6 ms·

Neutral 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 yo

Neutral 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 ago
In 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 ago
  I 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.
    - elihu 4y ago
      I'm not convinced that China has much of a stake in the outcome. Maybe the war itself serves their purposes because they want Russia to be weaker and have fewer trading partners to choose from, but whether Russia wins or loses in Ukraine, Russia will (short of a major internal political collapse) continue to sell gas to China. The risk that Ukraine or anyone would invade Russia and force a regime change is low. Same with Iran and North Korea. They might supply weapons because Russia is paying them for it, but they don't have much to gain if Russia were to win. It's possible that Putin's decision to invade was made under duress, but if so I think it's more likely that it was some faction inside Russia that was twisting his arm rather than an outside faction. (Xi /may/ have set up Russia for failure by requesting that the invasion not happen until the Olympics were finished and the rainy season had begun, but I think that's just idle speculation. I don't know if there's any real evidence of that.)
      - navane 4y ago
        China and Russia want a world where big countries bully small countries, and the small countries dont find safety in numbers. If russia gets away with ukraine, so can china with taiwan. Thats their stake.
        vasac 4y ago
        How's that different from the current world?
  - czbond 4y ago
    > It is always presented as if one day for no reason Putin invaded a peaceful Ukraine. Yes! American geopolitics like to gloss over that Russia has been saying for at least a decade that Ukraine acceptance to NATO would incite a military response.
    - ethanbond 4y ago
      Well Russia was welcome to put up a candidate to run for office in Ukraine to make that argument to the Ukrainian people. In fact, they did! He lost in a landslide which the loser himself acknowledged as fair. Russia declaring that Ukraine is a vassal state doesn’t make it so.
    - nimbleplum40 4y ago
      When did Ukraine join NATO?
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > American geopolitics like to gloss over that Russia has been saying for at least a decade that Ukraine acceptance to NATO would incite a military response. No, American geopolitics actually cites those threats which disrespect Ukraine’s sovereignty as part of the pattern of Russian aggression, though less significant than its actually launching various aggressive wars. Also, Ukraine was not, at any point, accepted into NATO, so even if such a threat was somehow not a threat to engage in unwarranted aggression and deserved respect…it really wouldn’t be relevant.
    - jvanderbot 4y ago
      Saying that a democratic country shouldn't do something or else you'll invade is about as bad as invading for no reason.
  - peppermint_gum 4y ago
    >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. This is one of the most annoying tankie talking points. Maidan? Duh, obviously it was a CIA coup. There's no need to prove it, everyone knows that only anti-western uprisings can be genuine. OTOH, when Russia sent their soldiers to Crimea and Donbas, it clearly was a show of the local people's will. Also, it's better not to mention that the separatist movement didn't exist before 2014 and then they suddenly were organized enough to wage a full-scale war.
    - barbacoa 4y ago
      The USA government absolutely had a hand in the Maidan revolution. There was even a leaked phone call where state department officials discuss who to pick for the new government.
      - peppermint_gum 4y ago
        All that leaked phone call between Nuland and Pyatt shows is that the US most likely participated in the (failed) negotiations for a new government with Yanukovych as the president and a opposition candidate as the prime minister. It isn't, however, a proof that the US somehow caused the protests to happen. How would that even work? On the other hand, there's a mountain of evidence for Russian military involvement in 2014, including Putin himself admitting that.
- camdenreslink 4y ago
  Reporting the viewpoints of the top groups in equal balance isn't really a good approach when they don't all deserve the same weight or merit. It actually has a name called "false balance" [0]. I would rather the news just give me facts and give coverage to what they believe is true. I think NPR does that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
  - Thorentis 4y ago
    Just giving facts is difficult, since either side can dispute the sources used to prove those facts. I would much prefer each side presenting what they think the facts are.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  I chose the war on purpose precisely to make that point. Why do you think there are any situations at all where people (at large) don't want reporting that reinforces their world view? How would you define neutrality, like a one sentence definition? I think doing so will make you understand pretty quickly that in doing "report the viewpoints of the top 3-4 groups" even choosing "the top 3-4 groups" already defies neutrality because you are implicily equating those groups giving them equal status and giving authority to whoever determines the top 3-4 groups. If 1 group is fringe, you are letting them be main stream. The people chosen will alter the Overton Window whether the intent was to do so or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
refurb 4y ago
If you want neutral go and read Stratfor reporting on the Ukraine-Russia War. It’s basically fact reporting - who is doing what. It reads like an academic paper. No filtering of what’s covered based on who’s the “good guy”. The conclusion are focused on geopolitical impact - good or bad.
daedalus_j 4y ago
While I don't entirely disagree, I think perhaps we need a new word. I'd hate to come out and say "NPR lies" as it gets people's hackles up and immediately starts the us-vs-them dynamic. "Non-Neutral" seems to have been the best way in recent years to indicate that their reporting is, at best, slanted and spun in order to present a view of the world that they prefer. It's hard to notice it when they're talking about things you don't know about, perhaps wheat imports for example. But then they do a story about something you do know about that you recognize is absolutely a one-sided hatchet job. A Not technically "lying" perhaps, but certainly not anything close to "neutral". What's the word for that? Low-quality news? Mis/dis-information? Personally I like the neutral/non-neutral because it reminds us of what the goal should be: actual truth, without the agenda.
