14 ms·

The problem is that Vice kind of stories are costly to produce. And are not sensational enough to get a lot of clicks. It's easier to do a typical 'Culture Wa

The problem is that Vice kind of stories are costly to produce. And are not sensational enough to get a lot of clicks. It's easier to do a typical 'Culture War' fear mongering type content and get easy clicks. Also, I think we are in an echo chamber where if you don't report on comment on the latest topic, you might be perceived to belong to the other side. The West seems to lump issues into "Good" vs "Evil". Leaving no space for News media in grey area to succeed. I can't think of any 'Moderate' News source that is massively successful. Most of the mainstream ones can easily be classified into one camp or the other. May be just degree of devotion to the camp differs.

RhodesianHunter 3y ago
NPR
- pirate787 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - jjulius 3y ago
    Perhaps because the idea is that we should be open to gender-affirming care being an option, rather than being banned? Let people make their own choices for themselves rather than telling them what they should and shouldn't be allowed to do to their own bodies. Some will regret that choice, yes, and we should also empathize with them, but we shouldn't deprive others of the same choice just because those individuals feel regret. Edit: This also feels like cherry-picking. Glancing a the https://text.npr.org/ https://text.npr.org/ URL from a sister thread shows some pretty moderate reading. For the sake of the argument, if we assume that this article is left-leaning, it's drowned out by a sea of otherwise moderate content.
  - foobarbecue 3y ago
    NPR is partially state-funded only in the sense that they have won some government grants, which cover less than 1% of their costs. (Edit: I just learned that if you include local stations and local governments, this number could be counted up to 10%.) As for their bias, they get a -4.6 on Ad Fontes https://adfontesmedia.com/npr-bias-and-reliability/ https://adfontesmedia.com/npr-bias-and-reliability/ .
    - throwwwaway69 3y ago
      This is very misleading. It’s way higher than 1%
      - foobarbecue 3y ago
        My source: https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/ https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-ra... Yours?
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        throwwwaway69 3y ago
        Literally on your own link and in the same sentence: "Presently, NPR receives funding for less than 1% of its budget directly from the federal government, but receives almost 10% of its budget from federal, state, and local governments indirectly."
        foobarbecue 3y ago
        Thanks for pointing this out. I updated my original comment.
      - mikeryan 3y ago
        It’s not. NPR gets its revenues from member stations that buy the rights to the content. It takes some government grants to support certain reporting and special projects but it doesn’t, directly, need government support for operations. It’s member stations may take more government funding (I’ve seen numbers up to 10% but much of that is usually state funding not federal) - which it then uses to buy programming from NPR but that’s an arms length transaction. By far the vast amount of public radio funds come from donations. You could remove all government funding and it would only really affect smaller, rural stations - the ones that mostly need governmental support. A lot of people want to accuse NPR of having a liberal bias because of its governmental funding. Bias is hard to argue objectivelybut if you want to make the case that NPR is biased based on funding it would be more apt to say that it’s because most of their funding likely comes directly from its liberal leaning listeners. PBS which is a similar organization for TV takes a slightly higher amount of government funding but that’s a similar setup.
  - secretsatan 3y ago
    Is it because it's 1% who regret transitioning? And over emphasising 1% would in fact be the propaganda?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - hersko 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - mschuster91 3y ago
        So what? Put them on puberty blockers, these have been used and proven safe for decades to treat precocious puberty. If they figure out they're not transgender after all, natural puberty resumes on its own. Barely anyone recommends or wants actual operations for people below 18 outside of severely suicidal scenarios - and after that... well, as long as you can pursue boob jobs, splitting your tongue or sign up to be maimed and disfigured in some far-away battlefield for the army, why should it be forbidden to transition one's genitalia?!
        hersko 3y ago
        That's a myth, you can't just stop natural puberty and expect everything to be normal if you decide to reverse course later. These kids are being sterilized [1], many will never experience an orgasm [2]. “Every single child or adolescent who was truly blocked at Tanner Stage 2 [when hormones begin their work of advancing a child to adulthood] has never experienced orgasm. I mean, it’s really about zero.”[2] - Dr. Marci Bowers, a vaginoplasty surgeon who herself transitioned when she was 38 [1] https://wng.org/roundups/study-effects-of-puberty-blockers-can-last-a-lifetime-1617220389 https://wng.org/roundups/study-effects-of-puberty-blockers-c... [2] https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-708397 https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-708397
        mschuster91 3y ago
