9 ms·

Images of what I imagine to be their yearly performance goals rush through my head as soon as it turns to victim, race, oppression, etc. "25% of stories uplift

Images of what I imagine to be their yearly performance goals rush through my head as soon as it turns to victim, race, oppression, etc. "25% of stories uplifting Black voices" etc. It just seems so forced.

kenjackson 2y ago
Would “a focus on making sure we also give the conservative angle“ also seem forced?
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  My opinion is that news coverage and liberal politics should focus less on race and identity, not more. That isn't to say we ignore it, but not every issue in cities and states and countries revolves around identity, and an over-emphasis on it comes off as ideological.
  - kenjackson 2y ago
    But your position starts from the basis that we were race-neutral to begin with. I think part of the reason that there is an emphasis on "positive black voices" is the belief that the default narrative is implicitly negative toward blacks. So without intention you'll simply perpetuate the negative voices. For example, would the same people who say "we focus too much on race" view Desantis's policies and opinions as "race neutral"?
    - unethical_ban 2y ago
      >the belief that the default narrative is implicitly negative toward blacks Well, I disagree with that. I just said NPR specifically focuses too much on identity politics, and I think Desantis is implementing anti-LGBT, anti-education, anti-freedom and anti-democracy legislation. I dont support the dichotomy that one must either desire an abundance of identity-based journalism or be blind to the issues minorities face. I think many of the problems this country faces, which may disproportionately affect minorities, can be covered without it being race-based. Poverty, healthcare, education, environment, climate change, foreign policy affect all.
    - gedy 2y ago
      It sounds too much like "So without intention you'll simply perpetuate the negative voices" is "you are either for us, or against us", which has caused the world no end to misery.
    - TinkersW 2y ago
      Desantis is an idiot that I have zero interest in hearing about. Unless the person has done something worth mentioning that isn't being mentioned only because of their so called "identity" I've zero interest in hearing about it, and would consider such a discussion to be bordering on racist.
      - josephg 2y ago
        As a counterpoint, I listen to The economist’s coverage of US politics. They often interview people involved with the Democrat and Republican campaigns. And I’ve found some of the interviews fascinating - particularly the republican ones because most of my friends and news are left of center. For example, one interviewee in the trump reelection campaign said they talk a lot internally about obstruction. And so, the campaign has lined up a bunch of politically aligned people ahead of time to take over key departments in the US government if trump gets re-elected, so trump can change a lot of government policies on day 1. I find that fascinating. No matter your politics, it’s interesting to know that the “opposing parties, taking turns governing in different ways” angle seems to be getting stronger. Hearing from people I don’t have the opportunity to understand in daily life is exactly what I listen to podcasts like this for. I’m glad this coverage exists.
        angiosperm 2y ago
        [flagged]
        Phiwise_ 2y ago
        You know, I think you might be onto something here. Surely this cannot just be a shorting of "campaign staff of the drmocrats" and "campaign staff of the republicans" that just looks a little weird before you think about it grammatically. No, there's clearly a multimillion dollar right-wing extremist conspiracy afoot to affect a slight change in noun phrases that will have zero impact on any policy or office. Edit: And my typo of "democrats" as "drmocrats" clearly reveals I'm in on the vicious plot of persecution via zero impact phraseology! Probably getting a check straight from the Kochs, even.
    - goatlover 2y ago
