23 ms·
I wish more media did this: “ Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and NPR Intern Mary Yang. It was edit
by Sai_ 4y ago
I wish more media did this:
“
Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and NPR Intern Mary Yang. It was edited by Acting Chief Business Editor Emily Kopp. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.
“
Ie., they reported on themselves without interference from the suits.
- jahsome 4y agoNPR is definitely one of the institutions doing it right when it comes to reporting standards. Makes news like these layoffs all the more heartbreaking.
- Sai_ 4y agoI had exactly the same response to reading the linked article and then the disclaimer - like the article was a “dear departed” homily to the laid off.
- desi_ninja 4y ago[flagged]
- RickJWagner 4y agoI agree. As one example, NPR made a very public decision not to carry the Hunter Biden laptop story just before an election, with no solid basis for doing so. It was a legitimate story, it was newsworthy, but NPR intentionally spiked the story.
- Clamchop 4y agoThere's no journalism outfit that can beat back this criticism from someone, all things not being aligned with every ideology. Perfect neutrality doesn't exist, and very arguably isn't desirable anyway. But NPR is doing better than most.
- timr 4y agoNPR hasn't even been close to neutral for years. I say that as someone who was a regular listener from high school until 2020, and nominally on their side of the political spectrum. I feel like things really started to turn south after 2016 -- lots and lots of content about feelings and opinions presented during "news" times. But only for a super-narrow class of people, and never called out as opinion content. They did and do regularly mix editorial content with "news", and the line between each has been getting fuzzier with each passing year. To be fair, the entire news media went crazy after 2016, but NPR was clearly on the left before, and went hard left after that. It's essentially propaganda now.
- 93po 4y agoAgreed here, but also there isn't any corporate news outlet that isn't propaganda anymore.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y agoNPR isn't definitionally "corporate" news. It may functionally be, due to the way funding has worked out, but this is not baked into its structure or culture. Yet.
- jahsome 4y agoThe yet part is what hurts my soul. I've watched the decline for almost two decades in horror, but all I can say is they're the lesser of many, many evils, but as always: buyer beware.
- wahern 4y agoWhat's your local NPR affiliate? KQED is all identity politics, all the time. It's been over 10 years since I was in the DC area, but WAMU always seemed to have better political shows (even though some of them touched directly upon, e.g., race long before KQED went down that road), and from what I can tell their lineup is still far better than KQED. I still regularly listen to WAMU's The Big Broadcast; they may be more selective about the classic episodes they play, but I wouldn't know as they haven't turned it into a virtue signaling exercise. Ditto for Hot Jazz Saturday Night. Some of the national, NPR-produced shows definitely recite identitarian narratives more often than they used to, but compared to KQED-produced content it's still a massive difference in tone and content.
- dymk 4y agoWhat’s an example of a neutral outlet?
- djoldman 4y agoTwo standouts are: https://reuters.com https://reuters.com https://apnews.com https://apnews.com
- WoahNoun 4y agoWhat do you mean by neutral? Because being "neutral" on an argument like "is the Earth flat" is a terrible journalistic standard.
- daedalus_j 4y agoI'm not certain that is always true. I, for one, would like to know a few things about flat earthers. Do they actually exist? How many of them really are out there? What arguments to they use to try and make their points? These are valuable things to know, especially on issues that mostly settled. They make you, the reader, better understand the issue and better prepared to deal with people you encounter who hold this belief. I'm not Neil Armstrong, I don't have the cache to simply punch moon landing deniers in the nose, I need some true facts to use when talking to one. As a consumer of journalism I'm way more interested in stuff like that than simple sneering scorn about people who clearly believe "wrong" things. When it comes to topics that I don't personally understand, perhaps wheat tariffs, I'm going to be way more likely to agree to the "right" answer when I understand both sides and can see how exactly it is that the "wrong" side is wrong. But the very minute I find out that the story is being spun by omitting certain facts or arguments, I'm going to assume the author is lying about pretty much everything. Thus, neutrality. You've got to show me both sides honestly for me to be able to believe that what you're saying is actual truth, not just your "truth".
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- scrozart 4y agoSpecific example? Just because you may not agree with a program doesn't make it "propaganda".
- toomim 4y agoCheck out Peter Boghassian's catalog of examples: https://allthingsreconsidered.buzzsprout.com/ https://allthingsreconsidered.buzzsprout.com/
- pxmpxm 4y agoThis one comes to mind: https://twitter.com/nprpubliceditor/status/1319281101223940096 https://twitter.com/nprpubliceditor/status/13192811012239400... NPR was clearly executing the same crisis management PR strategy, as instructed to all the politically aligned media outlets. Unfortunate; I recall many driveway moments some 10-15 years ago, where the topic discussed was so compelling (this american life in particular) that I just had to stay in the car and keep listening.
