4 ms·

Maybe so, but that doesn't matter all that much. All journalism has a point of view and its impossible to be completely unbiased...the most suspicious kind of m

Maybe so, but that doesn't matter all that much. All journalism has a point of view and its impossible to be completely unbiased...the most suspicious kind of media consumers are those that cannot recognize the bias within the media they consume. NPR is undoubtedly a "leans left" shop in the same way Fox is undoubtedly "leans right". Of course, even if we were talking about the WSJ or Economist or something...that's still biased. Being dead center between the current interpretation of left or right is still a kind of bias.

chiefalchemist 2y ago
> All journalism has a point of view and its impossible to be completely unbiased... So the alternative is to not even try? To double-down or triple-down on bias and shamelessly continue to self-label as journalism? To whine & cry about "the threat to democracy" while neglecting their duties as The Fourth Estate? I think not. The problem is simple: stop lowering the bar. Stop calling things journalism that don't qualify. If your pet barks, would you call it a cat? You've got Jim Leher is turning in his grave. https://www.openculture.com/2020/01/jim-lehrers-16-rules-for-being-a-journalist-with-integrity.html https://www.openculture.com/2020/01/jim-lehrers-16-rules-for...
- watwut 2y ago
  No, the alternative is to be more honest about it. The whole debate about "objectivity" is because the previous definition of objectivity produced consistent bias. And by that I mean consistent huge bias. Objectivity meant that journalist had to identify two sides and report on both equally - even if the acts in question were not equal in any objective way. If I obviously lied and you obviously did not, articles did not reflected that at all. What was called objectivity enabled and facilitated bad actors. Consistently. Second issue was that just a selection of topics and selection of who will be allowed to express things itself creates bias. And the rules about that consistently disadvantaged certain groups and advantaged other groups.
  - chiefalchemist 2y ago
    I understand there's a bias. But review that Leher list and you'll realize that 95% of what is passed off as journalism violates too many of those rules. That is, it doesn't qualify to be called journalism. As threats to democracy go, there's nothing worse than a self-proclaimed journalist (read: a hack) fronting like they're fulfilling their duties as a member of The Fourth Estate. Frankly, most of them don't know the difference between cause and correlation (which is an essential / foundational concept in truth and being objective), let alone what The Fourth Estate is (and why it matters). The problem is, the publishing industry doesn't even realize it's wrong. It's blind to its own blind spot. What could go wrong?
    - watwut 2y ago
      First of all, funnily, Lehrer rules do not define journalism. Not even historically, origins of journalism is not that. And some of them in fact do cause own bias - they presume how the result should look like. Lehrer rules will facilitate both side journalism where you blame both sides equally regardless of facts on the ground. As I said, it is biased toward bad actors. And against those who says the truth. Note how they contain nothing about real fact checking. They are super easy to "be followed" while being manipulative. Stuff like "I am just reporting on what X said" whereas X said unfounded accusation that is just getting traction because you refuse to fact check it.
      - chiefalchemist 2y ago
        So we're going to nitpick Lehrer while giving current (mainstream) media a free pass? I'm sorry, I don't wish to participate in such a distraction. And the irony only highlights how broken the current situation is.
ruszki 2y ago
Is NPR really that bad as Fox seems from outside of America?
- stonogo 2y ago
  Not even close. Fox has admitted in court that their programming is not journalism. NPR definitely swings left, don't get me wrong, but Fox is completely unhinged. Their own lawyers argued no reasonable person would beleive them. They're just not comparable in any rational sense.
  - instagraham 2y ago
    This is the problem with moral equivalence in judging media bias. One side can slide slightly left and still be almost completely factual (if slightly illogical), while the right can be neither factual nor logical - but we are made to pretend that the biases are equal here. As a general principle, and I know it's not a very wise thing to say, left-leaning sources are on a different dimension of factuality than right-leaning ones.
    - codegrappler 2y ago
      I think that also depends on the story. You saw far different reporting on Covid from the two sources. Some of the stuff coming out of the right was crazy but some ended up being the truth and the left leaning sources clearly had their marching orders dialed in and even cast things that were eventually proven true to be “lies” at the time.
      - ruszki 2y ago
        Crazy that ended up true? And what “lies”? In the country where I was back then (Hungary), it was quite different, but that’s also because abuse there was and there is still no opposition. COVID was just simply mishandled, and full of corruption, just as usual.
    - BiteCode_dev 2y ago
kelnos 2y ago
> NPR is undoubtedly a "leans left" shop in the same way Fox is undoubtedly "leans right". Oh c'mon, it's ridiculous that I need to call out a false equivalence like that. Fox News isn't even news; they've admitted in court that they're an entertainment program. NPR is... not even remotely that. Certainly NPR has a bias, but they at least do their best to tell the truth. Fox News makes a business out of lying for outrage engagement.
- gottorf 2y ago
  > Fox News isn't even news; they've admitted in court that they're an entertainment program. The admission they made was about one show, the one that Tucker Carlson ran before his departure from Fox[0]. Taking that and eliding it to the rest of Fox News sounds either lazy or dishonest. An NPR host said in 1995 that if millions of people who believed in the religious concept of "rapture" actually did evaporate from this earth, the world would be a better place. After public outrage, they issued an apology but continued their relationship with the host. Does that make them tacitly support such bigotry? Nobody sued NPR over this (perhaps if this happened today and not 30 years ago, somebody would have), but what would their defense have been? That people shouldn't take things said by a show host so literally? I used to listen and donate to NPR, but no longer do, because I don't share your confidence that they do in fact "do their best to tell the truth". I might actually feel better about it if, like Fox, they came out and admitted that they are, at least in the year 2024, in many ways a nakedly partisan organization, instead of the taxpayer-funded neutral bringer of facts that they pretend to be. [0]: The judge ended up dismissing the case in favor of Fox: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-yor...
t-3 2y ago
I wouldn't say NPR "leans left", rather that they "lean establishment". NPR has no sympathy at all for socialists, third party candidates, most protest movements, etc. Republicans just have too much political diversity and churn in their base in the last few decades to be anywhere near as uniform and cohesive a bloc and so the establishment usually appears at least superficially Democrat-biased. Note: Local NPR programs are a lot better than national programs, IMO. There are two available NPR stations in my area, and they're really not similar at all except for a small overlap in programming.
Zak 2y ago
Perhaps not everyone will accept the judgment of Media Bias Fact Check, but I find their ratings mostly fair and based more on verifiably failed fact checks and the like than editorial opinion. They rate NPR as having a left-center bias and high factual reporting. The bias is based on story selection rather than the reporting itself containing substantial bias. They rate Fox News as having a right bias and mixed factual reporting. The bias based is on editorial positions and they note that news reports are generally accurate, but commentary often isn't. If that seems unfair, consider that they rate MSNBC comparably to Fox with left bias and mixed factual reporting, though they do give it a slightly higher overall credibility rating. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/

