NPR - Diversity

[Kishkumen]

Wow. Burchett is an embarrassment to this country and our ideals.

I have to wonder about the reasoning skills of anyone who watches that link and comes away claiming to not recognize how dishonest his line of questioning is.

Thankfully, ceeboo did not post it here. But damn . . . .

The amazing thing is that it exists at all.

[Some Schmo]

Wow. Burchett is an embarrassment to this country and our ideals.

I have to wonder about the reasoning skills of anyone who watches that link and comes away claiming to not recognize how dishonest his line of questioning is.

It's rare these days to watch any member of the GOP in a hearing ask honest, well-intentioned questions. I mean, they really suck at hiding what they're doing. Their brand of faux indignance is an obvious tell.

Sadly, they don't have to be good. The GOP bar has never been lower. Their base will accept anything, the more ludicrous, the better.

ETA: I'm struck by how if you aren't embarrassed to call yourself or vote Republican, you probably don't even realize you should be. Huh. Mindboggling.

[honorentheos]

FTR, I don’t believe any media outlet that receives taxpayer funds, whether it’s 1% for the national NPR station or ~15% for local stations, should be an ideological outlet. It’s obvious and indefensible that NPR editorial staff, and probably more broadly throughout the organization, is exclusively the domain of those with Leftist ideologies.

That said, it’s laughable MAGATs would concern themselves with it. It’s small potatoes. Also, they don’t care about anything that isn’t whatever their overlords are spoon feeding them that day, and they have no sense, whatsoever, about the content NPR provides on a regular basis.

- Doc

I listen to NPR fairly regularly, no surprise I'm sure. And I've thought about this idea for years because I think there is an intractable problem now baked into our national discourse. That being, how does a moderate news source handle stories around basic human rights when the nation is divided to such an extreme that where one side sees something as an individual right the other side sees it as moral decay that shouldn't be tolerated?

Listening to NPR includes obvious biases in favor of cultural diversity, racial diversity, and a generally accepting global view. LGBTQ+ issues are treated with acceptance, immigrants are interviewed and their views presented without negative editorializing, the reporting often feels very aware that what happened on January 6, 2021 was an attack on the Constitution. Things like that feel neutral to me against an apolitical backdrop but inherently aren't neutral in US politics.

So. Where is the problem and what is the solution? They will interview J6 apologists, interview MAGA politicians and let them share their views. They will question liberal politicians with questions clearly informed by the opinions of folks more likely to listen to conservative talk radio. But honestly? It seems difficult to say they CAN give equal footing in the news room because the divide isn't about differing opinions any longer. The cultural differences are so stark.

[honorentheos]

To take this further, FOX News ran with the fair and balanced tag line as a overt assertion that other media was not. Someone agreeing they ARE fair and balanced says a lot about that person including what they think is supposedly fair and what they believe the news should be reporting.

The Overton window shift in our politics has also affected our news reporting.

[Some Schmo]

I listen to NPR fairly regularly, no surprise I'm sure. And I've thought about this idea for years because I think there is an intractable problem now baked into our national discourse. That being, how does a moderate news source handle stories around basic human rights when the nation is divided to such an extreme where one side sees something as an individual right the other side sees moral decay?

Listening to NPR includes obvious biases in favor of cultural diversity, racial diversity, and a generally accepting global view. LGBTQ+ issues are treated with acceptance, immigrants are interviewed and their views presented without negative editorializing, the reporting often feels very aware that what happened on January 6, 2021 was an attack on the Constitution. Things like that feel neutral to me against an apolitical backdrop but inherently aren't neutral in US politics.

So. Where is the problem and what is the solution? They will interview J6 apologists, interview MAGA politicians and let them share their views. They will question liberal politicians with questions clearly informed by the opinions of folks more likely to listen to conservative talk radio. But honestly? It seems difficult to say they CAN give equal footing in the news room because the divide isn't about differing opinions any longer. The cultural differences are so stark.

I don't drive to work every day so I don't really listen to it unless something on the net catches my eye. My impression has always been that they adhere to calm, moderate approach to journalism.

It may upset MAGA that there isn't enough yelling. Where's the news?

The problem with inviting J6 apologists, for instance, is that they know they will be inviting someone who has no problem with straight-up lying publicly. Is that responsible journalism, to not do some vetting of their guests' reliability?

I agree with everything you said, except that I don't think "cultural differences" quite captures the divide. A lot of people are living in an alternate reality, encouraged by groupthink.

[honorentheos]

Fair point.

