4 ms·

the hypocrisy of this story is thick, from a news organization where every other story (and that's not much of an exaggeration) is about how we're all going to

the hypocrisy of this story is thick, from a news organization where every other story (and that's not much of an exaggeration) is about how we're all going to die from covid because everyone else is being a jerk in endlessly various ways. but to their credit, they did air a story recently featuring maria hinojosa, founder/host of latino usa and the first latina host at npr, that was not especially kind to npr itself (spoiler: she left and was more successful as a result).

0xy 6y ago
Not to mention the journalistic malpractice of calling victims of being threatened with a firearm and having their vehicle attacked randomly "right-wing extremists", and then wiping the evidence of their false allegations from the internet without retracting or apologizing for it. The individuals who attacked the victims were charged by police. [1] [2] NPR is in the same class as the rest of the mainstream media who don't bother to vet stories they lather with political bias. [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbEIlsUUcAACYht?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbEIlsUUcAACYht?format=jpg&name=... [2] https://www.wave3.com/2020/06/18/protesters-arrested-following-altercation-with-driver-downtown-louisville/ https://www.wave3.com/2020/06/18/protesters-arrested-followi...
- phs318u 6y ago
  You're extrapolating from the evidence of one event to all (or most) events. What you're calling "journalistic malpractice" is possibly an editor with a story in need of a picture (everything has to be visual to sell the story), asking the photog pool for a suitable image. This happens all the time. Timing matters though. In the instance you quote, if the original story was published before the police charged the attackers, then the journalists made an honest mistake. Otherwise we'd have to wait for the entire judicial process to reach completion before making any comment. E.g. you seem to implying that because they were charged by police, the attackers of the vehicle were in the wrong, but that can't be known until a conviction is reached. The point, I'm making is that journalism is an exercise in trying to parse and publish what is known 'at the time'. I think your comment about mainstream media is mostly unfair, as the same accusations can be made against most non-mainstream media. I'd also suggest that NPR are one of the better mainstream media orgs, but that's just my opinion. The parent poster made one case for why - they are willing to host their own critics. Not too many news orgs are willing to do that.
  - 0xy 6y ago
    The story was posted after they were charged, and it doesn't seem like they retracted or apologized for a libelous allegation against victims, no less.
    - phs318u 6y ago
      Definitely "laziness" then. I'm assuming that story isn't listed on https://www.npr.org/corrections/ https://www.npr.org/corrections/ Sadly, I think that the expectation that news is "free" has driven far more of this (across the board). It's particularly evident in previously "staid but solid" news orgs as they cut costs to survive. I don't know if there's a practical solution at the news-production end. At the news-consumption end, I guess the "grain of salt" is needed more than ever. But I would hesitate to read malice (i.e. an explicit intention to misrepresent) into most news orgs (for most of their news. Clearly owners have interests that may become apparent with the way they cover some news). The intersection of cost-cutting, and "knowing" and playing to your audience leads to lots of this sort of thing.
  - monoideism 6y ago
    No, they had a narrative they wanted to push: "right-wing attackers victimize noble protesters", and since there were only a few examples available, they had to pull stories and footage from the many instances of when protesters attacked vehicles. I don't know you personally, but if you're like 99% of left-leaning urban professionals, you're not aware of those instances, because you're only exposed to a portion of what's happening. I'd suggest following a broad spectrum of people on social media from the left, center, and right. You'll be surprised what the mainstream left media leaves out. Right-wing media does the same thing, by the way. You really have to watch both to give anything resembling reality. It's a big problem, and it's getting worse. Even (decidedly left-wing) Brian Stelter featured this problem on this week's Reliable Sources on CNN. For example, mainstream media is happy to cover what they view as the malfeasance of the federal law enforcement officers in Portland, but they fail to show the acts of the rioters that played a role in their deployment (burning buildings, destruction of property, menacing cars, etc). To be clear, I personally think their deployment was probably unwise, and that politics played a large role. However, Portland's mayor has consistently refused to crack down on whatever label you want to put on the violent protesters wearing black. That adds significant complexity to the situation. NPR was the most neutral of any major news organization up until the past 2-3 years, when they've undergone major changes and now put out mostly ideologically-driven pieces like other outlets on the left. I do give credit to many local media outlets, who are often the only ones asking the hard questions, like this local outlet in Portland: https://youtu.be/2yAzRnfzgwk?t=1218 https://youtu.be/2yAzRnfzgwk?t=1218 https://youtu.be/2yAzRnfzgwk?t=1022 https://youtu.be/2yAzRnfzgwk?t=1022