- Auracle 4y agoHere’s a specific example that I can’t exactly link: Shortly after Trump won the election they had a round table of journalists (including some of their own) on and they basically said “we need to fight him.” So, during Trump’s presidency I specifically listened for any positive coverage of literally anything he did. None. Zip. Nada. I probably heard hundreds of negative stories. Guess what? About a month or so after Trump lost his re-election bid I finally heard a tempered positive sentence on All Things Considered. I consider that propaganda. I also remember a specific moment on All Things Considered back in the earlier days of COVID where they stated the lab leak theory was debunked because - get this - China said it didn’t happen. Anything to hurt Trump, until it didn’t matter.
- toomim 4y agoYeah, it's sad. Prof. Peter Boghassian has been collecting examples of NPR's descent into poor reporting in his "All Things Reconsidered" podcast: https://allthingsreconsidered.buzzsprout.com/ https://allthingsreconsidered.buzzsprout.com/
- tootie 4y agoYeah and what's his bias? Or in his case, agenda. Absolutely every reporter in the history of journalism has bias. That's human nature. NPR is highly factual, broad-based and reliable. Having per-story bias, writing a bad headline, missing a detail. You may as well criticize them for not all having washboard abs. It's an unrealistic standard. FOX news is taking dictation from politicians and consulting their stock price while writing scripts for things they know are false.
- daedalus_j 4y agoI actually took some classes from professor Boghossian. His agenda is to make you think, I'd put money on it. He loves the discussion and debate. He's a true philosopher, loves digging into things for the sake of it and to discover what's there. If there were a per-story bias, or even a per-author bias, I might agree with you, but NPR has a very clear per-topic bias. And the goal of every reporter should be to eliminate their personal bias and report the facts. NPR's bias is so pervasive on certain topics though that one can only conclude that they too are taking dictation from some overlord, or are so caught up in group-think that they have fundamentally misunderstood reality. I don't actually think this is too bad, as long as you know what you're getting and can correct for the bias.
- tootie 4y agoBoghossian is a professional contrarian who used half-baked academic hoaxes in conjunction with well-known racists like Stefan Molyneaux.
- shitlord 4y agoI think the most tragic part about NPR's decline is that they veered so far into activism, they often don't bother presenting the other side of contentious issues. As another commenter pointed out, NPR covered a variety of perspectives on the American War on Terror. That seems to happen less often nowadays.
- IG_Semmelweiss 4y agoAgreed. The new stuff is extremely far away from their legacy beautiful programming , like Nova. For those doubting the massive ideological shift beyond opinion, consider that new content being pumped out. do you see content like the Commanding Heights series coming out? Now review what is actually coming out. You be the judge
- axiomdata316 4y agoIsn't Nova PBS? They are both nonprofit organizations but I think that's a separate organization from NPR correct?
- LastTrain 4y agoBias is not propaganda - journalistic standards are about processes and methods that mean you can rely on the factual content of the reporting, and things like who is doing the reporting, who is finding the reporting, etc. That you don’t like what they are saying doesn’t make it propaganda. JFC
- Kyo91 4y agoThere's a huge divide between the senior reporters and journalists doing the radio programming and the younger folk who run their website and handle publishing. While I still have a positive view on NPR as a whole, the online side deserves a lot less respect.
- hayst4ck 4y agoNeutral isn't a thing. There is the truth and deviation from it. How much it deviates from the truth is a good criticism. How "neutral" it is says more about your beliefs than it says about the quality of reporting. Neutral is at best a measurement of the middle of the Overton window. What is neutrality in regards to Ukraine vs Russia? What is an example of high quality "neutral" reporting in regards to it? How neutral do you think Russians would estimate your example to be?
- roenxi 4y agoIn fairness, I don't think the Russia-Ukraine war is the best example. Eg, it is obvious that the BBC's reporting [0] is truthful but not neutral - it only quotes from Ukranians. But people don't generally want or ask neutral reporting on the Ukraine war, I expect if there was a poll it would show people wanted pro-Ukraine reporting. Neutrality could be made into a reasonably objective standard - on any controversy, report the viewpoints of the top 3-4 groups involved in their own voice and then throw in the opinion of any academics who've made a point of studying similar situations. That is close enough to be called 'neutral'. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65072173 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65072173
- barbacoa 4y agoI think Ukraine is an excellent example. Contrast the media coverage of the USA/EU vs Russia proxywar in Ukraine vs the USA/Saudi vs Iran proxywar in Yemen. Both are horrible wars with untold civilian suffering. For obvious reasons one has daily coverage the other literally zero mentions. Another part of the Ukraine conflict that is strangely absent is that Ukraine has been in a civil war since 2014 when a CIA backed coup toppled their government. It is always presented as if one day for no reason Putin invaded a peaceful Ukraine.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> the USA/EU vs Russia proxywar No, its a China/North Korea/Iran vs. Ukraine proxy war.
- garrickvanburen 4y agoNPR has biases, these biases while independent of (and sometimes overlapping) the policy platforms of major political parties, they are still biases.
- djfobbz 4y agoI used to be an avid NPR listener myself until I started noticing their extreme left bias with a big push for the government propaganda…I cannot stand them anymore!
