I possibly can... But I probably can't!

Ba dump tiss.

z31maniac said:

lateapexer said:

I am not anti media in the slightest, but I feel that we have lost the capacity to differentiate fact and opinion. Maybe we need a large opinion icon to go with a giant sarcasm one.

Yep. Many can't even differentiate between possibility and probability. 

Being able to differentiate doesn't matter when your news outlet of choice is burying the story on purpose. 

The entire point of the thread is whether you can trust any media source to provide you the news with minimum bias or agenda. 

I would say the answer is a resounding no. They are untrustworthy. Not just some of them but all of them. You will have to listen to all sources, including the ones you don't like because, at the end of the day, they may be the only source covering the news that other outlets are burying. 

AI was mentioned a few comments back.  I saw this today in my news feed, seems relevant to the discussion if only tangentially:

"The web's collection of content, the material that inspires advanced models to generate contrived images or churn out convincing LinkedIn posts, is itself a finite resource. Even the vastness of the internet ends somewhere.

That's triggered a mad dash among AI companies to seek more content: pilfer copyrighted works, transmogrify videos into text, or even use AI-generated material as training data for AI systems.

But relying on synthetic data, as researchers have shown, degrades the quality and reliability of AI models, highlighting a major limitation in the promise of advanced AI.

Researchers at Rice University likened the danger of training generative models on synthetic material to "feeding cattle with the remains (including brains) of other cattle," crafting an AI training analogy to mad cow disease.

The explosion in AI tools has already littered the web with synthetic content, which continues to make up more and more of the internet. You've probably already noticed it gaming search engine results — authorless, unspecific, and, in the end, useless articles that get your click and brief attention as you search for trustworthy, human information.

This, of course, means that existing AI systems have already ingested their own results. And their results' results.

"It really is about brains corrupting future brains," said Richard Baraniuk, professor of electrical and computer engineering at Rice University, who co-authored the paper.

The limits of human-made content are just the latest example of the AI story confronting impassable boundaries. There's an array to choose from.

AI models “are just insatiable in terms of their thirst” for electricity, Rene Haas, the CEO of the chip design company Arm (ARM), said earlier this week.

"By the end of the decade, AI data centers could consume as much as 20% to 25% of US power requirements," Haas told the Wall Street Journal. “That’s hardly very sustainable.”

And these words are coming from a CEO, not a hater.

His remarks echo a January report from the International Energy Agency that said a query to ChatGPT requires almost 10 times as much electricity as the average Google search. Measuring from 2023, power demand by the AI industry is expected to grow at least 10 times by 2026, the agency said.

Other drags on the AI dream are closer to home.

Tech companies are scrambling to reduce their dependence on outside suppliers of AI chips, pouring billions into hardware and infrastructure. Google (GOOG, GOOGL) and Meta (META) unveiled new homegrown chips this week, flashing their costly commitments.

The investments are tickets to prosperity in the AI-led future. But the spending — like the warnings over data and resources — will bring them closer to having to prove it."

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

I mean, we've all had to deal with multi-generational photocopy forms, because the original was lost a decade ago.

This should surprise no one.

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

There was not a single story referenced in the NPR Article that wasn't covered by other media outlets even though it was buried by NPR. And I have to admit that NPR run some stories that make me want to turn off the dial. But the fact that NPR is left of center is hardly news. 

With the Internet, multiple Cable channels, radio and even podcasts, we actually have more news from more different perspectives than ever before. It's hard to bury anything. In reality, we have too much news. Read enough sources from enough different perspectives and you can figure out what's going on.

All news coverage is subjective. What one person may think is the "Story of the Century", makes another person want to tune out. Most people find media that suits the biases the already have. You make your choices and take your chances.
 

I think you have completely missed the point. One should not have to search to find "their news." If you call yourself a news outlet, and a story is newsworthy, it should be reported. As mentioned earlier, most people view the legacy news outlets as "the news." Not reporting a significant story because it doesn't fit in with what they want the news to be is journalistic malpractice. If a person only got their news from broadcast news or most newspapers, they would not see the problem because in their world the story didn't exist. While it's great that we have other options (which some people would like to shut down,) we should not have journalists deciding what is  "our news" or "their news." 
 

There are numerous examples of front page worthy stories that were not covered, largely ignored, or intentionally mis reported. Most of them- surprise- are political, so I'll just share one that is finally getting some attention four years later, that never should have been politicized. I would call the origin of the greatest pandemic in the last 100 years news worthy. A reasonable person should be asking themselves, "If they suppressed a story of this magnitude, what else have they been keeping from me." 

