NPR suspends veteran editor as it grapples with his public criticism(npr.org)
npr.org
NPR suspends veteran editor as it grapples with his public criticism
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/16/1244962042/npr-editor-uri-berliner-suspended-essay
859 comments
This. As someone who's probably center-right, I used to listen to NPR a lot because they'd often offer new perspectives on things. But now, they offer the same perspective, over and over and over again - and so I usually turn them off.
I feel like a person who’s been eating only one food group for the past couple of years and has developed a scurvy-like disorder.
My mind is craving thoughtful, non-partisan, deeply intellectual conservative analysis of current events.
Not cult of personality American GOP pop conservatism, not the dumb-dumb outrage machine new media personalities, but rather seriously legitimate academic right wing thought leadership to expand and challenge my thinking about the world. I honestly don’t know where to find it.
My mind is craving thoughtful, non-partisan, deeply intellectual conservative analysis of current events.
Not cult of personality American GOP pop conservatism, not the dumb-dumb outrage machine new media personalities, but rather seriously legitimate academic right wing thought leadership to expand and challenge my thinking about the world. I honestly don’t know where to find it.
The GoodFellows podcast by the Hoover Institute is high quality. [0]
The group is composed of former National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster, an economist and a historian, so you get diverse intellectual conservative perspectives.
[0] https://www.hoover.org/publications/goodfellows
The group is composed of former National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster, an economist and a historian, so you get diverse intellectual conservative perspectives.
[0] https://www.hoover.org/publications/goodfellows
I find that a lot of in-the-weeds economics podcasts and publication tend to hew pretty close to reality in their analysis. Mainly because ideological bent, unless it has an economic basis backed by data, is largely worthless, or even harmful. They don't tend to cover everything, but they do provide a nice reference point to judge other news sources by.
I'm a big fan of the Dispatch. Solid center-right reporting with newsletters and podcasts.
National Review is further right but still pretty good.
National Review is further right but still pretty good.
>academic
there’s your problem, academia skews overwhelmingly leftist
there’s your problem, academia skews overwhelmingly leftist
I have a theory that highly intelligent conservatives are much more competitive than cooperative and so choose careers with access to the most money/power/respect. So you'll see a lot of conservative bankers, financiers, doctors, executives, lawyers, etc. This group has an outsized desire to see lower taxes on high earners, so they are big supporters of low taxes (aka small government).
This theory explains why there are not a lot of conservative academics or scientists. Those careers are often low earning and more for the public good, so are more cooperative overall (even if they might be quite cutthroat in their own way).
It also begs the question that perhaps studying something deeply enough to get a PhD leaves a person with a perspective that is less compatible with certain viewpoints. Also, lower taxes for a college professor probably would be a net negative, as their college would be getting less government funding.
This theory explains why there are not a lot of conservative academics or scientists. Those careers are often low earning and more for the public good, so are more cooperative overall (even if they might be quite cutthroat in their own way).
It also begs the question that perhaps studying something deeply enough to get a PhD leaves a person with a perspective that is less compatible with certain viewpoints. Also, lower taxes for a college professor probably would be a net negative, as their college would be getting less government funding.
That's not an outlandish hypothesis. I'm from a family of medical doctors and entrepreneurs. They are all very conservative, while I'm more of a classical liberal.
I gave up working in the tech industry to pursue a PhD with the hopes of becoming a professor. Considering I research NLP, I could be making top dollar in industry, but have opted for the academia route. My family mostly don't understand and view the PhD as a diversion. Despite securing a postdoc at Cornell, they still ask me to reconsider working in industry so I can become rich and powerful, which they equate with fulfillment in life.
I gave up working in the tech industry to pursue a PhD with the hopes of becoming a professor. Considering I research NLP, I could be making top dollar in industry, but have opted for the academia route. My family mostly don't understand and view the PhD as a diversion. Despite securing a postdoc at Cornell, they still ask me to reconsider working in industry so I can become rich and powerful, which they equate with fulfillment in life.
What you have here is actually only a hypothesis since to be a theory it has to have passed at least some means testing. A more probable reality is that as with Mr. Berliner, all the conservative or even skeptical liberal voices have been suspended, deplatformed, shunned, systematically lied about, fact cked by the woke mob and found wanting. They’re denied equal opportunity by the DEI committee, ostracized or outright fired for daring to question “the narrative”, exercise their constitutional right to free speech or actually tell the truth.
Twenty yeas ago I was a A regular contribution to NPR. I considered it a factual though left leaning arbiter of real news. Now it is little different than MSNBC or CNN as a mouthpiece for democratic party woke-ism that will never admit the truth of their complicity in pushing Hillary’s package deal with the DNC, 50 pseudo-intelligence officials, Adam Schiff’s perjured testimony to the US public and all the other dirty tricks performed by those tasked with taking down a president. The shenanigans have only accelerated and NPR is at the vanguard of providing suppressive fire for perhaps the least competent, most dangerous, unliked and least accountable President in our history. If our federally subsidized organizations fail to recognize their part in this progressive destruction of our social fabric this nation will soon cease to exist.
Where were you on January 6th, sir?
You have lost me. I cannot find a connection between your post and the op description of how NPR reported the events mentioned. Can you enlighten me?
Being more educated makes you more progressive...
Says a lot about modern conservatisme doesnt it?
Says a lot about modern conservatisme doesnt it?
There is a big difference between academic diploma / position and being educated. The gap was clearly demonstrated recently by Claudine Gay.
maybe it’s really saying something about modern education
DemocracyNow.org. Listener supported, first-person guests, giving voice to largely silenced voices, daily show, 20+ years on air, syndicated on many local airwaves or via podcasts or video on their website. Pretty much the best news source on earth.
I read The Flip Side, it’s a newsletter that takes a single issue and compares the response across a variety of political leanings. They recently went paid which is unfortunate but the $18/yr price is worth it. They don’t really get you “away from” outrage politics but it does add a softer, more thoughtful layer on top of it.
Not an ad, just a happy reader.
One thing I have noticed again and again since reading the news letter is how often the GOP and Dems just talk completely past each other. They will have their own talking points about an issue that shoot completely over the other talking points from the other side. Quite interesting to see it happen in near real time.
Not an ad, just a happy reader.
One thing I have noticed again and again since reading the news letter is how often the GOP and Dems just talk completely past each other. They will have their own talking points about an issue that shoot completely over the other talking points from the other side. Quite interesting to see it happen in near real time.
If you are not limited to current events, I suggest the Natural Law institute for your cravings: https://www.propertarianism.com/
Richard Hanania's substack is intellectual, non-partisan and conservative.
Richard "black-people-are-animals" Hanania?
Hanania also has similarly scathing things to say about low class and low end white people. He's not partisan at all, or if he is, he's biased against the more "pathetic" parts of humanity, if you wish to put it like that, rather than having a Dem/Rep bias.
> but rather seriously legitimate academic right wing thought leadership to expand and challenge my thinking about the world. I honestly don’t know where to find it.
you won't find it, because there is none. it's ultimately "fuck you pay me", and it's a great deal if you're in the side saying "pay me". Or a rehash of the same Christian virtues that have have been repeated for centuries.
The point of conservative-ism is that it doesn't change. by definition you're not going to get expansion and growth and new.
you won't find it, because there is none. it's ultimately "fuck you pay me", and it's a great deal if you're in the side saying "pay me". Or a rehash of the same Christian virtues that have have been repeated for centuries.
The point of conservative-ism is that it doesn't change. by definition you're not going to get expansion and growth and new.
Niskanen Center my friend !
They do it all:
1) libertarians accepting (reasonably) big government is good
https://www.niskanencenter.org/freedom-government-part-one/
2) why ideology and utopia should not be part of your vocabulary:
https://www.niskanencenter.org/public-policy-utopia/
3) arguments for conservative pro-welfare policy
https://www.niskanencenter.org/libertarians-conservatives-st...
https://time.com/6258610/niskanen-center-bipartisanship-thin...
4) Income guarantees (UBI) and means-testing
https://www.niskanencenter.org/guaranteed-income-for-the-21s...
5) their philosophy in a nutshell: the free market welfare state
https://www.niskanencenter.org/the-free-market-welfare-state...
They do it all:
1) libertarians accepting (reasonably) big government is good
https://www.niskanencenter.org/freedom-government-part-one/
2) why ideology and utopia should not be part of your vocabulary:
https://www.niskanencenter.org/public-policy-utopia/
3) arguments for conservative pro-welfare policy
https://www.niskanencenter.org/libertarians-conservatives-st...
https://time.com/6258610/niskanen-center-bipartisanship-thin...
4) Income guarantees (UBI) and means-testing
https://www.niskanencenter.org/guaranteed-income-for-the-21s...
5) their philosophy in a nutshell: the free market welfare state
https://www.niskanencenter.org/the-free-market-welfare-state...
Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson is good if you like interviews. It's like Charlie Rose meets conservatism. Full episodes on YouTube.
Uncommon Knowledge or Tyler Cowen
William Buckley and his contingent died off around the turn of the century. I don't know what would bring those kind of folks out of hiding, if they even exist any longer. The magazine is still around.
They actually represent about half the country, 80% of the military, 95% of middle America. They aren’t hiding, they’re just busy keeping America operational doing their jobs. They aren’t career activists, they’re raising their families, building and creating things. They are just deplatformed, hidden and ostracized by the media, elites, Hollywood, professorial crowds and the woke warriors.
123% of statistics are made up on the spot.
That's the historical right maybe...
Butnthe current conservative right is actively working to destroy thr Is, not making it run.
That's democrats and centrists that are trying to make the country work.
Butnthe current conservative right is actively working to destroy thr Is, not making it run.
That's democrats and centrists that are trying to make the country work.
You appear to be confusing Buckley with Trump/Fox-level folks—not the same group. Buckley and his ilk were educated elites and intellectually-oriented, at least on the surface. We lost a lot when they were overrun with the current mainstream "conservative" folks.
Look up the John Birch Society and George Wallace for example. National Review was able to discredit that similar level of discourse back in the day.
Look up the John Birch Society and George Wallace for example. National Review was able to discredit that similar level of discourse back in the day.
[deleted]
>My mind is craving ... seriously legitimate academic right wing thought leadership to expand and challenge my thinking about the world. I honestly don’t know where to find it.
No offense, but I just don't see how I can believe you, to believe any statement like this in this technological era. When I felt the same way when I started becoming politically active in my teenage years two decades ago, I went to this cool not-actually-new thing called an internet search engine, looked up right-(and left)-wing thought leaders/authors, think tanks, columnists/commentators, university researchers and etc. These people, just like all other political persuasions of public intellectual, have made website pages, books, papers and journals, conferences and expos, broadcasts of roundtables and interviews, and introductory infotainment pieces specifically for people like you, all in every format and length you can imagine.
All of this at least hundreds of hours of content put together over time is either directly accessible online for free or as easily purchasable as any other product on the web today. If it is true that your teeth are falling out because of low vitamin c, it's because you keep trading the orange in your rations for more hardtack. They're not any more difficult to get than whatever else you're reading right now, you just choose to put something else into your url/search field whenever you are in the mood to read. Right-wing intellectuals even happen to have terms for this phenomenon: "Stated preference" and "revealed preference". You state that you'd prefer to read a balance of political media, but someone observing you would reveal you only ever put the thirty seconds of effort it takes to open media on your computer into material that echoes what you've already read in the past. They point out that, as someone with a stated preference is observed over and over to act differently than it, the odds that the stated preference is a better description of their general mentality due to experimental variation than the preference that seems to be revealed by the observation approaches zero.
If you ever change this preference, though, the mentioned thirty seconds of googling got me these pages of Wikipedia's articles on ideology and activism groups in the united states (where I live, since I don't know where you do) categotized by general philosophy [1] [2]. Whenever I want to know what some corner of the political landscape thinks about current events, I follow some of these articles to their orgs' home page and read their recent materials.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_advocacy_gr...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_organizatio...
No offense, but I just don't see how I can believe you, to believe any statement like this in this technological era. When I felt the same way when I started becoming politically active in my teenage years two decades ago, I went to this cool not-actually-new thing called an internet search engine, looked up right-(and left)-wing thought leaders/authors, think tanks, columnists/commentators, university researchers and etc. These people, just like all other political persuasions of public intellectual, have made website pages, books, papers and journals, conferences and expos, broadcasts of roundtables and interviews, and introductory infotainment pieces specifically for people like you, all in every format and length you can imagine.
All of this at least hundreds of hours of content put together over time is either directly accessible online for free or as easily purchasable as any other product on the web today. If it is true that your teeth are falling out because of low vitamin c, it's because you keep trading the orange in your rations for more hardtack. They're not any more difficult to get than whatever else you're reading right now, you just choose to put something else into your url/search field whenever you are in the mood to read. Right-wing intellectuals even happen to have terms for this phenomenon: "Stated preference" and "revealed preference". You state that you'd prefer to read a balance of political media, but someone observing you would reveal you only ever put the thirty seconds of effort it takes to open media on your computer into material that echoes what you've already read in the past. They point out that, as someone with a stated preference is observed over and over to act differently than it, the odds that the stated preference is a better description of their general mentality due to experimental variation than the preference that seems to be revealed by the observation approaches zero.
If you ever change this preference, though, the mentioned thirty seconds of googling got me these pages of Wikipedia's articles on ideology and activism groups in the united states (where I live, since I don't know where you do) categotized by general philosophy [1] [2]. Whenever I want to know what some corner of the political landscape thinks about current events, I follow some of these articles to their orgs' home page and read their recent materials.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_advocacy_gr...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_organizatio...
I have liberal friends who, before this essay appeared, told me that they'd stopped listening to NPR because of its slide into advocacy rather than reporting news.
It's happening everywhere, people no longer can help themselves in professional situations. They must tell us what to think, rather than help (or teach us) how to think.
For example, I don't remember any overt politics at high school, but ours feeds a steady diet. Entertainment is another area.
For example, I don't remember any overt politics at high school, but ours feeds a steady diet. Entertainment is another area.
In my K-12 public school years, the propaganda was just a dab. The schools were well-meaning and at least tried to educate us.
These days, though, the social engineering seems front and center.
These days, though, the social engineering seems front and center.
That’s the perfect word: exhaustion. Every nth (for some small value of n) segment is on a progressive zeitgeist topic, the vast majority of them are not newsworthy, those that are are mostly unnecessarily projecting on top of a newsworthy story, and they seem designed simply to elicit an emotional response.
Give me less 1A, and more Reveal or Snap Judgement. 1A is probably the poster child for transition from interesting content from marginalized voices that informs listeners into whatever it is today, which is circling around the drain of angry media told through a calming voice.
I still think that the major national shows like Morning Edition and All Things Considered hit just like they did a decade ago - albeit one dimension of our politics is less deserving of air time of the other, and that is reflected in their coverage.
I still think that the major national shows like Morning Edition and All Things Considered hit just like they did a decade ago - albeit one dimension of our politics is less deserving of air time of the other, and that is reflected in their coverage.
I have had to turn them off numerous times because they play Trump's sound bites too much. I guess they want to exact full impartial coverage but it comes to a point where some swill just doesn't need air time. I'm totally cool with paraphrased coverage but not giving that pig a megaphone.
1A is hot garbage. The lady always interrupts guests if they stray beyond the 2-minute soundbite.
Same. I still listen because, after all, it is still reporting as opposed to other outlets that are pure entertainment. But David Broncochio needs to go and they are over the top when it comes to actively promoting LGBTQ and race division. It is so bad that you have to call it propaganda and question their motives and sanity.
At the end of the day these people at NPR care, and they are compassionate, but I do not find them credible on a lot of topics because they are only employing people who fit in. Economic and science issues? A joke. Horrible.
At the end of the day these people at NPR care, and they are compassionate, but I do not find them credible on a lot of topics because they are only employing people who fit in. Economic and science issues? A joke. Horrible.
Question is..when are we going to see this kind of reckoning and self-analysis at Fox News?
It's a bit of a different category in that NPR is public funded and so has kind of an obligation to represent the public. Fox is owned by the Murdochs and so it's a bit down to them. At least they fired Tucker.
Yeah, or the Wash Post or NYT or MSNBC. As for Fox, listen to the Howard Kurtz show on Sunday mornings, he provides a nice, dare I say "fair and balanced", analysis of media coverage of news stories from the previous week.
Self-awareness - let alone analysis! - is not a part of their or their viewership’s culture. May as well ask when Donald Trump will next reflect on an emotional state not his own.
I gave up NPR a few years ago, after four decades of frequent listening. It has become more difficult to recognize the attributes which made it so useful and insightful, for so long. Once in a while, they run something which reinforces my opinion that they've strayed into the weeds. A recent example: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1197955833
LUSE: I talked to other professors in preparation for this conversation, and something that came up was, like, it's seen by many as a very extreme form of nonviolent direct action.
WOODLY: Yes. I mean, it is the most extreme form of nonviolent direct action because self-immolation is not meant to hurt others. It's not meant to destroy property. It's really meant to use one's own life to make a statement. It's also on a spectrum - right? - like, you know, sort of on a spectrum from, for example, hunger strike. Some people do things like nail parts of their bodies to buildings. And then sort of self-immolation is, like, on that spectrum of the most extreme kinds of nonviolent direct action.I thought it was just me. I put them on every now and then while driving, go “wtf?!”, and switch to listening to audiobooks or music again.
If you want a real WTF put on the local AM right wing talk shows. It does get worse. They straight up spew lies and dog whistle hate on repeat. I can't accuse NPR of lying.
I never listened to those. I used to listen to NPR pretty often while commuting. Nowadays it’s just incessant agenda forcing, 100% of the time. It’s tiresome and, I’d think, counterproductive. I used to donate as well.
As a long time NPR listener who cut them off in 2020 because of a change in my worldview, I do think NPR misses facts because of ideological bias but I take this position from a far Left stance. I broadly label myself as an Anarcho-communist and think that NPR, and other more liberal or progressive sources, largely serve the biases of existing institutional structures - that both conservatives and liberals belong to - rather than challenge them with journalistic integrity founded in expansive coverage of factual narratives. The tendency in NPR's coverage of the Palestinian genocide, the ongoing COVID pandemic, and the climate and ecological emergency are demonstrative of their systemic bias.
Yeah it's state controlled media, why would you (especially an anarchist) expect it to ever go against any core state narratives?
I don't expect it to but that doesn't mean I can't criticise its tendencies when the opportunity arises.
NPR is not a monolithic media organization. In my experience, local NPR stations are one of the best sources of interesting and relevant local news. In contrast, most local TV/Radio news is borderline a crime blotter ginned up to keep people outraged.
