3 ms·

And then lets run the same statistics for administrations from the other side. After all, state-controlled media would have to follow switching government lines

by detaro 4y ago

And then lets run the same statistics for administrations from the other side. After all, state-controlled media would have to follow switching government lines on this, so it'll show Republicans loving NPR and Democrats hating it during the previous administration, correct?

AlbertCory 4y ago
So you're agreeing on their political affiliation? Let's just get that out of the way first.
- d23 4y ago
  The point is it is irrelevant for this discussion.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - d23 4y ago
      I'm not even the person you asked. What exactly is your goal? Get a random person on the internet to disagree with you about something that's not even on topic for the discussion at hand?
      - AlbertCory 4y ago
        [flagged]
- detaro 4y ago
  I'm not making a claim on political affiliation (and don't have a detailed opinion on it, being not from the US I don't read NPR stuff very much and have never heard any of their radio programmes). It's not necessary for my argument. (People desperately trying to turn everything they dislike into government-led propaganda is sadly an international pattern)
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    >I don't read NPR stuff very much and have never heard any of their radio programmes). Then you should do so. Especially Fresh Air, Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me!, Car Talk (although, sadly that's just an archive -- no new shows), Story Corps[0] and a whole bunch of others that have exactly zero to do with anything political. I wanted to add Forum as well, but since it's from KQED[1] I'm sure some folks around here will call it the propaganda arm of the People's Republic of California. <eye-roll>. And Marketplace, On Point, RadioLab, Science Friday and a bunch of others from WBUR[2]. And WNYC[3] and WAMU[4] also have a number of shows that never even mention the dysfunction in the US political system. That said, there are many NPR (and member station) shows that actually report the news of the day and cover political topics -- regardless of party or point of view. Okay, it's definitely not Breitbart, Zerohedge or Alex Jones, but it's certainly not a communist organization. Rather, it's center-right, just like most of the US. Regardless, there's lots of interesting and fun stuff, especially Fresh Air. I remember being heartbroken fifteen years ago or so to find out that Terry Gross[5] was not only past childbearing age, but gay as well. Because she's so amazing, I often fantasized about having kids with her. Seriously. [0] https://prod-www-origin.npr.org/programs/ https://prod-www-origin.npr.org/programs/ [1] https://www.kqed.org/ https://www.kqed.org/ [2] https://www.wbur.org/radio https://www.wbur.org/radio [3] https://www.wnyc.org/shows https://www.wnyc.org/shows [4] https://wamu.org/shows/ https://wamu.org/shows/ [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Gross https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Gross
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      Since you mentioned Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me: A very recent episode featured a comedic rant about Gov. DeSantis. It called the Parental Rights Bill "Don't Say Gay" and joked about how he was attacking the Disney characters. Naturally all good NPR listeners would laugh about that. Fresh Air: How many guests has she had on who might also appear on FoxNews? Versus MSNBC, CNN, NYT, or WaPo. I'll tell you why they do that: if they presented a non-querulous story about the Hunter Biden laptop, their contributors would angrily demand to know why they're presenting "Fox News talking points."
      - 4y ago
- cauch 4y ago
  To get that out of the way, you can follow the smart process proposed by the person you answer to: If indeed the organization is biased because government funded, it means that they will never publish stories that the government is not happy with. So, under Biden, they will not publish stories that Democrats don't like, and under Trump, they will not publish stories that Republicans don't like. If it is not the case, then they are not biased because government funded. They may be politically biased for other reason, but it does not matter if they are government funded or not, and it is stupid to give them a label "government funded" to warn about bias if "government funded" has nothing to do with this bias. Especially because it means that non-government-funded organization can be as biased but not have any label.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    Your arguments seem to hinge on some hypothetical world where Republicans are in charge AND the executive agencies are all on board with their agenda. Then, to be "government funded" NPR would have to hew to the Republican line. Q.E.D. Maybe the first part of that will happen someday. It hasn't yet. In fact, large parts of the civil service are permanently one party and do not change when the other party takes charge (as, indeed, the Civil Service reforms of the 19th Century set out to insure). Only about 4,000 jobs are politically appointed, according to Wikipedia. So, no, you haven't gotten that out of the way.
    - cauch 4y ago
      If the executive agencies are imposing their agenda rather than the "government agenda", then, they are not biased for being "government funded", they are being biased for being "funded". If the government has no power, they could be "government funded", or "privately funded", or whatever, they are not manipulated by the government, they are manipulated by a lobby. What you are saying is that there is a group of interest that are independent of the government, and that has an influence because they are giving money. Why should we had a label when this group of interest is "the executive agencies", but not when it is "the investors of Wall Street", the "mass media conservative groups", the "christian lobby", ...? (I don't pretend it's the case. I think people who really believe that the evil executive agencies impose their agenda are idiot who are not able to mentally comprehend that maybe NPR news are biased because their redaction is politically biased, with or without the existence of executive agencies) (also, the reasoning on 4'000 jobs politically appointed is very weak: while there are way more than 4'000 jobs in the executive agencies, the very very very majority of these jobs have ZERO decision power, and the position of power in these agencies are the one politically appointed. If these executive agencies are sending memos to bias the media, or even renegotiating the contracts or the refunding based on what the media have published, it is with the support of the politically appointed board of directors)

by detaro 4y ago

AlbertCory 4y ago

So you're agreeing on their political affiliation? Let's just get that out of the way first.

