|
Post by theevan on Apr 10, 2024 13:44:04 GMT -5
I read it. I used to be an avid listener, still listen a bit. A bit more to the BBC. But Uri speaks the truth. I think his indictment paints the whole of journalism in general. I realize that's too broad a brush, but it applies in general as evidenced by "where do we go for news now?".
Makes me sad. All (well, most) the wonderful features I so loved are gone. That etymology thing years ago was wonderful. I miss it and so many others.
Uri vividly confirms what Millring has been saying for years.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 10, 2024 14:04:24 GMT -5
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 10, 2024 14:04:24 GMT -5
The answer is, you don't go to just one place. In fact, spreading out beyond just the news is more than useful--it's necessary for making sense of, say, what's going on in the Middle East or infectious-disease control or gender matters or even AI stuff.
BTW, lefty-guilty news shops are not the whole problem. Big chunks of the audience are gullible, angry, and NOT all that well-informed about the subjects that surround current events. When "do the research" means "read some Facebook posts, watch some YouTube videos, and listen to Joe Rogan," we're in deep shit.
Edit: I inserted the crucial NOT that Bill caught. Gotta work on my proofreading skills,
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 10, 2024 14:30:30 GMT -5
Post by billhammond on Apr 10, 2024 14:30:30 GMT -5
Big chunks of the audience are gullible, angry, and (not) all that well-informed about the subjects that surround current events.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 10, 2024 14:42:12 GMT -5
Post by millring on Apr 10, 2024 14:42:12 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I don't get where the flippant, pejorative lingo (lefty-guilty, righty-whatever) fits the problem or the discussion. I think the article is describing a very real problem. I understand the impulse to dismiss it because of what you perceive as its source. I'd only suggest the possibility that that's part of the problem. It's become reasonable to dismiss everything that comes from sources that the sources we have trusted are telling us are untrustworthy. So we see an event, an issue, a problem .... maybe it's come to our attention because some of us haven't completely tailored our social media habits to never upset our philosophical sensibilities...but then, dammit, there's places like the Soundhole where we can actually hear things we had tried so hard to filter out. And, dammit, it sounds sorta sensible. And from there RARELY do the facts of the issue come into play. From there on it is simply source vs. source.
I can't help but read and watch and listen to left-leaning sources. If I turn on the nightly news I see it. Full blown. (I don't know whether to cry or vomit when I see how the press has turned on Israel).
But do you guys ever go to expressly right-leaning sources? I don't mean FOX News. You'd have to be left-leaning to believe that most of the right gets their news from FOX. Seriously. Russell immediately impuned -- not the facts brought up in the article -- but rather, the source. Immediately. First post in, first point made. Sources.
Do you guys ever read expressly right wing sources? I don't mean have you seen right wing memes on facebook. I don't mean have you heard what a right wing source has said because you heard it or read in on a left-leaning source. I mean, do you regularly read a right wing source?
If your news source regularly uses any of these terms: climate deniers, science denier, election denier, misogynist, anti-vax, homophobic, bigoted, racist, (I could go on)...
I can just about guarantee that your source of information about what the likes of me believes is from left-leaning sources and not from any "horses mouth". And by "horses mouth" I'm not talking about google searching for Chinese Robbers. You WILL find them. It's not even hard.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 10, 2024 15:02:30 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Marshall on Apr 10, 2024 15:02:30 GMT -5
Uri vividly confirms what Millring has been saying for years. No, No. Anything but that. (Actually it’s quite an in-dike-ment {bad joke} of NPR. Heads should roll over this [if it proves out]. It corrupts the good work they do. )
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 10, 2024 15:25:52 GMT -5
Post by millring on Apr 10, 2024 15:25:52 GMT -5
Uri vividly confirms what Millring has been saying for years. No, No. Anything but that. (Actually it’s quite an in-dike-ment {bad joke} of NPR. Heads should roll over this [if it proves out]. It corrupts the good work they do. ) What do you mean "if it proves out"? What did he mention historically that is untrue?
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 10, 2024 16:49:59 GMT -5
Post by Shannon on Apr 10, 2024 16:49:59 GMT -5
... But do you guys ever go to expressly right-leaning sources? John, this isn't a challenge, but an honest question: what right-leaning news sources do you like to visit? I'm certainly right-leaning myself, and have despaired over finding a news source to provide balance to the prevailing sources I see. I get a daily email from 1440 Daily Digest that I think is pretty good, but I would like to develop some other sites or sources. I'd like to hope that I could get a more realistic accounting of news events by having multiple sources with a variety of viewpoints. By the way, I agree with you completely about the treatment of Israel.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 10, 2024 16:52:22 GMT -5
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 10, 2024 16:52:22 GMT -5
John, I form my understanding of what you believe from what you actually post--there is no "likes of" you. Just you.
