|
NPR
Apr 18, 2024 12:53:53 GMT -5
Post by james on Apr 18, 2024 12:53:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 18, 2024 13:10:14 GMT -5
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 18, 2024 13:10:14 GMT -5
Just a word or two from a word specialist. Wonkette isn't journalism in the straight-news sense--it's a political blog, and explicitly dedicated, right up front, to being "filthy, hilarious, [and] liberal." We've been warned. (And if that isn't enough, the copyright notice is for Commie Girl Industries Inc. For the irony-impaired, that's pretty clearly a joke.)
Now, it isn't quite the kind of current-events satire as, say, The Onion or The Borowitz Report, because behind the often-sophomoric language there is actual analysis/commentary that can be followed up on. That is one of the traits I value in op-ed/analysis: claims that I can check, arguments that I can track and vet, sources and evidence I can validate. This does put Wonkette in the journalism department, broadly considered. The same taxonomic principles that allow, say, the National Review or the WSJ op-ed pages to be journalism. Manners don't come into it; process does.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 18, 2024 13:46:12 GMT -5
Post by John B on Apr 18, 2024 13:46:12 GMT -5
(apparently nobody but Evan noticed I posted this above, either)
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 18, 2024 14:17:50 GMT -5
Post by james on Apr 18, 2024 14:17:50 GMT -5
I seem to have got a bit distracted. Soz!
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 18, 2024 15:20:17 GMT -5
Post by millring on Apr 18, 2024 15:20:17 GMT -5
Obviously Berliner made the internet debating error of creating a list with a weak point or two. So now NPR fans can continue to believe in the objectivity of NPR because someone found a way to rebut a point or two (and some of the rebuttals are pretty squirrely. "SEE! I'm not a registered Democrat! Ha ha ha!" Wanna take bets on how he votes?) If you think the preponderance of the way NPR has presented the stories that Berlniner is criticizing aren't just as biased as Berliner characterizes them , then I suggest you either aren't listening to NPR, or you are a fish who never even considered that the medium you live in is water.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 18, 2024 15:23:38 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Marshall on Apr 18, 2024 15:23:38 GMT -5
Fish shit in the water they breath, you know.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 18, 2024 15:29:04 GMT -5
Post by John B on Apr 18, 2024 15:29:04 GMT -5
Obviously Berliner made the internet debating error of creating a list with a weak point or two. So now NPR fans can continue to believe in the objectivity of NPR because someone found a way to rebut a point or two (and some of the rebuttals are pretty squirrely. "SEE! I'm not a registered Democrat! Ha ha ha!" Wanna take bets on how he votes?) If you think the preponderance of the way NPR has presented the stories that Berlniner is criticizing aren't just as biased as Berliner characterizes them , then I suggest you either aren't listening to NPR, or you are a fish who never even considered that the medium you live in is water. It's hard to convey, "I agree with a lot of the points you have made, but not all of them" adequately.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 18, 2024 16:10:45 GMT -5
via mobile
howard lee likes this
Post by TKennedy on Apr 18, 2024 16:10:45 GMT -5
Well just like Fox News no one is forcing critics to listen to NPR. I must admit I will occasionally listen to “Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me”.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 18, 2024 16:53:28 GMT -5
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 18, 2024 16:53:28 GMT -5
Obviously Berliner made the internet debating error of creating a list with a weak point or two. <snip> If you think the preponderance of the way NPR has presented the stories that Berlniner is criticizing aren't just as biased as Berliner characterizes them , then I suggest you either aren't listening to NPR, or you are a fish who never even considered that the medium you live in is water. Does "a weak point or two" mean Inskeep's specific rebuttals of three of Berliner's major examples of flawed or biased NPR coverage? (I count eight that would be bullet points in a PowerPoint presentation.*) What I see Inskeep pointing to is Berliner's failure to back large claims with sufficient evidence--and where there is evidence, to say that it's badly flawed or erroneous (the Latinx claim, for example). I followed some of these stories as they were covered by NPR, BBC, MSNBC, CNN, WaPo, NYTimes, AP, Forbes, the Guardian, and whatever other sources seemed to have decent sourcing and presentation, and I don't recall seeing the kind of bias Berliner insists exists. (No, I don't watch Fox or read the NY Post--they're beyond "both sides.") Fish might not know what they're breathing, but I'm not a fish. * number of Adam Schiff interviews Mueller Report Hunter Biden laptop COVID virus source Don't Say Gay bill Latinx registered voter numbers in newsroom (in 2021) Gaza coverage/minimizing antisemitism
