5 ms·

> 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, NO

> 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 ago
But 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 ago
  They’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.
  - the_third_wave 3y ago
    > They’re just trying to muddy the waters. Who are They? I am one person, not a group or cabal. There are others who notice the same pattern, also individuals. Realise that the they is just a applicable to those pushing the current thing. > News publications started widely publishing articles on gas stoves when research papers came out a couple of years ago Yes, a couple of years ago. Not decades ago, not even 10 years ago. Recently. As to the gas industry it is worth knowing that cooking stands for only a tiny fraction of gas use so even if people stopped cooking on gas they would see much of a dip in profits. What is really at play here is that people really like cooking on gas stoves and are not about to give it up without being forced to do so. Rising gas prices will not do that because cooking only uses small amounts of gas. What was needed was some other means to get those pesky gas cookers off the market. Once the gas cooker is gone it will be easier to wean people of gas-fired central heating and gas-fired clothes driers given that most people have less of a preference for those but are likely to keep on using them as long as they need to have a gas hookup for their cookers anyway. The gas companies know this as well of course so it is not surprising to see them react. While cooking may be only a small part of their income heating does represent a sizeable fraction. With propaganda from "both" sides it is imperative to use your head when dealing with the issue of air quality inside the home. If you have an air quality meter/monitor you can use that as well but even without one the solution is clear: use ventilation when cooking. Use it no matter which heat source is involved. Problem, solved? From what I gather the answer to that question is mostly, "yes".
    - ryandrake 3y ago
      OK, that all's great, but what specifically is NPR's agenda? What specifically is "their desired narrative?" Are you saying that NPR is in the pocket of the Oil and Gas industry? Or are they in the pockets of someone (who?) against Oil and Gas? It's hard to tell. You said: > 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.

ryandrake 3y ago

But 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 ago
They’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.
- the_third_wave 3y ago
  > They’re just trying to muddy the waters. Who are They? I am one person, not a group or cabal. There are others who notice the same pattern, also individuals. Realise that the they is just a applicable to those pushing the current thing. > News publications started widely publishing articles on gas stoves when research papers came out a couple of years ago Yes, a couple of years ago. Not decades ago, not even 10 years ago. Recently. As to the gas industry it is worth knowing that cooking stands for only a tiny fraction of gas use so even if people stopped cooking on gas they would see much of a dip in profits. What is really at play here is that people really like cooking on gas stoves and are not about to give it up without being forced to do so. Rising gas prices will not do that because cooking only uses small amounts of gas. What was needed was some other means to get those pesky gas cookers off the market. Once the gas cooker is gone it will be easier to wean people of gas-fired central heating and gas-fired clothes driers given that most people have less of a preference for those but are likely to keep on using them as long as they need to have a gas hookup for their cookers anyway. The gas companies know this as well of course so it is not surprising to see them react. While cooking may be only a small part of their income heating does represent a sizeable fraction. With propaganda from "both" sides it is imperative to use your head when dealing with the issue of air quality inside the home. If you have an air quality meter/monitor you can use that as well but even without one the solution is clear: use ventilation when cooking. Use it no matter which heat source is involved. Problem, solved? From what I gather the answer to that question is mostly, "yes".
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    OK, that all's great, but what specifically is NPR's agenda? What specifically is "their desired narrative?" Are you saying that NPR is in the pocket of the Oil and Gas industry? Or are they in the pockets of someone (who?) against Oil and Gas? It's hard to tell. You said: > 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.