Regarding the national NPR newsroom, I think this story will provoke positive change, as indicated in the article. There is no media which every person would consider unbiased, and very few media organizations take action to even attempt to reign in biases. The fact that editors will start reviewing coverage more closely to remove tilt sets a higher bar than all but a few news organizations.
I chuckle thinking about a reporter stepping out of another random news room in the country and spreading outrage that the coverage has a bias. The response would generally be: “Yes, duh.”
Regarding the national NPR newsroom, I think this story will provoke positive change, as indicated in the article. There is no media which every person would consider unbiased, and very few media organizations take action to even attempt to reign in biases. The fact that editors will start reviewing coverage more closely to remove tilt sets a higher bar than all but a few news organizations.
I chuckle thinking about a reporter stepping out of another random news room in the country and spreading outrage that the coverage has a bias. The response would generally be: “Yes, duh.”
I think as shown by similar scandals at NYT and WSJ, that the media press do not accept feedback, and instead will rally around extending and furthering their ideological anti-liberal (authoritarian) monoculture, and instead get rid of dissenting voices.
see James Bennet at NYT (who was fired for publishing a op-ed from a sitting American senator) or even Kevin D. Williamson at the Athletic.
see James Bennet at NYT (who was fired for publishing a op-ed from a sitting American senator) or even Kevin D. Williamson at the Athletic.
I can't see why everybody got so worked up about the op-ed you're referring to. The Times has traditionally been a venue for voices that are not in its constituency, and in this particular case, Cotton wrote such a crazy article that it reduced his credibility significantly in front of the nation.
He proposed using the military to quell protests, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes...
The Atlantic ran an interesting piece about the details of how that op-ed came together.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/tom-cotton...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/tom-cotton...
I think if all op-eds published in the Times were inspected for factual accuracies, they'd find plenty in the ones that align with the Times's employees (the Cotton op-ed has a long preface which basically says "we shouldn't have published this because facts")
Never look NPR or NYT to have an anti-liberal monoculture, I thought they were mostly liberal.
liberal as in leftist, yes.
liberal as in anti-authoritarian, pluralistic, pro-democracy and freedom of speech? Not so much anymore.
> There is no media which every person would consider unbiased, and very few media organizations take action to even attempt to reign in biases.
NPR receives public money. They should be unbiased and objective.
NPR receives public money. They should be unbiased and objective.
If the numbers Berliner revealed about audience losses are correct, the impact is surely being most felt at the local station level. If fewer people are tuning in, fundraising will suffer and cuts are inevitable.
For instance, Boston has two NPR stations, WGBH and WBUR, and both are in trouble. This article talks about declining numbers of live listeners and resistance to digital transformation, but never mentions the issues brought up by Berliner.
https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston-globe/2024/04/11/two-...
For instance, Boston has two NPR stations, WGBH and WBUR, and both are in trouble. This article talks about declining numbers of live listeners and resistance to digital transformation, but never mentions the issues brought up by Berliner.
https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston-globe/2024/04/11/two-...
Every news outlet and broadcast media outlet are losing audience rapidly. There's no evidence of correlation between NPR's coverage and that outcome.
For example, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/04/conserv...
For example, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/04/conserv...
Even if "every news outlet and broadcast media outlet losing audience rapidly", the criticism wasn't about NPR losing audience in general, but about NPR losing audience from a particular side predominantly.
It needs to be repeated that broadcast media is experiencing a bloodbath right now across all areas of the political spectrum. And according to publicly available data, the downwards trend is far more extreme for right-leaning publications[1]. So, pandering to right-leaning audiences is not the winning market strategy at the moment either. It's a lose-lose situation.
Can NPR go too woke? Sure, anything is possible. And maybe they have on radio–I wouldn't know. It certainly doesn't seem to be that way from their website though.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/04/conserv...
Can NPR go too woke? Sure, anything is possible. And maybe they have on radio–I wouldn't know. It certainly doesn't seem to be that way from their website though.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/04/conserv...
That article needs to be interpreted with caution.
Firstly, as they say themselves, their data is misleading because it's comparing with Feb 2020 which was the start of the COVID crisis. Of course news outlets are going to have less traffic in Feb 2024 vs Feb 2020. And although they start by saying there's a bloodbath specifically in right-wing publications, later they admit their dataset yields huge drops also for left-wing publications as well e.g. Slate and The Washington Post are both down ~40%.
Secondly, when they do a quick reality check by asking the owners of one of the sites whether the number for his site is true (a 90% drop!), he tells them it's "laughably inaccurate", feedback they then just ignore rather than trying to work out why there's disagreement.
And although the authors assert that the drop is worse on the right, they don't really show that with data.
They also point out that (assuming they effect they're talking about really does exist) it's probably driven by Facebook and Google manipulating their news feeds to suppress conservative news, not an actual drop in organic demand.
So I think the article can't lead to many conclusions about market strategy other than don't trust Facebook or Google, which everyone on the right knew already.
Firstly, as they say themselves, their data is misleading because it's comparing with Feb 2020 which was the start of the COVID crisis. Of course news outlets are going to have less traffic in Feb 2024 vs Feb 2020. And although they start by saying there's a bloodbath specifically in right-wing publications, later they admit their dataset yields huge drops also for left-wing publications as well e.g. Slate and The Washington Post are both down ~40%.
Secondly, when they do a quick reality check by asking the owners of one of the sites whether the number for his site is true (a 90% drop!), he tells them it's "laughably inaccurate", feedback they then just ignore rather than trying to work out why there's disagreement.
And although the authors assert that the drop is worse on the right, they don't really show that with data.
They also point out that (assuming they effect they're talking about really does exist) it's probably driven by Facebook and Google manipulating their news feeds to suppress conservative news, not an actual drop in organic demand.
So I think the article can't lead to many conclusions about market strategy other than don't trust Facebook or Google, which everyone on the right knew already.
ok, i think we should be skeptical of this piece of data and require this much rigor before we believe the assertion, but then let’s also require the same from the other direction. we don’t have academic peer reviewed papers on why npr is losing listeners either.
either we allow speculation and trust individual anecdotes or we don’t.
all i see is that yes, media across all political spectrums are seeing downturns. the rest of the speculation is just copium by people who believe they know more than insiders who have decades of experience and institutional knowledge.
either we allow speculation and trust individual anecdotes or we don’t.
all i see is that yes, media across all political spectrums are seeing downturns. the rest of the speculation is just copium by people who believe they know more than insiders who have decades of experience and institutional knowledge.
>we don’t have academic peer reviewed papers on why npr is losing listeners either.
No, but we don't need any for the main complaint of the "veteran editor": not that NPR loses listeners period, but that it specifically loses listeners from one side of the political spectrum much more.
So it's not about "why listeners leave?" as much as "why the listenership got as skewed?". For the latter question, "because there has been an increased liberal and Dem partisan and viewpoint bias" can both be factually verified, and seems like an adequate answer.
No, but we don't need any for the main complaint of the "veteran editor": not that NPR loses listeners period, but that it specifically loses listeners from one side of the political spectrum much more.
So it's not about "why listeners leave?" as much as "why the listenership got as skewed?". For the latter question, "because there has been an increased liberal and Dem partisan and viewpoint bias" can both be factually verified, and seems like an adequate answer.
Also, whether the reason for the convervative sites readership drop is Facebook cutting news links in general, or views being banned/not promoted from Facebook and co for "fact checking" reasons or plainly for not aligning with the narrative, I don't think the same mechanism wouldn't explain NPR's case. The editor making the criticism wasn't focused specifically on the website, and I doubt it depended as much on Facebook in the first place.
I don't need a peer reviewed paper to observe a drop in traffic reported by Comscore. That can be taken at face value in the absence of any opposing data in this industry. Editors at The Atlantic are well aware of the state of the marketplace and are very analytical. I used to work there. Beyond that, the conclusion just makes sense when considering the demographics. Why would a population of people who are less trusting of the media consume more media than another population that is more trusting? You can make your own judgment calls of course, but nothing presented here is a convincing rebuttal to people in the know.
KUOW in Seattle seems to be in trouble too. Their sponsors have been getting increasingly cringeworthy. Just last week I heard a long sponsor message from Christian Science. They seem to scraping deeper into the bottom of the barrel and sponsor message seem to be increasing in quantity.
Are you sure it was from Christian Science and not the Christian Science Monitor which has been a long-time sponsor (and if I recall occasional reporting partner) of NPR.
It was a pretty explicit message along the lines of "come discover how to connect with God with us".
Not one is actually going to make you do it though. I’m not sure what the complaint is. You’re mad they paid to sponsor an NPR station?
Not mad, disappointed. It just seems embarrassing for them that they're struggling so hard to live up to their value of being "listener supported" that they have to accept sponsors like this to survive.
I’m still confused.
Are Christians not also listeners?
It sounds to me like you are disappointed that the liberal bubble isn’t as thick as it could be. That even accepting supporting money from the bad people is compromising.
It seems that you are implying that the sponsors of NPR get a say in their programming and reporting? Seems like that is the thing I would be upset about, not that the “wrong people” are supplying the money.
Are Christians not also listeners?
It sounds to me like you are disappointed that the liberal bubble isn’t as thick as it could be. That even accepting supporting money from the bad people is compromising.
It seems that you are implying that the sponsors of NPR get a say in their programming and reporting? Seems like that is the thing I would be upset about, not that the “wrong people” are supplying the money.
It’s NPR, and clearly an atheistic listener there. Are you surprised at this complaint? Christianity is largely anti-science and works against many of the purposes NPR espouses like climate, public health, science and tech, major topics all over NPR. It’s not a stretch to accept this complaint as valid to many left wing rationalist NPR listeners.
The Christian Science Monitor has long had top quality journalism, and sections on religion. What is their relationship with Christian Science (and what is that? is there a unified institution?)?
Christian Science is a church founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1879. They're most famous for believing in faith healing, which is part of a larger collection of beliefs with a "mind/faith over matter" flavor. They have churches throughout New England. In practice, they tend to be pretty mellow in that old-school "New England religious movement" sort of way.
The Christian Science Monitor is a well-respected newspaper associated with the church. The few times I've read a paper copy, there was usually one editorial with a religious theme. Their religion did not otherwise color their reporting.
I am not the least bit suprised that the Christian Science church might support NPR. Demographically, Christian Science members probably have very high overlap with NPR listeners. And they are, after all, a church which is best known for being associated with a newspaper. I would not be the least bit surprised if they donate to NPR mostly because they want to support public radio.
The Christian Science Monitor is a well-respected newspaper associated with the church. The few times I've read a paper copy, there was usually one editorial with a religious theme. Their religion did not otherwise color their reporting.
I am not the least bit suprised that the Christian Science church might support NPR. Demographically, Christian Science members probably have very high overlap with NPR listeners. And they are, after all, a church which is best known for being associated with a newspaper. I would not be the least bit surprised if they donate to NPR mostly because they want to support public radio.
Christian Science Monitor has been my favorite news source for a long time despite not really being religious. It's so objective and fair even on the most contentious of topics, and really tries to understand the human experience.
They were founded by the same woman, Mary Baker Eddy, like a century ago, but today they just have one specifically-cited Christian Science article in each print.
It seems they may have the same owner still, but seems like they very much have editorial independence, judging by the things I read.
They were founded by the same woman, Mary Baker Eddy, like a century ago, but today they just have one specifically-cited Christian Science article in each print.
It seems they may have the same owner still, but seems like they very much have editorial independence, judging by the things I read.
There is, main HQ over in Boston. Both orgs were founded by the same people.
I believe the Monitor offices are right next to the main Christian Science complex/are in it.
I definitely listen to KUOW a lot less than I used to. The main reason is that a few years ago they had a lineup on Saturdays that kept me listening most of the day. It included:
• A Prairie Home Companion [1]
• The Vinyl Cafe [2]
• Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me! [3]
• Says You! [4]
• The Swing Years and Beyond [5]
Those I'm sure were on Saturday. I know I'm missing 4 other programs from Saturday. I remember the following programs as being on weekends at the time, but can't remember which were Saturday and which were Sunday.
• This American Life [6]
• The Moth Radio Hour [7]
• Snap Judgement [8]
• Radiolab [9]
• Freakonomics Radio [10]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Prairie_Home_Companion
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vinyl_Cafe
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wait_Wait..._Don%27t_Tell_Me!
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Says_You!
[5] https://archive.kuow.org/show/swing-years-and-beyond
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_American_Life
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moth
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_Judgment_(radio_program)
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiolab
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics_Radio
• A Prairie Home Companion [1]
• The Vinyl Cafe [2]
• Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me! [3]
• Says You! [4]
• The Swing Years and Beyond [5]
Those I'm sure were on Saturday. I know I'm missing 4 other programs from Saturday. I remember the following programs as being on weekends at the time, but can't remember which were Saturday and which were Sunday.
• This American Life [6]
• The Moth Radio Hour [7]
• Snap Judgement [8]
• Radiolab [9]
• Freakonomics Radio [10]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Prairie_Home_Companion
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vinyl_Cafe
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wait_Wait..._Don%27t_Tell_Me!
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Says_You!
[5] https://archive.kuow.org/show/swing-years-and-beyond
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_American_Life
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moth
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_Judgment_(radio_program)
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiolab
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics_Radio
I was a long time listener and donor to KUOW. My intention was to support local radio, hopefully get some more community pieces, and so on ... and that matched the donation drive pitches.
When they decided to use their cash to empire build and buy a Jazz station for $8M, I completely gave up and could no longer even stomach listening. I like Jazz, but it hardly needs the help. It seemed like an utter betrayal.
When they decided to use their cash to empire build and buy a Jazz station for $8M, I completely gave up and could no longer even stomach listening. I like Jazz, but it hardly needs the help. It seemed like an utter betrayal.
I understand your position. I only want to add that jazz most definitely needs help it is not a financially successful genre for radio. That being said i bet you they bought it on the hopes of getting more revenue and programming and not to save jazz.
But Seattle (and Boston) are very blue areas, the issues that Berliner is suggesting wouldn't seem to apply to those areas, they would seem more likely to apply to the hinterlands. The Boston situation probably implies that they just need to combine the two stations into one.
Mostly because the issues he mentions are not related to the actual reason people are dropping, the reason is _there is a lot of competition for everyone's attention_. Last time I turned on the radio i was a teenager, maybe 20 years ago, with the internet and podcasts there's very little reason to tune in, i have car play in the car and both pocketcasts and spotify, why would I ever tune in?
I listen to a lot of NPR podcasts and contribute to WHYY monthly but I don't think i ever tuned into WHYY, i don't even know the frequency they use :P
Reality is that all media is pretty much toast unless you're some big name like the NYT and this is really sad because i really love the NPR podcasts, but not sure how they can survive long term without the local radios.
I listen to a lot of NPR podcasts and contribute to WHYY monthly but I don't think i ever tuned into WHYY, i don't even know the frequency they use :P
Reality is that all media is pretty much toast unless you're some big name like the NYT and this is really sad because i really love the NPR podcasts, but not sure how they can survive long term without the local radios.
NPR is (or was) one of those "big names like the NYT".
The goal wasn’t really to make a profit so no, definitely not like the NYT. And that might be the demise, had they done something like NPR one much sooner with direct subscriptions it might have been easier to make it work.
I hope they survive though, hard to find content with the same quality and consistency elsewhere.
I hope they survive though, hard to find content with the same quality and consistency elsewhere.
I don't think making a profit has to do with being a "big name" though.
I agree that I really want NPR to thrive!
I agree that I really want NPR to thrive!
I'm probably in the minority here, but I'm trying to get away from digital media. I've got a pretty cool shortwave radio, and am always looking for interesting things to listen to. But, our local NPR station is insufferable at least half the time, so much so that I don't even bother trying it most days. As an aside, we are almost always listening to the NPR classical music station. It's absolutely beautiful, and a gift to listeners everywhere. I just wish they'd give up their jazz Fridays and opera Sundays.
Yeah, this seems more likely than Berliner's political explanation. There are so many podcasts now vying for your auditory attention.
Either that or their ideological fart-huffing has finally alienated even the "very blue" reservoirs.
NPR has always been a very particular neoliberal bent as well, with equal skepticism for leftists as for the right. The both-sidesism and he-said she-said reporting, and the general third-way-ness of it all has always been fucking intolerable for half of the blue party too.
There probably is no org more emblematic of the backslide of journalism into “reporting facts, not taking perspectives” than NPR. They are simply craven, they have no perspective or spine, they stand for nothing, and that makes them instinctually repulsive. Like they literally are the journalists in movies who will happily say whatever their masters want this week. It’s disgusting, you might as well be VOA for all the perspective you’re getting.
Swapping Diane Rehm for JJ Johnson or whatever is emblematic of that change for example. Diane Rehm never let a guest gish-gallop unopposed etc, JJ just went into sputter mode and was like “I don’t think all of that is true but-“ and gets run over again on his own show etc. It’s just bad in an aggressively “it’s your right to feel that way but…” kinda milquetoast way. They stand for nothing and have no position or perspective. And I know that’s the new school of journalism today but jesus christ it’s pathetic to see in action.
What makes a man turn neutral? Unironically.
There probably is no org more emblematic of the backslide of journalism into “reporting facts, not taking perspectives” than NPR. They are simply craven, they have no perspective or spine, they stand for nothing, and that makes them instinctually repulsive. Like they literally are the journalists in movies who will happily say whatever their masters want this week. It’s disgusting, you might as well be VOA for all the perspective you’re getting.
Swapping Diane Rehm for JJ Johnson or whatever is emblematic of that change for example. Diane Rehm never let a guest gish-gallop unopposed etc, JJ just went into sputter mode and was like “I don’t think all of that is true but-“ and gets run over again on his own show etc. It’s just bad in an aggressively “it’s your right to feel that way but…” kinda milquetoast way. They stand for nothing and have no position or perspective. And I know that’s the new school of journalism today but jesus christ it’s pathetic to see in action.
What makes a man turn neutral? Unironically.
I think your response is terrifying. I think you are actually the problem.. and people like you of course. You want a news organization (who should be reporting the facts in a method completely devoid of emotion) to decide to sway their content either to the left or to the right? That is terrifying quite frankly because it's exactly what has happened. NPR is almost perfect like it is, if they would just stop overemphasizing "woke terminology" into every story they publish. Otherwise the stories are fine it's just annoying as hell.
"You are actually the problem" good grief, the vaunted HN manners and couth in action.
I think if they really are losing a lot of listeners (for whatever reason), it must be mostly from exactly those blue areas, because that's where they have a lot of listeners. You can't lose listeners in places you don't already have them!
