5 ms·

Or NPR, The NYT etc. aren't as good a sources of news as you think, and you just haven't noticed until they covered a story in your domain that you are passiona

Or NPR, The NYT etc. aren't as good a sources of news as you think, and you just haven't noticed until they covered a story in your domain that you are passionate about. I used to listen to NPR everyday. In my opinion they are one of the better sources of news in America, but they are far far far from unbiased. They are very good at making it look like they are showing all sides, but they are in fact presenting things in away that supports their ideological bent.

gohrt 13y ago
Yes of course, but NPR's ideological bent in the past was seen to be not of the "government stooge" variety.
pstuart 13y ago
I would argue that they try very hard to appear "objective" and sometimes drop the ball in order to achieve this. Whenever they mention gun control or cannabis legalization (too very liberal subjects) there is never any questioning of the craziness of the opponents of such efforts, just that it is happening. That said, they are still far from perfect but preferable to most other sources.
- kbenson 13y ago
  The fact that you imply that there is craziness of the opponents without any justification makes me think that you may be unable to see any bias they have because it's in the same direction as yours. You may be thinking of specific examples with crazy behavior, so this may be justified reasoning, but from the detail you've given it's hard to know.
  - pstuart 13y ago
    Cannabis being illegal is fucking insane, m'kay? Plenty of proof of it being "safe enough", and plenty of evidence that it's illegality is used as a tool of oppression. The Drug War is a complete failure that has cost society dearly. As for guns (I'm not anti-gun), the fact that the NRA and it's cronies refuse to consider the discussion any regulation of weapons in today's society is crazy (pro-gun arguments get quoted verbatim, including the selective citation of part of the Second Amendment (you know, the part that mentions a "well-regulated militia"). That is crazy.
    - xaviorm 13y ago
      You seem to have selectively omitted "shall not be infringed." from the rest of your statement. What part of that is hard to understand. If you don't like the amendment then get rid of it. If you can't do that stop trying to work around it. The constitution is not there to be worked around and every time someone does "work around it" it becomes that much more of a worthless document. There is away to change the document. Use it or live with it. It is there for a reason.
      - pstuart 13y ago
        > You seem to have selectively omitted "shall not be infringed." from the rest of your statement. You missed the point: gun advocates only quote part of the amendment. Yes, the full text should be cited (I was being lazy). Second point you missed: I'm not advocating for "gun control" or necessarily "anti-gun", just that in talking about "gun control" the omission of key details is dishonest. Third point: you are high if you think that the Second Amendment is ever going to get modified. > There is away to change the document. Use it or live with it. It is there for a reason. Oh, really, that's how you change the Constitution? Maybe you need to review the process?
        tekromancr 13y ago
        Well, thinking back to my elementary school civics classes, Isn't it a 2/3 majority vote?
        pstuart 13y ago
        There's more: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articlev.htm http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/article... But then there's the politics involved. In today's political climate there is no possibility.
        talmand 13y ago
        First off, it really doesn't look good for you to claim your opponent should be required to do the thing you admit you were too lazy to do. That's a tad dishonest on your part. Your attempt at insults doesn't help your case either. I also fail to see what was incorrect about his statement about amending the Constitution. There is indeed a way to change the document, the amendment process. I think you need to clarify what you mean by your statement for it to make sense. By the way, I don't think you understand what well-regulated means in the context of when it was written.
- WalterSear 13y ago
  They drop the ball more than they catch it.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
bhauer 13y ago
I clicked the up-arrow next to your comment as hard as I could without breaking my mouse. I feel this way about every single newsworthy event that I've observed either first-hand or through--as you put it--a passionate interest. News coverage is routinely wrong out of laziness or willfully misrepresenting of the truth. And I'm not talking about political or even vaguely controversial events. A report on a fire I had observed as a child was wrought with errors in our local paper's coverage. Before the Tesla Model S became the media sensation it is now, I would read coverage and marvel at how many articles wrongly reported its price, specs, range. I think people are sometimes deluded into feeling a news service is reputable, diligent, unbiased, and incorruptible by way of its tone and the way it carries itself. But the veil is off once you have observed something directly and then read their coverage of the same event.
- WalterBright 13y ago
  I once was in a building that had a natural gas leak and subsequent explosion. I then watched the local news coverage about it on several channels. Every one got the facts wrong, the story wrong, about everything wrong. It made me far less credulous of news stories.
blago 13y ago