- bee_rider 4y agoIt is hard because one of the parties has become completely disconnected from reality. I mean, they had the choices of either airing propaganda or just not airing any statements from the previous administration. Hard time to be a reported I guess.
- Vaslo 4y agoI don’t think horrible bias is really good reporting standards, but that’s me.
- datavirtue 4y agoSort of. I listen to NPR nearly every day, and it's difficult to do so. Lots, and lots, and lots of of the same theme...women, women of color, LGBTQ. They pound the same narrative into your head constantly. I'm all for human rights. I listen to NPR because they report on human rights. But FFS, I'm always left cringing and thinking "does the audience really demand this level of progressivism?" It's so bad now that I can't trust them to report objectively. Wanna solve your money problems? Spin up a conservative arm and let it rip. With the same journalistic standards of course. NPR and the News Hour, it is hard to take them seriously anymore, and I run a household of people who feel strongly about the environment, human rights and worker rights. Some of us are women, LGBTQ and we have friends who are people of color.
- datavirtue 4y agoNice downvotes. This place is slowing turning into reddit. How about you leave a comment?
- jahsome 4y agoRefer to the guidelines. Whining about votes is the only thing reddit-like.
- quesera 4y ago> Lots, and lots, and lots of of the same theme...women, women of color, LGBTQ. Your groups of concern represent 51%, 21%, and ~10% of the US population. What is the appropriate amount of time to spend on themes concerning those groups? I am not immune to that same feeling, but sometimes I wonder if it's just a discomfort with no longer always being a member of the relevant default.
- datavirtue 4y agoNo, not at all. They aren't focusing on the core issue. Freedom and equality for all. Fighting for a certain group is at best a band-aid. They cover but stay clear of the worker rights that disproportionately help those groups. It is a disservice.
- gotoeleven 4y agoeverybody knows theyve got the best standards no one has better standards than npr https://twitter.com/NPRpubliceditor/status/1319281101223940096 https://twitter.com/NPRpubliceditor/status/13192811012239400... maybe these clowns can learn to code
- georgeburdell 4y agoNon scientific, but even the news shows like All Things Considered had a turning point when Trump was elected and then a larger one around the George Floyd riots where they became unlistenable for me. Around New Years 2021 I decided each time I stepped in the car that I’d turn it off at the first mention of some kind of racial inequality issue. Usually I didn’t get more than halfway into my 5-mile commute. Maybe a few months later, I changed my default to the local Boomer news radio, KCBS, and have been fine since.
- kenjackson 4y agoI found the opposite. They were one of the few places who continued to report the news. Also unscientific. That said I think that the news simply became more polarizing and people looked to confirm biases rather than get news.
- themitigating 4y agoRacial inequality doesn't exist if you don't hear about it.
- Auracle 4y agoWe’ve heard about it plenty. There are also plenty of other things to talk about. NPR might as well stand for No Politics but Race at this point.
- themitigating 4y agoTired of hearing about things that don't affect you is lack of empathy
- toomim 4y agoRefusing to report anything positive about 50% of the country (conservatives) is lack of empathy.
- 4y ago
- steponlego 4y agoThey're... horrid. It could be parody if it wasn't deadly serious. It's been bad for decades, but now it's gone completely off the rails. Trump damaged their minds and ripped away whatever shreds of sanity and objectivity they managed to hold on to through the Bush years.
- chiefalchemist 4y agoThey don't because they can't. That is, most everything is "filtered" by the suits. If it wasn't we'd see more of the transparency / disclaimers you're hoping for.
- huitzitziltzin 4y agoMajor daily newspapers are very good about this already. Every time the Washington post uses the word ‘Amazon’ they note who their owner is. The New York Times has a public editor whose sole job it is to crap on the broader NYT organization when they get stuff exactly like this wrong. There are many, many lower quality organizations which aren’t careful, but the major newspapers are good on this.
- hoppyhoppy2 4y agoThe New York Times eliminated its public editor position in 2017.
- abdullahkhalids 4y agoThis is good that individual stories are not externally censored. But.. I don't know the org structure of NPR, but it's possible that over the long run for the NPR suits to fire journalists who don't toe the "party line", or refuse to give them promotions or salary increases. If they can, or have in the past, there would still be self-censorship of stories by journalists.
- LeoPanthera 4y agoThe BBC does this too, which the other day led to me laughing so hard at the TV I had to pause it, because they said: "BBC News tried to contact the BBC to comment on this story, but no-one could be reached."
- TheNewsIsHere 4y agoOne of my absolute favorite television shows is called W1A. It features David Tennent as a narrator, who frequently gets lines like that about the BBC. If you’ve never seen it, absolutely go find it.
- waldothedog 4y agoSeconding this in a big. An incredible send-up of office culture.
- TheNewsIsHere 4y agoYes, well yes. The fact of the matter is we must do better.
- sprkwd 4y agoYes, this is an incredible show.
- pessimizer 4y agoTry to find an outlet that doesn't say this in a disclaimer when reporting about itself. It's about as real as Chinese walls.
- PM_me_your_math 4y agoJust because they said so, doesn't mean it is so.