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  > I'd hate to come out and say "NPR lies" > their reporting is, at best, slanted and spun Do you see the cognitive dissonance/double speak? You are asserting NPR is "manipulating the truth" (read: lying directly or by omission) for ideological (read: bad faith/dominance hierarchy manipulation) purposes. Just because you disavow the words that best describe your belief, doesn't mean that those words don't most accurately describe your position. If those words aren't most representative of your beliefs, then I have failed to understand the nuance you were trying to communicate. > immediately starts the us-vs-them dynamic. Do you see that you are disavowing responsibility for being half of the "us vs them" problem despite invoking the idea of "them" yourself? You created us vs them the instant you asserted NPR's bad faith instead of trying to figure out why we can't seem to reach consensus about what "the truth" is. Don't you understand that you are basically saying "I don't want conflict with people who find NPR credible, but they're definitely wrong.”? "People who find NPR credible just aren't experienced/smart enough to see they are being lied to." You recognize there is conflict, but fail to realize you are half of the conflict. You are putting responsibility for creating an "us vs them" situation on the people who disagree with you. "I'm not wrong, they're wrong. They're creating an us vs them dynamic, not me, I know the truth and they are denying it.” “Other peoples hackles are up, not mine, I'm just unemotionally stating the truth.” > is absolutely a one-sided hatchet job You pre-suppose your own correctness. I don't see how your position is materially different than: "It is as simple as I am right and they are wrong, people who don't see it my way just haven't understood they are wrong yet." Of course you will get an us vs them response, because you go into the conversation with the axiom that you are right rather than a desire to understand why someone disagrees so you can help them understand why they are wrong by asking questions that are hard to answer given the set of beliefs you assess that they have. > actual truth, without the agenda. Don't you understand that you have defined neutral to be "things that have the same agenda I have, and things that see the same truth I do?" The truth is intrinsically not neutral. The truth picks a side every time. All conflicts involve two parties that think they know the truth. Neutral is a measurement of distance from your beliefs. To Chinese people, “Taiwan is part of china“ is a neutral statement. To express something else is to not be neutral. Your subjective truth is the stick you are using to measure neutrality. Your agenda is the origin of the measurement. There is only one way to assess truth and that is to look at internal consistency.
Consultant32452 4y ago
Please direct me to the place where NPR retracted their reports/comments about the Hunter Biden laptop which was 100% really his laptop and not even a little bit of Russian propaganda? It's so really his laptop the FBI is using it in investigations and Hunter is suing the guy who released it for violation of privacy.
colechristensen 4y ago
There are different kinds of neutral. Right now the first headline on NPR.org is “ What a House GOP messaging bill could spell for 2024 culture war campaign” This is a headline that passes judgement and takes a side, out is also a call to fear and anger. Of course not in an extremely explicit way, but it’s still obvious whose side NPR is on. It’s ok for news to pick sides sometimes when things are obvious but I want my news more facts biased with less editorializing, especially when it comes to politics.
pyuser583 4y ago
Neutral is a thing. Not always possible, but sometimes achievable. Neutral in regards to Ukraine v Russia is not having an unquestioning lovefest for Ukrainian leadership. Recently a major news outlet reported on the conditions Russian prisoners (in Ukrainian custody) were kept under. It was very clear they did not have the ability to freely question prisoners, or freely move around the facility. That’s normal. But it’s very important to point out. That’s responsible journalism. Frankly fewer puff pieces of Zelenskyy, and a more critical look at his relationship with the tv production company that made him president would be nice. There’s no need to maintain a false equivalence. But there are too many unquestioning puff pieces.
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  A war is about truth. Russia's truth is that Ukraine belongs to Russia. Ukraine's truth is that Ukraine belongs to Ukrainians. The war's purpose is to determine who is wrong and who is left. I do not think there is any way to be neutral at all in regards to Russia and Ukraine because any stance taken at all will support one sides victory or the others. Puff pieces about Zelensky are not meant to profess truth, they are meant to increase morale so troops fight better/more tenaciously, so battles can be won, so the war can be won. Neutrality is not desired nor is it good. Neutrality almost always supports the oppressors and neutrality is almost always implicit support for both the ideology of might makes right and the outcome of might makes right. Fewer puff pieces on zelensky has the opportunity cost of fewer peices tearing down putins legitimacy. There can truly be no neutrality. There is no neutrality to be found because both parties are not good faith actors attempting to reach consensus. If any parties are bad faith, there can be no neutrality because they don't have a desire to reach consensus, they have a desire to dominate.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    > Fewer puff pieces on zelensky has the opportunity cost of fewer peices tearing down putins legitimacy. There can truly be no neutrality. You seriously think uncritical puff pieces on Zelenskyy undermine Russias legitimacy?
iamthepieman 4y ago
For me it's not so much neutral vs non-neutral. As other commenters have pointed out this is often just a way of more nicely saying "things that support my world view or that do not" For me it was just the sheer volume of stories about identity. Politics, social, slice of life etc. They seemed like they were all about issues of identity. While the U.S. Overton window has certainly shifted in this direction I just wasn't interested in an outlet that was "all identity, all the time". It just wasn't super relative to me in the proportions they were dosing it out in. It didn't really have much to do with whether I agreed with it or not. I liked NPR because it was pretty reliable (probably still is I just haven't listened in a couple years) and their world view was different than my own so I was exposed to things outside of my bubble. But, and this is just my perception, when it was 80% of their programming, I stopped participating.