Just to be clear, when it comes to radio audience, the audience is 100% local stations. NPR does not own any radio spectrum. The structure is that local stations have complete editorial control of their programming so long as it adheres to the principles of the NPR mission and in exchange they get access to the network of content produced by NPR and local affiliates. Bigger affiliates like the ones in Boston produce a lot of local content or even sell back to the national network, while smaller ones are mostly running NPR content. They are also all running their own budgets and revenue operations.
I still listen live on their app when I can, but a lot of their programs are also available in podcast format.
I'm sure its hard to compete with so many alternatives to the same content.
I'm sure its hard to compete with so many alternatives to the same content.
Or possibly their content is far too weighted ;)
Is this really a business model issue? I understood that NPR’s funding primarily comes from corporate sponsors, not listeners or the government. If that’s true, there is less incentive to preserve local affiliates. Consolidation is inevitable, I would imagine.
That's not exactly true. For one, all the local affiliates have their own budgets, their own expenses, revenues and staff. Up until this year, NPR was specifically prohibited from collecting donations from listeners. If you had gone to npr.org and clicked "donate" it would force you to donate to your local affiliate. Affiliates do not give NPR a cut of their donations. Instead they pay (on a sliding scale I think) for the rights to content produced by NPR. If you look at the sources of revenue for any given affiliate, it will probably be mostly donation from listeners. So taken as a whole, public radio is very much paid for by listeners.
Their actual problem would then seem to be this rather complex explanation to a simple question (ie. Where does your money come from / what are your conflicts of interest). Any time I've considered donating, I remember all the "this segment brought to you by ..." and figure they don't need me (and I don't need them).
Donations go straight to the local affiliate who probably did not get any corporate sponsorship and very much need listener support. And besides just saying "corporate sponsor" is not an actual indication of them buying coverage. It doesn't really track that corporations bribed them into being too liberal.
It is kind of comical that NPR made racial and gender diversity their main priority…and still have a listener base that’s much whiter than the country as a whole.
It's getting whiter!
No conflict there if you're used to their New England shows like Car Talk and Wait Wait (* pretending Chicago is New England for the moment). They were always woke, as in constantly making identity jokes about ethnic white people like Jews and Italians.
That’s kind of the opposite of woke.
No, it's the same thing the article is complaining about now - constantly talking about different identity groups. Those are comedy shows so they present things through comedy.
Also, the panelists only ever talk about their own identity group. Non-woke would be talking about other people's.
Also, the panelists only ever talk about their own identity group. Non-woke would be talking about other people's.
I assume the lost is entirety into the cloud of podcasts.
I don't listen to any radio programs anymore and part of that is work from home. But I do listen to NPR programming via podcasts.
Their business model seems to not survive the move to work from home.
It's got nothing to do with politics. It's entirely the same technologies disrupting all media. We have simply stopped wholesale media consumption for the modern network.
I don't listen to any radio programs anymore and part of that is work from home. But I do listen to NPR programming via podcasts.
Their business model seems to not survive the move to work from home.
It's got nothing to do with politics. It's entirely the same technologies disrupting all media. We have simply stopped wholesale media consumption for the modern network.
As an aside, I always wondered why conservative radio always dominated liberal radio. Nearly every conservative pundit has a national show and is syndicated far and wide on AM/FM radio stations. Liberal shows you can't find with a search light. Remember Air America? It lasted two years before a host of scandals and a bankruptcy put it into the "where are they now?" bin as it limped along for another 4 years before shuttering.
But I digress.
Just curious why conservatives still love radio after so many decades and liberals have almost nothing comparable to listen to locally or nationally.
But I digress.
Just curious why conservatives still love radio after so many decades and liberals have almost nothing comparable to listen to locally or nationally.
There is a podcast miniseries called The Divided Dial[0] that answers the question of why conservative radio dominates in America, but very briefly, based on my understanding of their reporting:
1. The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine meant that radio stations no longer had a legal obligation to provide a fair reflection of differing viewpoints on matters of public importance;
2. The elimination of national ownership caps in the 1996 Telecommunications Act enabled a rapid and extreme consolidation of radio stations;
3. These new national radio conglomerates slashed costs by vertically integrating production, creating fewer shows, and rebroadcasting them to all their owned stations;
4. The concept of “format purity” spilled over from music radio into talk radio, causing commercial talk stations to switch from showcasing a variety of opinions to airing one political perspective all day;
5. The conservative talk radio format was perceived as less risky by radio executives, and so that was the format that commercial talk radio switched to.
Air America may have eventually succeeded despite its many other flaws—except they owned no radio stations of their own, so there was no place for them to go in this hyper-consolidated, format-pure commercial market.
[0] https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/divided-dial
1. The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine meant that radio stations no longer had a legal obligation to provide a fair reflection of differing viewpoints on matters of public importance;
2. The elimination of national ownership caps in the 1996 Telecommunications Act enabled a rapid and extreme consolidation of radio stations;
3. These new national radio conglomerates slashed costs by vertically integrating production, creating fewer shows, and rebroadcasting them to all their owned stations;
4. The concept of “format purity” spilled over from music radio into talk radio, causing commercial talk stations to switch from showcasing a variety of opinions to airing one political perspective all day;
5. The conservative talk radio format was perceived as less risky by radio executives, and so that was the format that commercial talk radio switched to.
Air America may have eventually succeeded despite its many other flaws—except they owned no radio stations of their own, so there was no place for them to go in this hyper-consolidated, format-pure commercial market.
[0] https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/divided-dial
I'm libertarian with blue tribe sympathies. Whenever I try listening to NPR, I literally fall asleep. It's just something about the combination of cadence, intonation, and premium mediocre presentation of ideas that just paralyzes me. I'm powerless to stop it. Meanwhile I can listen to reactionary [0] talk radio just fine, and sometimes do just for cringe entertainment value. The bellowing of indignant righteousness is stimulating regardless of whether one agrees with the ideas. I don't know that this explains the overall popularity per se, but take it as one data point.
[0] it's a grave mistake to refer to the current Republican party as conservatives. If anything, actual conservatism these days means supporting the Democratic party - respect for American institutions, the rule of law, strong foreign policy, gradual change, etc. The Democrats are even checking the box of fiscal conservatism compared with the past two decades of ZIRP.
[0] it's a grave mistake to refer to the current Republican party as conservatives. If anything, actual conservatism these days means supporting the Democratic party - respect for American institutions, the rule of law, strong foreign policy, gradual change, etc. The Democrats are even checking the box of fiscal conservatism compared with the past two decades of ZIRP.
I think all the yelling, fear mongering, hate for "the other" on the MAGA based shows just hits your brain different, they will push your buttons whether you enjoy it or it makes you angry at the ignorance, and that can be enjoyable in odd ways. NPR tries to be more reserved and academic, you won't find the cussin' and spittin' that you find on AM talk radio.
Democrats are the rule of law party now? When did that happen?
Every party has its more anarchistic advocacy points and I can't say when the scales tipped in the abstract. But for my own judgement it was when the longstanding issue of police escaping the rule of law finally got attention, and then the Republican party staked out its position in support of the lawlessness.
I imagine at least part of it is age and aversion to change/new technology.
It might just be that conservatives drive more (and that’s how most radio listeners tune in).
If conservatives tend to live in less urban areas, this could definitely be true.
Because many conservatives have blue collar jobs that have them in their car / at a work site by themselves where they can listen.
Whereas progressives seem more likely to listen at a desk, hence the plethora of leftist podcasts.
Whereas progressives seem more likely to listen at a desk, hence the plethora of leftist podcasts.
Blue collar workers used to be overwhelmingly Democrats.
That was back when Democrats talked about class a lot more than they did about race.
(Which, to be fair, they did in part because many early trade unions were openly and blatantly racist.)
(Which, to be fair, they did in part because many early trade unions were openly and blatantly racist.)
> That was back when Democrats talked about class a lot more than they did about race.
Democrats took on race as an issue in the early 1960s, leading the Republican's 'Southern Strategy'. White blue collar workers only shifted to the GOP in the last 10 years, I think, especially for Trump.
Democrats took on race as an issue in the early 1960s, leading the Republican's 'Southern Strategy'. White blue collar workers only shifted to the GOP in the last 10 years, I think, especially for Trump.
> Democrats took on race as an issue in the early 1960s,
That’s a weird way of framing a law that got only 60-40 support among democrats in Congress but 80-20 among republicans.
But it was more of a “Mad Men/Lucky Strikes” situation: https://youtu.be/8Nvf4BteCR4?si=snxZFKB1HmaljUmR. Once both parties supported the civil rights act, the had to campaign on different issues. Democrats turned to a more academic and activist view on race, focused on using government to undo the effects of past discrimination. Legal equality having been achieved, republicans turned to social and religious conservatism.
The more important piece of the puzzle is economics. In the 1950s, Ohio had a median income 57% higher than North Carolina. Illinois was 75% higher than Georgia. That gap started to close dramatically in the 1970s and 1980s, opening the door to republicans coming into the south on a pro-business and deregulation platform. It’s not a coincidence that nearly all of Toyota’s manufacturing facilities in the US except one are in what are now low regulation red states.
That’s a weird way of framing a law that got only 60-40 support among democrats in Congress but 80-20 among republicans.
But it was more of a “Mad Men/Lucky Strikes” situation: https://youtu.be/8Nvf4BteCR4?si=snxZFKB1HmaljUmR. Once both parties supported the civil rights act, the had to campaign on different issues. Democrats turned to a more academic and activist view on race, focused on using government to undo the effects of past discrimination. Legal equality having been achieved, republicans turned to social and religious conservatism.
The more important piece of the puzzle is economics. In the 1950s, Ohio had a median income 57% higher than North Carolina. Illinois was 75% higher than Georgia. That gap started to close dramatically in the 1970s and 1980s, opening the door to republicans coming into the south on a pro-business and deregulation platform. It’s not a coincidence that nearly all of Toyota’s manufacturing facilities in the US except one are in what are now low regulation red states.
That's a weird and extremely sanitized view of what happened. A more accurate explanation is that the Democratic party was a coalition of (mainly) Northern progressives who supported integration, and Southern "Dixiecrats" who were opposed. Following the Act's passage, the Southern coalition switched en masse to the Republican party. Many of these voters continued to oppose racial (and "legal") equality for many years, and in some cases are still do. Even as recently as last year, Alabama had a Congressional map struck down by the US Supreme Court for violations of the Voting Rights Act -- and the Alabama legislature then proceeded to ignore the decision and write a new map with exactly the same deficiencies [1].
[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/alab...
[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/alab...
> Following the Act's passage, the Southern coalition switched en masse to the Republican party.
Except the switch didn’t happen until decades later. Virtually no Dixiecrat switched parties. And Carter won every southern state except Virginia in 1976. He did better in Alabama than in New York. Reagan and George H. W. Bush muddy the analysis because they won everywhere, including deep blue states. But Reagan did better in wealthier, more educated southern metro areas in the south than in presumably more racist rural areas. Clinton won a number of southern states in the 1990s. Republicans didn’t win a majority of southern congressional seats until 1994.
Apart from it making no sense to say Dixiecrats protested Democratic support for the civil rights act by switching to the party that not only supported it more, but supported all the previous civil rights acts, that narrative ignores the actual issues that mattered to voters in the 1980s and 1990s. Abortion, foreign policy (patriotism), and economic policy became defining issues during that time. And on all those fronts, ”new south” voters were more aligned with the Republican position.
Put differently, democrats support for segregation was keeping southern democrats in the party. It was preventing what would otherwise be ideological sorting of a voting bloc that was already more religious conservative, patriotic, and was benefiting economically from deregulation as industry moved from northern states to southern states.
> Many of these voters continued to oppose racial (and "legal") equality for many years, and in some cases are still do.
Nobody opposes legal equality. Many republicans oppose what we now call “equity”—taking race into account to produce racially even results. If you look at “racial resentment” tests, for example, the fundamental difference in attitudes that appears is that liberals have a special sympathy toward black people, while conservatives have equally unsympathetic attitudes towards everyone: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/renos/files/carneyenos.pdf.
Your Alabama example illustrates the point. Alabama is trying to draw a map favorable to republicans for the same reason Maryland draws a map favorable to democrats: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/mary.... Alabama isn’t trying to disadvantage black voters, just as Maryland isn’t trying to disadvantage white voters.
Except the switch didn’t happen until decades later. Virtually no Dixiecrat switched parties. And Carter won every southern state except Virginia in 1976. He did better in Alabama than in New York. Reagan and George H. W. Bush muddy the analysis because they won everywhere, including deep blue states. But Reagan did better in wealthier, more educated southern metro areas in the south than in presumably more racist rural areas. Clinton won a number of southern states in the 1990s. Republicans didn’t win a majority of southern congressional seats until 1994.
Apart from it making no sense to say Dixiecrats protested Democratic support for the civil rights act by switching to the party that not only supported it more, but supported all the previous civil rights acts, that narrative ignores the actual issues that mattered to voters in the 1980s and 1990s. Abortion, foreign policy (patriotism), and economic policy became defining issues during that time. And on all those fronts, ”new south” voters were more aligned with the Republican position.
Put differently, democrats support for segregation was keeping southern democrats in the party. It was preventing what would otherwise be ideological sorting of a voting bloc that was already more religious conservative, patriotic, and was benefiting economically from deregulation as industry moved from northern states to southern states.
> Many of these voters continued to oppose racial (and "legal") equality for many years, and in some cases are still do.
Nobody opposes legal equality. Many republicans oppose what we now call “equity”—taking race into account to produce racially even results. If you look at “racial resentment” tests, for example, the fundamental difference in attitudes that appears is that liberals have a special sympathy toward black people, while conservatives have equally unsympathetic attitudes towards everyone: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/renos/files/carneyenos.pdf.
Your Alabama example illustrates the point. Alabama is trying to draw a map favorable to republicans for the same reason Maryland draws a map favorable to democrats: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/mary.... Alabama isn’t trying to disadvantage black voters, just as Maryland isn’t trying to disadvantage white voters.
> Nobody opposes legal equality.
Possibly that's true now. It was quite different in the South 50 and 60 years ago. (I grew up mostly in the South during that time period: my USAF dad was stationed at different places there.) And as a South Asian, you likely would not have counted as "white" — maybe legally you would have been, but as a practical matter an awful lot of people would have treated you and your family as "colored."
Possibly that's true now. It was quite different in the South 50 and 60 years ago. (I grew up mostly in the South during that time period: my USAF dad was stationed at different places there.) And as a South Asian, you likely would not have counted as "white" — maybe legally you would have been, but as a practical matter an awful lot of people would have treated you and your family as "colored."
> And as a South Asian, you likely would not have counted as "white" — maybe legally you would have been, but as a practical matter an awful lot of people would have treated you and your family as "colored."
If you think I’m the least bit phased by that: I had to defend my interracial marriage at a Bangladeshi wedding last year, in Canada. (And by that I mean I deflected about there not being any Bangladeshi girls in Chicago because we don’t make a scene about stuff like that.)
I have never met a white Republican remotely as racist as Indians, Bangladeshis, Arabs, Vietnamese, and Chinese people I’ve encountered.
If you think I’m the least bit phased by that: I had to defend my interracial marriage at a Bangladeshi wedding last year, in Canada. (And by that I mean I deflected about there not being any Bangladeshi girls in Chicago because we don’t make a scene about stuff like that.)
I have never met a white Republican remotely as racist as Indians, Bangladeshis, Arabs, Vietnamese, and Chinese people I’ve encountered.
> I have never met a white Republican remotely as racist as Indians, Bangladeshis, Arabs, Vietnamese, and Chinese people I’ve encountered.
So maybe even white Republicans are "woke" by comparison? :-)
PS do you mean "the least bit fazed"?
So maybe even white Republicans are "woke" by comparison? :-)
PS do you mean "the least bit fazed"?
>> Nobody opposes legal equality.
> Possibly that's true now
It's clearly not true: Acts of hate and discrimination are at highs; White nationalism and Christian nationalism are at multi-generational highs, with advocates in the White House and Congress. Leading news organizations promote replacement theory; laws openly discriminate against immigrants, liberals, and LGBTQ+ people.
Much of that is not done by and otherwise not uncommon in the Republican party.
> Possibly that's true now
It's clearly not true: Acts of hate and discrimination are at highs; White nationalism and Christian nationalism are at multi-generational highs, with advocates in the White House and Congress. Leading news organizations promote replacement theory; laws openly discriminate against immigrants, liberals, and LGBTQ+ people.
Much of that is not done by and otherwise not uncommon in the Republican party.
Quite the opposite. The only thing at “multi-generational highs” is non-white support for the supposedly “racist” GOP candidate: https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/27/politics/minority-voters-bide.... (Obviously all these folks aren’t listening to enough NPR.)
Discrimination is at such historic lows that democrats have literally had to redefine terms like “racism” and “white supremacy.” In the 1990s that meant wearing a klan hood. Now it means opposing violent rioting. In terms of substantive policy, Donald Trump is literally to the left of where Bill Clinton was just a couple of decades ago. Possibly to the left of where Obama was when he was campaigning in 2008.
Because there is no meaningful opposition to legal equality, democrats have had to switch to policing thoughts and speech about race and gender and trying to socialize children into thinking about race and gender in certain ways. Look at how they react to Trump: they fixate on his lack of manners, not any particular policy. There’s no sweeping civil rights bill they support that he opposes. They don’t want to increase immigration, or give amnesty to illegal immigrants, or defund the police, or grant reparations, etc. (At least they won’t admit that publicly.) They simply don’t like how Trump talks about immigrants, crime, etc.
Discrimination is at such historic lows that democrats have literally had to redefine terms like “racism” and “white supremacy.” In the 1990s that meant wearing a klan hood. Now it means opposing violent rioting. In terms of substantive policy, Donald Trump is literally to the left of where Bill Clinton was just a couple of decades ago. Possibly to the left of where Obama was when he was campaigning in 2008.
Because there is no meaningful opposition to legal equality, democrats have had to switch to policing thoughts and speech about race and gender and trying to socialize children into thinking about race and gender in certain ways. Look at how they react to Trump: they fixate on his lack of manners, not any particular policy. There’s no sweeping civil rights bill they support that he opposes. They don’t want to increase immigration, or give amnesty to illegal immigrants, or defund the police, or grant reparations, etc. (At least they won’t admit that publicly.) They simply don’t like how Trump talks about immigrants, crime, etc.
The assertion I was responding to stated that republicans opposed legal equality. Obviously it’s true in the years immediately after segregation ended the democrats who supported it continued to support it.
There is no question that: 1) segregationists defected from the Dem party en masse circa the 1960s; 2) the defection was an immediate and direct reaction to Democratic actions on segregation on the national level; 3) the South flipped from D to R in the aftermath. The GP's one-liner is truer than your detailed rebuttal.
