|
Post by Cornflake on Apr 16, 2024 12:21:20 GMT -5
Both usages make sense. "Proof" in this context means "test." The real test of whether a pudding is well made lies in the result--the pudding itself. Ergo the proof is in the pudding. The fact that the newer adage alters an older one doesn't mean it's wrong. In this case it's more concise.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 16, 2024 12:24:38 GMT -5
Post by howard lee on Apr 16, 2024 12:24:38 GMT -5
Both usages make sense. "Proof" in this context means "test." The real test of whether a pudding is well made lies in the result--the pudding itself. Ergo the proof is in the pudding. The fact that the newer adage alters an older one doesn't mean it's wrong. In this case it's more concise.
Thank you, Professor Cornflake. 😃
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 17, 2024 16:50:55 GMT -5
Post by billhammond on Apr 17, 2024 16:50:55 GMT -5
AP excerpt
NEW YORK — A National Public Radio editor who wrote an essay criticizing his employer for promoting liberal views resigned on Wednesday, attacking NPR's new CEO on the way out.
Uri Berliner, a senior editor on NPR's business desk, posted his resignation letter on X, formerly Twitter, a day after it was revealed that he had been suspended for five days for violating company rules about outside work done without permission.
''I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems'' written about in his essay, Berliner said in his resignation letter.
Katherine Maher, a former tech executive appointed in January as NPR's chief executive, has been criticized by conservative activists for social media messages that disparaged former President Donald Trump. The messages predated her hiring at NPR.
NPR's public relations chief said the organization does not comment on individual personnel matters.
The suspension and subsequent resignation highlight the delicate balance that many U.S. news organizations and their editorial employees face. On one hand, as journalists striving to produce unbiased news, they're not supposed to comment on contentious public issues; on the other, many journalists consider it their duty to critique their own organizations' approaches to journalism when needed.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 17, 2024 17:17:34 GMT -5
Post by millring on Apr 17, 2024 17:17:34 GMT -5
A Katherine Maher, a former tech executive appointed in January as NPR's chief executive, has been criticized by conservative activists for social media messages that disparaged former President Donald Trump. The messages predated her hiring at NPR. What a peculiar way to frame it.
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Apr 17, 2024 19:18:34 GMT -5
If I hadn't read this thread, I wouldn't notice any change in NPR news coverage than what it was before.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 17, 2024 19:56:10 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Marshall on Apr 17, 2024 19:56:10 GMT -5
Wonder if he’ll go to work for Fox.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 17, 2024 21:44:57 GMT -5
Post by james on Apr 17, 2024 21:44:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 17, 2024 22:24:20 GMT -5
Post by epaul on Apr 17, 2024 22:24:20 GMT -5
A Katherine Maher, a former tech executive appointed in January as NPR's chief executive, has been criticized by conservative activists for social media messages that disparaged former President Donald Trump. The messages predated her hiring at NPR. What a peculiar way to frame it. Well, grumble, ok, you have a point. It is more than peculiar (it is gratuitous) . The sentence "...criticized by conservative activists..." does make it seem like only a few nut job fringies on the right have criticized the new CEO's appointment (based on her very public political stances). It is especially peculiar as the gist of the article is that Uri Berliner, a certified, raised by lesbian liberal, is the article-noted criticizer. He is not only criticizing the new CEO, but is quitting his NPR job in protest . (hint, so not just a limited fringe of wacko conservative activists (who have nothing to do with the story or the controversy surrounding the story) are criticizing the new CEO, but a concerned, non-wacko, long term, raised by lesbian, employee of NPR. A non-wacko employee who is concerned that NPR risks going wacko on the other end of the spectrum. And he and his criticism is the point of the entire brouhaha (and this article). It is an inhouse fight. (no wacko activists on the right needed; no story, or interest, on that end). You owe me, John.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 18, 2024 0:02:18 GMT -5
I'm not going to track the entire Wonkette piece now (other tasks beckon), but if we subtract the snarkiness (which is, to be honest, a lot of the appeal), there remain counter-assertions that match my recollections of coverage of various stories by NPR. It's one thing to kvetch about guilty-liberal programs and sentiments inside the organization, but another to claim that the entire NPR environment has been compromised by liberal groupthink.
And call it questioning the source, but seeing Christopher Rufo's name sets off alarms. As it should, since Rufo not only runs ideological propaganda/attack campaigns, he provides color commentary on them while they're in progress. It's almost as though he's marketing his propaganda chops while exercising them. "We are driving the narrative," he says.
In other comments on other matters, Rufo has made it clear that what he does best is branding--though maybe "demonizing" is more accurate. For example, of critical race theory, he Tweeted (3/15/21):
He is up-front and unembarrassed by his work--though he does make a point of calling himself a journalist, rather than a propagandist or polticial operative. But, as my father used to say, "The truth is not in him."
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 18, 2024 5:05:50 GMT -5
Post by millring on Apr 18, 2024 5:05:50 GMT -5
This is what passes for adult commentary: How can you guys STAND this kind of thing? Really.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 18, 2024 7:10:05 GMT -5
Post by Marshall on Apr 18, 2024 7:10:05 GMT -5
I don't.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Apr 18, 2024 7:20:20 GMT -5
Berliner offered a useful critique of his employer's shortcomings. He didn't do it in the right way but that's a nit. As I've said, I largely agree with his critique. NPR has come to resemble a humorless preacher who constantly upbraids us for our failure to achieve perfect social justice. Some changes to its approach are in order.