        That second source was written by someone with an obvious agenda of whining against political correctness [1]. As for the first source: an interesting study indeed - the question is, what weighs higher: a potential risk of inability to have an orgasm, or the very real risk of suicide attempts and successful suicides? Usually, medicine goes for "least harm". The last paragraph is particularly telling: > Laidlaw has called the Endocrine Society’s position “highly deceptive.” Most gender-dysphoric children experience other psychological or familial problems or pre-existing trauma or autism, he said. “These kids, given time and compassionate care, should be able to become comfortable in their bodies without the harmful interventions of hormones and surgeries.” The core issue is: access to mental health care or getting children removed from abusive families outside of actual, massive physical violence is incredibly rare. CPS and its worldwide equivalents often barely have the resources to keep up with children being sexually and physically abused, and life in shelters or being constantly shuffled around foster families is a hell on its own - not to mention moving out of strongly "conservative" areas or out of the school district to escape bullies is often financially impossible for way too many families. So again, from a harm reduction perspective, it's obvious that providing puberty blockers and, later on, a way to transition is the more realistic and better outcome way. Besides, even when one assumes the statement of "most" trans people having had prior issues as true (which I haven't seen data yet except a correlation with autism [2]), there will also be a lot of people with absolutely zero history of abuse or other issues beyond being trans who will be trans, and so you need a framework in place to help these as well. [1] https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-720155 https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-720155 [2] https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/EBA481AA354DA47D8C3F88AE5B9BD6BC/S0924933800001619a.pdf/autistic_traits_in_individuals_selfdefining_as_transgender_or_nonbinary.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...
  - kasey_junk 3y ago
    “Gender affirming care” is what the AMA recommends as its language it’s also used by the AP and Rueters. Just because a news source doesn’t use your preferred language doesn’t mean they aren’t moderate. It frequently means you aren’t.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      You have to understand, medical professionals have a deeply liberal bias. (... is it sarcasm? Maybe. Probably not.)
  - driverdan 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - tootie 3y ago
    I think that's you telling on yourself when you consider the medically appropriate terminology to be politically charged. Or that failure to represent your personal bias is due to their lack of objectivity.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > Where's the profile of the many trans folks who regret their transition? Many? It's barely 1% that do regret transitioning [1] and - warning, anecdata from here - most of that is due to societal pressure: parents and other family disowning their trans children, particularly for trans women having to experience the everyday discrimination and harassment of women, or being constantly mis-gendered or otherwise discriminated against at work and in general society. A small number will also express regret because of medical malpractice or a lack of training for the reconstructive surgery process (e.g. a lack of feeling due to damaged nerves), but that is common across all kinds of cosmetic surgery. In contrast, suicide ratios among LGBT in general are immense [2], and it's worse for trans people [3]... that alone should make it clear, based on actually validated data, that it is better to assist trans people than to - in the worst case - force them to detransition. [1] https://apnews.com/article/transgender-treatment-regret-detransition-371e927ec6e7a24cd9c77b5371c6ba2b https://apnews.com/article/transgender-treatment-regret-detr... [2] https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/suicide-coming-out-press-release/ https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/suicide-coming-... [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/
    - xienze 3y ago
      > Many? It's barely 1% that do regret transitioning I would argue that suicide after transitioning might also constitute regret and bump that number up a little bit...
      - mschuster91 3y ago
        Indeed, but there is data showing that gender-affirming surgery has a noticeable impact on lowering suicide rates and improving other mental health indicators [1], so it's still a net positive to provide people with such healthcare. [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/2779429 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstrac...
  - devmor 3y ago
    Have you ever considered that their position might actually be moderate and balanced, and it's your position that is so far off to one side that you find anything in the center to be the opposite of your beliefs?
- nazka 3y ago
  For all that don’t know you have a text only version: https://text.npr.org/ https://text.npr.org/ I love NPR I am just a little sad that for the past 2 years it feels like they switched from raw boring neutral to a little bit left.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    The political analysis suggests that NPR has remained pretty stationary; what has swung is that America grew a vocal far-right wing with enough political clout to be heard in the conversation, and that pushed the national centroid away from where NPR sits. In a world where Tucker Carlson has had a successful television commentary career that didn't immediately result in every show sponsor pulling up stakes and leaving until his networks bade him go elsewhere, NPR looks liberal. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunda...