And as an example of the issue at hand, people who think it was a lab leak represent one aspect of the political spectrum and people who think it was a crossover from an animal represent the other. Neither side will entertain the other side's version. Factual information becomes irrelevant or is bent to create the desired narrative.

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

There was not a single story referenced in the NPR Article that wasn't covered by other media outlets even though it was buried by NPR. And I have to admit that NPR run some stories that make me want to turn off the dial. But the fact that NPR is left of center is hardly news. 

With the Internet, multiple Cable channels, radio and even podcasts, we actually have more news from more different perspectives than ever before. It's hard to bury anything. In reality, we have too much news. Read enough sources from enough different perspectives and you can figure out what's going on.

All news coverage is subjective. What one person may think is the "Story of the Century", makes another person want to tune out. Most people find media that suits the biases the already have. You make your choices and take your chances.
 

I think you have completely missed the point. One should not have to search to find "their news." If you call yourself a news outlet, and a story is newsworthy, it should be reported. As mentioned earlier, most people view the legacy news outlets as "the news." Not reporting a significant story because it doesn't fit in with what they want the news to be is journalistic malpractice. If a person only got their news from broadcast news or most newspapers, they would not see the problem because in their world the story didn't exist. While it's great that we have other options (which some people would like to shut down,) we should not have journalists deciding what is  "our news" or "their news." 
 

There are numerous examples of front page worthy stories that were not covered, largely ignored, or intentionally mis reported. Most of them- surprise- are political, so I'll just share one that is finally getting some attention four years later, that never should have been politicized. I would call the origin of the greatest pandemic in the last 100 years news worthy. A reasonable person should be asking themselves, "If they suppressed a story of this magnitude, what else have they been keeping from me."

Could you give more examples? 

(Probably not with out getting political. Of course this was a political thread to begin with.)

Can you say "Out before the lock."?

lateapexer said:

And as an example of the issue at hand, people who think it was a lab leak represent one aspect of the political spectrum and people who think it was a crossover from an animal represent the other. Neither side will entertain the other side's version. Factual information becomes irrelevant or is bent to create the desired narrative.

I have heard both sides of that argument and it really all comes down to whose experts you want to believe.

Thank you for that comment. Whose experts you want to believe is exactly what I mean. 

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

Could you give examples? 

(Probably not with out getting political. Of course this was a political thread to begin with.)

Can you say "Out before the lock."?

But it shouldn't be political. Journalists should follow the story where it leads, not steer it to match their political leanings. Especially if the original story isn't even political in nature! A politician who was unpopular with much of the media shared his opinion on which theory he believed. Making sure that politician was seen as wrong took precedence over the quest for the actual truth, so the legacy media ran with the other option. They may have been right, they may have been wrong, they didn't care at the time as long as they did not support the politician. Conversely, other media latched on to that opinion. We don't have to have a definitive answer for everything. "We don't yet know but here are two possible options that merit further investigation" is a perfectly acceptable answer. 
 

There are lots of examples, but yes, they are political. And then you have coordination of the government and the media to suppress or alter news, which is a whole topic on it's own and definitely political. 
 

Who, what, when, where, why. I don't see how politics should affect reporting on those. Maybe separate the why as opinion, but can't we agree on just reporting the others? 
 

While the underlying story here is political, please ignore that. I'm not commenting on the story, I'm focusing on the reporting. This same event could have been covered without trying to steer the viewer.  Sometimes a picture says 1000 words...

To be fair and focus on the reporting, I'll call out a common issue that I see from "the other side." Right leaning outlets  tend to over hype stories that are largely insignificant on their own to "prove" a larger point. For example, they are horrible with EV's. Some guy's Lightning not working out for him on an ill planned trip is not front page news. Neither is a Tesla catching on fire after a big accident. Those are data points. Do some investigating and put a bunch of those data points together and compare them to the norm, that's reporting. Sensationalizing a single incident is lazy and can be misleading. 

It seems like there is relatively little "news" actually out there. 

News is just "here are the happenings of the day." 

Most stuff is news + commentary, which can open bias. 

Then there is commentary on the news, which is what most of the media is today. 

I think part of the generational divide is that there are lots of people who turn on a device, set it to their chosen "channel", and let whatever is on it spew at them. In hours of consuming that spew, they get 5% actual news, and the rest is all biased commentary. 

I still really enjoy debate podcasts and shows where they pit opposing sides against one another. 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

 

I think you have completely missed the point. One should not have to search to find "their news." If you call yourself a news outlet, and a story is newsworthy, it should be reported. As mentioned earlier, most people view the legacy news outlets as "the news." Not reporting a significant story because it doesn't fit in with what they want the news to be is journalistic malpractice. If a person only got their news from broadcast news or most newspapers, they would not see the problem because in their world the story didn't exist. While it's great that we have other options (which some people would like to shut down,) we should not have journalists deciding what is  "our news" or "their news."

