4 ms·

The Economist, like NPR, are good at sounding informed and unbiased, but wind up to be egregiously ideologically compromised

duped 5y ago
Can you give some examples? Particularly with NPR, you have to focus on particular shows and stations. There's no central editorial staff for the content that comes from their member stations. For example the Takeaway has quite different editorial standards than All Things Considered or Morning Edition.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  For the “network” content, NPR has good reporting but hammers topics again and again and again and again. The selection of stories tells the tale. Whenever the topic de jour hits, you’ll get a good 7-10 minutes of patter about it every hour for a month. I’m all for it, and don’t consider them “compromised”, but there’s typically not enough content to support that level of coverage.
  - duped 5y ago
    Can you give an example of what you mean by that?
- pydry 5y ago
  With the Economist - their support of the Iraq war. If something has elite consensus they will usually support it. This is probably the last place where youd want an ideological blind spot to be, also.
  - duped 5y ago
    Do you have an article in mind?
- jollybean 5y ago
  NPR has a subtle, but fairly clear centre left bias. "There's no central editorial staff" - there's no need to have a central staff if you hire the same types of people. Hear it from former senior NPR Exec. himself [1] I'm not supporting this man's views at all, other than to point out he gives a fairly clear articulation into how 'bias' doesn't remotely need to have some kind of central authority and that it absolutely exists at NPR. In fact, for someone who doesn't see the bias in something like NPR, learning to see the bias in an otherwise fairly respectable institution which does have fairly high standards and isn't so interest in flame-bait such as NPR - would be a worthy exercise. 'Culture' is probably the root of all bias in most places, not some 'central committee'. People who don't fit the mood are pushed said, those who have 'the correct opinions' are promoted. It's a perennial feature of human organisations you can see this in corporate culture as well. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0qyeFVf7bg&ab_channel=TheRubinReport https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0qyeFVf7bg&ab_channel=TheRu...
  - duped 5y ago
    I never said whether I agree or disagree that bias exists or where it was, bias exists in all human institutions. Part of modern, respectable journalism is the active task of acknowledging it, even. What I asked were for some concrete examples. Whenever the discussion comes up on bias at NPR (in particular) people tend to hand wave around "subtle, but fairly clear centre left bias." In my opinion there is a bias, which I would call "radical centrism" (the Sisyphean task of trying to recognize bias and attempt to curtail it), and I could point to few in the past week as a regular listener, but whenever I hear "NPR has a liberal bias" I can't get anyone to give me concrete examples. It's taken as fact. My overwhelming interpretation of the national NPR broadcasts are two part : Firstly, the majority of it are human interest stories. They do not devote a majority of their air time to politics. I don't see how the Moth, Fresh Air, This American Life, or the handful of local shows I listen to regularly about local news stories trends anywhere but whichever direction is compelling to a listener. And secondly, an opinion that I don't like articulating on HN or anywhere that might ruffle feathers is that facts have a liberal bias. You can argue until the cows come up about the role of government in society, but the cardinal direction of "reality" on the political compass is <- that way.
- spiritbone 5y ago
  There's a game that's fun to play to see how sometimes ideological and vacuous the Economist can be - try and swap out the key operative term of a piece with something absurd and see if the force of the argument changes or remains persuasive. This is a while back, and an extreme example, but the pinnacle for me was the editorial (https://postimg.cc/hhkmfgN3 https://postimg.cc/hhkmfgN3) on the 9th of January 2012 where one could swap every reference it had on defending banks and financiers with references to slavery and slaveholders and the force of the argument would not change one jot. This was because it made absolutely no recourse to the wider context of impacts that the industry might have besides being of benefit to a city. It was just a whirr of rhetoric and really opened my eyes to the biases in play. The magazine's prestige has never quite recovered. Fun aside, many other cases of journalistic bias are more about very selective reporting and emphasis, see for example the Bolivian election of 2020.

duped 5y ago

Can you give some examples? Particularly with NPR, you have to focus on particular shows and stations. There's no central editorial staff for the content that comes from their member stations. For example the Takeaway has quite different editorial standards than All Things Considered or Morning Edition.

Spooky23 5y ago
For the “network” content, NPR has good reporting but hammers topics again and again and again and again. The selection of stories tells the tale. Whenever the topic de jour hits, you’ll get a good 7-10 minutes of patter about it every hour for a month. I’m all for it, and don’t consider them “compromised”, but there’s typically not enough content to support that level of coverage.
- duped 5y ago
  Can you give an example of what you mean by that?
pydry 5y ago
With the Economist - their support of the Iraq war. If something has elite consensus they will usually support it. This is probably the last place where youd want an ideological blind spot to be, also.
- duped 5y ago
  Do you have an article in mind?
jollybean 5y ago
NPR has a subtle, but fairly clear centre left bias. "There's no central editorial staff" - there's no need to have a central staff if you hire the same types of people. Hear it from former senior NPR Exec. himself [1] I'm not supporting this man's views at all, other than to point out he gives a fairly clear articulation into how 'bias' doesn't remotely need to have some kind of central authority and that it absolutely exists at NPR. In fact, for someone who doesn't see the bias in something like NPR, learning to see the bias in an otherwise fairly respectable institution which does have fairly high standards and isn't so interest in flame-bait such as NPR - would be a worthy exercise. 'Culture' is probably the root of all bias in most places, not some 'central committee'. People who don't fit the mood are pushed said, those who have 'the correct opinions' are promoted. It's a perennial feature of human organisations you can see this in corporate culture as well. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0qyeFVf7bg&ab_channel=TheRubinReport https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0qyeFVf7bg&ab_channel=TheRu...
- duped 5y ago
  I never said whether I agree or disagree that bias exists or where it was, bias exists in all human institutions. Part of modern, respectable journalism is the active task of acknowledging it, even. What I asked were for some concrete examples. Whenever the discussion comes up on bias at NPR (in particular) people tend to hand wave around "subtle, but fairly clear centre left bias." In my opinion there is a bias, which I would call "radical centrism" (the Sisyphean task of trying to recognize bias and attempt to curtail it), and I could point to few in the past week as a regular listener, but whenever I hear "NPR has a liberal bias" I can't get anyone to give me concrete examples. It's taken as fact. My overwhelming interpretation of the national NPR broadcasts are two part : Firstly, the majority of it are human interest stories. They do not devote a majority of their air time to politics. I don't see how the Moth, Fresh Air, This American Life, or the handful of local shows I listen to regularly about local news stories trends anywhere but whichever direction is compelling to a listener. And secondly, an opinion that I don't like articulating on HN or anywhere that might ruffle feathers is that facts have a liberal bias. You can argue until the cows come up about the role of government in society, but the cardinal direction of "reality" on the political compass is <- that way.
spiritbone 5y ago
There's a game that's fun to play to see how sometimes ideological and vacuous the Economist can be - try and swap out the key operative term of a piece with something absurd and see if the force of the argument changes or remains persuasive. This is a while back, and an extreme example, but the pinnacle for me was the editorial (https://postimg.cc/hhkmfgN3 https://postimg.cc/hhkmfgN3) on the 9th of January 2012 where one could swap every reference it had on defending banks and financiers with references to slavery and slaveholders and the force of the argument would not change one jot. This was because it made absolutely no recourse to the wider context of impacts that the industry might have besides being of benefit to a city. It was just a whirr of rhetoric and really opened my eyes to the biases in play. The magazine's prestige has never quite recovered. Fun aside, many other cases of journalistic bias are more about very selective reporting and emphasis, see for example the Bolivian election of 2020.