roenxi 4y ago

In 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 ago
I 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.
  - elihu 4y ago
    I'm not convinced that China has much of a stake in the outcome. Maybe the war itself serves their purposes because they want Russia to be weaker and have fewer trading partners to choose from, but whether Russia wins or loses in Ukraine, Russia will (short of a major internal political collapse) continue to sell gas to China. The risk that Ukraine or anyone would invade Russia and force a regime change is low. Same with Iran and North Korea. They might supply weapons because Russia is paying them for it, but they don't have much to gain if Russia were to win. It's possible that Putin's decision to invade was made under duress, but if so I think it's more likely that it was some faction inside Russia that was twisting his arm rather than an outside faction. (Xi /may/ have set up Russia for failure by requesting that the invasion not happen until the Olympics were finished and the rainy season had begun, but I think that's just idle speculation. I don't know if there's any real evidence of that.)
    - navane 4y ago
      China and Russia want a world where big countries bully small countries, and the small countries dont find safety in numbers. If russia gets away with ukraine, so can china with taiwan. Thats their stake.
      - vasac 4y ago
        How's that different from the current world?
- czbond 4y ago
  > It is always presented as if one day for no reason Putin invaded a peaceful Ukraine. Yes! American geopolitics like to gloss over that Russia has been saying for at least a decade that Ukraine acceptance to NATO would incite a military response.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    Well Russia was welcome to put up a candidate to run for office in Ukraine to make that argument to the Ukrainian people. In fact, they did! He lost in a landslide which the loser himself acknowledged as fair. Russia declaring that Ukraine is a vassal state doesn’t make it so.
  - nimbleplum40 4y ago
    When did Ukraine join NATO?
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > American geopolitics like to gloss over that Russia has been saying for at least a decade that Ukraine acceptance to NATO would incite a military response. No, American geopolitics actually cites those threats which disrespect Ukraine’s sovereignty as part of the pattern of Russian aggression, though less significant than its actually launching various aggressive wars. Also, Ukraine was not, at any point, accepted into NATO, so even if such a threat was somehow not a threat to engage in unwarranted aggression and deserved respect…it really wouldn’t be relevant.
  - jvanderbot 4y ago
    Saying that a democratic country shouldn't do something or else you'll invade is about as bad as invading for no reason.
- peppermint_gum 4y ago
  >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. This is one of the most annoying tankie talking points. Maidan? Duh, obviously it was a CIA coup. There's no need to prove it, everyone knows that only anti-western uprisings can be genuine. OTOH, when Russia sent their soldiers to Crimea and Donbas, it clearly was a show of the local people's will. Also, it's better not to mention that the separatist movement didn't exist before 2014 and then they suddenly were organized enough to wage a full-scale war.
  - barbacoa 4y ago
    The USA government absolutely had a hand in the Maidan revolution. There was even a leaked phone call where state department officials discuss who to pick for the new government.
    - peppermint_gum 4y ago
      All that leaked phone call between Nuland and Pyatt shows is that the US most likely participated in the (failed) negotiations for a new government with Yanukovych as the president and a opposition candidate as the prime minister. It isn't, however, a proof that the US somehow caused the protests to happen. How would that even work? On the other hand, there's a mountain of evidence for Russian military involvement in 2014, including Putin himself admitting that.
camdenreslink 4y ago
Reporting the viewpoints of the top groups in equal balance isn't really a good approach when they don't all deserve the same weight or merit. It actually has a name called "false balance" [0]. I would rather the news just give me facts and give coverage to what they believe is true. I think NPR does that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
- Thorentis 4y ago
  Just giving facts is difficult, since either side can dispute the sources used to prove those facts. I would much prefer each side presenting what they think the facts are.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hayst4ck 4y ago
I chose the war on purpose precisely to make that point. Why do you think there are any situations at all where people (at large) don't want reporting that reinforces their world view? How would you define neutrality, like a one sentence definition? I think doing so will make you understand pretty quickly that in doing "report the viewpoints of the top 3-4 groups" even choosing "the top 3-4 groups" already defies neutrality because you are implicily equating those groups giving them equal status and giving authority to whoever determines the top 3-4 groups. If 1 group is fringe, you are letting them be main stream. The people chosen will alter the Overton Window whether the intent was to do so or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

