5 ms·

Yeah I've been bummed by how far NPR has swerved leftward, especially since 2016. Even ten years ago I liked tuning in because it was quality journalism that st

Yeah I've been bummed by how far NPR has swerved leftward, especially since 2016. Even ten years ago I liked tuning in because it was quality journalism that still made an honest effort to cover multiple sides of an issue, even if the topics they chose were primarily "liberal" topics. But yeah, now they seem just as tribal as Fox.

buerkle 1y ago
Not every side deserves to be covered for each story. This is the problem with major media today, they give equal opportunity to people that have no idea what they are talking about. It's like one side says 2+2=4, the other 2+2=5, and media gives them equal air time.
- atonse 1y ago
  Can you point me to a good source that actually gives equal opportunity to multiple sides of a story? Because I rarely see that (regardless of which side), the whole reason why I subscribe to things like ground.news.
  - colechristensen 1y ago
    Axios does a pretty solid job of covering point and counterpoint on their stories not bias towards "equality" for different perspectives, but actually covering fully the different angles of a story. See yourself in their article from a couple of weeks ago about the federal funding cut of CPB. https://www.axios.com/2025/07/18/npr-pbs-funding-senate https://www.axios.com/2025/07/18/npr-pbs-funding-senate
    - marsupial 1y ago
      > Ahead of Trump's second term, Project 2025 wrote in a detailed memo foreshadowing the president's agenda ways the administration could pull funding for public broadcasters. The Trump administration started taking actions to scrutinize public broadcasters shortly thereafter. There's no mention of why they want to defund CPB beyond "Trump administration efforts to strip funding." Muh Project 2025 is referenced briefly, but the rationale isn't explored. They provide quotes from those opposed "unwarranted dismantling of beloved local civic institutions,... gutting" without the For Side saying anything e.g. that this is no longer necessary due to media landscape. It doesn't consider whether it's necessary and while saying it will be a loss to rural news never looks at the fact it's used less and less there, whether gap will be filled and in part has. It centers the negative consequences, it has very limited perspective by supporters and centrally frames Project 2025 despite questionable connection. There's clearly a tilt, but it performs neutrality that less critical might accept. "The choice of what to include and what to leave out, what to emphasize and what to downplay, inevitably reflects a point of view."
spencerflem 1y ago
lol, I stopped caring about them because they weren’t willing to say anything about Gaza and bent over backwards to excuse what Trump was doing. If center-right NPR is too liberal I shudder to think of your politics
- setsewerd 1y ago
  Many major establishment news orgs are similarly guilty of a heavy pro-Israel bias (WSJ and NYT as other examples), but I would argue this is more on the establishment vs independent spectrum, rather than the left vs right spectrum. Equating a for-profit news corporation's politics with how they handle a singular topic like Gaza would be a bit reductive.
  - spencerflem 1y ago
    The one that gave up the game for me most re: mainstream liberal media was how often NYT ran the Claudine Gay story (front page ten consecutive days). The entire controversy was completely manufactured as a right wing cancel culture operation and the New York Times laundered it under their ‘liberal’ reputation. NPR is better than most as their are not owned privately by a billionaire or collectively by billionaire shareholders. But they play the “both sides are reasonable” game annoyingly often with every issue, as if there is some sort of sensible middle ground to be reached somewhere between Obama and Hitler. Seeing Gaza in particular covered this way - one the most appalling human rights catastrophes of my lifetime aided and funded by my own government - was too much for me to stomach.

buerkle 1y ago

Not every side deserves to be covered for each story. This is the problem with major media today, they give equal opportunity to people that have no idea what they are talking about. It's like one side says 2+2=4, the other 2+2=5, and media gives them equal air time.

atonse 1y ago
Can you point me to a good source that actually gives equal opportunity to multiple sides of a story? Because I rarely see that (regardless of which side), the whole reason why I subscribe to things like ground.news.
- colechristensen 1y ago
  Axios does a pretty solid job of covering point and counterpoint on their stories not bias towards "equality" for different perspectives, but actually covering fully the different angles of a story. See yourself in their article from a couple of weeks ago about the federal funding cut of CPB. https://www.axios.com/2025/07/18/npr-pbs-funding-senate https://www.axios.com/2025/07/18/npr-pbs-funding-senate
  - marsupial 1y ago
    > Ahead of Trump's second term, Project 2025 wrote in a detailed memo foreshadowing the president's agenda ways the administration could pull funding for public broadcasters. The Trump administration started taking actions to scrutinize public broadcasters shortly thereafter. There's no mention of why they want to defund CPB beyond "Trump administration efforts to strip funding." Muh Project 2025 is referenced briefly, but the rationale isn't explored. They provide quotes from those opposed "unwarranted dismantling of beloved local civic institutions,... gutting" without the For Side saying anything e.g. that this is no longer necessary due to media landscape. It doesn't consider whether it's necessary and while saying it will be a loss to rural news never looks at the fact it's used less and less there, whether gap will be filled and in part has. It centers the negative consequences, it has very limited perspective by supporters and centrally frames Project 2025 despite questionable connection. There's clearly a tilt, but it performs neutrality that less critical might accept. "The choice of what to include and what to leave out, what to emphasize and what to downplay, inevitably reflects a point of view."

spencerflem 1y ago

lol, I stopped caring about them because they weren’t willing to say anything about Gaza and bent over backwards to excuse what Trump was doing. If center-right NPR is too liberal I shudder to think of your politics

setsewerd 1y ago
Many major establishment news orgs are similarly guilty of a heavy pro-Israel bias (WSJ and NYT as other examples), but I would argue this is more on the establishment vs independent spectrum, rather than the left vs right spectrum. Equating a for-profit news corporation's politics with how they handle a singular topic like Gaza would be a bit reductive.
- spencerflem 1y ago
  The one that gave up the game for me most re: mainstream liberal media was how often NYT ran the Claudine Gay story (front page ten consecutive days). The entire controversy was completely manufactured as a right wing cancel culture operation and the New York Times laundered it under their ‘liberal’ reputation. NPR is better than most as their are not owned privately by a billionaire or collectively by billionaire shareholders. But they play the “both sides are reasonable” game annoyingly often with every issue, as if there is some sort of sensible middle ground to be reached somewhere between Obama and Hitler. Seeing Gaza in particular covered this way - one the most appalling human rights catastrophes of my lifetime aided and funded by my own government - was too much for me to stomach.