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 19, 2024 5:07:25 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by millring on Apr 19, 2024 5:07:25 GMT -5
I followed some of these stories as they were covered by NPR, BBC, MSNBC, CNN, WaPo, NYTimes, AP, Forbes, the Guardian, and whatever other sources seemed to have decent sourcing and presentation, and I don't recall seeing the kind of bias Berliner insists exists. I'm not surprised.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 19, 2024 11:52:57 GMT -5
Dub likes this
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 19, 2024 11:52:57 GMT -5
John, how many sources do I need to attend to before I'm cleared of living in a bubble or an echo chamber? FWIW, I take a lot of Rachel Maddow with a pinch of salt*, and I follow up comment threads precisely to get a sense of what people-who-aren't-me make of a given story or op-ed. For me, one crucial element in any analysis/commentary piece is how easy it is to follow up on assertions and vet evidence. That's why I found Inskeep's piece useful--he is specific and he shows at least some of his work. As does Erik Wemple in today's WaPo, where the focus is on one segment of Berliner's piece, the treatment of "Russiagate"-- www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/18/npr-russia-coverage-berliner/I've also quickly worked my way through part of the (currently 1800+) comments to see what counterpoints or omissions readers see in Wemple's analysis. One odd and interesting motif (which I've noticed in other comment threads) is posters who claim to be liberal and find NPR not liberal enough--right next to the expected NPR-is-a-leftist-opinion-mill comments. (That alone tells me something about the difficulty of locating the precise political position of a media outlet.) Let me be precise (again) about what I see in Berliner's essay. He makes two kinds of complaints and links them in a familiar way. One is that NPR's internal governance has become dominated by "progressive" intellectual-cultural concerns and protocols (the kind currently gathered under rubrics like "DEI" or, more scornfully, "woke"). The other is that, as a result of this progressive environment, the institution's protocols, attitudes, and finally work product have become unreliable, skewed, and partisan. The argument is a familiar one: an institution drifts into or is taken over by leftist viewpoints, resulting in various kinds of dysfunction. It is not unreasonable to start an examination of Berliner's critique at the work product end, and that is where Inskeep and Wemple start. Then there's the trickier bit, the insider's view of the institutional culture that has supposedly ruined NPR as a trustworthy news organization. Much of Berliner's picture of policies and managerial attitudes is familiar to me from my half-century inside the university. A public-radio version of this comes from former-NPR producer/editor Alicia Montgomery piece in Slate: slate.com/business/2024/04/npr-diversity-public-broadcasting-radio.htmlMontgomery's take is particularly useful because her role was producer/editor, which means she can supply detailed and specific accounts of how various sausages got made. I also find her take on the touchiness of race-related stories and issues useful. And her take on the "core editorial problem at NPR" strikes me as on the money: an abundance of caution that often crossed the border to cowardice. NPR culture encouraged an editorial fixation on finding the exact middle point of the elite political and social thought, planting a flag there, and calling it objectivity. That would more than explain the lack of follow-up on Hunter Biden’s laptop and the lab-leak theory, going full white guilt after George Floyd’s murder, and shifting to indignant white impatience with racial justice now. And I find myself especially resonating with her closing paragraph: I guess that’s why I think Uri is most wrong about NPR’s relationship with the rest of the country. It’s a very accurate reflection of America right now, a place where people won’t admit that good intentions don’t always yield good results, and would rather hide behind the myth of its excellence than do the hard work of making it a reality. Neither NPR nor universities are perfect institutions. Good intentions are easy. Good analysis is hard. And good results are very hard. * It's not that hard to see where one of her conclusions goes farther than the evidence she presents.
|
|
|
NPR
Apr 19, 2024 13:31:11 GMT -5
Post by millring on Apr 19, 2024 13:31:11 GMT -5
"I'm not biased because it's true" -- begging the question -- is the hardest, most subtle of all the logic fallacies. It's even hard to describe. And certainly the hardest to complain about, given the fact that each and every one of the logic fallacies is, nevertheless, the better part of wisdom. That's why polite people agree to disagree and fools dig in.
|
|