refurb 4y ago

If you want neutral go and read Stratfor reporting on the Ukraine-Russia War. It’s basically fact reporting - who is doing what. It reads like an academic paper. No filtering of what’s covered based on who’s the “good guy”. The conclusion are focused on geopolitical impact - good or bad.

daedalus_j 4y ago

While I don't entirely disagree, I think perhaps we need a new word. I'd hate to come out and say "NPR lies" as it gets people's hackles up and immediately starts the us-vs-them dynamic. "Non-Neutral" seems to have been the best way in recent years to indicate that their reporting is, at best, slanted and spun in order to present a view of the world that they prefer. It's hard to notice it when they're talking about things you don't know about, perhaps wheat imports for example. But then they do a story about something you do know about that you recognize is absolutely a one-sided hatchet job. A Not technically "lying" perhaps, but certainly not anything close to "neutral". What's the word for that? Low-quality news? Mis/dis-information? Personally I like the neutral/non-neutral because it reminds us of what the goal should be: actual truth, without the agenda.

hayst4ck 4y ago
> I'd hate to come out and say "NPR lies" > their reporting is, at best, slanted and spun Do you see the cognitive dissonance/double speak? You are asserting NPR is "manipulating the truth" (read: lying directly or by omission) for ideological (read: bad faith/dominance hierarchy manipulation) purposes. Just because you disavow the words that best describe your belief, doesn't mean that those words don't most accurately describe your position. If those words aren't most representative of your beliefs, then I have failed to understand the nuance you were trying to communicate. > immediately starts the us-vs-them dynamic. Do you see that you are disavowing responsibility for being half of the "us vs them" problem despite invoking the idea of "them" yourself? You created us vs them the instant you asserted NPR's bad faith instead of trying to figure out why we can't seem to reach consensus about what "the truth" is. Don't you understand that you are basically saying "I don't want conflict with people who find NPR credible, but they're definitely wrong.”? "People who find NPR credible just aren't experienced/smart enough to see they are being lied to." You recognize there is conflict, but fail to realize you are half of the conflict. You are putting responsibility for creating an "us vs them" situation on the people who disagree with you. "I'm not wrong, they're wrong. They're creating an us vs them dynamic, not me, I know the truth and they are denying it.” “Other peoples hackles are up, not mine, I'm just unemotionally stating the truth.” > is absolutely a one-sided hatchet job You pre-suppose your own correctness. I don't see how your position is materially different than: "It is as simple as I am right and they are wrong, people who don't see it my way just haven't understood they are wrong yet." Of course you will get an us vs them response, because you go into the conversation with the axiom that you are right rather than a desire to understand why someone disagrees so you can help them understand why they are wrong by asking questions that are hard to answer given the set of beliefs you assess that they have. > actual truth, without the agenda. Don't you understand that you have defined neutral to be "things that have the same agenda I have, and things that see the same truth I do?" The truth is intrinsically not neutral. The truth picks a side every time. All conflicts involve two parties that think they know the truth. Neutral is a measurement of distance from your beliefs. To Chinese people, “Taiwan is part of china“ is a neutral statement. To express something else is to not be neutral. Your subjective truth is the stick you are using to measure neutrality. Your agenda is the origin of the measurement. There is only one way to assess truth and that is to look at internal consistency.

