4 ms·

If NPR is so objective, why were (are) NPR listeners so shocked that people would actually vote for Trump? I say this as someone who was also confused about th

If NPR is so objective, why were (are) NPR listeners so shocked that people would actually vote for Trump? I say this as someone who was also confused about this for the longest time. NPR certainly didn't help me figure things out at all.

dTal 9y ago
Failure to predict the behaviour of a large group of people doesn't necessarily imply a lack of objectivity. It's possible that it's the large group that lacks objectivity.
banned1 9y ago
Glad to find a fellow member of the Surprised Party!
mikeash 9y ago
Because NPR's audience tends to lean strongly left, and the left in general couldn't understand why anyone would vote for this obvious shyster. I don't see that NPR is at all relevant to it. Having a different source of information won't suddenly make people able to comprehend an utterly different way of thinking. I'm sure I could consume nothing but Fox News and other right-wing media and I'd still be unable to comprehend it.
- banned1 9y ago
  I tend to think one way. To help me understand the "other way," I try to understand their belief system before I try to understand their arguments. Let me try to use two examples, one from each side. Don't worry about why some people believe in welfare before you try to understand their beliefs in "justice." Don't try to understand gun rights before understanding "liberty."
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I do this, or at least I like to think I do. For example, I am firmly in favor of socialized medicine, but I understand why many people are against it (both the "they don't understand how it actually works in other countries" camp, and the "they understand it and just don't think it's a good idea" camp). I'm firmly in favor of stricter gun control (although I think the Democrats should ditch it, as it's hurting them and it's way down on the list of priorities) but I understand why people oppose it. I was basically raised Republican, spent some time as a libertarian, and gradually came around to a Democrat-leaning independent viewpoint. I understand why someone would have voted for Mitt Romney. I understand why someone would have voted for John McCain. I seriously considered voting for John McCain, and the main reason I didn't was his choice of VP. But Trump eludes me. The man is basically what you get when the worst kind of used car salesman is born into money. I cannot understand how anyone can look at him and say, yes, that man should be leading this country. Not because he disagrees with what I, a Democrat-leaning independent believe, but because he clearly has no actual beliefs, principles, or policies of his own, and for nearly every position he has ever espoused, he has also espoused the opposite, sometimes within the same sentence. I can understand why a person would believe that we should have less gun control. I can't understand why that person would then vote for Donald Trump, who said that the police should search people on the street and confiscate their guns.
    - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
      'Yeah, I'm a huckster. But I'm the best, and now I'm going to be a huckster for you.' That is, as best as I can tell, the core of it. That and: - Clinton took the midwestern 'blue firewall' for granted - Russia - Comey - Sexism - Voter suppression, especially amongst African-Americans - Really wrong candidate for a strongly populism-tinged election cycle 120,000 votes total across three states would've flipped the election, and we'd be having a totally different conversation right now. n.b. I voted for Clinton in the primaries and general.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        Just a minor correction to that last point: Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by a total of just under 80,000 votes. That means that only 40,000 votes flipping could have changed the outcome, if they had flipped in the right places. Of course, this is nothing compared to 2000, where the number was a mere 269.