I couldn't agree more. This was my aha moment: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/world/europe/06bulgaria.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/world/europe/06bulgaria.ht... I happened to be born in Bulgaria and keep current with events. This is what struck me: 1) Times' perspective: "prominent radio journalist". For anybody living in the country, the victim was a convicted conman who used his game show to defraud participant and advertisers. His other claim to fame: admittedly close connections with the mob. The "exposing the underworld" book they refer to was in the spirit of "one night, me and my buddies...". At best, the victim could have been described as a radio game show host. 2) At the end of the article, they referred to a US embassy report stating that there's been 125 contract killings in 2008 alone. I sent an email challenging the "facts" and asked for a pointer to the embassy report. They corrected the number by an order of magnitude and ignored the rest.
- ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
  I'm Bulgarian too. Born in Sofia. Btw have you been keeping up with what's been happening there with government corruption? Billions missing. The insane electric bills. Bribing the gypsies to throw human feces into the anti-government protestor crowd. It's on the news stations. My parents have DJTacho.com which streams to the US. The children of the communists that once ruled basically raped and pillaged BG for anything left. And spent 100 million on surveillance/spying equipment.
  - blago 13y ago
    Chris, I'm not really invested in any of that, and this is hardly the right thread...
bangkoknights 13y ago
There's a reason why the NYT is known as the Pravda on the Hudson.
spikels 13y ago
I agree completely. NPR is as good as it gets on US radio or TV (the competition is very weak) but has a decidedly pro-establishment and pro-government bias. This will make them particularly conflicted on the spying issue. This should not be surprising. NPR is based in DC - a company town where the company is the US government. Many of their employees are relatives or friends of government officials or are even former government employees (for example [1]). Most of these relationships are not well known or reported. All of this is in addition to the normal reporter conflicts of having to report on your ongoing sources. Just imagine how uncomfortable it would be to report a negative story about your husband, brother, friend, former colleague or regular source who happens to be a senator. On top of that NPR is funded by corporations, people and foundations with strong ties to government (Comcast, Soros, Catto Foundation) as well as receiving direct government funding [2]. You don't bite the hand that feed you. Lastly NPR like most US news organizations has a moderate liberal bias [3,4]. So with a Democratic administration currently in office NPR will be particularly sympathetic to the administration's viewpoint. All these factors will make it very difficult for NPR to cover this story fairly. This will show up in both visible actions, such as attacking the Guardian reporter [5, AP too [6]]. But even more so in what does not make it on the air. I'm sure many NPR editors would like to leave this uncomfortable business behind as soon as possible. At least we can continue count on NPR to be an excellent source of the government's views. [1] Michelle Norris is married to a senior advisor to Obama campaign[a]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/post/nprs-michele-norris-steps-down-husband-broderick-johnson-gets-obama-job/2011/10/24/gIQAy7zrCM_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/post/nprs-... [2] Partial list of NPR sponsors (couldn't find anything after 2008). http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/annualreports/NPRSponsorsDonors08.pdf http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/annualreports/NPRSponsorsD... [3] Juan Williams termination report. http://www.npr.org/about/press/2011/010611.ReviewOfJuanWilliamsTermination.html http://www.npr.org/about/press/2011/010611.ReviewOfJuanWilli... [4] NPR fundraising exec sting. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/09/134358398/in-video-npr-exec-slams-tea-party-questions-need-for-federal-funds http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/09/134358398/in-... [5] NPR examines Guardian reporter who broke PRISM story. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/11/190670954/he-broke-the-nsa-leaks-story-but-just-who-is-glenn-greenwald http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/11/190670954/he-... [6] AP examines Guardian reporters bias [b]. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=190571323 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1905713... a-More on Michelle Norris's husband, Broderick Johnson (also former AT&T lobbyist). http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=18554 http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=1855... b-Another unreported relationship: Mika Brzezinski (co-host of Morning Joe) is the daughter of former Nation Security Advisor and current Ambassador to Sweden Zbigniew Brzezinski.
jnbiche 13y ago
Absolutely. As a young liberal in the 1990s, I listened to NPR fervently until I worked in the post-war Balkans and came to realize that most of their reporting there was total bunk. At present, they have a strong pro-government bias (particularly when that government is Democrat) and seem much more interested in weaving a beautiful narrative than in reporting the facts. I stopped listened to them several years ago -- and switched from liberal to libertarian (or at the least a civil liberties-driven liberal). NY Times is more hit or miss. There's less of pro-government bias, but more of a liberal slant. But certainly they can not be depended upon to report the news in an unbiased fashion. All things considered, journalism in the US is in a sad state.

