6 ms·
To wit, during the BLM riots of 2020, NPR published a piece on how looting was a legitimate form of protest. I mark that as the moment they lost both my trust a
by next_xibalba 1y ago
To wit, during the BLM riots of 2020, NPR published a piece on how looting was a legitimate form of protest. I mark that as the moment they lost both my trust and my attention. A very sad, eye opening moment for me.
- cyberlurker 1y agoIf true, that is insane and if presented as factual those involved should be fired. But throwing the baby out with the bath water is not sensible. Oh and to my original point, why is this not cited or linked to in the executive order? I think it would strengthen it if anything.
- TimorousBestie 1y agoI can’t be sure but I assume they’re talking about this: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178/one-authors-argument-in-defense-of-looting https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178... This is an interview with an author that NPR acknowledges as controversial, not NPR presenting the author’s opinions as fact. But I doubt the distinction matters in the current rhetorical environment.
- next_xibalba 1y agoThat acknowledgement was tacked on well after publication. Even interviewing this person was an absurdity and revelatory of the kind of bias at npr. Truly insane.
- TimorousBestie 1y ago> revelatory of the kind of bias at NPR I could happily cherry-pick any of the multiple times they’ve interviewed controversial, evangelical Christian leaders and come to the opposite “revelation.” > That acknowledgement was tacked on well after publication. Retractions and postscripts are an accepted feature of journalism.
- tart-lemonade 1y ago> That acknowledgement was tacked on well after publication. The original title was "One Author's Argument 'In Defense Of Looting'". https://web.archive.org/web/20200827191914/https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178/one-authors-argument-in-defense-of-looting https://web.archive.org/web/20200827191914/https://www.npr.o... > Even interviewing this person was an absurdity and revelatory of the kind of bias at npr. So news organizations should not cover things which may seem sensational, especially those which are being actively talked about in the context of the current news cycle?
- const_cast 1y agoRight, these people are essentially arguing in favor of censorship. Basically, we should water down views and filter out extremists. Which is a great way to make insane people seem rational... which I think is a media phenomena we should all be familiar with by now.
- greenie_beans 1y agopeoples' media literacy is so bad
- kenfox 1y agoI'm not sure what article about looting is being referenced, but NPR did interview author Vicky Osterweil about her book "In Defense of Looting". It would be extremely surprising to hear that NPR endorsed looting as a form of protest. The interview was definitely not an endorsement.
- pjc50 1y agoAh yes, one piece of free speech justifies deleting the entire station.
- shadowgovt 1y agoAlso, I mean... They were right actually? That, or the Boston Tea Party should be reframed as an illegitimate form of protest against His Majesty and His Majesty's Representatives In the New World. When, oh when, will American classrooms stop teaching that those looters were just honest young men fighting for their freedoms? I'm tired of this propaganda in our public schools. /s
- xienze 1y agoI suppose you’d feel the same if Fox News said J6 was a legitimate political protest, right.
- pjc50 1y agoWhich branch of government is Fox News taking EOs from again? Ah, no, it's the other way round.
- xienze 1y agoCompletely irrelevant and unfounded. I was responding to this: > Ah yes, one piece of free speech justifies deleting the entire station.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Capricorn2481 1y agoHow is interviewing an author, and explicitly saying this is one author's view, the same as the three biggest hosts on Fox explicitly saying J6 was a peaceful protest and not an insurrection, even as they privately decry it as a disgusting and dangerous day for the GOP.
- const_cast 1y ago
- andrewclunn 1y ago[flagged]
- kaishiro 1y agoOffering a poor example in support of your argument is as futile - if not more detrimental - than disregarding the question entirely.
- knowaveragejoe 1y agoIt's not an example. It's not even close. You can and should want something more substantial than this if you're going to make such a sweeping conclusion!
