5 ms·
Everyone has an agenda, so it’s a good thing to discuss exactly what the competing agendas could be, and whether they are nefarious. NPR makes money by publish
by JoBrad 3y ago
Everyone has an agenda, so it’s a good thing to discuss exactly what the competing agendas could be, and whether they are nefarious.
NPR makes money by publishing articles, so obviously they will make more money by publishing content that people are likely to read. Those articles can be in some arbitrary continuum between fluff articles with sensationalistic headlines (aka clickbait) to highly technical articles with tons of references and/or transparently-documented original research. I’d put this one more towards the latter: the intended audience isn’t highly technical, so it includes approachable interviews with key people, but links to the more technical research are clearly called out. Importantly, the substance of the lede is mostly backed up by the supporting research.
On the other hand we have an industry with deep connections to the oil industry that, according to the article, has used a well-known playbook of disinformation to stop or reduce regulation of their industry in multiple areas, with apparent success. States have recently passed laws to protect them, and the article also cites regulation that has been stopped or changed. The article also cites the health impact of natural gas and gases that are created by burning it, with general population statistics and studies about specific groups of people. It also cited evidence that the gas industry has funded research to combat these studies, and hidden the fact that this research was funded by them. Their motive for doing this would obviously be the negative impact that regulation could have on their ability to make a profit, which could impact jobs, the price of appliances, or even the choice of products that are available for purchase.
Add in the background noise of trillions in subsidies to oil and gas companies, the almost complete capture of the leasing agency in the Federal government back in the early 2000s, and the chronic underfunding and understaffing of inspectors, and it _seems_ really obvious who is actually “winning” in this struggle.
Am I missing something? Because the facts as I understand them seem to indicate an industry playing the regulatory capture and PR game on level 1000, while the regulators are playing with both hands behind their back, blindfolded.
- lupusreal 3y agoThat's a whole lot of words that don't amount to a good excuse for NPR's deliberately shoddy journalism.
- JoBrad 3y agoI provided examples of why I didn’t think this was poor journalism, and why I thought this was an important story. Can you provide some examples of why you think this is shoddy journalism? Otherwise you’re really just shutting down the conversation.
- the_third_wave 3y ago> NPR's deliberately shoddy journalism. I don't think "shoddy" is the correct term to use here. NPR/PBS, just like e.g. SVT/SR in Sweden, the BBC in the UK, NOS in the Netherlands and ARD/ZDF/NDR in Germany are better characterised by the term agenda-driven journalism - they tailor what they publish and how they publish to fit their desired narrative. They are certainly not alone in this but the difference with commercial actors is that these public broadcasters mostly use tax funds and/or special unavoidable levies to finance what comes down to poorly masked propaganda. NPR actually gets most of its funding from corporate sponsorships and donors but it does also receive state funding.
- ryandrake 3y agoBut what, specifically, is their "Agenda?" What is "The Narrative?" These threads always seem to bring out people pointing their fingers at The Narrative, but they don't say what that narrative is. You can't just say "It's Their Agenda" and "It's The Narrative" and just leave it at that! OP's point at least makes sense: The thing that actually seems to motivate journalism companies is to "make money by publishing articles." Where is The Narrative in that motivation?
- DoughnutHole 3y agoThey’re just trying to muddy the waters. Just shouting that someone has an “agenda” is enough to make some people uncritically drop any facts that are uncomfortable. In this case it’s honestly silly. News publications started widely publishing articles on gas stoves when research papers came out a couple of years ago indicating they posed health risks. They didn’t all simultaneously develop an anti-gas stove “agenda”. At worst you could argue that they’re being sensational for clicks. This compared to gas industry publications. They actually have a pro-gas agenda because when people buy gas they make money. They and the people they lobby have an actual financial stake in making sure people use gas stoves.