gohrt 13y ago

Yes of course, but NPR's ideological bent in the past was seen to be not of the "government stooge" variety.

pstuart 13y ago

I would argue that they try very hard to appear "objective" and sometimes drop the ball in order to achieve this. Whenever they mention gun control or cannabis legalization (too very liberal subjects) there is never any questioning of the craziness of the opponents of such efforts, just that it is happening. That said, they are still far from perfect but preferable to most other sources.

kbenson 13y ago
The fact that you imply that there is craziness of the opponents without any justification makes me think that you may be unable to see any bias they have because it's in the same direction as yours. You may be thinking of specific examples with crazy behavior, so this may be justified reasoning, but from the detail you've given it's hard to know.
- pstuart 13y ago
  Cannabis being illegal is fucking insane, m'kay? Plenty of proof of it being "safe enough", and plenty of evidence that it's illegality is used as a tool of oppression. The Drug War is a complete failure that has cost society dearly. As for guns (I'm not anti-gun), the fact that the NRA and it's cronies refuse to consider the discussion any regulation of weapons in today's society is crazy (pro-gun arguments get quoted verbatim, including the selective citation of part of the Second Amendment (you know, the part that mentions a "well-regulated militia"). That is crazy.
  - xaviorm 13y ago
    You seem to have selectively omitted "shall not be infringed." from the rest of your statement. What part of that is hard to understand. If you don't like the amendment then get rid of it. If you can't do that stop trying to work around it. The constitution is not there to be worked around and every time someone does "work around it" it becomes that much more of a worthless document. There is away to change the document. Use it or live with it. It is there for a reason.
    - pstuart 13y ago
      > You seem to have selectively omitted "shall not be infringed." from the rest of your statement. You missed the point: gun advocates only quote part of the amendment. Yes, the full text should be cited (I was being lazy). Second point you missed: I'm not advocating for "gun control" or necessarily "anti-gun", just that in talking about "gun control" the omission of key details is dishonest. Third point: you are high if you think that the Second Amendment is ever going to get modified. > There is away to change the document. Use it or live with it. It is there for a reason. Oh, really, that's how you change the Constitution? Maybe you need to review the process?
      - tekromancr 13y ago
        Well, thinking back to my elementary school civics classes, Isn't it a 2/3 majority vote?
        pstuart 13y ago
        There's more: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articlev.htm http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/article... But then there's the politics involved. In today's political climate there is no possibility.
      - talmand 13y ago
        First off, it really doesn't look good for you to claim your opponent should be required to do the thing you admit you were too lazy to do. That's a tad dishonest on your part. Your attempt at insults doesn't help your case either. I also fail to see what was incorrect about his statement about amending the Constitution. There is indeed a way to change the document, the amendment process. I think you need to clarify what you mean by your statement for it to make sense. By the way, I don't think you understand what well-regulated means in the context of when it was written.
WalterSear 13y ago
They drop the ball more than they catch it.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

bhauer 13y ago

I clicked the up-arrow next to your comment as hard as I could without breaking my mouse. I feel this way about every single newsworthy event that I've observed either first-hand or through--as you put it--a passionate interest. News coverage is routinely wrong out of laziness or willfully misrepresenting of the truth. And I'm not talking about political or even vaguely controversial events. A report on a fire I had observed as a child was wrought with errors in our local paper's coverage. Before the Tesla Model S became the media sensation it is now, I would read coverage and marvel at how many articles wrongly reported its price, specs, range. I think people are sometimes deluded into feeling a news service is reputable, diligent, unbiased, and incorruptible by way of its tone and the way it carries itself. But the veil is off once you have observed something directly and then read their coverage of the same event.