0xy 6y ago

Not to mention the journalistic malpractice of calling victims of being threatened with a firearm and having their vehicle attacked randomly "right-wing extremists", and then wiping the evidence of their false allegations from the internet without retracting or apologizing for it. The individuals who attacked the victims were charged by police. [1] [2] NPR is in the same class as the rest of the mainstream media who don't bother to vet stories they lather with political bias. [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbEIlsUUcAACYht?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbEIlsUUcAACYht?format=jpg&name=... [2] https://www.wave3.com/2020/06/18/protesters-arrested-following-altercation-with-driver-downtown-louisville/ https://www.wave3.com/2020/06/18/protesters-arrested-followi...

phs318u 6y ago
You're extrapolating from the evidence of one event to all (or most) events. What you're calling "journalistic malpractice" is possibly an editor with a story in need of a picture (everything has to be visual to sell the story), asking the photog pool for a suitable image. This happens all the time. Timing matters though. In the instance you quote, if the original story was published before the police charged the attackers, then the journalists made an honest mistake. Otherwise we'd have to wait for the entire judicial process to reach completion before making any comment. E.g. you seem to implying that because they were charged by police, the attackers of the vehicle were in the wrong, but that can't be known until a conviction is reached. The point, I'm making is that journalism is an exercise in trying to parse and publish what is known 'at the time'. I think your comment about mainstream media is mostly unfair, as the same accusations can be made against most non-mainstream media. I'd also suggest that NPR are one of the better mainstream media orgs, but that's just my opinion. The parent poster made one case for why - they are willing to host their own critics. Not too many news orgs are willing to do that.
- 0xy 6y ago
  The story was posted after they were charged, and it doesn't seem like they retracted or apologized for a libelous allegation against victims, no less.
  - phs318u 6y ago
    Definitely "laziness" then. I'm assuming that story isn't listed on https://www.npr.org/corrections/ https://www.npr.org/corrections/ Sadly, I think that the expectation that news is "free" has driven far more of this (across the board). It's particularly evident in previously "staid but solid" news orgs as they cut costs to survive. I don't know if there's a practical solution at the news-production end. At the news-consumption end, I guess the "grain of salt" is needed more than ever. But I would hesitate to read malice (i.e. an explicit intention to misrepresent) into most news orgs (for most of their news. Clearly owners have interests that may become apparent with the way they cover some news). The intersection of cost-cutting, and "knowing" and playing to your audience leads to lots of this sort of thing.
- monoideism 6y ago
  No, they had a narrative they wanted to push: "right-wing attackers victimize noble protesters", and since there were only a few examples available, they had to pull stories and footage from the many instances of when protesters attacked vehicles. I don't know you personally, but if you're like 99% of left-leaning urban professionals, you're not aware of those instances, because you're only exposed to a portion of what's happening. I'd suggest following a broad spectrum of people on social media from the left, center, and right. You'll be surprised what the mainstream left media leaves out. Right-wing media does the same thing, by the way. You really have to watch both to give anything resembling reality. It's a big problem, and it's getting worse. Even (decidedly left-wing) Brian Stelter featured this problem on this week's Reliable Sources on CNN. For example, mainstream media is happy to cover what they view as the malfeasance of the federal law enforcement officers in Portland, but they fail to show the acts of the rioters that played a role in their deployment (burning buildings, destruction of property, menacing cars, etc). To be clear, I personally think their deployment was probably unwise, and that politics played a large role. However, Portland's mayor has consistently refused to crack down on whatever label you want to put on the violent protesters wearing black. That adds significant complexity to the situation. NPR was the most neutral of any major news organization up until the past 2-3 years, when they've undergone major changes and now put out mostly ideologically-driven pieces like other outlets on the left. I do give credit to many local media outlets, who are often the only ones asking the hard questions, like this local outlet in Portland: https://youtu.be/2yAzRnfzgwk?t=1218 https://youtu.be/2yAzRnfzgwk?t=1218 https://youtu.be/2yAzRnfzgwk?t=1022 https://youtu.be/2yAzRnfzgwk?t=1022