The South was solidly blue from the end of Reconstruction. A literal contiguous blue block in every single election from 1880-1948; sometimes the only blue states on the map. https://www.businessinsider.com/united-states-map-presidenti...
The defection was a messy period between 1948-1980. Following desegregation of the armed forces in 1948, the "States Rights Democratic Party" candidate for president carried 4 states against the Democrats and Republicans on a segregationist platform. In the next 10 elections Southern states defected several times from the mainline Democratic party candidates for segregation-friendly candidates -- sometimes to Republicans (Goldwater) but also to other third-party candidates (George Wallace, "American Independence Party") or to blue-dog Dems who weren't even running (eg Byrd).
By 1980 the South was solidly red; sometimes the only red states on the map. (At the national level. The transition was slower at state level and curious artifacts still remain today.)
To recap: Solid blue south from 1880-1948. Clear defection in 1848-1980. Solid red south from 1980-present. The defection was clearly led by segregationists leaving the Democratic party.
It's true that segregation lost support over time, and that Republicans drew lines to avoid becoming the party of segregation per se, and that other things were happening. In 1968 former Democrat George Wallace won the South with a brand-new third party, but he had had verbally moderated from "segregation now, segregation forever" in 1963 to leading his 1968 platform with "As this great nation searched vainly for leadership while beset by riots, minority group rebellions, domestic disorders..." [1] Wallace tried to run as Goldwater's Republican VP, but was rejected as too racist for the Republican party. Wallace's platform wasn't just race dog-whistles; it also listed student protests, war, taxes, etc.
Still, for the most part, the parent comment marshals technical truths to obscure the historical arc. It's true that segregationists wouldn't defect to the candidate that supports civil rights more; by 1980 this does not describe Republican candidates. It's true that most segregationists not change their local party affiliation; they did start voting against national Democratic candidates, and eventually for Republican candidates. Carter and Clinton are irrelevant to this historical arc.
By 1980, Republicans had lured white Southerners from the Democratic party (for president). They did so with a platform and candidates that reflected Southern racial attitudes, which were not segregationist by 1980. (The Democrats won the South with a segregationist platform from 1880-1948.) People can argue about the centrality of Republican appeals to the South across various axes, but there is a flawless historical record about the centrality of desegregation in ending the Democratic solid south, and it's not an accident that the Republicans are the modern party of "Total And Complete Shutdown Of Muslim [Immigration]" etc. Racial politics are a thing in the world, a thing in the US, and a thing in the D/R divide in every era.
[1] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/american-independe...
The South was solidly blue from the end of Reconstruction. A literal contiguous blue block in every single election from 1880-1948; sometimes the only blue states on the map. https://www.businessinsider.com/united-states-map-presidenti...
The defection was a messy period between 1948-1980. Following desegregation of the armed forces in 1948, the "States Rights Democratic Party" candidate for president carried 4 states against the Democrats and Republicans on a segregationist platform. In the next 10 elections Southern states defected several times from the mainline Democratic party candidates for segregation-friendly candidates -- sometimes to Republicans (Goldwater) but also to other third-party candidates (George Wallace, "American Independence Party") or to blue-dog Dems who weren't even running (eg Byrd).
By 1980 the South was solidly red; sometimes the only red states on the map. (At the national level. The transition was slower at state level and curious artifacts still remain today.)
To recap: Solid blue south from 1880-1948. Clear defection in 1848-1980. Solid red south from 1980-present. The defection was clearly led by segregationists leaving the Democratic party.
It's true that segregation lost support over time, and that Republicans drew lines to avoid becoming the party of segregation per se, and that other things were happening. In 1968 former Democrat George Wallace won the South with a brand-new third party, but he had had verbally moderated from "segregation now, segregation forever" in 1963 to leading his 1968 platform with "As this great nation searched vainly for leadership while beset by riots, minority group rebellions, domestic disorders..." [1] Wallace tried to run as Goldwater's Republican VP, but was rejected as too racist for the Republican party. Wallace's platform wasn't just race dog-whistles; it also listed student protests, war, taxes, etc.
Still, for the most part, the parent comment marshals technical truths to obscure the historical arc. It's true that segregationists wouldn't defect to the candidate that supports civil rights more; by 1980 this does not describe Republican candidates. It's true that most segregationists not change their local party affiliation; they did start voting against national Democratic candidates, and eventually for Republican candidates. Carter and Clinton are irrelevant to this historical arc.
By 1980, Republicans had lured white Southerners from the Democratic party (for president). They did so with a platform and candidates that reflected Southern racial attitudes, which were not segregationist by 1980. (The Democrats won the South with a segregationist platform from 1880-1948.) People can argue about the centrality of Republican appeals to the South across various axes, but there is a flawless historical record about the centrality of desegregation in ending the Democratic solid south, and it's not an accident that the Republicans are the modern party of "Total And Complete Shutdown Of Muslim [Immigration]" etc. Racial politics are a thing in the world, a thing in the US, and a thing in the D/R divide in every era.
[1] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/american-independe...
Democrats of the time, when making the decision, knew they would lose the South. They did and the Republicans pursued what was/is called the "Southern Strategy", appealing to the former Dems.
> That’s a weird way of framing
It's not weird; it's conventional political history retold over and over.
> That’s a weird way of framing
It's not weird; it's conventional political history retold over and over.
> Democrats of the time, when making the decision, knew they would lose the South.
But they didn’t—the 1976 map looked like the “solid south” with Carter winning every southern state except Virginia. In 1980, Reagan won Alabama like he did New York. But Carter won most of the rural parts of the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_presidentia.... Carter did better in Alabama in 1980 than he did in New York.
> That’s a weird way of framing It's not weird; it's conventional political history retold over and over.
Told by who to who? It’s a self-serving narrative told by liberals to liberals that doesn’t work timing-wise and ignores the much more important effect of economic changes.
But they didn’t—the 1976 map looked like the “solid south” with Carter winning every southern state except Virginia. In 1980, Reagan won Alabama like he did New York. But Carter won most of the rural parts of the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_presidentia.... Carter did better in Alabama in 1980 than he did in New York.
> That’s a weird way of framing It's not weird; it's conventional political history retold over and over.
Told by who to who? It’s a self-serving narrative told by liberals to liberals that doesn’t work timing-wise and ignores the much more important effect of economic changes.
Dems didn't "know" they'd be losing the South, but LBJ certainly feared it. He, of course, was the one who pushed the Civil Rights Act through the Southern-dominated Senate; Bill Moyers recounted that: "When he [LBJ] signed the act he was euphoric, but late that very night I found him in a melancholy mood as he lay in bed reading the bulldog edition of the Washington Post with headlines celebrating the day. I asked him what was troubling him. "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come," he said." [0]
Long-term changes in voting patterns don't happen in one election, and they're a multi-variate phenomenon. In 1976, Carter was the incumbent, a Southerner himself, and a beneficiary of the Watergate fallout and the Nixon pardon. Reportedly, his own pollster "Patrick Caddell stated that televisions ads by the Carter campaign in the south 'were blatant-waving the bloody rebel flag'. To avoid being viewed as a liberal in the south Carter campaigned with [George] Wallace and voice[d] opposition to welfare and support for balanced budgets and national defense. He also campaigned with segregationist senators James Eastland and John C. Stennis." [1]
Before that, in 1964, Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act, and in that year's presidential race, he carried the Deep South, less Florida with its New York retirees, plus his home state of Arizona — and that was it. Previously, the South had been solidly Democratic since Reconstruction (except for war-hero Ike).
In 1968, "segregation forever" third-party candidate George Wallace carried most of the Deep South.
The 1972 election pitted the supposed peacenik Democratic candidate George McGovern against incumbent Nixon.
In 1980, Reagan famously announced his support for "states' rights" and excoriated "welfare queens," both of which of course were dog whistles to Southern segregationists. [2]
[0] https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/x-o9qAO_oEEC?hl=en&gb...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#1976_electio...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Reagan's_Nes...
Long-term changes in voting patterns don't happen in one election, and they're a multi-variate phenomenon. In 1976, Carter was the incumbent, a Southerner himself, and a beneficiary of the Watergate fallout and the Nixon pardon. Reportedly, his own pollster "Patrick Caddell stated that televisions ads by the Carter campaign in the south 'were blatant-waving the bloody rebel flag'. To avoid being viewed as a liberal in the south Carter campaigned with [George] Wallace and voice[d] opposition to welfare and support for balanced budgets and national defense. He also campaigned with segregationist senators James Eastland and John C. Stennis." [1]
Before that, in 1964, Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act, and in that year's presidential race, he carried the Deep South, less Florida with its New York retirees, plus his home state of Arizona — and that was it. Previously, the South had been solidly Democratic since Reconstruction (except for war-hero Ike).
In 1968, "segregation forever" third-party candidate George Wallace carried most of the Deep South.
The 1972 election pitted the supposed peacenik Democratic candidate George McGovern against incumbent Nixon.
In 1980, Reagan famously announced his support for "states' rights" and excoriated "welfare queens," both of which of course were dog whistles to Southern segregationists. [2]
[0] https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/x-o9qAO_oEEC?hl=en&gb...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#1976_electio...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Reagan's_Nes...
> In 1980, Reagan famously announced his support for "states' rights" and excoriated "welfare queens," both of which of course were dog whistles to Southern segregationists
I’m going to start with this point first because it’s the problem with the whole line of thinking. Democrats use the notion of “dog whistling” to brand Republican policies racist based on the premise that republicans are racist. But their support for that latter assertion is that republicans support supposedly racist policies. The reasoning is completely circular (and unfalsifiable).
Republicans opposed the creation of the welfare state in the 1930s when pro-segregation democrats introduced welfare programs. They likewise opposed the expansion of federal government at the expense of the states by vicious racists like Woodrow Wilson. So what are we to infer from Republicans’ continued support of the same policies before and after democrats abandoned their support for segregation?
To circle back to your first point, why would LBJ fear losing the south? Why would southern racist democrats switch to the party that had supported the civil rights act even more strongly? That’s like Muslims switching to the GOP because they’re mad at Biden for his support of Israel.
I’m going to start with this point first because it’s the problem with the whole line of thinking. Democrats use the notion of “dog whistling” to brand Republican policies racist based on the premise that republicans are racist. But their support for that latter assertion is that republicans support supposedly racist policies. The reasoning is completely circular (and unfalsifiable).
Republicans opposed the creation of the welfare state in the 1930s when pro-segregation democrats introduced welfare programs. They likewise opposed the expansion of federal government at the expense of the states by vicious racists like Woodrow Wilson. So what are we to infer from Republicans’ continued support of the same policies before and after democrats abandoned their support for segregation?
To circle back to your first point, why would LBJ fear losing the south? Why would southern racist democrats switch to the party that had supported the civil rights act even more strongly? That’s like Muslims switching to the GOP because they’re mad at Biden for his support of Israel.
> based on the premise that republicans are racist
They offer plenty of evidence, and so do the Republicans themselves, some of whom openly embrace white nationalism, Christian nationalism, replacement theory, etc. Openly defying convention and saying racist things is commonplace and cliche. Going back further, someone in this thread even quoted the interview about school busing.
They offer plenty of evidence, and so do the Republicans themselves, some of whom openly embrace white nationalism, Christian nationalism, replacement theory, etc. Openly defying convention and saying racist things is commonplace and cliche. Going back further, someone in this thread even quoted the interview about school busing.
> Why would southern racist democrats switch to the party that had supported the civil rights act even more strongly?
Because the GOP — having had their electoral asses whipped for decades, looking for a way back into power, and with the John Birch Society and Liberty Lobby crowd (backed by ultra-rich folks wanting tax cuts) looking for a seat at the party's table — started espousing "conservative" positions and dog-whistling to the racists.
In essence, the GOP said, "OK, southerners, we get it that YOU don't like what we've been offering for years, and WE don't like that we keep losing elections, so we'll start offering what YOU like."
Once again: Life isn't a snapshot or freeze-frame, it's a movie. The Dems used to be the party of racism and the GOP the party of freedom and equal opportunity; over time, the parties switched roles.
Because the GOP — having had their electoral asses whipped for decades, looking for a way back into power, and with the John Birch Society and Liberty Lobby crowd (backed by ultra-rich folks wanting tax cuts) looking for a seat at the party's table — started espousing "conservative" positions and dog-whistling to the racists.
In essence, the GOP said, "OK, southerners, we get it that YOU don't like what we've been offering for years, and WE don't like that we keep losing elections, so we'll start offering what YOU like."
Once again: Life isn't a snapshot or freeze-frame, it's a movie. The Dems used to be the party of racism and the GOP the party of freedom and equal opportunity; over time, the parties switched roles.
To me it seemed like the Democrats changed, not the blue collar workers.
A lot of it is race, Democrats started essentially calling all White people racist, i.e. blaming all white people for generational racism. Tons of people who were not racist did not appreciate that - personally I believe it's why Hillary lost, her "basket of deplorables" comment lost her a lot voters.
A lot of it is race, Democrats started essentially calling all White people racist, i.e. blaming all white people for generational racism. Tons of people who were not racist did not appreciate that - personally I believe it's why Hillary lost, her "basket of deplorables" comment lost her a lot voters.
At this point, to me the Democrats seem more racist than the Republicans. All you hear from the latter is oldschool liberal egalitarianism, whatever the sincerity; the former are obsessed about race and make everyone else obsessed by proxy with, for example, how they cast white guys as the antagonists in every piece of media.
They did start the kkk… not a shock that it’s part of their party. So glad I’m not in America!
You should probably look up what a "Dixiecrat" is, and where they (and their voters) ended up eventually.
Lee Atwater has this to say about Republican politics of 1980s:
"All that you need to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues that he's campaigned on since 1964, and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster. ... You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger". By 1968, you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the back-burner."
I would say that the present state of the Republican party is very much in line with that, except that race didn't ever truly come onto the back-burner; somehow they're still talking about "those people" all the time.
So, Republicans are the party of white people who are proud that they are white (and annoyed that they can't show their pride openly anymore), while Democrats are the party of white people who feel guilty about it (and annoy everyone else by trying to make everyone aware of how badly they feel about it).
"All that you need to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues that he's campaigned on since 1964, and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster. ... You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger". By 1968, you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the back-burner."
I would say that the present state of the Republican party is very much in line with that, except that race didn't ever truly come onto the back-burner; somehow they're still talking about "those people" all the time.
So, Republicans are the party of white people who are proud that they are white (and annoyed that they can't show their pride openly anymore), while Democrats are the party of white people who feel guilty about it (and annoy everyone else by trying to make everyone aware of how badly they feel about it).
"blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that"
He's "not" saying that, and then he goes and says that.
He's point being that Republicans are most concerned with economic things, but because he things a better economic policy hurts blacks, therefor Republican are racist?
Or, maybe, they just want a better economic policy, and they don't view everything through the lens of race? (i.e. color blind) While Democrats in contrast do view every decision through that lens.
> somehow they're still talking about "those people" all the time.
And "they" being Democrats or Republicans? Because I see Democrats talking about race far more than Republicans.
Your last sentence tells me you view everything through the lens of race, but not everyone does that.
He's "not" saying that, and then he goes and says that.
He's point being that Republicans are most concerned with economic things, but because he things a better economic policy hurts blacks, therefor Republican are racist?
Or, maybe, they just want a better economic policy, and they don't view everything through the lens of race? (i.e. color blind) While Democrats in contrast do view every decision through that lens.
> somehow they're still talking about "those people" all the time.
And "they" being Democrats or Republicans? Because I see Democrats talking about race far more than Republicans.
Your last sentence tells me you view everything through the lens of race, but not everyone does that.
Republicans talk about race all the time, they're just careful to always refer to it by proxy - terms like "young urban males" etc. And Atwater's point is that many Republicans are concerned about those economic things because they are a proxy for race, and they wouldn't really pursue them otherwise.
And no, I don't view everything through the lens of race, and I think that American progressives often end up looking very silly when they try to shoehorn it everywhere. At the same time, it's very obvious from just looking at the American political discourse that racially driven thinking is very pervasive there even when it's not openly mentioned.
I've also heard plenty of explicit racial talk from Republicans - it just happens in environments where they don't need to check themselves. One of my hobbies is guns; my gun collection is well into the double digits, and includes plenty of stuff that'd be referred to as "weapons of war" in your typical progressive publication. Consequently, I spend a fair bit of time in the associated community, which, of course, leans very heavily to the right. And because of my guns, they often automatically assume that I am politically of the same mind as them, and talk to me and around me without the usual checks. What I can tell you I've heard the word "nigger" thrown around quite a bit in those circles, today - but it is okay, you see, because "it just means bad people, so it's not really racist". Some other choice wording includes "those animals" referring to Hispanic immigrants, or "those things" referring to trans folk.
And no, I don't view everything through the lens of race, and I think that American progressives often end up looking very silly when they try to shoehorn it everywhere. At the same time, it's very obvious from just looking at the American political discourse that racially driven thinking is very pervasive there even when it's not openly mentioned.
I've also heard plenty of explicit racial talk from Republicans - it just happens in environments where they don't need to check themselves. One of my hobbies is guns; my gun collection is well into the double digits, and includes plenty of stuff that'd be referred to as "weapons of war" in your typical progressive publication. Consequently, I spend a fair bit of time in the associated community, which, of course, leans very heavily to the right. And because of my guns, they often automatically assume that I am politically of the same mind as them, and talk to me and around me without the usual checks. What I can tell you I've heard the word "nigger" thrown around quite a bit in those circles, today - but it is okay, you see, because "it just means bad people, so it's not really racist". Some other choice wording includes "those animals" referring to Hispanic immigrants, or "those things" referring to trans folk.
> Republicans. All you hear from the latter is oldschool liberal egalitarianism
That seems very hard to reconcile with Donald Trump, overwhelmingly popular party leader, as well as many, many other Republicans who express hatred to contempt and create legalized discrimination against many groups, LGBTQ+ people and immigrants for example.
That seems very hard to reconcile with Donald Trump, overwhelmingly popular party leader, as well as many, many other Republicans who express hatred to contempt and create legalized discrimination against many groups, LGBTQ+ people and immigrants for example.
White blue collar workers switched during Reagan.
And Republicans used to have way more college educated. Both parties seem to have swapped some people.
The rich Republicans figured out the con in the 70's. Lure more non-rich people into your flock and you can eventually take control of Congress with a bloc you'd never be able to build with your own ilk. Then keep them sated by never delivering on promised reforms while blaming the other side.
Those days of drawing distinctions and flaunting moral superiority are over. It’s all one uni party. Time to stop fighting each other.
Much of the same criticisms can be leveled at leading democrats. What they once championed they no longer do and have radically shifted multiple core positions.