So what is defined as news these days? What are the rules for a "news outlet". The FCC used to have rules about that. They don't anymore. There is no court that decides what journalistic malpractice is and what must be reported by every certified news outlet and how it should be reported. There are no certified news outlets. Certifying news outlets is something that dictatorships do. Apart from that, there are no rules. If you don't like a news source, turn it off. If enough other people do the same, the source will eventually go away. That's the only free market solution out there.

If you bring in five editors you will get five interpretations as to what is newsworthy and five different ways of covering the news. Every single one of them will have different biases, and a boss who thinks he can make more money doing it another way. If you don't like where you get your news, you can go somewhere else. Maybe there is a place for a news outlet that at least attempts to be unbiased, but I haven't seen it yet. It is what it is.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

There was not a single story referenced in the NPR Article that wasn't covered by other media outlets even though it was buried by NPR. And I have to admit that NPR run some stories that make me want to turn off the dial. But the fact that NPR is left of center is hardly news. 

With the Internet, multiple Cable channels, radio and even podcasts, we actually have more news from more different perspectives than ever before. It's hard to bury anything. In reality, we have too much news. Read enough sources from enough different perspectives and you can figure out what's going on.

All news coverage is subjective. What one person may think is the "Story of the Century", makes another person want to tune out. Most people find media that suits the biases the already have. You make your choices and take your chances.
 

I think you have completely missed the point. One should not have to search to find "their news." If you call yourself a news outlet, and a story is newsworthy, it should be reported. As mentioned earlier, most people view the legacy news outlets as "the news." Not reporting a significant story because it doesn't fit in with what they want the news to be is journalistic malpractice. If a person only got their news from broadcast news or most newspapers, they would not see the problem because in their world the story didn't exist. While it's great that we have other options (which some people would like to shut down,) we should not have journalists deciding what is  "our news" or "their news." 
 

There are numerous examples of front page worthy stories that were not covered, largely ignored, or intentionally mis reported. Most of them- surprise- are political, so I'll just share one that is finally getting some attention four years later, that never should have been politicized. I would call the origin of the greatest pandemic in the last 100 years news worthy. A reasonable person should be asking themselves, "If they suppressed a story of this magnitude, what else have they been keeping from me."

Could you give more examples? 

(Probably not with out getting political. Of course this was a political thread to begin with.)

Can you say "Out before the lock."?

I can give a great one for today. The headlines should be reading "Americans fedup with illegal warrantless surveillance of themselves by corrupt government officials have taken to the streets".

Instead it reads (summarizing a few different outlets here) "the party we don't like got strongarmed into continuing an ongoing, unconstitutional illegal spy regime against our own citizens because it makes our corporate overlords feel safer" and is being touted as somehow a good thing. 

berkeley every single one of those trash eating anti American vajajays that continue to push FISA section 702 over the Constitution of the United States. The politicians and the so called journalists pretending that it's a good thing. 

Every single politician and so called journalist involved should be brought up on treason charges, and instead they're getting good press because it's "good for national security" to spy on our own citizens. 

With that, I'm out of this thread. Enjoy your debates. Sorry if this post crossed a line, but with such extreme hypocrisy being waved in all of our faces, it needs to be pointed out. 

In reply to RevRico :

If this is the post that kills the thread I would say well worth it. It really is a shame that it is likely to be extended 

In reply to RevRico :

Now I had to go look up FISA 702. I'm going to be reading this stuff for hours. I'm actually trying to spend less time on the Internet.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

 

....If you don't like a news source, turn it off. If enough other people do the same, the source will eventually go away. That's the only free market solution out there.....

Which brings us back to the OP, and the unique case that is NPR, which is (partially at least) funded by the government.... 

Could be up to 40% (they seem to say sub 5%), depending on how you calculate it since some funding is indirect (e.g. funded through an entity that is partially government funded).  Again, finding a good source for this dives you into the "what is the truth" problem all over again.  "Truth" like money sources can sometimes be a bit fungible.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to RevRico :

Now I had to go look up FISA 702. I'm going to be reading this stuff for hours. I'm actually trying to spend less time on the Internet.

Which really sucks!  I mean, I run into this all the time!  I hear about something and I have to be "Oh well, if I want to have some perspective on it, I guess I will have to do some investigation"

It's really irritating sometimes.

I mean, that's really WHAT THE NEWS IS FOR!!!!   (not anymore I guess)

(sorry for shouting, it really does irritate me)