3 ms·

I 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

I 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 ago
That 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 ago
    Right, 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 ago
peoples' media literacy is so bad

next_xibalba 1y ago

That 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 ago
  Right, 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 ago

peoples' media literacy is so bad