chiefalchemist 2y ago

> All journalism has a point of view and its impossible to be completely unbiased... So the alternative is to not even try? To double-down or triple-down on bias and shamelessly continue to self-label as journalism? To whine & cry about "the threat to democracy" while neglecting their duties as The Fourth Estate? I think not. The problem is simple: stop lowering the bar. Stop calling things journalism that don't qualify. If your pet barks, would you call it a cat? You've got Jim Leher is turning in his grave. https://www.openculture.com/2020/01/jim-lehrers-16-rules-for-being-a-journalist-with-integrity.html https://www.openculture.com/2020/01/jim-lehrers-16-rules-for...

watwut 2y ago
No, the alternative is to be more honest about it. The whole debate about "objectivity" is because the previous definition of objectivity produced consistent bias. And by that I mean consistent huge bias. Objectivity meant that journalist had to identify two sides and report on both equally - even if the acts in question were not equal in any objective way. If I obviously lied and you obviously did not, articles did not reflected that at all. What was called objectivity enabled and facilitated bad actors. Consistently. Second issue was that just a selection of topics and selection of who will be allowed to express things itself creates bias. And the rules about that consistently disadvantaged certain groups and advantaged other groups.
- chiefalchemist 2y ago
  I understand there's a bias. But review that Leher list and you'll realize that 95% of what is passed off as journalism violates too many of those rules. That is, it doesn't qualify to be called journalism. As threats to democracy go, there's nothing worse than a self-proclaimed journalist (read: a hack) fronting like they're fulfilling their duties as a member of The Fourth Estate. Frankly, most of them don't know the difference between cause and correlation (which is an essential / foundational concept in truth and being objective), let alone what The Fourth Estate is (and why it matters). The problem is, the publishing industry doesn't even realize it's wrong. It's blind to its own blind spot. What could go wrong?
  - watwut 2y ago
    First of all, funnily, Lehrer rules do not define journalism. Not even historically, origins of journalism is not that. And some of them in fact do cause own bias - they presume how the result should look like. Lehrer rules will facilitate both side journalism where you blame both sides equally regardless of facts on the ground. As I said, it is biased toward bad actors. And against those who says the truth. Note how they contain nothing about real fact checking. They are super easy to "be followed" while being manipulative. Stuff like "I am just reporting on what X said" whereas X said unfounded accusation that is just getting traction because you refuse to fact check it.
    - chiefalchemist 2y ago
      So we're going to nitpick Lehrer while giving current (mainstream) media a free pass? I'm sorry, I don't wish to participate in such a distraction. And the irony only highlights how broken the current situation is.