  - kwoff 3y ago
    I think people often use "liberal" to mean left-leaning, whereas it's really more like center-right Democrat. If NPR were left-leaning, for example https://www.npr.org/2022/11/21/1137640529/railroads-freight-rail-unions-vote-contract-strike https://www.npr.org/2022/11/21/1137640529/railroads-freight-... wouldn't be titled "Largest rail union rejects contract, stoking fears of a strike" and have a first paragraph of "On the eve of the holiday season, workers at the heart of the supply chain are once again threatening to strike.". Fear the threatening workers. A left-leaning report would emphasize the struggle the workers are having negotiating with the exploitative corporations running the railways, and how Biden and congress pretend to be pro-labor but vote against the workers.
    - tuxoko 3y ago
      The modern leftism in the US hasn't been about working class for a long time. They use the same Marxist tactic of class divide but apply them to identities like race and gender to divide people in to oppressor and oppressed, and stoke up the current "culture war" to silent political opponent and gain money and power.
- weberer 3y ago
  NPR was great 10 years ago, but they've also gone all-in on the culture war since then. There's a podcast/Youtube series that was linked here a while ago called All Things Reconsidered that does a good job breaking it down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPvNucxB7TI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPvNucxB7TI
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    Perhaps it's the case that the "culture war" isn't a thing media "goes in" on... It's a thing that's happening, and media can either choose to report it or pretend it's not occuring? ... but there's a lot about how the world works these days that just... Doesn't make a lot of sense if we pretend people don't care passionately about some fundamental divisions.
  - KTallguy 3y ago
    Very interesting video that verbalizes many thoughts I’ve privately had. I agree that NPR has gotten more sensational and hive minded over the recent years. I was pledging 10 years ago or so, not anymore. Lately I was trying PBS because it’s pretty dry, but they’re also quite left leaning no? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Ug2-Ou2Rc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Ug2-Ou2Rc
    - millzlane 3y ago
      No PBS is not left leaning. At least in my opinion. One thing I noticed about PBS is they always bring up both sides of the argument. And when they have people on to give opinions they have two people that a very mild mannered and speak eloquently. I also see them report on stories that you would see on either fox news or cnn but it's all facts, and almost always never opinion. It's kind of refreshing to watch. I think that is the reason is seems dry, because what they present are the facts of the story. There is no emotion added in and there is no hidden suggestion to try to alter your emotions.
  - Melatonic 3y ago
    Do they? I read the website regularly and I feel like I never see culture war bullshit?
- bee_rider 3y ago
  NPR has always seemed more neutral than actively tacking toward a moderate position.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
> The problem is that Vice kind of stories are costly to produce. Perhaps. But now look how costly it is not to produce them. You can "save" by being a commodity, but eventually the (missed) opportunity cost (of doing something unique) will catch up to you.
ap99 3y ago
Breaking Points (to me at least) fills that middle ground where both sides are open for attack and worth defending.
- kornhole 3y ago
  They have been Intercepted (partnered with the Intercept mainly funded by billionaire Omidyhar). I observe them starting to follow the path of Vice.
awkward 3y ago
It's a profitable and effective political tactic to force a position on every issue and flush out fence sitters. Even in this thread you've got people classifying institutions by how aggressively they toe the line on one by one political bugbears.
- aww_dang 3y ago
  But not profitable enough to avoid bankruptcy?
  - awkward 3y ago
    For political parties, not news organizations.
    - pessimizer 3y ago
      People keep making the mistake of thinking these organizations are driven by "clicks." They're not, they don't make any money anyway. They're driven by eyes, specifically the right eyes, and impact. They don't need to sell ads, the stories are the ads; they need to sell the stories.
jjtheblunt 3y ago
Deutsche Welle seems pretty balanced
araes 3y ago
I keep hearing these kind of arguments about in-depth reporting being costly. Vice went bankrupt when it stopped producing those stories. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_Media in 2016, Vice was making $1B ($10^9) with 3000 employees. ~$330,000 / employee. Can probably afford some plane flights and investigative telephone calls. Per standard work year, every employee's 'supposedly' working 2080 hrs a year. ~6M work hours. You can write a lot of interesting stories, and follow a lot of leads other people are not looking at with 6M hours / year. If you follow the "copy sensational click" route, you end up with a lot of local media, where it looks like somebody just copied the local police arrest report. You don't stand out by just copying / dopplegangering whatever looks shiny.
- yafbum 3y ago
  Sometimes (not sure if this what happened here) an organization that works well oversells growth to its investors, and the only way to reach growth is to juice metrics in the most mechanical way possible, destroying what made the organization add value in the first place.

