3 ms·

I was previously a long time listener and donator to NPR (similarly for NYT), but their progressive bias for the last decade has seriously degraded the quality

I was previously a long time listener and donator to NPR (similarly for NYT), but their progressive bias for the last decade has seriously degraded the quality of their reporting. I remember when their articles and radio coverage was much more balanced. For that, I think The Economist is much better. It has more direct reporting, with seemingly less editorializing. Try their news in brief to keep up. I think the main reason I've pulled back from the consuming mainstream media is directly tied with the change in reporting style rather than the news fundamentally being more depressing or anxiety-inducing. For example, I was listening to Left Right and Center until a few weeks ago when Sarah Isgur departed. The show really should have been called Left Left and Center, because if anything Sarah Isgur was more center leaning while Steve Inskeep is definitely quite progressive. Now the show feels even more lopsided. It's as if journalists are so entrenched with their point of view that they can't see the wider landscape. I truly wonder if social media has clouded journalists' perception as well, which might be contributing to this phenomenon. I really do want balanced coverage. I want to know what each side of the political debate actually thinks, from their own mouth. It turns out that a lot of the people I was indoctrinated to vilify, were in fact people who believed differently than I did, but certainly weren't so toxic as to be simply pilloried for their beliefs. That approach is tiresome and I've lost hope that such reporting will return. That's why I've given up.

margalabargala 1y ago
What I've observed is similar to what you describe, but in my view the cause is different. NPR's reporting is much the same as it has always been; what's happened is there has been a huge shift to the far right the last decade, and reporting on where the right used to be now looks like left leaning bias. The same is not true of the left. What's labeled "progressive" really isn't; the left has moved right too. 15 years ago, the US was on the verge of passing universal healthcare. That's not even on the radar today. Media orcs have not all kept up with these changes. Something that was "left right and center in 2015, would look as though it was mostly leftist today, because the ground has moved.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- qcnguy 1y ago
  You're assuming the left stays static. The left lost interest in economic issues after 1990 and shifted to cultural issues. The modern Democrats are not more right wing than they used to be unless you ignore all the issues they've taken up that wouldn't have been recognized by Bill Clinton era Democrats.
  - margalabargala 1y ago
    Totally disagree. The left has absolutely moved further right. Firstly, the example above with healthcare. Secondly, deregulating things like zoning are rather popular with the modern left, and generally free-market approaches to housing. Dems are less friendly to unions than they were, lip service aside. I don't think there's much that wouldn't be recognizable to a Clinton dem. The identity politics around trans rights etc are the same civil rights the left has been supporting for a century. Abortion is the same debate we've been having since the 60s. The left has either not changed stance, or moved right, on all issues.
    - qcnguy 1y ago
      We're in agreement. The mainstream left abandoned their economic agenda because their economic agenda was stupid and as the 20th century progressed that became ever clearer, until the steady collapse of the USSR in the 1980s finally made even the dimmest of voters lose their appetite for it. So by 1990 the left lost interest in economics, and began the pivot to race/gender/sexual intersectionalism. They even explicitly rebranded themselves. Clinton's Third Way campaign was adopted with vigor by Tony Blair, who even renamed his party New Labour to emphasize the break with the past. And Third Way/New Labour leftism was not particularly committed to intersectionalism at that time, even though such tendencies did exist on the left since the 1950s. In fact intersectionalism was rejected by mainstream left wing parties - look at the treatment of Sister Souljah then vs what would happen now - but it kept ramping up and by 2012 that had turned into full blown culture war. The new left went all-in on things like "defund the police" that would have been mystifying to a typical 1950s leftist. None of this means the left moved right, unless you only care about economics in which case it's true. They simply dropped one set of causes and picked up another, with exactly the same kinds of tactics and aggression that characterized their campaigns 100 years ago.
abeppu 1y ago
> For that, I think The Economist is much better. It has more direct reporting, with seemingly less editorializing. I appreciate The Economist, but I find that they do editorialize, they're just up front about it. They use the word "should" regularly. They have a pretty clear and consistent viewpoint advocating for classical liberalism, but they're honest and unashamed about having a stance.
heresie-dabord 1y ago
> I remember when their articles and radio coverage was much more balanced. For that, I think The Economist is much better. It has more direct reporting, with seemingly less editorializing. The Economist definitely has bias. All reality has a bias. You may not like some topics, that's fair. But to call a report "good journalism", it should exclude fabrications and baseless accusations. The latter are tools of propaganda.
pstuart 1y ago
The last decade has brought us Trump, which has broken countless political (and other) norms -- that has made passive observation a lot more challenging. I've listened to NPR for decades and the only thing I've noticed as far as "progressivism" is that the weekends include shows that speak to non-white audiences (Black and Latino). I'm curious as to what you think was "too progressive".