      I disagree. For all the criticism color-blindness gets now, there was a lot of progress from the 70s through the early 2000s that seems to have been forgotten in favor of divisive reporting and social media outrage posts. Just because the post-civil rights color-blind era wasn't perfect doesn't meant there wasn't legitimate progress, and that seems under threat now. Some of it is foreign actors, and some of it's coming from both the extreme right and left. They have amplifiers in social media and have managed to get prominent places of power, so they can forment their social revolutions. I count NPR as one of those now, which is a shame because it used to have good and entertaining reporting.
    - naasking 2y ago
      > But your position starts from the basis that we were race-neutral to begin with No, it starts from the position that race is not the most important facet of a human being's life. > So without intention you'll simply perpetuate the negative voices. Almost none of a person's daily life is dominated by racial issues, except maybe people who specifically work in that field of course, and so very little news would have racial relevance. Going out of your way to use race as a lens on every issue is why it's forced.
      - dtjb 2y ago
        >Almost none of a person's daily life is dominated by racial issues I won't presume to know your race but many americans do not live with such comfort. Studies have documented how race is correlated to outcomes in everyday encounters such as traffic stops, employment interviews, rental applications, health care treatment, and school performance.
        subsistence234 2y ago
        that's your religion
        naasking 2y ago
        > Studies have documented how race is correlated to outcomes in everyday encounters such as traffic stops, employment interviews, rental applications, health care treatment, and school performance. Traffic stops, employment interviews, rental applications, and health care treatment are not events a single person experiences every day, so even if race was a huge factor in all of them, and "huge" is debatable, this is all besides the point.
        dtjb 2y ago
        But all of those things directly affect their every day lives. Your experience and the assumptions you've drawn are not representative for large swaths of america.
        kenjackson 2y ago
    - jimbokun 2y ago
      NPR is the voice of white progressives, even if more of the reporters are minorities. NPR’s audience is disproportionately white. It’s part of the reason polls show some minority voters shifting towards Trump. They don’t see their opinions and beliefs reflected in white progressivism, even with the surface emphasis on DEI.
- aaronax 2y ago
  Yes I have started reading the piece by Uri now and it basically confirms what I was imagining. "He declared that diversity—on our staff and in our audience—was the overriding mission" "Journalists were required to ask everyone we interviewed their race, gender, and ethnicity (among other questions), and had to enter it in a centralized tracking system." Pretty much guaranteed that they were trying to hit race/gender quotas.
  - josephg 2y ago
    I always find it on the nose when “diversity” is used to mean “aligned with modern leftist political ideals”. That’s just not what that word means. If NPR wants actual diversity (of opinion), they should consider tracking the political affiliation of the people they interview in their database. But in my experience, DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) never seems to include a diversity of political views. I find that very suspicious.
    - edflsafoiewq 2y ago
      When we can talk about "a diverse candidate", the word has obviously become untethered from any ordinary meaning.
      - Wolfenstein98k 2y ago
        Read "non-white", "non-straight", and/or "non-male" in place of "diversity" and you will see that it works 100% of the time.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        josephg 2y ago
        I think you’re right. But that isn’t actually what diverse means. The opposite - lefty non-white, non-straight and mostly non-male people are a specific political group. I think it’s quite on the nose for organisations to cater to that community explicitly. And the wider population is far more diverse than that.
- anon291 2y ago
  No, but a "We're not taking your tax money anymore" should be forced.
ripper1138 2y ago
American Fiction satirizes this aspect of modern media incredibly well.
gosub100 2y ago
I wonder if it has parallels to the Salem Witch Hunt? If they spend x/2% of their time accusing others of being racist, they must expend x/2% "uplifting blacks" so they cannot be accused of it as well.

