2 ms·
Exactly. If there were a compelling rationale, we would expect NPR to downplay it. If red hatted wolves were devouring NPR radio hosts, their cries for help wo
by palmfacehn 1y ago
Exactly. If there were a compelling rationale, we would expect NPR to downplay it.
If red hatted wolves were devouring NPR radio hosts, their cries for help wouldn't be sufficient. We would need external verification. Additionally, their editorial support for wolf attacks against opposing partisans would be hypocritical.
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago> If there were a compelling rationale, [I] would expect NPR to downplay it. Exactly – Given your editorial stance, I expect that you would expect that, and yet the evidence here shows that you were wrong to: There was no compelling rationale for this action, thus NPR could not have reported one, thus they did not report one.
- palmfacehn 1y agoYou've taken a long road to observe something I acknowledge in my original comment, while sidestepping the point.
- ImPostingOnHN 1y agoHow am I sidestepping the point? The point is that, upon reviewing the evidence, NPR is not as biased as you personally described, and that your claims here[0] are thus unfounded. The problem here isn't with any bias on NPR's part, but with your personal claim of NPR bias, given that it is contradicted by the evidence we see here. Indeed, a position of 'evidence against my claim only proves my point harder' is nonsensical, and may itself be underlied by bias. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45010316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45010316