It's dismaying to see what has happened to his critique, though. Culture warriors turned it into ammunition. ("Burn NPR down.") That prompted a defensive reaction by NPR. ("We didn't do anything wrong, ever.") Sheesh.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 18, 2024 9:40:09 GMT -5
Post by james on Apr 18, 2024 9:40:09 GMT -5
The Wonkette piece contains links to several interesting and informative reponses to and refutations of Uri Berliner's assertions and accusations from his co-workers and others. Things I'd not seen elsewhere. In the interests of fairness and of being more widely informed, I think they are worth reading. The gift links to the increasingly disappointing NYT, are handy too.
Unlike for Millring, the sweary language in Marty Reynold's article is not a problem for me. Sometimes people swear and I think their writing is not less worth reading on account of that.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 18, 2024 10:27:02 GMT -5
theevan likes this
Post by John B on Apr 18, 2024 10:27:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 18, 2024 10:31:59 GMT -5
Post by John B on Apr 18, 2024 10:31:59 GMT -5
The Wonkette piece contains links to several interesting and informative reponses to and refutations of Uri Berliner's assertions and accusations from his co-workers and others. Things I'd not seen elsewhere. In the interests of fairness and of being more widely informed, I think they are worth reading. The gift links to the increasingly disappointing NYT, are handy too. Unlike for Millring, the sweary language in Marty Reynold's article is not a problem for me. Sometimes people swear and I think their writing is not less worth reading on account of that. I find the swearing, and the accompanying flippancy, to be distracting. The words an author chooses to use are (or should be) a conscious choice; to use those most appropriate to convey one's point. If the words chosen are designed to shock or show others how cool and hip one might be, I tend to discount the author just as much as I might discount an author because the publication source is suspect. When the author chooses to grow up I might pay attention. I also suspect Millring objects not so much to the language as to the overall context and tone.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 18, 2024 11:17:47 GMT -5
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 18, 2024 11:17:47 GMT -5
A WaPo piece that incorporates more pieces of the extended conversation: www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/04/17/uri-berliner-npr-free-press-bari-weiss/ Included in it are a number of detailed reactions and analyses, including a link to Steve Inskeep's fairly detailed reading, in which he says he shows his work. steveinskeep.substack.com/p/how-my-npr-colleague-failed-at-viewpointInskeep's take is that Berliner's "story is written in a way that is probably satisfying to the people who already believe it, and unpersuasive to anyone else—a mirror image of his critique of NPR." I had a similar reaction on my initial read-through, though I didn't articulate it that way to myself. (If I had, it probably would have been "preaching to the choir," the choir being the Free Press management and audience.) The crucial parts of Berliner's journalistic indictment are under-sourced and impressionistic rather than precise and specific--and they echo a number of attitudes and assumptions found in the comment threads on both the WaPo and Inskeep pieces. The WaPo thread in particular has a bunch of commenters who find NPR either center-right or plain-old-right. If it's possible to locate an institution's actual ideological position from where the vectors of its critics' complaints cross, NPR must be fairly centrist. Or maybe just 21st-century-bourgeois-liberal, whatever that turns out to be.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Apr 18, 2024 11:19:41 GMT -5
I find that swearing and using aggressive language turns me off to the perpetrator's message. Sure, much in this world causes us to think severely negative thoughts. And our knee jerk is to respond demonstratively. But if you want to make a valid point, you will degrade you argument by resorting to foul language. In fact, the use of such language probably covers for a lack of real understanding.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,872
Member is Online
|
NPR
Apr 18, 2024 11:44:00 GMT -5
Post by Dub on Apr 18, 2024 11:44:00 GMT -5
I too am turned off by crude speech in journalism though I don’t find it offensive in certain real life conversations. It tells me the journalist thinks that’s how I (we?) speak in normal conversation with friends and the journalist wants to seem like a casual friend.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 18, 2024 11:49:33 GMT -5
Dub likes this
Post by james on Apr 18, 2024 11:49:33 GMT -5
The articles linked in the Reynolds Wonkette piece are informative and interesting. Among various others, the Fritschner and Inskeep stuff were, in my opinion, responses and perspectives worth hearing.
I have no problem with Reynolds' exasperated and sweary language. Often it resonates with and amuses me. His being exasperated and sweary does not mean he is uninformed. .
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 18, 2024 12:41:14 GMT -5
Post by Cornflake on Apr 18, 2024 12:41:14 GMT -5
Inskeep's piece makes me realize that my previous statements about Berliner being right were wrong. What I took to be the gist of his critique was right.
"I find the swearing, and the accompanying flippancy, to be distracting. The words an author chooses to use are (or should be) a conscious choice; to use those most appropriate to convey one's point. If the words chosen are designed to shock or show others how cool and hip one might be, I tend to discount the author just as much as I might discount an author because the publication source is suspect. When the author chooses to grow up I might pay attention."
I agree.
|
|