WalterBright 13y ago
I once was in a building that had a natural gas leak and subsequent explosion. I then watched the local news coverage about it on several channels. Every one got the facts wrong, the story wrong, about everything wrong. It made me far less credulous of news stories.

blago 13y ago

I couldn't agree more. This was my aha moment: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/world/europe/06bulgaria.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/world/europe/06bulgaria.ht... I happened to be born in Bulgaria and keep current with events. This is what struck me: 1) Times' perspective: "prominent radio journalist". For anybody living in the country, the victim was a convicted conman who used his game show to defraud participant and advertisers. His other claim to fame: admittedly close connections with the mob. The "exposing the underworld" book they refer to was in the spirit of "one night, me and my buddies...". At best, the victim could have been described as a radio game show host. 2) At the end of the article, they referred to a US embassy report stating that there's been 125 contract killings in 2008 alone. I sent an email challenging the "facts" and asked for a pointer to the embassy report. They corrected the number by an order of magnitude and ignored the rest.

ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
I'm Bulgarian too. Born in Sofia. Btw have you been keeping up with what's been happening there with government corruption? Billions missing. The insane electric bills. Bribing the gypsies to throw human feces into the anti-government protestor crowd. It's on the news stations. My parents have DJTacho.com which streams to the US. The children of the communists that once ruled basically raped and pillaged BG for anything left. And spent 100 million on surveillance/spying equipment.
- blago 13y ago
  Chris, I'm not really invested in any of that, and this is hardly the right thread...

bangkoknights 13y ago

There's a reason why the NYT is known as the Pravda on the Hudson.

spikels 13y ago

I agree completely. NPR is as good as it gets on US radio or TV (the competition is very weak) but has a decidedly pro-establishment and pro-government bias. This will make them particularly conflicted on the spying issue. This should not be surprising. NPR is based in DC - a company town where the company is the US government. Many of their employees are relatives or friends of government officials or are even former government employees (for example [1]). Most of these relationships are not well known or reported. All of this is in addition to the normal reporter conflicts of having to report on your ongoing sources. Just imagine how uncomfortable it would be to report a negative story about your husband, brother, friend, former colleague or regular source who happens to be a senator. On top of that NPR is funded by corporations, people and foundations with strong ties to government (Comcast, Soros, Catto Foundation) as well as receiving direct government funding [2]. You don't bite the hand that feed you. Lastly NPR like most US news organizations has a moderate liberal bias [3,4]. So with a Democratic administration currently in office NPR will be particularly sympathetic to the administration's viewpoint. All these factors will make it very difficult for NPR to cover this story fairly. This will show up in both visible actions, such as attacking the Guardian reporter [5, AP too [6]]. But even more so in what does not make it on the air. I'm sure many NPR editors would like to leave this uncomfortable business behind as soon as possible. At least we can continue count on NPR to be an excellent source of the government's views. [1] Michelle Norris is married to a senior advisor to Obama campaign[a]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/post/nprs-michele-norris-steps-down-husband-broderick-johnson-gets-obama-job/2011/10/24/gIQAy7zrCM_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/post/nprs-... [2] Partial list of NPR sponsors (couldn't find anything after 2008). http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/annualreports/NPRSponsorsDonors08.pdf http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/annualreports/NPRSponsorsD... [3] Juan Williams termination report. http://www.npr.org/about/press/2011/010611.ReviewOfJuanWilliamsTermination.html http://www.npr.org/about/press/2011/010611.ReviewOfJuanWilli... [4] NPR fundraising exec sting. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/09/134358398/in-video-npr-exec-slams-tea-party-questions-need-for-federal-funds http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/09/134358398/in-... [5] NPR examines Guardian reporter who broke PRISM story. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/11/190670954/he-broke-the-nsa-leaks-story-but-just-who-is-glenn-greenwald http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/11/190670954/he-... [6] AP examines Guardian reporters bias [b]. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=190571323 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1905713... a-More on Michelle Norris's husband, Broderick Johnson (also former AT&T lobbyist). http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=18554 http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=1855... b-Another unreported relationship: Mika Brzezinski (co-host of Morning Joe) is the daughter of former Nation Security Advisor and current Ambassador to Sweden Zbigniew Brzezinski.

jnbiche 13y ago

Absolutely. As a young liberal in the 1990s, I listened to NPR fervently until I worked in the post-war Balkans and came to realize that most of their reporting there was total bunk. At present, they have a strong pro-government bias (particularly when that government is Democrat) and seem much more interested in weaving a beautiful narrative than in reporting the facts. I stopped listened to them several years ago -- and switched from liberal to libertarian (or at the least a civil liberties-driven liberal). NY Times is more hit or miss. There's less of pro-government bias, but more of a liberal slant. But certainly they can not be depended upon to report the news in an unbiased fashion. All things considered, journalism in the US is in a sad state.