3 ms·

That's true, but I think it misses the point. Journalism is rarely (if ever) objective. Good journalism should, however, be factually-correct and analytical.

That's true, but I think it misses the point. Journalism is rarely (if ever) objective. Good journalism should, however, be factually-correct and analytical. In other words, the product you're paying for is along the lines of informed opinion. The claim, as I understood it, was that NPR was making factually incorrect claims (i.e.: reporting things contrary to reality). Either the OP has a confused understanding of journalistic function (evident in the implication that NPR isn't objective, or somehow politically-slanted), or he's making a demonstrably false claim (NPR systematically lies and/or misrepresents truth).

Karunamon 10y ago
They've done that in the past too, but citing sources is hard because usually it's the right leaning media calling out the left leaning media (and vice versa- c.f. Media Matters against Fox), and it lends itself well to people shooting the messenger by way of "that's just a $slant-ist site" rather than actually evaluating the claims. Random search example: https://community.aarp.org/t5/Medicare-Insurance/NPR-Contines-Its-Medicare-Advantage-Lies/td-p/1723869 https://community.aarp.org/t5/Medicare-Insurance/NPR-Contine... Factually true, but misleading in context claims about Medicare. Another, worse example: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/14/nprs-distortions-about-the-mh-17-report/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/14/nprs-distortions-abou... An NPR reporter misrepresenting a Dutch report on the downing of MH317 as evidence of Russia firing the missile (while the report only says the missile was Russian-made). NPR aside, I reject the notion that journalism can't be objective. Well, not completely, sure, in the same way that we can never completely reach the speed of light. Does that mean we stop trying? No! Does that mean we lower our standards? Hell no! My issue is, I see this concept used more often to excuse misconduct and lazy reporting. "We can't do it, so why try?" If someone claims to be unbiased, they should be held to their own standard, and when bias is pointed out, expected to change their ways, or else acknowledge that their statement about being unbiased was a lie.

Karunamon 10y ago

They've done that in the past too, but citing sources is hard because usually it's the right leaning media calling out the left leaning media (and vice versa- c.f. Media Matters against Fox), and it lends itself well to people shooting the messenger by way of "that's just a $slant-ist site" rather than actually evaluating the claims. Random search example: https://community.aarp.org/t5/Medicare-Insurance/NPR-Contines-Its-Medicare-Advantage-Lies/td-p/1723869 https://community.aarp.org/t5/Medicare-Insurance/NPR-Contine... Factually true, but misleading in context claims about Medicare. Another, worse example: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/14/nprs-distortions-about-the-mh-17-report/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/14/nprs-distortions-abou... An NPR reporter misrepresenting a Dutch report on the downing of MH317 as evidence of Russia firing the missile (while the report only says the missile was Russian-made). NPR aside, I reject the notion that journalism can't be objective. Well, not completely, sure, in the same way that we can never completely reach the speed of light. Does that mean we stop trying? No! Does that mean we lower our standards? Hell no! My issue is, I see this concept used more often to excuse misconduct and lazy reporting. "We can't do it, so why try?" If someone claims to be unbiased, they should be held to their own standard, and when bias is pointed out, expected to change their ways, or else acknowledge that their statement about being unbiased was a lie.