3 ms·

Promoting an author who’s book is literally titled, “In Defense of Looting”[1] isn’t progressive. It’s promoting the breakdown of the rule of law. That wasn’t a

by koolba 5y ago

Promoting an author who’s book is literally titled, “In Defense of Looting”[1] isn’t progressive. It’s promoting the breakdown of the rule of law. That wasn’t an accident either. [1]: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178/one-authors-argument-in-defense-of-looting https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178...

alisonkisk 5y ago
The book is about looting as a reaction to the breakdown of the rule of law.
jollybean 5y ago
The title of the piece is: "One Author's Controversial View: 'In Defense Of Looting'" To the extent that they identify that the view is labelled with the editorially appropriate moniker: 'Controversial' - I'm glad that people have a chance to speak their minds. 'Covering' a book or a perspective is not overtly 'promoting' it. If they're drawing from a wide perspective (they don't quite though), then this would be a good thing.
- koolba 5y ago
  Even NPR had to admit that it was wrong to publish that story, or at least do so without calling it out as factually inaccurate: > This Q&A with a provocative author did not serve NPR’s audience. You and several other NPR fans pointed out that NPR’s own prior reporting contradicted some of the things this author was saying. On top of being wrong about recent events, the author’s characterization of the Civil Rights Movement is a distortion and oversimplification. http://view.nl.npr.org/?qs=7c7fd141a65180ed1dafb8fed91fa4fa3a98cc9ddb5e1c630eed6cca2c53e4b96de6a53174fb80e12e8eae28bb6fa32d61d4bb777c5e8ba984bb4fd2e7490f1649b3f5bcbc02139168015005279940e0 http://view.nl.npr.org/?qs=7c7fd141a65180ed1dafb8fed91fa4fa3...
  - jollybean 5y ago
    The issue with the piece is not 'facts' - it's the characterization of 'looting' as effectively a form of 'legit revolutionary behaviour', actions which are necessary to invoke change. That's not a completely irrational idea and is worthy of some discussion. The bigger issue with NPR is not that they carried the piece, it's that they likely would not have carried too many alternative viewpoints. They are 'sided'.

by koolba 5y ago

alisonkisk 5y ago

The book is about looting as a reaction to the breakdown of the rule of law.

jollybean 5y ago

The title of the piece is: "One Author's Controversial View: 'In Defense Of Looting'" To the extent that they identify that the view is labelled with the editorially appropriate moniker: 'Controversial' - I'm glad that people have a chance to speak their minds. 'Covering' a book or a perspective is not overtly 'promoting' it. If they're drawing from a wide perspective (they don't quite though), then this would be a good thing.

koolba 5y ago
Even NPR had to admit that it was wrong to publish that story, or at least do so without calling it out as factually inaccurate: > This Q&A with a provocative author did not serve NPR’s audience. You and several other NPR fans pointed out that NPR’s own prior reporting contradicted some of the things this author was saying. On top of being wrong about recent events, the author’s characterization of the Civil Rights Movement is a distortion and oversimplification. http://view.nl.npr.org/?qs=7c7fd141a65180ed1dafb8fed91fa4fa3a98cc9ddb5e1c630eed6cca2c53e4b96de6a53174fb80e12e8eae28bb6fa32d61d4bb777c5e8ba984bb4fd2e7490f1649b3f5bcbc02139168015005279940e0 http://view.nl.npr.org/?qs=7c7fd141a65180ed1dafb8fed91fa4fa3...
- jollybean 5y ago
  The issue with the piece is not 'facts' - it's the characterization of 'looting' as effectively a form of 'legit revolutionary behaviour', actions which are necessary to invoke change. That's not a completely irrational idea and is worthy of some discussion. The bigger issue with NPR is not that they carried the piece, it's that they likely would not have carried too many alternative viewpoints. They are 'sided'.