I guess I don't think it's NPRs fault that there are zero Republicans in their Washington editorial office. There isn't a quota, there are journalistic standards and a willingness to work there. Some want to demand that it be turned into Crossfire or some other shouting match split screen station? That is why I don't watch cable news of any kind and honestly can't imagine a less effective way to actually "do" journalism.

[honorentheos]

I should also add, Bret's link paints a far more nuanced discussion than we are really discussing too. But there in lies part of the problem.

[Some Schmo]

Fair point.

I guess I don't think it's NPRs fault that there are zero Republicans in their Washington editorial office. There isn't a quota, there are journalistic standards and a willingness to work there. Some want to demand that it be turned into Crossfire or some other shouting match split screen station? That is why I don't watch cable news of any kind and honestly can't imagine a less effective way to actually "do" journalism.

Certainly not the way it's done these days in this country. Whenever I leave the country, I'm a bit floored by foreign media on television. I think it's how media in the US might used to have been.

It's become outrageously obvious that all these outlets care about is ratings. Media is another public service like healthcare and prisons, etc, that should be completely publicly owned because any profit motive is a direct conflict of interest with the service they are supposed to provide.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

FTR, I don’t believe any media outlet that receives taxpayer funds, whether it’s 1% for the national NPR station or ~15% for local stations, should be an ideological outlet. It’s obvious and indefensible that NPR editorial staff, and probably more broadly throughout the organization, is exclusively the domain of those with Leftist ideologies.

That said, it’s laughable MAGATs would concern themselves with it. It’s small potatoes. Also, they don’t care about anything that isn’t whatever their overlords are spoon feeding them that day, and they have no sense, whatsoever, about the content NPR provides on a regular basis.

- Doc

I listen to NPR fairly regularly, no surprise I'm sure. And I've thought about this idea for years because I think there is an intractable problem now baked into our national discourse. That being, how does a moderate news source handle stories around basic human rights when the nation is divided to such an extreme that where one side sees something as an individual right the other side sees it as moral decay that shouldn't be tolerated?

Listening to NPR includes obvious biases in favor of cultural diversity, racial diversity, and a generally accepting global view. LGBTQ+ issues are treated with acceptance, immigrants are interviewed and their views presented without negative editorializing, the reporting often feels very aware that what happened on January 6, 2021 was an attack on the Constitution. Things like that feel neutral to me against an apolitical backdrop but inherently aren't neutral in US politics.

So. Where is the problem and what is the solution? They will interview J6 apologists, interview MAGA politicians and let them share their views. They will question liberal politicians with questions clearly informed by the opinions of folks more likely to listen to conservative talk radio. But honestly? It seems difficult to say they CAN give equal footing in the news room because the divide isn't about differing opinions any longer. The cultural differences are so stark.

Well,and this is just my opinion, if NPR had a range of conservative editorial staffers that could bring a different perspective to a topic in order to bring a fuller American perspective to an American story it might be healthy. Not necessarily MAGAts (just like I wouldn’t want tankies in the room), but a fuller representation so different ideas and stories could be discovered and written about that are, typically not even thought about, if you’re worldview is looking through a tube aboard a train and trying to describe the scenery to an audience.

For example, say NPR were to do a story about young people who believe they’re transgendered. While I doubt a politically ‘spread out’ staff could agree about the science behind transgenderism, perhaps the conservatives could convince the room to interview the, say, conservative parents with regard to the emotional toll it takes on them and their community, and include their story into the equation. In other words, it’s not propaganda, but it’s a fuller picture surrounding a hard-to-swallow movement for many.

- Doc

[honorentheos]

Hi Doc,

Again fair points. I think the ability to provide a moderate perspective is very difficult and the topic you suggested as an example helps highlight.

Back about a year ago , NPR had the affiliate discussion at the link on exactly that: parents with varied views on transgender issues with children or adult children who identify as transgender.

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/07/01 ... report-nhs

This Reddit thread on it was largely negative because the feeling of those who had conflict with their parents felt giving the parent that much of a voice was giving him a platform. It was, because that's journalism. And it's an example of what I mean by the culture divide being such that I think folks can't handle reporting. They want take downs and conflicts they want their views defended and the other side silenced and put in its place.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EstrangedAdult ... u0BqfP5ffn

I really don't think NPR is the biggest issue. Rather the issues are highlighting big issues in our own civic discourse, or lack thereof. And honestly I think the article Bret linked to gets at the internal discussion at NPR over the dynamics is involved that is worth reading. I mean, you and I both know the folks on this thread with the issue, including the OP, have no idea about journalistic integrity nor have they actually informed themselves on NPRs reporting. They are most likely reacting to reporting from their own preferred media sources.