The “uni parties” are covered in filth and it benefits them for us to be at each other throats like it was some sports ball game.
Much of the same criticisms can be leveled at leading democrats. What they once championed they no longer do and have radically shifted multiple core positions.
The “uni parties” are covered in filth and it benefits them for us to be at each other throats like it was some sports ball game.
That's simply not true. The party platforms couldn't be much more diametrically opposed than they are these days. I would say almost all criticism can be laid on Republicans who have dropped all pretence of compassion for those who are poor or that don't share their values 100% and it has only intensified with MAGA.
Republicans are the party of poor people now. Democrat support is falling everywhere except among affluent whites.
“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” Chuck Schumer, 2016.
Nope, it's the Reagan-era relaxation of ownership rules. Guess who owns the stations. And lots of liberals drive cars.
1996, Clinton-D, not Reagan-R.
I often see people blame Reagan for things he didn't do. For example Airline Deregulation has been making the rounds recently, blaming Reagan, that happened in 1978, Carter-D, several years before Regan became president. Did he deregulate a lot? Sure, but not everything. I am of no appreciation for Reagan (I identify as an Eisenhower/Rockefeller Centrist-Republican), but I like to put blame where blame is due.
I often see people blame Reagan for things he didn't do. For example Airline Deregulation has been making the rounds recently, blaming Reagan, that happened in 1978, Carter-D, several years before Regan became president. Did he deregulate a lot? Sure, but not everything. I am of no appreciation for Reagan (I identify as an Eisenhower/Rockefeller Centrist-Republican), but I like to put blame where blame is due.
Why did Air America have so many issues?
There is no one true liberal narrative. There are somewhere in the range of 1 to 3 true conservative narratives.
Politics in the US is represented with two parties: the right, and the tent. No one person can represent everyone in the tent. Anyone can represent the right.
Politics in the US is represented with two parties: the right, and the tent. No one person can represent everyone in the tent. Anyone can represent the right.
I always figured that liberal radio, e.g. Air America, struggled and failed because that point of view had too much competition from other media, e.g. newspapers and television. Back before internet, conservatives only had radio to hear what they considered their point of view taken seriously and the other side derided whereas liberals had lots of other options to hear their points of view taken seriously while the other side was painted as rubes.
Isn’t NPR the glaring exception?
Right-wing radio is heavily subsidized by right-wing institutions funded by the billionaires we all know about. It is happy to repeat lies, without shame, at length until they are believed. No non-subsidized radio station can compete, so all AM talk radio is openly right-wing, and is all there is on the dial in most rural settings.
IME a lot of millenials and younger that are "progressive" are too left for what can be considered "acceptable content" on corporate platforms. Tiktok has pretty good content in this area, but I think a lot of it boils down to the biases of liberal broadcast media owners not keeping up with the kind of content people want to hear. Anything further left than liberalism is considered a "national security issue" so you don't get any interesting viewpoints. Even breadtube is pretty milk toast. I'll just stick to my hip hop and punk jams tyvm.
Conservatives are easier to herd. They may argue with what the Republican party is doing at any given moment, but ultimately they will fall in line.
Centralized messaging is simply a better fit for the conservative worldview than it is for those on the liberal/left-leaning side of the spectrum. (Which in reality occupies a bigger tent than the GOP ever pitched.)
Centralized messaging is simply a better fit for the conservative worldview than it is for those on the liberal/left-leaning side of the spectrum. (Which in reality occupies a bigger tent than the GOP ever pitched.)
WAMU had layoffs recently.
The lapse of journalistic objectivity over the past ~10 years is a dead horse.
I do think we've turned a corner for the better. I haven't listened to NPR in years but the Times has improved over the past few years.
One of the themes of Civil War, the new Alex Garland movie, concerns this dynamic. See his interview in the Times: https://archive.is/pzs1a. His theory is that the press is supposed to check polarization by disseminating objective facts (which never fit one faction's worldview perfectly) and this process' failure has led to increasing polarization.
I do think we've turned a corner for the better. I haven't listened to NPR in years but the Times has improved over the past few years.
One of the themes of Civil War, the new Alex Garland movie, concerns this dynamic. See his interview in the Times: https://archive.is/pzs1a. His theory is that the press is supposed to check polarization by disseminating objective facts (which never fit one faction's worldview perfectly) and this process' failure has led to increasing polarization.
Journalistic objectivity was basically invented by anti-Roosevelt media. Before that newspapers were explicitly partisan. Roosevelt was so dominant that Republicans felt the need to change the script.
FYI, the Civil War was really started by the ridiculously stupid attack on Fort Sumter. If SC hadn't gone off and attacked the fort the US would have split into two or three countries...and everyone would have been OK with that.
FYI, the Civil War was really started by the ridiculously stupid attack on Fort Sumter. If SC hadn't gone off and attacked the fort the US would have split into two or three countries...and everyone would have been OK with that.
Joseph Pulitzer's retirement letter from 1907 (referencing St. Louis's metro paper):
I know that my retirement will make no difference in its cardinal principles, that it will always fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty.
It was he of course who had previously declared:
Our Republic and its press will rise or fall together. An able, disinterested, public-spirited press, with trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it, can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery. A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself.
I know that my retirement will make no difference in its cardinal principles, that it will always fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty.
It was he of course who had previously declared:
Our Republic and its press will rise or fall together. An able, disinterested, public-spirited press, with trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it, can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery. A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself.
“Civil War, the new Alex Garland movie” is not actually about the US Civil War. FYI.
And how exactly do you think everyone would have been ok with the US splitting into multiple countries?
And how exactly do you think everyone would have been ok with the US splitting into multiple countries?
Yeah I've read some stuff about this guy named Abraham Lincoln, and somehow I got the impression he had quite a bit of power and was none too pleased by the idea of any dissolution of the union.
"Telling the truth was invented in the 1930s"
Hmm
Hmm
Bias and accuracy are separate axes. Mother Jones is explicitly liberal media, but their reporting is highly factual. Fox News is right-wing and has settled multiple cases over defamation for spreading false stories.
I don't agree. I think lies by omission are lies.
You assert that bias implies leaving out information. That is false.
Are you referring to something in particular?
The Biden laptop story is the best-known recent example. Many relatively "factual" outlets refused to cover it, whereas if it were beneficial to the liberal cause, you know they'd have done the 12-36 goes hours of work required to verify it
The laptop story was very sketchy and treated with suitable skepticism. And now that we have a clearer picture, it's not interesting at all. While the laptop itself may have turned out to be real, I'm not aware that the contents have ever been authenticated and the fact that the story was only trumpeted by Rudy Giuliani makes it campaign propaganda. We didn't learn anything about it, but we did see Hunter's penis entered into the Congressional record.
It was very interesting. It revealed a lot of influence-pedalling and strongly implied Joe Biden profits from it, or at least facilitates his son profiting from it.
Not a shred of its contents were ever disproven, but much was corroborated.
It's only "uninteresting" if you exclusively follow NPR, I think.
Not a shred of its contents were ever disproven, but much was corroborated.
It's only "uninteresting" if you exclusively follow NPR, I think.
Got any others?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity
I think it's more like something that was formalized around the turn of the 19th century. Maybe wikipedia isn't accurate here.
I think it's more like something that was formalized around the turn of the 19th century. Maybe wikipedia isn't accurate here.
Everyone, are you sure? Seems like you’re forgetting someone in this statement: The enslaved people.
Journalistic objectivity is not real and has never existed.
It is much better when a journalistic outlet acknowledges its plausible biases and lets the reader make up their own mind. This ideal gets further stretched with "citizens journalism" where normies do their own journalism. You expect to some system to emerge that allows for audiences to converge on the "truth".
Anyone that espouses these idealistic ideals of "objectivism" has drank the koolaid. And of course, The Objectivity always somehow accidentally converges to the status quo. Is it because the status quo is? Unlikely.
It is much better when a journalistic outlet acknowledges its plausible biases and lets the reader make up their own mind. This ideal gets further stretched with "citizens journalism" where normies do their own journalism. You expect to some system to emerge that allows for audiences to converge on the "truth".
Anyone that espouses these idealistic ideals of "objectivism" has drank the koolaid. And of course, The Objectivity always somehow accidentally converges to the status quo. Is it because the status quo is? Unlikely.
[deleted]
The guardian seems less polemic and agitation propagandising recently also.
I grew up listening to NPR, it was always on. Car talk with my dad on the weekends, Prarie home, etc. It's been programed in every car I've owned since I was a teenager. My wife and I have listened together and donated for years. But starting around 2019ish it gotten harder and harder to stay engaged with the programming.
Almost every piece of reporting is now some kind of soft-outrage human-interest pseudo news. I want to listen but every other story is a tale of victim hood and oppression. It's just too much.
Almost every piece of reporting is now some kind of soft-outrage human-interest pseudo news. I want to listen but every other story is a tale of victim hood and oppression. It's just too much.
Every time I tune in, I measure the time-to-race, which is the amount of time that passes before race becomes the main topic of discussion. Usually it’s less than 15 minutes.
20 year listener here. I now listen until they force identity politics in to the subject at hand, then change the channel. In my experience it's much less than 10m, but could be my market too.
I play this game with my XM radio. On First Wave, I listen until they play The Police, then I switch to Lithium and listen until they play Foo Fighters. I cycle back and forth constantly.
Similar!
I think some of the flagship programs talk nonstop about LGBT and minority issues, but this has been a thing for some years. I remember pre COVID driving to work chuckling at how every time I turned on the radio, it was a story on those topics.
There is a lot more going on in the world that can also be discussed.
I like Weekend edition and All Things Considered, and their hourly news updates.
Finally: there is a distinction between a faux "both sides" centrism and constant focus on identity. Having a liberal bias can exist while providing a wide range of coverage and de-emphasizing identity politics.
I think some of the flagship programs talk nonstop about LGBT and minority issues, but this has been a thing for some years. I remember pre COVID driving to work chuckling at how every time I turned on the radio, it was a story on those topics.
There is a lot more going on in the world that can also be discussed.
I like Weekend edition and All Things Considered, and their hourly news updates.
Finally: there is a distinction between a faux "both sides" centrism and constant focus on identity. Having a liberal bias can exist while providing a wide range of coverage and de-emphasizing identity politics.
If my local affiliate talked about LGBTQ stuff I would probably start turning the radio on again.
"Do you ever buy eggs at the super market? Well, here's how eggs are secretly racist, and the facts of egg economics disproportionally affects minorities."
If we could solve these issues, maybe we could stop talking about them
Virtually every person I talk to who remembers will tell you that the 90s were the peak of just about everybody in the country getting along and feeling good about the future.
Then widespread internet and social media happened, which shortly led people into echo chambers while simultaneously gutting the institution of journalism.
Then widespread internet and social media happened, which shortly led people into echo chambers while simultaneously gutting the institution of journalism.
We didn’t light the fire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots
“the most destructive period of local unrest in U.S. history”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots
“the most destructive period of local unrest in U.S. history”
>90s were the peak of just about everybody in the country getting along and feeling good about the future.
What? All joking aside, what the Fuck?
Rodney King. LA riots. NAFTA protests. Branch Davidians. Presidential sex scandals. First desert storm. Political correctness. Women's movements. Bosnia et.al. Rwanda. HIV/AIDS epidemic. Ruby Ridge. Wage stagnation. The final death of small town commerce due to Wal-Marts.
And these are just the things I thought of in the last minute. I'm sure there are a ton more issues I'm missing.
The people you talk to are doing what people have done since the beginning of time. They're remembering the past fondly while forgetting the bad.
What? All joking aside, what the Fuck?
Rodney King. LA riots. NAFTA protests. Branch Davidians. Presidential sex scandals. First desert storm. Political correctness. Women's movements. Bosnia et.al. Rwanda. HIV/AIDS epidemic. Ruby Ridge. Wage stagnation. The final death of small town commerce due to Wal-Marts.
And these are just the things I thought of in the last minute. I'm sure there are a ton more issues I'm missing.
The people you talk to are doing what people have done since the beginning of time. They're remembering the past fondly while forgetting the bad.
Even minorities sometimes want to hear about something other than being a minority.
Especially minorities. Listening to liberal white people talk to other liberal white people about race is the eye-gougingly terrible.
I’m white, but I often notice all white panels discussing how awful white people are, but somehow neglected to invite a non-white person to participate in the discussion.
And when they do, it’s someone they hand-picked to say the things they want to hear.
I’ll note this though: I think the people who do this don’t really identify as “white.” It’s become a class marker. Your plumber is “white.” NPR listeners aren’t “white.”
I’ll note this though: I think the people who do this don’t really identify as “white.” It’s become a class marker. Your plumber is “white.” NPR listeners aren’t “white.”
What are you talking about? Honestly what weird strawman are you trying to set up?
NPR listeners aren't white? What are you trying to say here?
NPR listeners aren't white? What are you trying to say here?
“White” is a socially and culturally constructed label, not an ethnic group. For example, Germans and French people in those countries don’t identify as “white”—they identify as German and French. It’s a label created in the context of racial politics.
My theory is that NPR listeners no longer really identify with the label “white.” They might acknowledge the label applies to them. But when they complain about “white people” they are referring to other white people.
My theory is that NPR listeners no longer really identify with the label “white.” They might acknowledge the label applies to them. But when they complain about “white people” they are referring to other white people.
When progressive "solutions" are implemented, if their success is measured empirically at all, they usually just make things worse. See e.g. the outcome of most educational reforms of the past 20 years, or the attempts in America's most progressive cities to solve homelessness by incentivizing and rewarding homelessness.
Not surprising, a lot of profitable rackets depend on those issues remaining unsolved. What would e.g. all the homelessness experts do, who collect billions annually to hold conferences where they agree with each other on settler-colonialism and the newest genders, if they were to actually solve homelessness?
Climate change is being solved, but it's being solved through technological innovation, not masturbatory discourse.
Not surprising, a lot of profitable rackets depend on those issues remaining unsolved. What would e.g. all the homelessness experts do, who collect billions annually to hold conferences where they agree with each other on settler-colonialism and the newest genders, if they were to actually solve homelessness?
Climate change is being solved, but it's being solved through technological innovation, not masturbatory discourse.
Sprinkle in climate change, and you'll be down to 5! I may be grading them too critically at this point, but in recent years, it feels like that XKCD about Wikipedia and how all roads lead to "Philosophy." Sometimes, I'll sit there wondering how the leap will be made from some benign story to these anchor topics, but they usually manage. I don't like that predictability at all.
I once tuned in to NPR when they were talking about artificial intelligence, and they were talking about how the seminal figures in the field (e.g. McCarthy) were white men. I reflected that if I had to pick the least interesting possible topic on AI, it would probably be how white the AI researchers were in the 1950s.
I think this is the transcript: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1161883646.
> The Dartmouth conference has become an origin myth... Of course, the origin myth served to empower these men to tell their own story. And it's a story full of erasure... We hear nothing in that origin myth about the relationship that AI has to industrialization or to capitalism or to these colonial legacies of reserving reason for only certain kinds of people and certain kinds of thinking.
(later, same show):
> White men wanted to call themselves universal and produce themselves in the machine.
I mean, seriously?
I think this is the transcript: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1161883646.
> The Dartmouth conference has become an origin myth... Of course, the origin myth served to empower these men to tell their own story. And it's a story full of erasure... We hear nothing in that origin myth about the relationship that AI has to industrialization or to capitalism or to these colonial legacies of reserving reason for only certain kinds of people and certain kinds of thinking.
(later, same show):
> White men wanted to call themselves universal and produce themselves in the machine.
I mean, seriously?
It’s just odd that they feel the need to explain to their audience most professors, and especially mathematics and computer science professors, in the 1950s were white men. Or that a lot of the funds for the research came from industry or the military.
It’s just not interesting or newsworthy.
It’s just not interesting or newsworthy.
> Or that a lot of the funds for the research came from industry or the military.
I think that's interesting and newsworthy. Maybe because we know it already it seems obvious, but a younger generation might not understand how deeply enmeshed the military-industrial complex was (and to some extent still is) in academia.
I think that's interesting and newsworthy. Maybe because we know it already it seems obvious, but a younger generation might not understand how deeply enmeshed the military-industrial complex was (and to some extent still is) in academia.
It's something you are supposed to learn in history class and there are many, many topics that you should learn from history at some point in your life. A news publication is not a replacement for history class and is probably one of the worst places to get a complete view of history.
> A news publication is not a replacement for history class and is probably one of the worst places to get a complete view of history.
Okay, but is it an okay topic for a history podcast like the one sobellian was apparently listening to?
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510333/throughline
Okay, but is it an okay topic for a history podcast like the one sobellian was apparently listening to?
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510333/throughline
To be clear, I have no problem with history podcasts (especially episodes about computing history), I just think they chose a poor lens for the subject matter. The military-industrial complex's influence on computing? Incredibly germane. But, and this is just how I heard it:
> You know, the most disturbing part of the history of AI for me comes from the fact that these men who were working in artificial intelligence looked at those massive, noisy, hot mainframe computers and saw themselves in it. They looked at them and identified a deep affinity that there was something fundamentally shared between their minds and these machines.
> White men wanted to call themselves universal and produce themselves in the machine.
> I think underneath all of that arrogance and hubris is a real lack of faith in people.
> And what I have always found so shocking about the Turing test is that it reduces intelligence to telling a convincing lie, to putting on the performance of being something that you're not.
> ...And in effect, replace God with science?
To me, it felt as if the piece was dripping with contempt for people that actually started the work on the basis that they were nerds with the wrong identity.
> You know, the most disturbing part of the history of AI for me comes from the fact that these men who were working in artificial intelligence looked at those massive, noisy, hot mainframe computers and saw themselves in it. They looked at them and identified a deep affinity that there was something fundamentally shared between their minds and these machines.
> White men wanted to call themselves universal and produce themselves in the machine.
> I think underneath all of that arrogance and hubris is a real lack of faith in people.
> And what I have always found so shocking about the Turing test is that it reduces intelligence to telling a convincing lie, to putting on the performance of being something that you're not.
> ...And in effect, replace God with science?
To me, it felt as if the piece was dripping with contempt for people that actually started the work on the basis that they were nerds with the wrong identity.
Yes, there’s a lot of putting words in the mouths of people who are no longer alive and can no longer express their thoughts for themselves.
Yeah, I wasn't really endorsing the program, just pointing out that "history doesn't belong in news" is a weird critique (not yours) of a history program.
Highschool history class taught me that America won the Vietnam War, because the teacher was a Nam vet and refused to believe otherwise. You can't count on schools to teach anything more than the biases of the teachers. Some of them are great but many are not.