margalabargala 1y ago

What I've observed is similar to what you describe, but in my view the cause is different. NPR's reporting is much the same as it has always been; what's happened is there has been a huge shift to the far right the last decade, and reporting on where the right used to be now looks like left leaning bias. The same is not true of the left. What's labeled "progressive" really isn't; the left has moved right too. 15 years ago, the US was on the verge of passing universal healthcare. That's not even on the radar today. Media orcs have not all kept up with these changes. Something that was "left right and center in 2015, would look as though it was mostly leftist today, because the ground has moved.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
qcnguy 1y ago
You're assuming the left stays static. The left lost interest in economic issues after 1990 and shifted to cultural issues. The modern Democrats are not more right wing than they used to be unless you ignore all the issues they've taken up that wouldn't have been recognized by Bill Clinton era Democrats.
- margalabargala 1y ago
  Totally disagree. The left has absolutely moved further right. Firstly, the example above with healthcare. Secondly, deregulating things like zoning are rather popular with the modern left, and generally free-market approaches to housing. Dems are less friendly to unions than they were, lip service aside. I don't think there's much that wouldn't be recognizable to a Clinton dem. The identity politics around trans rights etc are the same civil rights the left has been supporting for a century. Abortion is the same debate we've been having since the 60s. The left has either not changed stance, or moved right, on all issues.
  - qcnguy 1y ago
    We're in agreement. The mainstream left abandoned their economic agenda because their economic agenda was stupid and as the 20th century progressed that became ever clearer, until the steady collapse of the USSR in the 1980s finally made even the dimmest of voters lose their appetite for it. So by 1990 the left lost interest in economics, and began the pivot to race/gender/sexual intersectionalism. They even explicitly rebranded themselves. Clinton's Third Way campaign was adopted with vigor by Tony Blair, who even renamed his party New Labour to emphasize the break with the past. And Third Way/New Labour leftism was not particularly committed to intersectionalism at that time, even though such tendencies did exist on the left since the 1950s. In fact intersectionalism was rejected by mainstream left wing parties - look at the treatment of Sister Souljah then vs what would happen now - but it kept ramping up and by 2012 that had turned into full blown culture war. The new left went all-in on things like "defund the police" that would have been mystifying to a typical 1950s leftist. None of this means the left moved right, unless you only care about economics in which case it's true. They simply dropped one set of causes and picked up another, with exactly the same kinds of tactics and aggression that characterized their campaigns 100 years ago.

abeppu 1y ago

> For that, I think The Economist is much better. It has more direct reporting, with seemingly less editorializing. I appreciate The Economist, but I find that they do editorialize, they're just up front about it. They use the word "should" regularly. They have a pretty clear and consistent viewpoint advocating for classical liberalism, but they're honest and unashamed about having a stance.

heresie-dabord 1y ago

> I remember when their articles and radio coverage was much more balanced. For that, I think The Economist is much better. It has more direct reporting, with seemingly less editorializing. The Economist definitely has bias. All reality has a bias. You may not like some topics, that's fair. But to call a report "good journalism", it should exclude fabrications and baseless accusations. The latter are tools of propaganda.

pstuart 1y ago

The last decade has brought us Trump, which has broken countless political (and other) norms -- that has made passive observation a lot more challenging. I've listened to NPR for decades and the only thing I've noticed as far as "progressivism" is that the weekends include shows that speak to non-white audiences (Black and Latino). I'm curious as to what you think was "too progressive".