Consultant32452 4y ago

Please direct me to the place where NPR retracted their reports/comments about the Hunter Biden laptop which was 100% really his laptop and not even a little bit of Russian propaganda? It's so really his laptop the FBI is using it in investigations and Hunter is suing the guy who released it for violation of privacy.

colechristensen 4y ago

There are different kinds of neutral. Right now the first headline on NPR.org is “ What a House GOP messaging bill could spell for 2024 culture war campaign” This is a headline that passes judgement and takes a side, out is also a call to fear and anger. Of course not in an extremely explicit way, but it’s still obvious whose side NPR is on. It’s ok for news to pick sides sometimes when things are obvious but I want my news more facts biased with less editorializing, especially when it comes to politics.

pyuser583 4y ago

Neutral is a thing. Not always possible, but sometimes achievable. Neutral in regards to Ukraine v Russia is not having an unquestioning lovefest for Ukrainian leadership. Recently a major news outlet reported on the conditions Russian prisoners (in Ukrainian custody) were kept under. It was very clear they did not have the ability to freely question prisoners, or freely move around the facility. That’s normal. But it’s very important to point out. That’s responsible journalism. Frankly fewer puff pieces of Zelenskyy, and a more critical look at his relationship with the tv production company that made him president would be nice. There’s no need to maintain a false equivalence. But there are too many unquestioning puff pieces.

hayst4ck 4y ago
A war is about truth. Russia's truth is that Ukraine belongs to Russia. Ukraine's truth is that Ukraine belongs to Ukrainians. The war's purpose is to determine who is wrong and who is left. I do not think there is any way to be neutral at all in regards to Russia and Ukraine because any stance taken at all will support one sides victory or the others. Puff pieces about Zelensky are not meant to profess truth, they are meant to increase morale so troops fight better/more tenaciously, so battles can be won, so the war can be won. Neutrality is not desired nor is it good. Neutrality almost always supports the oppressors and neutrality is almost always implicit support for both the ideology of might makes right and the outcome of might makes right. Fewer puff pieces on zelensky has the opportunity cost of fewer peices tearing down putins legitimacy. There can truly be no neutrality. There is no neutrality to be found because both parties are not good faith actors attempting to reach consensus. If any parties are bad faith, there can be no neutrality because they don't have a desire to reach consensus, they have a desire to dominate.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  > Fewer puff pieces on zelensky has the opportunity cost of fewer peices tearing down putins legitimacy. There can truly be no neutrality. You seriously think uncritical puff pieces on Zelenskyy undermine Russias legitimacy?

iamthepieman 4y ago

For me it's not so much neutral vs non-neutral. As other commenters have pointed out this is often just a way of more nicely saying "things that support my world view or that do not" For me it was just the sheer volume of stories about identity. Politics, social, slice of life etc. They seemed like they were all about issues of identity. While the U.S. Overton window has certainly shifted in this direction I just wasn't interested in an outlet that was "all identity, all the time". It just wasn't super relative to me in the proportions they were dosing it out in. It didn't really have much to do with whether I agreed with it or not. I liked NPR because it was pretty reliable (probably still is I just haven't listened in a couple years) and their world view was different than my own so I was exposed to things outside of my bubble. But, and this is just my perception, when it was 80% of their programming, I stopped participating.