kenjackson 2y ago

Would “a focus on making sure we also give the conservative angle“ also seem forced?

unethical_ban 2y ago
My opinion is that news coverage and liberal politics should focus less on race and identity, not more. That isn't to say we ignore it, but not every issue in cities and states and countries revolves around identity, and an over-emphasis on it comes off as ideological.
- kenjackson 2y ago
  But your position starts from the basis that we were race-neutral to begin with. I think part of the reason that there is an emphasis on "positive black voices" is the belief that the default narrative is implicitly negative toward blacks. So without intention you'll simply perpetuate the negative voices. For example, would the same people who say "we focus too much on race" view Desantis's policies and opinions as "race neutral"?
  - unethical_ban 2y ago
    >the belief that the default narrative is implicitly negative toward blacks Well, I disagree with that. I just said NPR specifically focuses too much on identity politics, and I think Desantis is implementing anti-LGBT, anti-education, anti-freedom and anti-democracy legislation. I dont support the dichotomy that one must either desire an abundance of identity-based journalism or be blind to the issues minorities face. I think many of the problems this country faces, which may disproportionately affect minorities, can be covered without it being race-based. Poverty, healthcare, education, environment, climate change, foreign policy affect all.
  - gedy 2y ago
    It sounds too much like "So without intention you'll simply perpetuate the negative voices" is "you are either for us, or against us", which has caused the world no end to misery.
  - TinkersW 2y ago
    Desantis is an idiot that I have zero interest in hearing about. Unless the person has done something worth mentioning that isn't being mentioned only because of their so called "identity" I've zero interest in hearing about it, and would consider such a discussion to be bordering on racist.
    - josephg 2y ago
      As a counterpoint, I listen to The economist’s coverage of US politics. They often interview people involved with the Democrat and Republican campaigns. And I’ve found some of the interviews fascinating - particularly the republican ones because most of my friends and news are left of center. For example, one interviewee in the trump reelection campaign said they talk a lot internally about obstruction. And so, the campaign has lined up a bunch of politically aligned people ahead of time to take over key departments in the US government if trump gets re-elected, so trump can change a lot of government policies on day 1. I find that fascinating. No matter your politics, it’s interesting to know that the “opposing parties, taking turns governing in different ways” angle seems to be getting stronger. Hearing from people I don’t have the opportunity to understand in daily life is exactly what I listen to podcasts like this for. I’m glad this coverage exists.
      - angiosperm 2y ago
        [flagged]
        Phiwise_ 2y ago
        You know, I think you might be onto something here. Surely this cannot just be a shorting of "campaign staff of the drmocrats" and "campaign staff of the republicans" that just looks a little weird before you think about it grammatically. No, there's clearly a multimillion dollar right-wing extremist conspiracy afoot to affect a slight change in noun phrases that will have zero impact on any policy or office. Edit: And my typo of "democrats" as "drmocrats" clearly reveals I'm in on the vicious plot of persecution via zero impact phraseology! Probably getting a check straight from the Kochs, even.
  - goatlover 2y ago
    I disagree. For all the criticism color-blindness gets now, there was a lot of progress from the 70s through the early 2000s that seems to have been forgotten in favor of divisive reporting and social media outrage posts. Just because the post-civil rights color-blind era wasn't perfect doesn't meant there wasn't legitimate progress, and that seems under threat now. Some of it is foreign actors, and some of it's coming from both the extreme right and left. They have amplifiers in social media and have managed to get prominent places of power, so they can forment their social revolutions. I count NPR as one of those now, which is a shame because it used to have good and entertaining reporting.
  - naasking 2y ago
    > But your position starts from the basis that we were race-neutral to begin with No, it starts from the position that race is not the most important facet of a human being's life. > So without intention you'll simply perpetuate the negative voices. Almost none of a person's daily life is dominated by racial issues, except maybe people who specifically work in that field of course, and so very little news would have racial relevance. Going out of your way to use race as a lens on every issue is why it's forced.
    - dtjb 2y ago
      >Almost none of a person's daily life is dominated by racial issues I won't presume to know your race but many americans do not live with such comfort. Studies have documented how race is correlated to outcomes in everyday encounters such as traffic stops, employment interviews, rental applications, health care treatment, and school performance.
      - subsistence234 2y ago
        that's your religion
      - naasking 2y ago
        > Studies have documented how race is correlated to outcomes in everyday encounters such as traffic stops, employment interviews, rental applications, health care treatment, and school performance. Traffic stops, employment interviews, rental applications, and health care treatment are not events a single person experiences every day, so even if race was a huge factor in all of them, and "huge" is debatable, this is all besides the point.
        dtjb 2y ago
        But all of those things directly affect their every day lives. Your experience and the assumptions you've drawn are not representative for large swaths of america.
        kenjackson 2y ago
  - jimbokun 2y ago
    NPR is the voice of white progressives, even if more of the reporters are minorities. NPR’s audience is disproportionately white. It’s part of the reason polls show some minority voters shifting towards Trump. They don’t see their opinions and beliefs reflected in white progressivism, even with the surface emphasis on DEI.
aaronax 2y ago
Yes I have started reading the piece by Uri now and it basically confirms what I was imagining. "He declared that diversity—on our staff and in our audience—was the overriding mission" "Journalists were required to ask everyone we interviewed their race, gender, and ethnicity (among other questions), and had to enter it in a centralized tracking system." Pretty much guaranteed that they were trying to hit race/gender quotas.
- josephg 2y ago
  I always find it on the nose when “diversity” is used to mean “aligned with modern leftist political ideals”. That’s just not what that word means. If NPR wants actual diversity (of opinion), they should consider tracking the political affiliation of the people they interview in their database. But in my experience, DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) never seems to include a diversity of political views. I find that very suspicious.
  - edflsafoiewq 2y ago
    When we can talk about "a diverse candidate", the word has obviously become untethered from any ordinary meaning.
    - Wolfenstein98k 2y ago
      Read "non-white", "non-straight", and/or "non-male" in place of "diversity" and you will see that it works 100% of the time.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - josephg 2y ago
        I think you’re right. But that isn’t actually what diverse means. The opposite - lefty non-white, non-straight and mostly non-male people are a specific political group. I think it’s quite on the nose for organisations to cater to that community explicitly. And the wider population is far more diverse than that.
anon291 2y ago
No, but a "We're not taking your tax money anymore" should be forced.

ripper1138 2y ago

American Fiction satirizes this aspect of modern media incredibly well.

gosub100 2y ago

I wonder if it has parallels to the Salem Witch Hunt? If they spend x/2% of their time accusing others of being racist, they must expend x/2% "uplifting blacks" so they cannot be accused of it as well.