RhodesianHunter 3y ago

NPR

pirate787 3y ago
[flagged]
- jjulius 3y ago
  Perhaps because the idea is that we should be open to gender-affirming care being an option, rather than being banned? Let people make their own choices for themselves rather than telling them what they should and shouldn't be allowed to do to their own bodies. Some will regret that choice, yes, and we should also empathize with them, but we shouldn't deprive others of the same choice just because those individuals feel regret. Edit: This also feels like cherry-picking. Glancing a the https://text.npr.org/ https://text.npr.org/ URL from a sister thread shows some pretty moderate reading. For the sake of the argument, if we assume that this article is left-leaning, it's drowned out by a sea of otherwise moderate content.
- foobarbecue 3y ago
  NPR is partially state-funded only in the sense that they have won some government grants, which cover less than 1% of their costs. (Edit: I just learned that if you include local stations and local governments, this number could be counted up to 10%.) As for their bias, they get a -4.6 on Ad Fontes https://adfontesmedia.com/npr-bias-and-reliability/ https://adfontesmedia.com/npr-bias-and-reliability/ .
  - throwwwaway69 3y ago
    This is very misleading. It’s way higher than 1%
    - foobarbecue 3y ago
      My source: https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/ https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-ra... Yours?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - throwwwaway69 3y ago
        Literally on your own link and in the same sentence: "Presently, NPR receives funding for less than 1% of its budget directly from the federal government, but receives almost 10% of its budget from federal, state, and local governments indirectly."
        foobarbecue 3y ago
        Thanks for pointing this out. I updated my original comment.
    - mikeryan 3y ago
      It’s not. NPR gets its revenues from member stations that buy the rights to the content. It takes some government grants to support certain reporting and special projects but it doesn’t, directly, need government support for operations. It’s member stations may take more government funding (I’ve seen numbers up to 10% but much of that is usually state funding not federal) - which it then uses to buy programming from NPR but that’s an arms length transaction. By far the vast amount of public radio funds come from donations. You could remove all government funding and it would only really affect smaller, rural stations - the ones that mostly need governmental support. A lot of people want to accuse NPR of having a liberal bias because of its governmental funding. Bias is hard to argue objectivelybut if you want to make the case that NPR is biased based on funding it would be more apt to say that it’s because most of their funding likely comes directly from its liberal leaning listeners. PBS which is a similar organization for TV takes a slightly higher amount of government funding but that’s a similar setup.
- secretsatan 3y ago
  Is it because it's 1% who regret transitioning? And over emphasising 1% would in fact be the propaganda?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - hersko 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      So what? Put them on puberty blockers, these have been used and proven safe for decades to treat precocious puberty. If they figure out they're not transgender after all, natural puberty resumes on its own. Barely anyone recommends or wants actual operations for people below 18 outside of severely suicidal scenarios - and after that... well, as long as you can pursue boob jobs, splitting your tongue or sign up to be maimed and disfigured in some far-away battlefield for the army, why should it be forbidden to transition one's genitalia?!
      - hersko 3y ago
        That's a myth, you can't just stop natural puberty and expect everything to be normal if you decide to reverse course later. These kids are being sterilized [1], many will never experience an orgasm [2]. “Every single child or adolescent who was truly blocked at Tanner Stage 2 [when hormones begin their work of advancing a child to adulthood] has never experienced orgasm. I mean, it’s really about zero.”[2] - Dr. Marci Bowers, a vaginoplasty surgeon who herself transitioned when she was 38 [1] https://wng.org/roundups/study-effects-of-puberty-blockers-can-last-a-lifetime-1617220389 https://wng.org/roundups/study-effects-of-puberty-blockers-c... [2] https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-708397 https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-708397
        mschuster91 3y ago
        That second source was written by someone with an obvious agenda of whining against political correctness [1]. As for the first source: an interesting study indeed - the question is, what weighs higher: a potential risk of inability to have an orgasm, or the very real risk of suicide attempts and successful suicides? Usually, medicine goes for "least harm". The last paragraph is particularly telling: > Laidlaw has called the Endocrine Society’s position “highly deceptive.” Most gender-dysphoric children experience other psychological or familial problems or pre-existing trauma or autism, he said. “These kids, given time and compassionate care, should be able to become comfortable in their bodies without the harmful interventions of hormones and surgeries.” The core issue is: access to mental health care or getting children removed from abusive families outside of actual, massive physical violence is incredibly rare. CPS and its worldwide equivalents often barely have the resources to keep up with children being sexually and physically abused, and life in shelters or being constantly shuffled around foster families is a hell on its own - not to mention moving out of strongly "conservative" areas or out of the school district to escape bullies is often financially impossible for way too many families. So again, from a harm reduction perspective, it's obvious that providing puberty blockers and, later on, a way to transition is the more realistic and better outcome way. Besides, even when one assumes the statement of "most" trans people having had prior issues as true (which I haven't seen data yet except a correlation with autism [2]), there will also be a lot of people with absolutely zero history of abuse or other issues beyond being trans who will be trans, and so you need a framework in place to help these as well. [1] https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-720155 https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-720155 [2] https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/EBA481AA354DA47D8C3F88AE5B9BD6BC/S0924933800001619a.pdf/autistic_traits_in_individuals_selfdefining_as_transgender_or_nonbinary.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...
- kasey_junk 3y ago