I can hear from actual climate deniers, science deniers, election deniers, misogynists, anti-vaxxers, homophobes, and bigots without leaving the St. Cloud city limits, so when I hear their ideological-cultural cousins so described in "the media," I know how to compare the labels with the actions. I can tell a slur from a descriptor.
And there is a distinction to be made between accepting the accuracy and good faith of Berliner's account of the NPR environment and not finding The Free Press the first place I would turn to for a reasoned analysis of cultural-political matters. As for the "likes of" crowd, read through that comment thread and tell me that some of those labels don't fit some of the posters.
BTW, the press didn't "turn on Israel"--the Israel's current right-wing coalition government did the turning, toward actions that please the worst side of Zionist-nationalist ideology. My reading is that Hamas perpetrated a monstrous crime that was designed to provoke an over-reaction, and Netanyahu & co. gave them what they wanted.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Apr 10, 2024 16:52:24 GMT -5
There's news and there's commentary. I don't really care whether there's a liberal bias in either, although for different reasons.
I feel satisfied that I get the news I need. Just about all the available sources are capable of accurately reporting the facts. Sometimes there's a little spin to the account but I recognize it when I see it.
I don't need commentary but I find some of it useful and/or enjoyable. If there's more liberal commentary available than conservative commentary, why should I see that as a problem? Life isn't fair. If you don't like the viewpoint being expressed, don't read it or listen to it. I watched an interview of George Will the other night. He expressed the view that conservatism has ceased to have any real ideas in the era of Trump. Maybe that accounts for some of the perceived imbalance.
Maybe some people think I'm being brainwashed and subtly pushed to the left by all the liberal voices. I don't.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Apr 10, 2024 17:30:54 GMT -5
I just think that if everyone had an online subscription to the Star Tribune, the world would be a much better place.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 10, 2024 17:42:05 GMT -5
Post by millring on Apr 10, 2024 17:42:05 GMT -5
... But do you guys ever go to expressly right-leaning sources? John, this isn't a challenge, but an honest question: what right-leaning news sources do you like to visit? I'm certainly right-leaning myself, and have despaired over finding a news source to provide balance to the prevailing sources I see. I get a daily email from 1440 Daily Digest that I think is pretty good, but I would like to develop some other sites or sources. I'd like to hope that I could get a more realistic accounting of news events by having multiple sources with a variety of viewpoints. By the way, I agree with you completely about the treatment of Israel. On one thing I will agree vehemently with Russell: There really isn't any news source I trust. I listen to or read or watch the news and then I try to make sense of it. I trust my education. I try not to dismiss things simply because they make me uncomfortable. I try to remain aware of what I don't know and can't know, and hope that that humbles me sufficiently (though it probably doesn't). I filter much of what I read or hear or watch through the filter of my theological background and training. I tried to word that carefully because I'm trying to not say that I filter it through my religious belief. I don't. I'm not religious (probably to a fault). My theological training raised me to be a skeptic (I probably didn't need the prompting -- I was pretty much born this way ). But I believe there is truth. Not that I'll know it completely, but I know not to dismiss seeking it. Here's a big one: My theological training taught me that faith is NOT an epistemology, rather, faith is simply how I live because of what I believe. And what I believe is what I learn to know. I don't believe anything by faith. And I approach the news the same way. An expert on counterfeit money (it's been said) doesn't learn how to identify counterfeit money by seeing lots of counterfeit money. An expert on counterfeit money is such an expert because they can identify real money. I've lately been enjoying the Humble Skeptic podcasts very much.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 10, 2024 22:38:56 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Marshall on Apr 10, 2024 22:38:56 GMT -5
I like 1440 too, sometimes. Rather Sgt. Friday-ish. “Just the facts, Ma’am.”
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 11, 2024 5:00:21 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by millring on Apr 11, 2024 5:00:21 GMT -5
And there is a distinction to be made between accepting the accuracy and good faith of Berliner's account of the NPR environment and not finding The Free Press the first place I would turn to for a reasoned analysis of cultural-political matters. Then why, in the context of this discussion, bring into question the source if not to tie the article to it and thereby discredit the article?
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 11, 2024 6:25:11 GMT -5
Post by howard lee on Apr 11, 2024 6:25:11 GMT -5
As far as most news sources go these days, I'd like to invoke the immortal words of Alvy Singer: "I had heard that "Commentary" and "Dissent" had merged and formed "Dysentery."
I read and listen to everything with my skeptic cap on. With chin strap fastened.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 11, 2024 6:34:11 GMT -5
via mobile
millring likes this
Post by theevan on Apr 11, 2024 6:34:11 GMT -5
And there is a distinction to be made between accepting the accuracy and good faith of Berliner's account of the NPR environment and not finding The Free Press the first place I would turn to for a reasoned analysis of cultural-political matters. Then why, in the context of this discussion, bring into question the source if not to tie the article to it and thereby discredit the article? When has that not been the M.O.?