> to some extent
To every extent, I would counter. It's incredibly rare that a person is currently involved in STEM research at a university and some sort of US Military grant isn't providing at least some amount of funding to it/them.
My university for one allowed students to view comprehensive data about grants provided to research groups (after much internal campaigning), but absolutely refused allowing that data to be accessed by the general public. The reason was obvious when you looked at the data: 70%+ of the bucks came directly from various militaries.
To every extent, I would counter. It's incredibly rare that a person is currently involved in STEM research at a university and some sort of US Military grant isn't providing at least some amount of funding to it/them.
My university for one allowed students to view comprehensive data about grants provided to research groups (after much internal campaigning), but absolutely refused allowing that data to be accessed by the general public. The reason was obvious when you looked at the data: 70%+ of the bucks came directly from various militaries.
This is very program-dependent. In my department, approximately everyone was funded by NIH, with a few NSF.
> The Dartmouth conference has become an origin myth... Of course, the origin myth served to empower these men to tell their own story. And it's a story full of erasure... We hear nothing in that origin myth about the relationship that AI has to industrialization or to capitalism or to these colonial legacies of reserving reason for only certain kinds of people and certain kinds of thinking.
It would be nice if instead of harping on this point they actually told what they think the missing story is.
If they think that AI is missing certain kinds of thinking - by all means tell me what they are concretely. Like i don't know if i buy that lack of diversity in earlier AI research meant that the AI research only allowed certain kind of "thinking" (AI doesn't really match anybody's thinking regardless of race), but i would be interested in a well researched argument that it did and what those other kinds of thinking are.
I think the problem fundamentally is that these stories tend to be platitudes (lack of diversity = bad) but don't actually go deep into what that concretely means. Ultimately i want something that makes me think about the topic in new ways; you need to dig beyond the surface to do that.
It would be nice if instead of harping on this point they actually told what they think the missing story is.
If they think that AI is missing certain kinds of thinking - by all means tell me what they are concretely. Like i don't know if i buy that lack of diversity in earlier AI research meant that the AI research only allowed certain kind of "thinking" (AI doesn't really match anybody's thinking regardless of race), but i would be interested in a well researched argument that it did and what those other kinds of thinking are.
I think the problem fundamentally is that these stories tend to be platitudes (lack of diversity = bad) but don't actually go deep into what that concretely means. Ultimately i want something that makes me think about the topic in new ways; you need to dig beyond the surface to do that.
>Ultimately i want something that makes me think about the topic in new ways; you need to dig beyond the surface to do that.
You, a person that already knows about this, will never get that from a short segment on a public radio show intended for a general audience that knows next to nothing about it.
It is intended to make that audience think about it differently, because they have not even bothered to think critically about this at a surface level.
The fact that these models (along with every structure in any society) embeds the biases of those that designed them seems to continue to elude so many commenters here though, so it seems they really need to keep hearing this too.
You, a person that already knows about this, will never get that from a short segment on a public radio show intended for a general audience that knows next to nothing about it.
It is intended to make that audience think about it differently, because they have not even bothered to think critically about this at a surface level.
The fact that these models (along with every structure in any society) embeds the biases of those that designed them seems to continue to elude so many commenters here though, so it seems they really need to keep hearing this too.
It’s NPR, all their listeners think about these topics obsessively.
Also, the models embeds the biases of all the people who create content on the Internet. The designers biases come in to l look at with the prompt hacks put in place later to prevent the AI from expressing bad thoughts.
Also, the models embeds the biases of all the people who create content on the Internet. The designers biases come in to l look at with the prompt hacks put in place later to prevent the AI from expressing bad thoughts.
None of these data sets are based on "the Internet". They are a specific subset of the internet, and the training and reinforcements are in no way neutral (because that's not a thing).
They embed biases from the training data, which is taken from the internet at large. The models themselves aren't inherently biased. They're just trying to generate the next token or scene. And these models aren't from the 50s, or made by researchers in the 1950s. The models have guardrails added to try and prevent bias (and other deemed harmful content) being generated.
None of these data sets are based on "the Internet". They are a specific subset of the internet, and the training, reinforcements, and guardrails are in no way neutral (because that's not a thing).
>We hear nothing in that origin myth about the relationship that AI has to industrialization or to capitalism or to these colonial legacies of reserving reason for only certain kinds of people and certain kinds of thinking.
It must be exhausting thinking like this all the time.
It must be exhausting thinking like this all the time.
If you can convince yourself that something is a struggle for survival you can sustain it indefinitely. It’s part of our physiology
Studies consistently show that liberals are unhappier and more mentally ill than conservatives. There was even a big Gallup poll about it this month. One of the floated reasons is that liberals tend to think negative thoughts, as you say.
I use to listen to NPR for 6-7 hours a day at work, 20 years ago.
In 2024, they are simply a reflection of what modern liberalism has become.
The 2005 version of David Sedaris would practically be considered "right wing" in 2024.
Critical theory and intersectionality have come to dominate all liberal discourse to the level of farce. NPR is just a mirror.
In 2024, they are simply a reflection of what modern liberalism has become.
The 2005 version of David Sedaris would practically be considered "right wing" in 2024.
Critical theory and intersectionality have come to dominate all liberal discourse to the level of farce. NPR is just a mirror.
Hot take... How many other news sources discuss race?
I think this is an under-discussed topic for how pervasive a problem it is in our country. And I think we do ourselves a disservice by trying to hide from it. The more we talk about it, the easier it is to pick up a discussion where we left off.
And my guess here is that the proportion of news about this relative to proportion of people affected by that news is way off.
I think this is an under-discussed topic for how pervasive a problem it is in our country. And I think we do ourselves a disservice by trying to hide from it. The more we talk about it, the easier it is to pick up a discussion where we left off.
And my guess here is that the proportion of news about this relative to proportion of people affected by that news is way off.
It completely, utterly, baffles me how other people live in such a different interpretation of reality than me. For myself, the last decade of media has been completely dominated by race-based and identity-based ideology and discussion. I've given up all mainstream media and I still cannot escape it. The fact that someone exists where they can with a straight face say that they think race is an under-discussed topic just blows my mind. To the point where I seriously have to consider whether I'm even replying to a real human being and not a shill / LLM.
According to a 2001 poll, nearly 50% of the population drastically over-estimated the black population: https://news.gallup.com/poll/4435/public-overestimates-us-bl...
I’m pretty sure more recent polls show the same thing is true now but I can’t find something more recent so take that with a grain of salt.
Think of one of the 17% of people polled who think 50% of America is black. First, it’s baffling to me to understand how that’s even possible. They must be living in an extreme bubble where they seldom interact with other races. Likely this isn’t even their fault, so how would they ever know to correct it?
Second, if I was one of those people, I would probably think the US is hopelessly racist seeing white people “over-represented” in basically every area of life.
I’m pretty sure more recent polls show the same thing is true now but I can’t find something more recent so take that with a grain of salt.
Think of one of the 17% of people polled who think 50% of America is black. First, it’s baffling to me to understand how that’s even possible. They must be living in an extreme bubble where they seldom interact with other races. Likely this isn’t even their fault, so how would they ever know to correct it?
Second, if I was one of those people, I would probably think the US is hopelessly racist seeing white people “over-represented” in basically every area of life.
I don't know what that guy is smoking. It is objectively the case that the topics of race, identity politics, etc have skyrocketed since the mid-2010s [1].
[1] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/06/th...
[1] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/06/th...
Do those charts actually show a shift in content, or is it merely a shift in terminology?
I'm not sure if any studies accurately measure the subject content, and it also seems like it'd be easy to get any result you want by tweaking the experiment parameters.
I can tell you that from my own life experience and what I can recall, it has certainly felt like a shift in content. All the anti-white stuff, the social justice stuff, the pro-censorship stuff, etc. It existed before in tiny bubbles like Tumblr, but it was during the mid 2010s that the major news sources started adopting those viewpoints too.
I can tell you that from my own life experience and what I can recall, it has certainly felt like a shift in content. All the anti-white stuff, the social justice stuff, the pro-censorship stuff, etc. It existed before in tiny bubbles like Tumblr, but it was during the mid 2010s that the major news sources started adopting those viewpoints too.
They don't even show it as a percentage of articles.
It's suspicious to me that they went for the hockey stick curve to demonstrate their complaint rather than adjusted for the number of articles that they are sampling from.
It's suspicious to me that they went for the hockey stick curve to demonstrate their complaint rather than adjusted for the number of articles that they are sampling from.
Yeah... I don't know what you think I was saying. But I'm making the case that the news should cover issues that people actually face... And that an uptick in representation of different people's viewpoints and experiences is actually a positive and reasonable thing. It would be more informative if your data had that as a percentage of total articles. Because the case I'm making is that we went up from like <1% of articles talking about race to closer to 20-30% of articles talking about it. The other thing to consider is what qualifies as an "article" in there with the advent of the internet.
It's actually making my exact point that "diversity and inclusion" were mentioned in 0 articles in the 1990s. I'm saying that this is a relevant thing to more than 0% of the population, so there should be representation of that accordingly. And now that we have more articles talking about it, it seems reasonable that some percentage of news articles (above 0) would be discuss these topics.
It's actually making my exact point that "diversity and inclusion" were mentioned in 0 articles in the 1990s. I'm saying that this is a relevant thing to more than 0% of the population, so there should be representation of that accordingly. And now that we have more articles talking about it, it seems reasonable that some percentage of news articles (above 0) would be discuss these topics.
I’m curious to hear about your media diet because that has not been the case for me.
Coleman Hughes shares a good perspective on this in his new book. He cites surveys showing that people changed their opinions for the worse regarding racism in america around 2010. This could be explained by an increase in racism or by increased awareness of racism. But he shows it is not based on these things because surveys also show that people significantly overestimate the number of black people killed by police. The rise in media coverage has led them to think that certain events are much more common than they are.
> But he shows it is not based on these things because surveys also show that people significantly overestimate the number of black people killed by police.
What is the proper number of people to be killed by the police that we shouldn't worry about it? (hint: don't answer this question) The fact that people think the number is more than it actually is feels pretty moot when the number is more than zero. It's also more as a percentage of police killings than one would expect if we were just talking about police incompetence. If this has improved in the years since, then I think that's probably a good thing? Hot take, In general I think the police killing fewer people is a good thing.
What is the proper number of people to be killed by the police that we shouldn't worry about it? (hint: don't answer this question) The fact that people think the number is more than it actually is feels pretty moot when the number is more than zero. It's also more as a percentage of police killings than one would expect if we were just talking about police incompetence. If this has improved in the years since, then I think that's probably a good thing? Hot take, In general I think the police killing fewer people is a good thing.
Agreed. I’ve stopped watching anything recent. Theres a few Apple TV shows that I’ve enjoyed but it’s always so predictable that an engineered and coerced social justice issue is forced in. This is what the theory of equity is about, it goes over and beyond equality and actively helps by increasing exposure, opportunities, resources for historically disadvantaged people communities groups.
I wish we could stop making everything into a war and fight and just let things speak for themselves. Show don’t tell.
Lately I have been working in DEI committees to better understand. I believe in helping the poor and marginalized but having officially reviewed equity theory I feel a bit disgusted with myself.
I wish we could stop making everything into a war and fight and just let things speak for themselves. Show don’t tell.
Lately I have been working in DEI committees to better understand. I believe in helping the poor and marginalized but having officially reviewed equity theory I feel a bit disgusted with myself.
My perception is the opposite of yours so I guess we can be as equally confused as each other. Every time I tune into the news it's usually dominated by foreign policy, domestic horserace politics coverage and soft human interest stories. There was definitely an uptick in racial discussions during all the BLM stuff but "completely dominated" is very, very far from my lived experience.
But I guess that's exactly what an LLM would say, isn't it?
But I guess that's exactly what an LLM would say, isn't it?
> I think this is an under-discussed topic for how pervasive a problem it is in our country.
The parts of it that are under-discussed are the parts they're still not discussing. The unsolved parts are unsolved as a result of bipartisan unwillingness to solve them.
Example: Historical racism caused black people to lack the generational wealth to own a home. The solution to this is to make home ownership more affordable, i.e. to build more housing and bring down the market price of buying a home. But many of the existing homeowners, who don't want home prices to become more affordable, are Democrats, so this problem is unsolved even in areas like San Francisco under 100% Democratic control.
Example: Parents want their kids to attend schools with smart kids so the other students aren't disruptive and don't require the teacher to slow the pace of the class. The solution to this is to put kids of similar intelligence in the same class, which also helps smart minority students who can get in based on test scores rather than money. But then affluent parents with disruptive or less intelligent kids don't get into the smart class, so they prefer solutions where the metric is parental income (e.g. ability to afford a home in the "good" school district) rather than test scores, and then get to feel good about themselves because even though this result is even worse for poor minority students, they can point to the statistics that minority students from poor backgrounds have lower test scores as a reason to refuse to use test scores and wrap their self-interest in the flag of anti-racism. Then many of those parents are Democrats, and moreover the alternate solution where you break up the "income buys a good school district" system would be things like school vouchers, which are opposed by public school teachers unions because they allow non-affluent parents to choose a private school if it's better, and those unions are a Democratic constituency. So again the problem goes unsolved, even in areas controlled by the people who claim to want to solve it.
So these aren't the problems they spend most of their time talking about, because that would be goring the wrong ox. Instead they talk about identity politics and historical circumstance which cannot be solved because they are just abstract ideas and empty rhetoric instead of anything attached to a reasonable policy proposal that might actually do some good.
The parts of it that are under-discussed are the parts they're still not discussing. The unsolved parts are unsolved as a result of bipartisan unwillingness to solve them.
Example: Historical racism caused black people to lack the generational wealth to own a home. The solution to this is to make home ownership more affordable, i.e. to build more housing and bring down the market price of buying a home. But many of the existing homeowners, who don't want home prices to become more affordable, are Democrats, so this problem is unsolved even in areas like San Francisco under 100% Democratic control.
Example: Parents want their kids to attend schools with smart kids so the other students aren't disruptive and don't require the teacher to slow the pace of the class. The solution to this is to put kids of similar intelligence in the same class, which also helps smart minority students who can get in based on test scores rather than money. But then affluent parents with disruptive or less intelligent kids don't get into the smart class, so they prefer solutions where the metric is parental income (e.g. ability to afford a home in the "good" school district) rather than test scores, and then get to feel good about themselves because even though this result is even worse for poor minority students, they can point to the statistics that minority students from poor backgrounds have lower test scores as a reason to refuse to use test scores and wrap their self-interest in the flag of anti-racism. Then many of those parents are Democrats, and moreover the alternate solution where you break up the "income buys a good school district" system would be things like school vouchers, which are opposed by public school teachers unions because they allow non-affluent parents to choose a private school if it's better, and those unions are a Democratic constituency. So again the problem goes unsolved, even in areas controlled by the people who claim to want to solve it.
So these aren't the problems they spend most of their time talking about, because that would be goring the wrong ox. Instead they talk about identity politics and historical circumstance which cannot be solved because they are just abstract ideas and empty rhetoric instead of anything attached to a reasonable policy proposal that might actually do some good.
> The more we talk about it, the easier it is to pick up a discussion where we left off.
Sure.. but.. does it lead to problems actually being fixed?
Sure.. but.. does it lead to problems actually being fixed?
The more we talk about it, the angrier people get. That's truly the only reason to even have a conversation about my ancestors I never met owning your ancestors you never met. Things have gotten substantially worse in the last 16 years, not better, and that's because we've been using a spotlight to point out how different everyone is from each other. It's literally counterintuitive.
> The more we talk about it, the angrier people get. That's truly the only reason to even have a conversation about my ancestors I never met owning your ancestors you never met.
Maybe the "statute of limitations" for these things should be long - not to mention the idea that racism wasn't magically fixed by ending slavery and the "owning" you mention. You don't think anyone was actively racist and causing harm 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 50? So if person Y's grandparent was harmed by, say, person X's racist grandparent in the 1950s, and that caused person Y's family to suffer for generations compared to what likely would've happened otherwise, and that's leading to ongoing societal harms, it could be legitimate public policy interest to try to even out opportunity.
Of course, this hasn't actually changed in the last few decades - terms like "equal opportunity" and "affirimative action" have those words in their very name.
But certain interests have made very successful pushes in the past few decades to brand policies under those umbrellas as "actually the real racism", or paint everyone supporting them as "actually trying to guarantee equality of outcome," while continuing to beat the very-old drum of "people being worse off implies worse ability, it's just science" which couples oh-so-very-nicely with the more active forms of denying people opportunity that hardly ended in the 1960s.
Maybe the "statute of limitations" for these things should be long - not to mention the idea that racism wasn't magically fixed by ending slavery and the "owning" you mention. You don't think anyone was actively racist and causing harm 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 50? So if person Y's grandparent was harmed by, say, person X's racist grandparent in the 1950s, and that caused person Y's family to suffer for generations compared to what likely would've happened otherwise, and that's leading to ongoing societal harms, it could be legitimate public policy interest to try to even out opportunity.
Of course, this hasn't actually changed in the last few decades - terms like "equal opportunity" and "affirimative action" have those words in their very name.
But certain interests have made very successful pushes in the past few decades to brand policies under those umbrellas as "actually the real racism", or paint everyone supporting them as "actually trying to guarantee equality of outcome," while continuing to beat the very-old drum of "people being worse off implies worse ability, it's just science" which couples oh-so-very-nicely with the more active forms of denying people opportunity that hardly ended in the 1960s.
The last time slaves were held in the US was by Native Americans in 1865. The country was founded in 1776. That means in a country that is nearly 250 years old, we haven't owned slaves for more than 160 years, well over half the nation's entire existence. No, we do not need a statute of limitations that encompasses generations for the sins of their fathers.
In fact, how far back do you even take this? Should we also hold the people of the modern-day Republic of Benin responsible for what their ancestors, the Kingdom of Dahomey, did, which was abducting and selling their African brothers for a bit of cash?
To address your other point, if my grandfather did something to hurt your grandfather in the 1950s, and it's been 70+ years and the only thing your family has figured out how to do since then is complain about how some guy was mean to your ancestor that one time, and that life is so unfair and you're so oppressed because of it, the issue may not be my grandfather, it may just be your family and their victimhood mindset. It feels good to "be oppressed" and have personal responsibility taken away, because when it's always someone else's fault, it can never be yours.
In fact, how far back do you even take this? Should we also hold the people of the modern-day Republic of Benin responsible for what their ancestors, the Kingdom of Dahomey, did, which was abducting and selling their African brothers for a bit of cash?