d23 4y ago
The point is it is irrelevant for this discussion.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - d23 4y ago
    I'm not even the person you asked. What exactly is your goal? Get a random person on the internet to disagree with you about something that's not even on topic for the discussion at hand?
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      [flagged]
detaro 4y ago
I'm not making a claim on political affiliation (and don't have a detailed opinion on it, being not from the US I don't read NPR stuff very much and have never heard any of their radio programmes). It's not necessary for my argument. (People desperately trying to turn everything they dislike into government-led propaganda is sadly an international pattern)
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >I don't read NPR stuff very much and have never heard any of their radio programmes). Then you should do so. Especially Fresh Air, Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me!, Car Talk (although, sadly that's just an archive -- no new shows), Story Corps[0] and a whole bunch of others that have exactly zero to do with anything political. I wanted to add Forum as well, but since it's from KQED[1] I'm sure some folks around here will call it the propaganda arm of the People's Republic of California. <eye-roll>. And Marketplace, On Point, RadioLab, Science Friday and a bunch of others from WBUR[2]. And WNYC[3] and WAMU[4] also have a number of shows that never even mention the dysfunction in the US political system. That said, there are many NPR (and member station) shows that actually report the news of the day and cover political topics -- regardless of party or point of view. Okay, it's definitely not Breitbart, Zerohedge or Alex Jones, but it's certainly not a communist organization. Rather, it's center-right, just like most of the US. Regardless, there's lots of interesting and fun stuff, especially Fresh Air. I remember being heartbroken fifteen years ago or so to find out that Terry Gross[5] was not only past childbearing age, but gay as well. Because she's so amazing, I often fantasized about having kids with her. Seriously. [0] https://prod-www-origin.npr.org/programs/ https://prod-www-origin.npr.org/programs/ [1] https://www.kqed.org/ https://www.kqed.org/ [2] https://www.wbur.org/radio https://www.wbur.org/radio [3] https://www.wnyc.org/shows https://www.wnyc.org/shows [4] https://wamu.org/shows/ https://wamu.org/shows/ [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Gross https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Gross
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    Since you mentioned Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me: A very recent episode featured a comedic rant about Gov. DeSantis. It called the Parental Rights Bill "Don't Say Gay" and joked about how he was attacking the Disney characters. Naturally all good NPR listeners would laugh about that. Fresh Air: How many guests has she had on who might also appear on FoxNews? Versus MSNBC, CNN, NYT, or WaPo. I'll tell you why they do that: if they presented a non-querulous story about the Hunter Biden laptop, their contributors would angrily demand to know why they're presenting "Fox News talking points."
    - 4y ago
cauch 4y ago
To get that out of the way, you can follow the smart process proposed by the person you answer to: If indeed the organization is biased because government funded, it means that they will never publish stories that the government is not happy with. So, under Biden, they will not publish stories that Democrats don't like, and under Trump, they will not publish stories that Republicans don't like. If it is not the case, then they are not biased because government funded. They may be politically biased for other reason, but it does not matter if they are government funded or not, and it is stupid to give them a label "government funded" to warn about bias if "government funded" has nothing to do with this bias. Especially because it means that non-government-funded organization can be as biased but not have any label.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Your arguments seem to hinge on some hypothetical world where Republicans are in charge AND the executive agencies are all on board with their agenda. Then, to be "government funded" NPR would have to hew to the Republican line. Q.E.D. Maybe the first part of that will happen someday. It hasn't yet. In fact, large parts of the civil service are permanently one party and do not change when the other party takes charge (as, indeed, the Civil Service reforms of the 19th Century set out to insure). Only about 4,000 jobs are politically appointed, according to Wikipedia. So, no, you haven't gotten that out of the way.
  - cauch 4y ago
    If the executive agencies are imposing their agenda rather than the "government agenda", then, they are not biased for being "government funded", they are being biased for being "funded". If the government has no power, they could be "government funded", or "privately funded", or whatever, they are not manipulated by the government, they are manipulated by a lobby. What you are saying is that there is a group of interest that are independent of the government, and that has an influence because they are giving money. Why should we had a label when this group of interest is "the executive agencies", but not when it is "the investors of Wall Street", the "mass media conservative groups", the "christian lobby", ...? (I don't pretend it's the case. I think people who really believe that the evil executive agencies impose their agenda are idiot who are not able to mentally comprehend that maybe NPR news are biased because their redaction is politically biased, with or without the existence of executive agencies) (also, the reasoning on 4'000 jobs politically appointed is very weak: while there are way more than 4'000 jobs in the executive agencies, the very very very majority of these jobs have ZERO decision power, and the position of power in these agencies are the one politically appointed. If these executive agencies are sending memos to bias the media, or even renegotiating the contracts or the refunding based on what the media have published, it is with the support of the politically appointed board of directors)