  “Gender affirming care” is what the AMA recommends as its language it’s also used by the AP and Rueters. Just because a news source doesn’t use your preferred language doesn’t mean they aren’t moderate. It frequently means you aren’t.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    You have to understand, medical professionals have a deeply liberal bias. (... is it sarcasm? Maybe. Probably not.)
- driverdan 3y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- tootie 3y ago
  I think that's you telling on yourself when you consider the medically appropriate terminology to be politically charged. Or that failure to represent your personal bias is due to their lack of objectivity.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > Where's the profile of the many trans folks who regret their transition? Many? It's barely 1% that do regret transitioning [1] and - warning, anecdata from here - most of that is due to societal pressure: parents and other family disowning their trans children, particularly for trans women having to experience the everyday discrimination and harassment of women, or being constantly mis-gendered or otherwise discriminated against at work and in general society. A small number will also express regret because of medical malpractice or a lack of training for the reconstructive surgery process (e.g. a lack of feeling due to damaged nerves), but that is common across all kinds of cosmetic surgery. In contrast, suicide ratios among LGBT in general are immense [2], and it's worse for trans people [3]... that alone should make it clear, based on actually validated data, that it is better to assist trans people than to - in the worst case - force them to detransition. [1] https://apnews.com/article/transgender-treatment-regret-detransition-371e927ec6e7a24cd9c77b5371c6ba2b https://apnews.com/article/transgender-treatment-regret-detr... [2] https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/suicide-coming-out-press-release/ https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/suicide-coming-... [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/
  - xienze 3y ago
    > Many? It's barely 1% that do regret transitioning I would argue that suicide after transitioning might also constitute regret and bump that number up a little bit...
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      Indeed, but there is data showing that gender-affirming surgery has a noticeable impact on lowering suicide rates and improving other mental health indicators [1], so it's still a net positive to provide people with such healthcare. [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstract/2779429 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/article-abstrac...
- devmor 3y ago
  Have you ever considered that their position might actually be moderate and balanced, and it's your position that is so far off to one side that you find anything in the center to be the opposite of your beliefs?
nazka 3y ago
For all that don’t know you have a text only version: https://text.npr.org/ https://text.npr.org/ I love NPR I am just a little sad that for the past 2 years it feels like they switched from raw boring neutral to a little bit left.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  The political analysis suggests that NPR has remained pretty stationary; what has swung is that America grew a vocal far-right wing with enough political clout to be heard in the conversation, and that pushed the national centroid away from where NPR sits. In a world where Tucker Carlson has had a successful television commentary career that didn't immediately result in every show sponsor pulling up stakes and leaving until his networks bade him go elsewhere, NPR looks liberal. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunda...
- kwoff 3y ago
  I think people often use "liberal" to mean left-leaning, whereas it's really more like center-right Democrat. If NPR were left-leaning, for example https://www.npr.org/2022/11/21/1137640529/railroads-freight-rail-unions-vote-contract-strike https://www.npr.org/2022/11/21/1137640529/railroads-freight-... wouldn't be titled "Largest rail union rejects contract, stoking fears of a strike" and have a first paragraph of "On the eve of the holiday season, workers at the heart of the supply chain are once again threatening to strike.". Fear the threatening workers. A left-leaning report would emphasize the struggle the workers are having negotiating with the exploitative corporations running the railways, and how Biden and congress pretend to be pro-labor but vote against the workers.
  - tuxoko 3y ago
    The modern leftism in the US hasn't been about working class for a long time. They use the same Marxist tactic of class divide but apply them to identities like race and gender to divide people in to oppressor and oppressed, and stoke up the current "culture war" to silent political opponent and gain money and power.
weberer 3y ago
NPR was great 10 years ago, but they've also gone all-in on the culture war since then. There's a podcast/Youtube series that was linked here a while ago called All Things Reconsidered that does a good job breaking it down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPvNucxB7TI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPvNucxB7TI
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  Perhaps it's the case that the "culture war" isn't a thing media "goes in" on... It's a thing that's happening, and media can either choose to report it or pretend it's not occuring? ... but there's a lot about how the world works these days that just... Doesn't make a lot of sense if we pretend people don't care passionately about some fundamental divisions.
- KTallguy 3y ago
  Very interesting video that verbalizes many thoughts I’ve privately had. I agree that NPR has gotten more sensational and hive minded over the recent years. I was pledging 10 years ago or so, not anymore. Lately I was trying PBS because it’s pretty dry, but they’re also quite left leaning no? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Ug2-Ou2Rc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Ug2-Ou2Rc
  - millzlane 3y ago
    No PBS is not left leaning. At least in my opinion. One thing I noticed about PBS is they always bring up both sides of the argument. And when they have people on to give opinions they have two people that a very mild mannered and speak eloquently. I also see them report on stories that you would see on either fox news or cnn but it's all facts, and almost always never opinion. It's kind of refreshing to watch. I think that is the reason is seems dry, because what they present are the facts of the story. There is no emotion added in and there is no hidden suggestion to try to alter your emotions.
- Melatonic 3y ago
  Do they? I read the website regularly and I feel like I never see culture war bullshit?
bee_rider 3y ago
NPR has always seemed more neutral than actively tacking toward a moderate position.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