        aaronbrethorst 9y ago
        Whoops, my bad. You're absolutely right.
    - smallnamespace 9y ago
      > I cannot understand how anyone can look at him and say, yes, that man should be leading this country They support Trump because they admire him, plain and simple. He's a blowhard who's blustered his way into becoming President of the United States. A regular working-class guy knows he's no Obama, or Lincoln, or Ronald Reagan. But he looks at Trump and thinks to himself, 'If THAT guy can make it, then so can I.' To them, Trump is literally the American Dream of upward mobility incarnate.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        How can Trump be upward mobility incarnate when he inherited tens of millions of dollars, though?
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > ...the left in general couldn't understand why anyone would vote for this obvious shyster If it seems like I'm singling out NPR, I didn't mean to. All left wing outlets messed up or this wouldn't be an issue. I'm saying the audience should do a better job of understanding the people who voted for Trump. And the left-leaning media has to produce many, many pieces aimed in that direction. Why would Fox News produce pieces to explain to cosmopolitan types why Obama policies failed to improve poverty in Tennessee or El Paso? Or why Iowans without employer-provided healthcare feel like collateral damage in the battle for socialized medicine?
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I'm saying that maybe left-wing outlets didn't mess up, maybe understanding a Trump voter really is just that difficult. I still can't, and I don't think better coverage would have changed that.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      > maybe understanding a Trump voter really is just that difficult Well, over 40% of voters last time around certainly understood. I've read thoughtful and/or insightful things as well, so there's media out there. It's just a matter of people with appropriate credibility consuming, curating, and re-explaining these things to their audiences. I could repost things I've found compelling, but until the Terry Gross's and John Oliver's of the world start taking white blue collar concerns at face value (not just people not smart enough to be cosmopolitan socialists yet), I'm not sure it will help much.
      - konradb 9y ago
        > start taking white blue collar concerns at face value What concerns are these, specifically?
        smallnamespace 9y ago
        Losing their position in society. Becoming marginalized socially and economically. Being made economically irrelevant by automation, immigrants, or outsourcing. Seeing their beliefs and value systems being ignored, circumvented, eroded of traditional legal support (e.g. gay marriage, Roe v. Wade) and replaced by secularism. Middle-aged white people in the US are seeing increase in mortality while other groups in the US and outside see drops [1]. This is the result of chronic long-term stressors. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-aged-white-americans-study-finds.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising...
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
I realised Trump would win when I saw an interview with a Republican campaign chair who said there was "no racism before Obama": https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/22/trump-ohio-campaign-chair-no-racism-before-obama https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/22/trump-ohio-c... The video she said it on, was part of a series that toured the states and asked people what they thought. It became clear that many people were unmoored from reality. NPR viewers are outside the right-wing media bubbble. People responds to the "crazy" things that Trump says because he's just repeating what he heard on Fox News. So it's not an out of the blue statement to them, it would be like Clinton saying "of course climate change is a problem", they're already accepted facts in their worldview.