ruszki 2y ago

Is NPR really that bad as Fox seems from outside of America?

stonogo 2y ago
Not even close. Fox has admitted in court that their programming is not journalism. NPR definitely swings left, don't get me wrong, but Fox is completely unhinged. Their own lawyers argued no reasonable person would beleive them. They're just not comparable in any rational sense.
- instagraham 2y ago
  This is the problem with moral equivalence in judging media bias. One side can slide slightly left and still be almost completely factual (if slightly illogical), while the right can be neither factual nor logical - but we are made to pretend that the biases are equal here. As a general principle, and I know it's not a very wise thing to say, left-leaning sources are on a different dimension of factuality than right-leaning ones.
  - codegrappler 2y ago
    I think that also depends on the story. You saw far different reporting on Covid from the two sources. Some of the stuff coming out of the right was crazy but some ended up being the truth and the left leaning sources clearly had their marching orders dialed in and even cast things that were eventually proven true to be “lies” at the time.
    - ruszki 2y ago
      Crazy that ended up true? And what “lies”? In the country where I was back then (Hungary), it was quite different, but that’s also because abuse there was and there is still no opposition. COVID was just simply mishandled, and full of corruption, just as usual.
  - BiteCode_dev 2y ago

kelnos 2y ago

> NPR is undoubtedly a "leans left" shop in the same way Fox is undoubtedly "leans right". Oh c'mon, it's ridiculous that I need to call out a false equivalence like that. Fox News isn't even news; they've admitted in court that they're an entertainment program. NPR is... not even remotely that. Certainly NPR has a bias, but they at least do their best to tell the truth. Fox News makes a business out of lying for outrage engagement.

gottorf 2y ago
> Fox News isn't even news; they've admitted in court that they're an entertainment program. The admission they made was about one show, the one that Tucker Carlson ran before his departure from Fox[0]. Taking that and eliding it to the rest of Fox News sounds either lazy or dishonest. An NPR host said in 1995 that if millions of people who believed in the religious concept of "rapture" actually did evaporate from this earth, the world would be a better place. After public outrage, they issued an apology but continued their relationship with the host. Does that make them tacitly support such bigotry? Nobody sued NPR over this (perhaps if this happened today and not 30 years ago, somebody would have), but what would their defense have been? That people shouldn't take things said by a show host so literally? I used to listen and donate to NPR, but no longer do, because I don't share your confidence that they do in fact "do their best to tell the truth". I might actually feel better about it if, like Fox, they came out and admitted that they are, at least in the year 2024, in many ways a nakedly partisan organization, instead of the taxpayer-funded neutral bringer of facts that they pretend to be. [0]: The judge ended up dismissing the case in favor of Fox: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-yor...

t-3 2y ago

I wouldn't say NPR "leans left", rather that they "lean establishment". NPR has no sympathy at all for socialists, third party candidates, most protest movements, etc. Republicans just have too much political diversity and churn in their base in the last few decades to be anywhere near as uniform and cohesive a bloc and so the establishment usually appears at least superficially Democrat-biased. Note: Local NPR programs are a lot better than national programs, IMO. There are two available NPR stations in my area, and they're really not similar at all except for a small overlap in programming.

Zak 2y ago

Perhaps not everyone will accept the judgment of Media Bias Fact Check, but I find their ratings mostly fair and based more on verifiably failed fact checks and the like than editorial opinion. They rate NPR as having a left-center bias and high factual reporting. The bias is based on story selection rather than the reporting itself containing substantial bias. They rate Fox News as having a right bias and mixed factual reporting. The bias based is on editorial positions and they note that news reports are generally accurate, but commentary often isn't. If that seems unfair, consider that they rate MSNBC comparably to Fox with left bias and mixed factual reporting, though they do give it a slightly higher overall credibility rating. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/