To address your other point, if my grandfather did something to hurt your grandfather in the 1950s, and it's been 70+ years and the only thing your family has figured out how to do since then is complain about how some guy was mean to your ancestor that one time, and that life is so unfair and you're so oppressed because of it, the issue may not be my grandfather, it may just be your family and their victimhood mindset. It feels good to "be oppressed" and have personal responsibility taken away, because when it's always someone else's fault, it can never be yours.
It's hard to read
> I was giving a lecture on genealogy and reparations in Amite, Louisiana, when I met Mae Louise Walls Miller. Mae walked in after the lecture was over, demanding to speak with me. She walked up, looked me in the eye, and stated, “I didn’t get my freedom until 1963.”
https://www.vice.com/en/article/437573/blacks-were-enslaved-...
It's an unspeakable evil. The "statute of limitations" on sins of the fathers is "until atonement".
> I was giving a lecture on genealogy and reparations in Amite, Louisiana, when I met Mae Louise Walls Miller. Mae walked in after the lecture was over, demanding to speak with me. She walked up, looked me in the eye, and stated, “I didn’t get my freedom until 1963.”
https://www.vice.com/en/article/437573/blacks-were-enslaved-...
It's an unspeakable evil. The "statute of limitations" on sins of the fathers is "until atonement".
That's awful that happened to those people, but this doesn't really serve the point imo, as this was already illegal by then. They even said that people hearing their story suggested they should've gone to the police for help, but the land was too large for them to escape.
Even today, there's plenty of forced labor and sex slaves that exist in the USA. That doesn't mean it's an active systemic issue of oppression, it just means that bad people do bad things when they can get away with it, in spite of a system to stop it.
We shouldn't hold people who didn't do bad things accountable for the actions of people who have done bad things. I don't think that's a radical idea.
Even today, there's plenty of forced labor and sex slaves that exist in the USA. That doesn't mean it's an active systemic issue of oppression, it just means that bad people do bad things when they can get away with it, in spite of a system to stop it.
We shouldn't hold people who didn't do bad things accountable for the actions of people who have done bad things. I don't think that's a radical idea.
It is a legitimate topic of discussion.
The problem comes when it’s the ONLY topic of discussion. Inflation is only relevant in how it impacts minorities. COVID is only relevant as it impacts minorities. Climate change is only relevant as it impacts minorities. Quality of schools is only relevant as it impacts minorities.
When it’s your only lens, it can distort your views, and in the case of NPR, caused them to get some stories wrong. Which then destroys your credibility which is really the only currency a journalist has.
The problem comes when it’s the ONLY topic of discussion. Inflation is only relevant in how it impacts minorities. COVID is only relevant as it impacts minorities. Climate change is only relevant as it impacts minorities. Quality of schools is only relevant as it impacts minorities.
When it’s your only lens, it can distort your views, and in the case of NPR, caused them to get some stories wrong. Which then destroys your credibility which is really the only currency a journalist has.
[deleted]
On one of my other comment threads someone told me how the world is "so much better then any point in history" :). I'm not sure I believe that.
I think in general being able to have these conversations means that we can progress slowly. It's tough recently, cause we've definitely regressed a lot. It would definitely help if the internet weren't effective at telling us only what we want to hear. I guess, in general I think the problem is we aren't actually able to progress discussions.
So my original wording "pick up where we left off" was wrong. We can already do that, we just can't move on from there. I think if we can figure out how to do that without hitting each other then maybe the problems would get fixed.
I think in general being able to have these conversations means that we can progress slowly. It's tough recently, cause we've definitely regressed a lot. It would definitely help if the internet weren't effective at telling us only what we want to hear. I guess, in general I think the problem is we aren't actually able to progress discussions.
So my original wording "pick up where we left off" was wrong. We can already do that, we just can't move on from there. I think if we can figure out how to do that without hitting each other then maybe the problems would get fixed.
Not by itself. But if we don't talk about it, how could there possibly be hop of fixing anything?
By focusing less on race and other identity issues, and working to remove racist policies across the board regardless of which group they benefit or harm. The 20th century saw immense improvements for almost all underserved groups, without any talking heads bickering about intersectionality or identity. Now that kind of coverage is everywhere and progress has stalled or even reversed in many areas.
My impression is that a huge portion of identity politics and coverage is more about picking fights where each side can feel smug and superior, rather than actually changing things for the better.
My impression is that a huge portion of identity politics and coverage is more about picking fights where each side can feel smug and superior, rather than actually changing things for the better.
How does one address racist policies without discussing race? That's a knot I can't tie myself into.
So this would be under the umbrella of "Critical Race Theory" which has been misrepresented and unjustly criticized as of late.
Maybe. Despite the number of times I've heard about CRT and how bad it is, and how good it is, I still don't have the foggiest idea what it is. One time, I tried to look it up on the internet. Signal to noise was so bad, I still don't know. I've written off the possibility of ever knowing what it is or understanding anyone who's talking about it.
As with any field, there's a number of detractors and charlatans. With CRT in the political spotlight, I completely understand how it becomes a mess to make heads-or-tails of.
Broadly speaking, it's the study of how law and media impacts society's view and treatment of others through the lens of race.
As for my opinion on it:
I generally support it because it advocates for another mechanism to study the impact of law.
I think most legislation should be regularly studied for impact, effectiveness, and fairness. For example, stimulus bills ought to be reviewed for economic impact, regulation ought to be reviewed for effectiveness/relevance, laws with social impact ought to be reviewed to ensure it doesn't harm the people.
A number of scholars seem to adopt a blameless mentality to figure out how laws (even unintentionally) have negative impact, and use that to propose solutions. I admire this approach to legislative critique.
While I think a few ideas some scholars advocate for are infeasible to implement, the broader field has a lot of merit.
Broadly speaking, it's the study of how law and media impacts society's view and treatment of others through the lens of race.
As for my opinion on it:
I generally support it because it advocates for another mechanism to study the impact of law.
I think most legislation should be regularly studied for impact, effectiveness, and fairness. For example, stimulus bills ought to be reviewed for economic impact, regulation ought to be reviewed for effectiveness/relevance, laws with social impact ought to be reviewed to ensure it doesn't harm the people.
A number of scholars seem to adopt a blameless mentality to figure out how laws (even unintentionally) have negative impact, and use that to propose solutions. I admire this approach to legislative critique.
While I think a few ideas some scholars advocate for are infeasible to implement, the broader field has a lot of merit.
I think it's a question of measure. When things are talked about fairly and equally then progress is made - there are serious pressing issues right not and they're not only about identity/race/gender, that these things are ignored is a big problem. When things turn full on on one direction they don't accelerate any progress, it may actually do more harm than good.
is listening to people talk about it on the radio the 'discussion' we need to make progress on an issue like this?
compare to Car Talk - a show that entertains you and teaches you about engineering. different value propositions of these two things
compare to Car Talk - a show that entertains you and teaches you about engineering. different value propositions of these two things
Converse hot take, the shallow "race lens" that is all too often used is not helping anyone. Quite the contrary, it is growing counterproductive. Especially with stories like this where they are working backwards from the framing, not using it to learn something.
The New York Times, which is the other bastion of the liberal establishment, also covers race a lot (in regular news journalism, opinion, and topical articles). . It's gotten to the point where lots of comments on articles (many articles have active comments sections) ask "why are you making this about race?". I think NYTimes swung heavily progressive a few years ago, and it was very unpopular, and they're recalibrating to be more relevant to centrists.
> Hot take... How many other news sources discuss race?
Heh. If you tune into the AM band you'll hear plenty of guys "discuss race." It'll make you fear for the species, but still.
Heh. If you tune into the AM band you'll hear plenty of guys "discuss race." It'll make you fear for the species, but still.
This take appears to have been "too hot for HN to handle"
For everyone downvoting, I'd be interested in the proportion of articles that discuss race as a percentage of total articles. If the number is more than the number of black people in America, I'd be willing to consider that we've "overcorrected". But a quick search around the web isn't yielding any clear results on this to me.
For everyone downvoting, I'd be interested in the proportion of articles that discuss race as a percentage of total articles. If the number is more than the number of black people in America, I'd be willing to consider that we've "overcorrected". But a quick search around the web isn't yielding any clear results on this to me.
>> Hot take... How many other news sources discuss race?
Almost all the conservative media outlets and all their pundits do simply because the whole topic has been an arms race for years. Conservatives are finally attempting to sway the popular narrative that race and identity politics are the only thing that determines your future.
They often discuss race within the context of identity politics and the far-left idea that "all white people are racist" versus their notion that race doesn't determine who you are, how smart you are and how successful you can become.
Its the age old philosophical idea of determinism vs. free will
Almost all the conservative media outlets and all their pundits do simply because the whole topic has been an arms race for years. Conservatives are finally attempting to sway the popular narrative that race and identity politics are the only thing that determines your future.
They often discuss race within the context of identity politics and the far-left idea that "all white people are racist" versus their notion that race doesn't determine who you are, how smart you are and how successful you can become.
Its the age old philosophical idea of determinism vs. free will
NPR, being the whitest place on Earth, is a bad place to discuss race. And the only reason they discuss it constantly is because they think that Democrats own any issue relating to it. Actual interest in issues around America's race problems would result in knowing a single person with two black parents, who is not an immigrant or the child of immigrants, and who is not wealthier and more privileged than you are.
This probably describes a single-digit percentage of the people who produce content on NPR. They know the two or three black people who hung out in their circles in the elite colleges they went to, and only stay in contact with zero to one of them. They pretend to know every famous black person they met at a dinner party, or a conference; there are probably 100 black professors, writers, and entertainers that a million or two white NPR-Americans are pretending to be friends with.
Black wealth peaked in 1997. NPR supplies itself from the most elite circles in American society, who largely control its wealth. They're not actually concerned, they're consistently using race as a cudgel to attack other white people for their own purposes.
This probably describes a single-digit percentage of the people who produce content on NPR. They know the two or three black people who hung out in their circles in the elite colleges they went to, and only stay in contact with zero to one of them. They pretend to know every famous black person they met at a dinner party, or a conference; there are probably 100 black professors, writers, and entertainers that a million or two white NPR-Americans are pretending to be friends with.
Black wealth peaked in 1997. NPR supplies itself from the most elite circles in American society, who largely control its wealth. They're not actually concerned, they're consistently using race as a cudgel to attack other white people for their own purposes.
> NPR, being the whitest place on Earth
Come on, they're about as diverse as America itself is: https://www.npr.org/about-npr/179803822/people-at-npr
In fact, Black people are proportionally overrepresented relative to the U.S. population at NPR, while Hispanics are underrepresented.
Sunday morning's Weekend Edition host, Ayesha Rascoe, is a Black woman. Unfortunately they lost Audie Cornish, also a Black woman, from All Things Considered. She was great.
I do think it's fair to argue that NPR is far more liberal than it ever was, and Uri Beliner's inside story provides some credence to that. But that's different from being "white." (Keep in mind that the vast majority of Trump voters are white and would bristle at NPR's news programming; support by non-whites is relatively low.)
Come on, they're about as diverse as America itself is: https://www.npr.org/about-npr/179803822/people-at-npr
In fact, Black people are proportionally overrepresented relative to the U.S. population at NPR, while Hispanics are underrepresented.
Sunday morning's Weekend Edition host, Ayesha Rascoe, is a Black woman. Unfortunately they lost Audie Cornish, also a Black woman, from All Things Considered. She was great.
I do think it's fair to argue that NPR is far more liberal than it ever was, and Uri Beliner's inside story provides some credence to that. But that's different from being "white." (Keep in mind that the vast majority of Trump voters are white and would bristle at NPR's news programming; support by non-whites is relatively low.)
A useful heuristic for measuring news quality is to ask yourself, “Am I more informed about what’s happening or about what people are angry about.”
Like you, I was a life-long listener and donater. I stopped both during the pandemic when I noticed NPR was playing the anger game, like every other outlet, for social media points.
Like you, I was a life-long listener and donater. I stopped both during the pandemic when I noticed NPR was playing the anger game, like every other outlet, for social media points.
Big context shift for me was realising roughly 2019 that Portal:Current events could efficiently replace 95% of my news scrolling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events
Some other useful things in this department:
https://thenewpaper.co - sends you a daily text message with a short, concise daily news report that is sufficient to be aware of anything major.
https://www.boringreport.org - aggregates news stories on a particular subject from various outlets and produces AI-generated summaries of them with all the clickbaity headlines and other forms of button-pushing removed.
https://thenewpaper.co - sends you a daily text message with a short, concise daily news report that is sufficient to be aware of anything major.
https://www.boringreport.org - aggregates news stories on a particular subject from various outlets and produces AI-generated summaries of them with all the clickbaity headlines and other forms of button-pushing removed.
Interesting. Although I have a growing concern about how much of my knowledge base is informed or misinformed by Wikipedia.
Be careful, Katherine Maher (NPR CEO) was CCO/CEO of Wikimedia Foundation 2014-2021.
She then gave a TED Talk that contains some slippery equivocations about truth, includes the inevitable climate-change jibe, and states the contradiction: "we all have different truths" (she uses the phrase 'personal truth' instead of 'subjective opinion' )...
https://singjupost.com/what-wikipedia-teaches-us-about-balan...
She then gave a TED Talk that contains some slippery equivocations about truth, includes the inevitable climate-change jibe, and states the contradiction: "we all have different truths" (she uses the phrase 'personal truth' instead of 'subjective opinion' )...
https://singjupost.com/what-wikipedia-teaches-us-about-balan...
I had no idea this existed. Me likey. Now if I can just get this as an RSS feed....
Same here. Let me know if you find a good solution
Here's as close as I got with a bit of fiddling. You may or may not be able to winnow out minor changes using the inverttags parameter []
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?hidebots=1&hidecategoriza...
[] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=help&modules=feedr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?hidebots=1&hidecategoriza...
[] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=help&modules=feedr...
That only covers global news though.
> I grew up listening to NPR, it was always on. Car talk with my dad on the weekends, Prarie home, etc.
Note: These are not NPR shows. They're merely shows that your (and most) local NPR affiliates purchased for broadcasting.
If you think your local affiliate doesn't have enough of these types of shows, let them know! Many local affiliates have wide discretion on the programming.
More details: https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178640915/npr-stations-and-pub...
Note: These are not NPR shows. They're merely shows that your (and most) local NPR affiliates purchased for broadcasting.
If you think your local affiliate doesn't have enough of these types of shows, let them know! Many local affiliates have wide discretion on the programming.
More details: https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178640915/npr-stations-and-pub...
> Note: These are not NPR shows. They're merely shows that your (and most) local NPR affiliates purchased for broadcasting.
That seems like a pretty fine distinction. If nothing else, NPR makes decisions about which externally produced shows to license. In the end, NPR deserves all the credit / responsibility for what it broadcasts.
It reminds me of the distinction NPR makes (used to make?) between "advertising" and "underwriting". Maybe the distinction was relevant for some legal / regulatory things. But it wasn't relevant for e.g. discussions about whether or not they were subject to "advertiser" pressure on their content.
That seems like a pretty fine distinction. If nothing else, NPR makes decisions about which externally produced shows to license. In the end, NPR deserves all the credit / responsibility for what it broadcasts.
It reminds me of the distinction NPR makes (used to make?) between "advertising" and "underwriting". Maybe the distinction was relevant for some legal / regulatory things. But it wasn't relevant for e.g. discussions about whether or not they were subject to "advertiser" pressure on their content.
> In the end, NPR deserves all the credit / responsibility for what it broadcasts.
I think it's more like: In the end, your local NPR station deserves credit/responsibility for what it broadcasts. Not all of the shows they broadcast are NPR shows. There's PRI, for example.
The other thing is that sometimes there are multiple NPR options that could be presented.
EDIT: I checked the schedule of my local NPR station:
The morning/afternoon schedule:
I think it's more like: In the end, your local NPR station deserves credit/responsibility for what it broadcasts. Not all of the shows they broadcast are NPR shows. There's PRI, for example.
The other thing is that sometimes there are multiple NPR options that could be presented.
EDIT: I checked the schedule of my local NPR station:
The morning/afternoon schedule:
- Morning Edition (NPR)
- On Point (seems to be NPR out of WBUR)
- Here and Now (also NPR out of WBUR - I actually think this one is generally pretty good)
- Think Out Loud (local production of OPB - really good local interview show, the guy is an excellent interviewer, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets moved up to the national level at some point)
- BBC Newshour (BBC, of course)
- The World (PRI - actually a really informative program about events outside the US)
- All Things Considered (NPR)
- Today Explained (VOX podcast)
- Marketplace (APM - informative business show)
> If nothing else, NPR makes decisions about which externally produced shows to license. In the end, NPR deserves all the credit / responsibility for what it broadcasts.
But NPR doesn't broadcast anything - your local affiliate does. And they have complete discretion on whether to broadcast anything NPR gives them.
But NPR doesn't broadcast anything - your local affiliate does. And they have complete discretion on whether to broadcast anything NPR gives them.
Car Talk was an NPR show.
Nope. It was a locally produced show that was licensed to NPR.
I assumed you were trying to distinguish shows like A Prairie Home Companion, which was distributed by American Public Media, from shows distributed by NPR; and that you were simply mistaken about Car Talk. That would have been a somewhat meaningful point, despite the incestuous relationship between all of these organizations. However, if you're arguing that shows distributed by NPR aren't "NPR shows" unless they are also directly produced by NPR, then you're not only being pedantic, but being pedantic on the basis of a definition that is not widely shared.
NPR's own Terry Gross has described Car Talk in these exact words, "an NPR show".[0] A large part of NPR's mission is distributing shows produced by local affiliates, and no doubt they exercise significant editorial discretion in determining which shows to distribute. For the purposes of this discussion, who cares if a show is produced directly by NPR, or if it is produced by another organizaton using NPR's money and then distributed by NPR?
[0] https://www.npr.org/transcripts/361408028
NPR's own Terry Gross has described Car Talk in these exact words, "an NPR show".[0] A large part of NPR's mission is distributing shows produced by local affiliates, and no doubt they exercise significant editorial discretion in determining which shows to distribute. For the purposes of this discussion, who cares if a show is produced directly by NPR, or if it is produced by another organizaton using NPR's money and then distributed by NPR?
[0] https://www.npr.org/transcripts/361408028
> NPR's own Terry Gross has described Car Talk in these exact words, "an NPR show".[0]
It's interesting that you invoke Terry Gross as being part of NPR, when NPR actually says otherwise:
> Several programs that NPR distributes are produced by NPR Member Stations, not NPR. These include top-rated news and cultural programs such as Fresh Air with host Terry Gross from WHYY...
https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178640915/npr-stations-and-pub...
NPR shows are things like All Things Considered. Car Talk was produced by an independent affiliate (just like Fresh Air). Yes, I am distinguishing between the two.