- nilstycho 1y agoWas it this? On August 27, 2020, Natalie Escobar for Code Switch interviewed Vicky Osterweil about her book In Defense Of Looting. The segment was titled "One Author's Argument 'In Defense Of Looting'", and was subsequently retitled "One Author's Controversial View: 'In Defense Of Looting'". https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178/one-authors-argument-in-defense-of-looting https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178... https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/vicky-osterweil/in-defense-of-looting/9781645036678/?lens=bold-type-books https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/vicky-osterweil/in-...
- nilstycho 1y agoHere's a link to the diff between first publication and today: https://www.diffchecker.com/CJz1Bn51/ https://www.diffchecker.com/CJz1Bn51/
- rufus_foreman 1y agoLol. "because they had to appeal to all these new Black and Brown nations all over the world" was updated to "because they had to appeal to all these new Black and brown nations all over the world". Glad that they clarified that for me.
- FredPret 1y agoThat's an awesome tool
- kaishiro 1y agoWhat in the world are you on about? They published an interview with an author who had - admittedly - controversial takes looting. You make it sound like they were telling people to go smash windows. It's telling that you chose not to link the actual piece: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178/one-authors-argument-in-defense-of-looting https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178...
- next_xibalba 1y agoThe “admission” was not part of the original publication. They added both that note and changed the title well after the fact. https://archive.is/2020.08.27-191914/https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178/one-authors-argument-in-defense-of-looting https://archive.is/2020.08.27-191914/https://www.npr.org/sec... The mere fact that they platformed such an extreme, insane viewpoint is the issue. If you can find a similarly sympathetic platforming of a far right nutter by NPR, maybe I’ll take you seriously. Show me one NPR story about the J6 riots that contorts this far to justify and I’ll concede the point entirely. I listened to NPR for over 20 years and the bias became gag worthy toward the end.
- kaishiro 1y agoThe "admission" is irrelevant and was plainly included to appease readers like yourself. Did you actually read the piece? It's unmistakably an interview - not an article, and certainly not an editorial. It's difficult to understand how anyone could read it and arrive at such a distorted conclusion.
- zmgsabst 1y agoRight — they’re lending credibility that leftwing extremism is a valid viewpoint, but you’re unable to name a similar example of rightwing extremism they’ve hosted. That’s classic bias.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- AssertErNullNPE 1y agoAre you sure that article wasn't an interview with an author who wrote a book that took that stance? Having a conversation with someone who has arguably extremist views is very different from holding that extremist view.
- next_xibalba 1y agoIs it? Show me a similarly soft pedaled, deferential NPR interview of a right wing extremist. Someone else in this thread posted a diffed view of the interview demonstrating how NPR reshaped the article a week after publication. Very, very instructive.
- greenie_beans 1y ago> Show me a similarly soft pedaled, deferential NPR interview of a right wing extremist. not making a very good argument with this
- McGlockenshire 1y ago> Show me a similarly soft pedaled, deferential NPR interview of a right wing extremist. Steve Inskeep did 30 minutes with Steve Bannon this week. They did a piece with Chris Rufo yesterday (he's the guy that got right wing media to start freaking out about CRT, and then DEI). But please, do go on clutching your pearls about the WORST POSSIBLE THING EVER: PROPERTY DAMAGE!! Nope, not civil rights violations or gleefully platforming some of the most objectively harmful viewpoints on modern politics, nope, it's PROPERTY DAMAGE that is absolutely the most important possible thing to get upset about.
- zmgsabst 1y agoHarvard and UNC lost at the Supreme Court when sued over their DEI programs being illegal discrimination. Comparing calling out that illegal bigotry to people trying to justify looting is precisely what people are saying is biased.
- nataliste 1y ago
- LPisGood 1y agoThat was not the official position of NPR the organization or even an opinion piece by an NPR employee, it was an interview with an author.
- archagon 1y agoYou don’t have to agree with this take, but it has historical precedent and merits discussion. In popular culture, “Do The Right Thing” (controversially?) posed the question back in 1989. And Black leaders have been talking about it since the 60s: https://jacobin.com/2020/09/martin-luther-king-riots-looting-biden https://jacobin.com/2020/09/martin-luther-king-riots-looting...