> The problem is that Vice kind of stories are costly to produce. Perhaps. But now look how costly it is not to produce them. You can "save" by being a commodity, but eventually the (missed) opportunity cost (of doing something unique) will catch up to you.

ap99 3y ago

Breaking Points (to me at least) fills that middle ground where both sides are open for attack and worth defending.

kornhole 3y ago
They have been Intercepted (partnered with the Intercept mainly funded by billionaire Omidyhar). I observe them starting to follow the path of Vice.

awkward 3y ago

It's a profitable and effective political tactic to force a position on every issue and flush out fence sitters. Even in this thread you've got people classifying institutions by how aggressively they toe the line on one by one political bugbears.

aww_dang 3y ago
But not profitable enough to avoid bankruptcy?
- awkward 3y ago
  For political parties, not news organizations.
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    People keep making the mistake of thinking these organizations are driven by "clicks." They're not, they don't make any money anyway. They're driven by eyes, specifically the right eyes, and impact. They don't need to sell ads, the stories are the ads; they need to sell the stories.

jjtheblunt 3y ago

Deutsche Welle seems pretty balanced

araes 3y ago

I keep hearing these kind of arguments about in-depth reporting being costly. Vice went bankrupt when it stopped producing those stories. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_Media in 2016, Vice was making $1B ($10^9) with 3000 employees. ~$330,000 / employee. Can probably afford some plane flights and investigative telephone calls. Per standard work year, every employee's 'supposedly' working 2080 hrs a year. ~6M work hours. You can write a lot of interesting stories, and follow a lot of leads other people are not looking at with 6M hours / year. If you follow the "copy sensational click" route, you end up with a lot of local media, where it looks like somebody just copied the local police arrest report. You don't stand out by just copying / dopplegangering whatever looks shiny.

yafbum 3y ago
Sometimes (not sure if this what happened here) an organization that works well oversells growth to its investors, and the only way to reach growth is to juice metrics in the most mechanical way possible, destroying what made the organization add value in the first place.