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 11, 2024 7:11:26 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Marshall on Apr 11, 2024 7:11:26 GMT -5
No, No. Anything but that. (Actually it’s quite an in-dike-ment {bad joke} of NPR. Heads should roll over this [if it proves out]. It corrupts the good work they do. ) What do you mean "if it proves out"? What did he mention historically that is untrue? The proof is in the pudding, as I always say. I like to take a skeptical view of everything I read/hear. It could be a Chat/gpt article for all I know. Yes, I find this article very damning. Have a nice day.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Apr 11, 2024 7:33:33 GMT -5
I'll offer a few thoughts that have been prompted by this thread but that are not directly responsive to the issue posed by it.
I think people on both sides of our political division sometimes underestimate the collective good sense and wisdom of the American people. When large numbers of people support political positions that we disagree with, it's tempting to say it's because they've been misinformed and manipulated. "They just don't know any better." I heard that view offered during the 2016 election by a liberal Democrat as an explanation of why lots of people supported Trump. I heard that view offered by Bill O'Reilly as an explanation of why people kept voting for Democrats who promised them "free stuff." An assumption underlying such remarks is that most people are suggestible and malleable and easily duped by political propagandists. If you think that, bias in the press may be a major concern.
I don't think that. I've long thought that the American people have mostly made the right calls in presidential elections during my lifetime, even when I disagreed with the result. Sometimes we need a conservative president as a corrective to liberal excesses. Sometimes we need a liberal president as a corrective to conservative inaction. The citizenry, acting collectively, have usually made that decision pretty well, on balance.
I think of the electorate as being a large jury. I've tried a lot of cases to a jury. The juries have reached the just result far more often than not. These are committees of ordinary people. Any one of them may be a fool but a dozen of them are probably going to do the sensible thing. They can see through bullshit arguments just as most Americans can see through bullshit electioneering.
Usually. Not always. Collectively we're not dumb but we're not infallible and I don't think we'd be immune to a skillful use of the Big Lie.
At least up to a point, though, my reaction to claims of press bias is, in part, that we should give the American people a little more credit. Another part of my reaction is that there's no reason to think that it's somehow unfair for most media to tilt one way rather than another. There's no reason why we should expect a perfect balance. This can be a way of blaming the press for the fact that most Americans disagree with us.
|
|
|
Post by howard lee on Apr 11, 2024 7:45:32 GMT -5
What do you mean "if it proves out"? What did he mention historically that is untrue? The proof is in the pudding, as I always say. I like to take a skeptical view of everything I read/hear. It could be a Chat/gpt article for all I know. Yes, I find this article very damning. Have a nice day.
Marshall: the proof is not in the pudding. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I'm just sayin'.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 11, 2024 8:52:42 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by millring on Apr 11, 2024 8:52:42 GMT -5
I'll offer a few thoughts that have been prompted by this thread but that are not directly responsive to the issue posed by it. I think people on both sides of our political division sometimes underestimate the collective good sense and wisdom of the American people. When large numbers of people support political positions that we disagree with, it's tempting to say it's because they've been misinformed and manipulated. "They just don't know any better." I heard that view offered during the 2016 election by a liberal Democrat as an explanation of why lots of people supported Trump. I heard that view offered by Bill O'Reilly as an explanation of why people kept voting for Democrats who promised them "free stuff." An assumption underlying such remarks is that most people are suggestible and malleable and easily duped by political propagandists. If you think that, bias in the press may be a major concern. I don't think that. I've long thought that the American people have mostly made the right calls in presidential elections during my lifetime, even when I disagreed with the result. Sometimes we need a conservative president as a corrective to liberal excesses. Sometimes we need a liberal president as a corrective to conservative inaction. The citizenry, acting collectively, have usually made that decision pretty well, on balance. I think of the electorate as being a large jury. I've tried a lot of cases to a jury. The juries have reached the just result far more often than not. These are committees of ordinary people. Any one of them may be a fool but a dozen of them are probably going to do the sensible thing. They can see through bullshit arguments just as most Americans can see through bullshit electioneering. Usually. Not always. Collectively we're not dumb but we're not infallible and I don't think we'd be immune to a skillful use of the Big Lie. At least up to a point, though, my reaction to claims of press bias is, in part, that we should give the American people a little more credit. Another part of my reaction is that there's no reason to think that it's somehow unfair for most media to tilt one way rather than another. There's no reason why we should expect a perfect balance. This can be a way of blaming the press for the fact that most Americans disagree with us. I agree, except for the fact that the press has always empowered itself with the claim of objectivity. I've said all along that I don't expect unbiased news. It's not even possible. But don't kid ourselves. The news as it currently exists is not news at all. It is advocacy for a particular world view.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Apr 11, 2024 9:28:15 GMT -5
So, every workday for the past 50 years, I have sat down at my desk to advocate a certain world view, and all my colleagues have, as well?
Funny, I always thought we were just curious people, looking to find out what is new, eager to learn more every day and to get the word out clearly and accurately to our readers.
|
|