> Completely ignoring the topic of bias Colloquially, people say "bias" when they want to say "agenda" but scientific-sounding, and that is probably fruitless

> Completely ignoring the topic of bias Colloquially, people say "bias" when they want to say "agenda" but scientific-sounding, and that is probably fruitless to discuss. I think bias is useful to consider in terms of cognition and process. A journalist has a perspective and there are simply parts of it that he's not consciously aware of, especially missing knowledge. But the process is also important. A news operation needs to attract readers and their readership's interest is what dictates what is "newsworthy." (They also need sponsors, and this can get bad enough that some trade publications essentially just reprint press releases. But that's less NPR's issue.) It sounds like NPR is playing to their readership, and this can be a vicious cycle: you can start out with a more diverse audience and more diverse reporting, but by playing to a majority and losing your minority audience over time, you wind up with a monoculture.