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.
NPR’s weekly Left Right & Center does a good job of this. Its production studio is Santa Monica’s KCRW, but it’s nationally syndicated and broadcasts on NPR stations across the nation. It’s also available as a podcast, and you can stream episodes off the web, from the following link:
I mean, you and I both know the folks on this thread with the issue, including the OP, have no idea about journalistic integrity
As you marinate in your ocean of hubris, expressing your unmatched arrogance - you are unable to see what a clown you are.
nor have they actually informed themselves.....
One of your favorite tactics - declare how utterly uninformed others are - which is designed to show how deeply informed you are. The excessive pride that you display on this board, as well as the self-confidence you attach to yourself is astonishing.
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
This.
Here’s the thing: there are REAL conservatives out there, who live in the real world and practice responsible journalism. Get them in NPR if you want ideological variety.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
I mean, you and I both know the folks on this thread with the issue, including the OP, have no idea about journalistic integrity
As you marinate in your ocean of hubris, expressing your unmatched arrogance - you are unable to see what a clown you are.
nor have they actually informed themselves.....
One of your favorite tactics - declare how utterly uninformed others are - which is designed to show how deeply informed you are. The excessive pride that you display on this board, as well as the self-confidence you attach to yourself is astonishing.
Literally astonishing.
Is you opinion primarily informed by conservative reporting about NPR?
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
This.
Here’s the thing: there are REAL conservatives out there, who live in the real world and practice responsible journalism. Get them in NPR if you want ideological variety.
i suspect that we will see the Washington office act on this but time will tell.
That said I do struggle with the concern being driven by folks who know very little about the actual reporting and are instead expecting balanced reporting to be cable news style partisan shouting matches and gotcha games. Or who view the absence of certain view points as unfair rather than what I suspect is the reality, not factual so the reporting is letting that person share their views but the reporting not editorialize in favor of it.
You mentioned News Hour up thread where David Brooks has been a fixture for so many years i don't recall when I first saw him on it. His perspective on politics has always been fairly moderate conservative but his values are the priority in his positions such that he seems very aware of the moral motivations within conservative politics.
I guess I don't see the problem the same way that the discussion has become framed. I do think there is a lot of tension in news in general today to try to provide quality journalism where more and more people on both sides view the issues as conflicts between good and evil rather than differing views about how things should be done. And that affects all reporting in the US. NPR may not be perfect but then, first stones and all that.
Last edited by honorentheos on Fri Jun 27, 2025 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Here’s the thing: there are REAL conservatives out there, who live in the real world and practice responsible journalism. Get them in NPR if you want ideological variety.
If you had a chance to populate a guest list, who would you want to see on it?
Here’s the thing: there are REAL conservatives out there, who live in the real world and practice responsible journalism. Get them in NPR if you want ideological variety.
That said I do struggle with the concern being driven by folks who know very little about the actual reporting and are instead expecting balanced reporting to be cable news style partisan shouting matches and gotcha games.
While you continue to be display how utterly disconnected from reality your mind is (No doubt due to severe TDS), allow me to shed some light on the board for anyone who is still fortunate enough to be able to think rationally and still have the ability to be balanced.
I don't care that the NPR numbers are 87-0. I wouldn't care if the numbers were 932-0. I wouldn't care if they hired the entire staff on the View. I don't care what they write/say. This is America after all, and they ought to be able to say/write whatever they want.
(Here is where I would ask folks who still have the ability to think rationally to do so): Why should I, a politically right American citizen, have my tax dollars going to support such a thing? Why should half of the country, who hold politically right views, have their tax dollars going to support an organization that is so clearly one sided.
The answer, to 99% of reasonable Americans, is that it shouldn't.
To use a different analogy this board gets criticized for not having faithful LDS voices or being hostile to conservatives. And it's true that the number of folks representing both view points has approached zero. When folks show up what do they complain about? Usually that their view points aren't tolerated, that the board is an echo chamber of ideas, things like that right? And the counter argument? No one is preventing anyone besides scammers and porn sites from posting.
Could we use more diverse voices? Certainly. Is the discussion when someone does participate often quick to dissolve into dismissal or even hostility? Is much of what now takes place intended to provoke rather than discuss? I think so. We have elevated forums where good faith discussions are enforced. But those are often little more than blogs. The "why" behind that isn't as simple as saying we should have more diverse participation though.
That said I do struggle with the concern being driven by folks who know very little about the actual reporting and are instead expecting balanced reporting to be cable news style partisan shouting matches and gotcha games.
While you continue to be display how utterly disconnected from reality your mind is (No doubt due to severe TDS), allow me to shed some light on the board for anyone who is still fortunate enough to be able to think rationally and still have the ability to be balanced.
I don't care that the NPR numbers are 87-0. I wouldn't care if the numbers were 932-0. I wouldn't care if they hired the entire staff on the View. I don't care what they write/say. This is America after all, and they ought to be able to say/write whatever they want.
(Here is where I would ask folks who still have the ability to think rationally to do so): Why should I, a politically right American citizen, have my tax dollars going to support such a thing? Why should half of the country, who hold politically right views, have their tax dollars going to support an organization that is so clearly one sided.
The answer, to 99% of reasonable Americans, is that it shouldn't.
Except this is a strawman complaint based on a poorly informed understanding fueled by partisan newsertainment. Or, have you taken the time to even read the paper Bret linked to?
It's a BS complaint. There are tons of things the government spends money on that I receive no benefit from. Everybody does. So whining that your tax dollars go to something you don't use is infantile.
I didn't want 45 million spent on a poorly organized military parade that benefitted only one person, but I don't hear ceeboo complaining about that damned nonsense. And I think we all know why. He doesn't give a damn about his taxes going to NPR. He cares that his brand of misinformation wins the day.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.