dTal 9y ago

Failure to predict the behaviour of a large group of people doesn't necessarily imply a lack of objectivity. It's possible that it's the large group that lacks objectivity.

banned1 9y ago

Glad to find a fellow member of the Surprised Party!

mikeash 9y ago

Because NPR's audience tends to lean strongly left, and the left in general couldn't understand why anyone would vote for this obvious shyster. I don't see that NPR is at all relevant to it. Having a different source of information won't suddenly make people able to comprehend an utterly different way of thinking. I'm sure I could consume nothing but Fox News and other right-wing media and I'd still be unable to comprehend it.

banned1 9y ago
I tend to think one way. To help me understand the "other way," I try to understand their belief system before I try to understand their arguments. Let me try to use two examples, one from each side. Don't worry about why some people believe in welfare before you try to understand their beliefs in "justice." Don't try to understand gun rights before understanding "liberty."
- mikeash 9y ago
  I do this, or at least I like to think I do. For example, I am firmly in favor of socialized medicine, but I understand why many people are against it (both the "they don't understand how it actually works in other countries" camp, and the "they understand it and just don't think it's a good idea" camp). I'm firmly in favor of stricter gun control (although I think the Democrats should ditch it, as it's hurting them and it's way down on the list of priorities) but I understand why people oppose it. I was basically raised Republican, spent some time as a libertarian, and gradually came around to a Democrat-leaning independent viewpoint. I understand why someone would have voted for Mitt Romney. I understand why someone would have voted for John McCain. I seriously considered voting for John McCain, and the main reason I didn't was his choice of VP. But Trump eludes me. The man is basically what you get when the worst kind of used car salesman is born into money. I cannot understand how anyone can look at him and say, yes, that man should be leading this country. Not because he disagrees with what I, a Democrat-leaning independent believe, but because he clearly has no actual beliefs, principles, or policies of his own, and for nearly every position he has ever espoused, he has also espoused the opposite, sometimes within the same sentence. I can understand why a person would believe that we should have less gun control. I can't understand why that person would then vote for Donald Trump, who said that the police should search people on the street and confiscate their guns.
  - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
    'Yeah, I'm a huckster. But I'm the best, and now I'm going to be a huckster for you.' That is, as best as I can tell, the core of it. That and: - Clinton took the midwestern 'blue firewall' for granted - Russia - Comey - Sexism - Voter suppression, especially amongst African-Americans - Really wrong candidate for a strongly populism-tinged election cycle 120,000 votes total across three states would've flipped the election, and we'd be having a totally different conversation right now. n.b. I voted for Clinton in the primaries and general.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      Just a minor correction to that last point: Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by a total of just under 80,000 votes. That means that only 40,000 votes flipping could have changed the outcome, if they had flipped in the right places. Of course, this is nothing compared to 2000, where the number was a mere 269.
      - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
        Whoops, my bad. You're absolutely right.
  - smallnamespace 9y ago
    > I cannot understand how anyone can look at him and say, yes, that man should be leading this country They support Trump because they admire him, plain and simple. He's a blowhard who's blustered his way into becoming President of the United States. A regular working-class guy knows he's no Obama, or Lincoln, or Ronald Reagan. But he looks at Trump and thinks to himself, 'If THAT guy can make it, then so can I.' To them, Trump is literally the American Dream of upward mobility incarnate.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      How can Trump be upward mobility incarnate when he inherited tens of millions of dollars, though?
humanrebar 9y ago
> ...the left in general couldn't understand why anyone would vote for this obvious shyster If it seems like I'm singling out NPR, I didn't mean to. All left wing outlets messed up or this wouldn't be an issue. I'm saying the audience should do a better job of understanding the people who voted for Trump. And the left-leaning media has to produce many, many pieces aimed in that direction. Why would Fox News produce pieces to explain to cosmopolitan types why Obama policies failed to improve poverty in Tennessee or El Paso? Or why Iowans without employer-provided healthcare feel like collateral damage in the battle for socialized medicine?
- mikeash 9y ago
  I'm saying that maybe left-wing outlets didn't mess up, maybe understanding a Trump voter really is just that difficult. I still can't, and I don't think better coverage would have changed that.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > maybe understanding a Trump voter really is just that difficult Well, over 40% of voters last time around certainly understood. I've read thoughtful and/or insightful things as well, so there's media out there. It's just a matter of people with appropriate credibility consuming, curating, and re-explaining these things to their audiences. I could repost things I've found compelling, but until the Terry Gross's and John Oliver's of the world start taking white blue collar concerns at face value (not just people not smart enough to be cosmopolitan socialists yet), I'm not sure it will help much.
    - konradb 9y ago
      > start taking white blue collar concerns at face value What concerns are these, specifically?
      - smallnamespace 9y ago
        Losing their position in society. Becoming marginalized socially and economically. Being made economically irrelevant by automation, immigrants, or outsourcing. Seeing their beliefs and value systems being ignored, circumvented, eroded of traditional legal support (e.g. gay marriage, Roe v. Wade) and replaced by secularism. Middle-aged white people in the US are seeing increase in mortality while other groups in the US and outside see drops [1]. This is the result of chronic long-term stressors. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-aged-white-americans-study-finds.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising...

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

I realised Trump would win when I saw an interview with a Republican campaign chair who said there was "no racism before Obama": https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/22/trump-ohio-campaign-chair-no-racism-before-obama https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/22/trump-ohio-c... The video she said it on, was part of a series that toured the states and asked people what they thought. It became clear that many people were unmoored from reality. NPR viewers are outside the right-wing media bubbble. People responds to the "crazy" things that Trump says because he's just repeating what he heard on Fox News. So it's not an out of the blue statement to them, it would be like Clinton saying "of course climate change is a problem", they're already accepted facts in their worldview.