If NPR doesn't consider Fresh Air to be an "NPR show", then nor do they consider Car Talk to be an NPR show.
There's a difference between these and things like TV shows. Stuff like The Simpsons is actually a FOX show (as in whatever company makes them is owned by Fox). Whereas NPR never "owned" Car Talk, just as they don't currently "own" Fresh Air. These shows can always choose not to be part of NPR syndication. It's ultimately a licensing deal. They do own All Things Considered.
It's interesting that you invoke Terry Gross as being part of NPR, when NPR actually says otherwise:
> Several programs that NPR distributes are produced by NPR Member Stations, not NPR. These include top-rated news and cultural programs such as Fresh Air with host Terry Gross from WHYY...
https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178640915/npr-stations-and-pub...
NPR shows are things like All Things Considered. Car Talk was produced by an independent affiliate (just like Fresh Air). Yes, I am distinguishing between the two.
If NPR doesn't consider Fresh Air to be an "NPR show", then nor do they consider Car Talk to be an NPR show.
There's a difference between these and things like TV shows. Stuff like The Simpsons is actually a FOX show (as in whatever company makes them is owned by Fox). Whereas NPR never "owned" Car Talk, just as they don't currently "own" Fresh Air. These shows can always choose not to be part of NPR syndication. It's ultimately a licensing deal. They do own All Things Considered.
NPR does not say Fresh Air is "not an NPR show". They say it is produced by a member station. You are then superimposing your own personal definition of "NPR show", which Terry Gross for example does not share, onto that statement.
Fresh Air's X handle is @nprfreshair, and you want to tell me it's not an NPR show?
More importantly: how is any of this possibly relevant to the original conversation?
Fresh Air's X handle is @nprfreshair, and you want to tell me it's not an NPR show?
More importantly: how is any of this possibly relevant to the original conversation?
> NPR does not say Fresh Air is "not an NPR show". They say it is produced by a member station.
They also explicitly say that it is not produced by NPR.
It's not an NPR show in the sense that when the licensing deal expires, Fresh Air can choose not to be syndicated on NPR. It's an independent show that licenses itself to NPR. A show like All Things Considered has no such freedom.
> More importantly: how is any of this possibly relevant to the original conversation?
The original conversation was about how one can influence their local affiliate to change their programming, until someone came and nitpicked about whether NPR owns Car Talk or not.
They also explicitly say that it is not produced by NPR.
It's not an NPR show in the sense that when the licensing deal expires, Fresh Air can choose not to be syndicated on NPR. It's an independent show that licenses itself to NPR. A show like All Things Considered has no such freedom.
> More importantly: how is any of this possibly relevant to the original conversation?
The original conversation was about how one can influence their local affiliate to change their programming, until someone came and nitpicked about whether NPR owns Car Talk or not.
No, the original conversation was about the perceived decline in quality at NPR. You then popped in to say that it was up to the local affiliates, not up to NPR, because these aren't "NPR shows" (by your own personal definition of that phrase). But regardless of whether we adopt your definition (and forsake the definition that Terry Gross and just about everyone else use), how is a decline in the quality of shows that NPR distributes not their responsibility, given that they can and do choose which shows to distribute?
https://youtu.be/aChiTXPHpCY?si=Y0dp431Kq96peLwl&t=3205
> Car talk is a production of Dewey Cheetah Howe and WBUR in Boston. And even though NPR staffers pass through the stages of denial anger depression and acceptance then go back to denial again whenever they hear us say it this is NPR.
https://youtu.be/1ExBaSRyXEM?si=mszTKyvWhrOU2Ezg&t=3180
> Car talk is a production of Dewey Cheetah Howe and WBUR in Boston. And even though hearing aid salesmen are consumed by guilt whenever they hear us say it this is NPR.
How much less NPR can it be when the hosts say at the end "This is NPR"?
> Car talk is a production of Dewey Cheetah Howe and WBUR in Boston. And even though NPR staffers pass through the stages of denial anger depression and acceptance then go back to denial again whenever they hear us say it this is NPR.
https://youtu.be/1ExBaSRyXEM?si=mszTKyvWhrOU2Ezg&t=3180
> Car talk is a production of Dewey Cheetah Howe and WBUR in Boston. And even though hearing aid salesmen are consumed by guilt whenever they hear us say it this is NPR.
How much less NPR can it be when the hosts say at the end "This is NPR"?
> Car talk is a production of Dewey Cheetah Howe...
Dewey, Cheatum & Howe. It's a joke name like Sillius Soddus or Biggus Dickus.
Dewey, Cheatum & Howe. It's a joke name like Sillius Soddus or Biggus Dickus.
(edit: I was copying from the auto-generated YouTube transcript)
https://www.cartalk.com/content/history-car-talk
> Nine months after starting with Susan, in the fall of 1987, NPR agreed to launch "Car Talk" nationally. So there we were, following in the footsteps of award programs like "All Things Considered," "Weekend Edition," and "Morning Edition." We, like you, remain entirely mystified and have no idea what combination of prescription medicines brought about a decision like this out of NPR's management. We can only assume that they were looking for some cultural diversity, trying somehow to balance their high quality programming with crud like ours. Stations turned to us in droves - much in the same way that lemmings flock to the sea.
> We discovered pretty quickly that producing a national radio show is a lot of work! Shortly after going national, we decided we needed a staff. That way, our afternoon naps could continue uninterrupted and, when not napping, we could still pursue our CAFE study. (Don't confuse this with the government's Corporate Average Fuel Economy report. Ours is about latte and cappucino in the greater metropolitan Boston area.) So, in 1989, we founded Dewey, Cheatem and Howe.
https://www.cartalk.com/content/history-car-talk
> Nine months after starting with Susan, in the fall of 1987, NPR agreed to launch "Car Talk" nationally. So there we were, following in the footsteps of award programs like "All Things Considered," "Weekend Edition," and "Morning Edition." We, like you, remain entirely mystified and have no idea what combination of prescription medicines brought about a decision like this out of NPR's management. We can only assume that they were looking for some cultural diversity, trying somehow to balance their high quality programming with crud like ours. Stations turned to us in droves - much in the same way that lemmings flock to the sea.
> We discovered pretty quickly that producing a national radio show is a lot of work! Shortly after going national, we decided we needed a staff. That way, our afternoon naps could continue uninterrupted and, when not napping, we could still pursue our CAFE study. (Don't confuse this with the government's Corporate Average Fuel Economy report. Ours is about latte and cappucino in the greater metropolitan Boston area.) So, in 1989, we founded Dewey, Cheatem and Howe.
Not sure what your point is. The hosts are clearly pointing out that NPR staffers disagree with them on this point.
You haven't listened to enough of the end credits.
https://www.npr.org/people/2100834/tom-and-ray-magliozzi
In 1977, Tom and Ray were invited to the studios of NPR member station WBUR in Boston, along with other area mechanics, to discuss car repair. Tom accepted the invitation, and when he was invited back the following week, he asked, "Can I bring my brother, Ray?" The rest, as they say, is history. The Magliozzis were subsequently given their own weekly program, Car Talk, which soon attracted a large local following.
In January 1987, then host Susan Stamberg asked Tom and Ray to be weekly contributors to NPR's Weekend Edition and on October 31, 1987, Car Talk premiered as a national program, presented by NPR.
...
Car Talk is produced for NPR by Dewey, Cheetham & Howe and WBUR in Boston. Doug Berman is the Executive Producer.
---
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510208/car-talk
> The Best of Car Talk From NPR
> What are you going to do if two NPR hosts proclaim that you are so friendless you have to hang a porkchop around your neck just to get the dog to play with you? And what if those heartless hosts were your very own uncles? Find out on this episode of the Best of Car Talk.
That's listed under https://www.npr.org/podcasts/organizations/s1 which is "NPR Podcasts & Shows" with "NPR" in the top left corner of the icon.
If you go to Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/7y4fsFiHniACpBxFbvYKzY - this is from NPR and not On The Media (which I also listen to on a public radio station) https://open.spotify.com/show/3ge9HkAgzE1PP6193I1Vet and in https://www.npr.org/podcasts/452538775/on-the-media it is listed in a different organization ( https://www.npr.org/podcasts/organizations/s552 ).
https://www.npr.org/people/2100834/tom-and-ray-magliozzi
In 1977, Tom and Ray were invited to the studios of NPR member station WBUR in Boston, along with other area mechanics, to discuss car repair. Tom accepted the invitation, and when he was invited back the following week, he asked, "Can I bring my brother, Ray?" The rest, as they say, is history. The Magliozzis were subsequently given their own weekly program, Car Talk, which soon attracted a large local following.
In January 1987, then host Susan Stamberg asked Tom and Ray to be weekly contributors to NPR's Weekend Edition and on October 31, 1987, Car Talk premiered as a national program, presented by NPR.
...
Car Talk is produced for NPR by Dewey, Cheetham & Howe and WBUR in Boston. Doug Berman is the Executive Producer.
---
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510208/car-talk
> The Best of Car Talk From NPR
> What are you going to do if two NPR hosts proclaim that you are so friendless you have to hang a porkchop around your neck just to get the dog to play with you? And what if those heartless hosts were your very own uncles? Find out on this episode of the Best of Car Talk.
That's listed under https://www.npr.org/podcasts/organizations/s1 which is "NPR Podcasts & Shows" with "NPR" in the top left corner of the icon.
If you go to Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/7y4fsFiHniACpBxFbvYKzY - this is from NPR and not On The Media (which I also listen to on a public radio station) https://open.spotify.com/show/3ge9HkAgzE1PP6193I1Vet and in https://www.npr.org/podcasts/452538775/on-the-media it is listed in a different organization ( https://www.npr.org/podcasts/organizations/s552 ).
Wow, I've never heard Cheetah. It's like totally missing the punny. Did you miss half the jokes if you heard Cheetah? Do you hear Tony Danza instead of tiny dancer too?
"Car Talk was originally a radio show that ran on National Public Radio (NPR) from 1977 until October 2012, when the Magliozzi brothers retired."
Source: Wikipedia
I'm laughing at everyone trying to split hairs over Car Talk in this thread. Most long-running programming on PBS were all "locally produced".
Source: Wikipedia
I'm laughing at everyone trying to split hairs over Car Talk in this thread. Most long-running programming on PBS were all "locally produced".
> Most long-running programming on PBS were all "locally produced".
And I would split hairs with PBS as well :-)
As I mentioned in a sibling post, NPR shows are things like "All Things Considered". Stuff like "Fresh Air" and Car Talk are not considered as NPR shows - not even by NPR themselves.
And I would split hairs with PBS as well :-)
As I mentioned in a sibling post, NPR shows are things like "All Things Considered". Stuff like "Fresh Air" and Car Talk are not considered as NPR shows - not even by NPR themselves.
> Stuff like "Fresh Air" and Car Talk are not considered as NPR shows - not even by NPR themselves.
So when NPR themselves[1] refer to it as "NPR's Car Talk" in official copy, you're saying that is horseshit? You should write to NPR and let them know they are wrong.
Also this:
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2014/11/03/357428287/tom-magliozzi-popul...
So when NPR themselves[1] refer to it as "NPR's Car Talk" in official copy, you're saying that is horseshit? You should write to NPR and let them know they are wrong.
Also this:
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2014/11/03/357428287/tom-magliozzi-popul...
This makes me nostalgic. I wish I could hear Tom weigh in on this discussion, and then hear Ray talk him down from the ledge.
From their 25th year anniversary - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6atDT3cmrs
willcipriano(2)
Yep, many years ago NPR was quite eclectic and a great way to satisfy my curiosity on weekends as a kid or later at my factory job.
Incidentally, it now occurs to me that HN is basically my current replacement. Even if I have zero interest in a linked topic, I’ll often find a comment or discussion that’s enlightening and furthers my perspective of something in a meaningful and positive way.
Incidentally, it now occurs to me that HN is basically my current replacement. Even if I have zero interest in a linked topic, I’ll often find a comment or discussion that’s enlightening and furthers my perspective of something in a meaningful and positive way.
I treasure this site and the insightful comments I read. It’s one of the last places I’ve found on the internet where someone can bring up a controversial topic and get legitimate responses.
Only about computer technology. Other topics here are undistinguashable from the rest of the general Internet.
I dunno, certainly there's much more a norm of politeness here, along with decent moderation.
To contrast, the FT used to have good comments (and still does on really obscure topics) but overall they've gone massively downhill because of the lack of decent norms around thoughtful conversation.
To contrast, the FT used to have good comments (and still does on really obscure topics) but overall they've gone massively downhill because of the lack of decent norms around thoughtful conversation.
While I do agree to some extent, and I’m grateful for what we have here, I think it’s important to call out that we are largely moderated by the community (flagging, downvoting) and still relatively conservative about what is able to be discussed. Pretty much any controversial concept related to anything going on in USA politics is going to get shut down.
>Pretty much any controversial concept related to anything going on in USA politics is going to get shut down.
Good! USA politics are so ridiculous and toxic, it's better to have a place that's free of all that garbage. However, I don't agree that these discussions get "shut down": I see Americans posting their libertarian, gun-fetish stuff here all the time.
Good! USA politics are so ridiculous and toxic, it's better to have a place that's free of all that garbage. However, I don't agree that these discussions get "shut down": I see Americans posting their libertarian, gun-fetish stuff here all the time.
This is an under appreciated statement.
Pre-Elon takeover of Twitter, I tried for months to engage in legitimate, argumentative yet constructive conversations. I was met time and time again with reductive, inflammatory, and disingenuous responses. And this was in the infosec community, one that for years was one of, in my opinion, last places on Twitter for that kind of discourse.
I quit shortly after.
This might be the first time I’ve heard someone refer to infosec Twitter in a positive light. They were always inflammatory and belligerent and spiteful.
The same crowd has now migrated to ActivityPub. You can find them there still acting the same way today.
The same crowd has now migrated to ActivityPub. You can find them there still acting the same way today.
GolberThorce(1)
Images of what I imagine to be their yearly performance goals rush through my head as soon as it turns to victim, race, oppression, etc.
"25% of stories uplifting Black voices" etc.
It just seems so forced.
"25% of stories uplifting Black voices" etc.
It just seems so forced.
Would “a focus on making sure we also give the conservative angle“ also seem forced?
Yes
I have started reading the piece by Uri now and it basically confirms what I was imagining.
"He declared that diversity—on our staff and in our audience—was the overriding mission"
"Journalists were required to ask everyone we interviewed their race, gender, and ethnicity (among other questions), and had to enter it in a centralized tracking system."
Pretty much guaranteed that they were trying to hit race/gender quotas.
I have started reading the piece by Uri now and it basically confirms what I was imagining.
"He declared that diversity—on our staff and in our audience—was the overriding mission"
"Journalists were required to ask everyone we interviewed their race, gender, and ethnicity (among other questions), and had to enter it in a centralized tracking system."
Pretty much guaranteed that they were trying to hit race/gender quotas.
I always find it on the nose when “diversity” is used to mean “aligned with modern leftist political ideals”. That’s just not what that word means.
If NPR wants actual diversity (of opinion), they should consider tracking the political affiliation of the people they interview in their database. But in my experience, DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) never seems to include a diversity of political views. I find that very suspicious.
If NPR wants actual diversity (of opinion), they should consider tracking the political affiliation of the people they interview in their database. But in my experience, DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) never seems to include a diversity of political views. I find that very suspicious.
When we can talk about "a diverse candidate", the word has obviously become untethered from any ordinary meaning.
Read "non-white", "non-straight", and/or "non-male" in place of "diversity" and you will see that it works 100% of the time.
I think you’re right. But that isn’t actually what diverse means. The opposite - lefty non-white, non-straight and mostly non-male people are a specific political group.
I think it’s quite on the nose for organisations to cater to that community explicitly. And the wider population is far more diverse than that.
I think it’s quite on the nose for organisations to cater to that community explicitly. And the wider population is far more diverse than that.
[deleted]
It is strange to me. It seems obvious to me that it would result in more diversity to have say, a latino network with all latino reporters who interviewed latinos, and a different network which was multi-ethnic, and a Fox News like network which was white as heck, than it is to just have the 2nd.
Diversity is implemented in a strangely homogenous way where there is only one monoculture. One correct, diverse way to run such an organisation.
Diversity is implemented in a strangely homogenous way where there is only one monoculture. One correct, diverse way to run such an organisation.
New York Times is surprisingly good about this.
Most of their reporting does have a left bias, and of course opinion even more so.
But they do have some serious, thoughtful conservatives in their opinion pages. Like David French and Ross Douthat. And they have reported on controversial issues like the dangers of medically transitioning minors. David Leonhardt points out the places where conservative arguments have facts on their side, like how closing schools during Covid for so long greatly damaged learning outcomes and was a bad decision overall.
It eliminates blind spots that come from only considering views confirming an ideology and thus getting important stories wrong.
Most of their reporting does have a left bias, and of course opinion even more so.
But they do have some serious, thoughtful conservatives in their opinion pages. Like David French and Ross Douthat. And they have reported on controversial issues like the dangers of medically transitioning minors. David Leonhardt points out the places where conservative arguments have facts on their side, like how closing schools during Covid for so long greatly damaged learning outcomes and was a bad decision overall.
It eliminates blind spots that come from only considering views confirming an ideology and thus getting important stories wrong.
I don't read the NYT as much as I used to, but I'll be a NYT subscriber for the rest of my life because they're the only media source creating content of quality and depth across such a wide range of American society (and of the rest of the world).
Some of their editorials are nutz but many, on both the left and the right, are exemplars of journalism.
Some of their editorials are nutz but many, on both the left and the right, are exemplars of journalism.
Those guys (and Brooks, Stephens) represent a moribund strain of conservatism with zero organic support. They speak for spooks and think tanks, nobody else. They provide diversity in the same way that the Washington Generals play basketball.
I think publications like Unherd, Compact, and of course Taki's Mag have their fingers closer to the pulse. I don't endorse the contents and can't even vouch for the quality of the writing, but it's not an ideological dead-end in the way the NYT, Atlantic, and National Review are.
I think publications like Unherd, Compact, and of course Taki's Mag have their fingers closer to the pulse. I don't endorse the contents and can't even vouch for the quality of the writing, but it's not an ideological dead-end in the way the NYT, Atlantic, and National Review are.
No, those people represent a common strain of conservative view, they just don't represent a faction which holds much power in either political party at this moment. But don't confuse the power balance of factions within parties as a representation of what views people actually hold. A two party system with first past the post primaries makes it likely that the parties will be controlled by their extreme factions, while most people are disaffected and dissatisfied with their general election choices.
Those other publications do indeed have their fingers on the pulse of the dominant populist faction on the right, just like their progressive counterparts have their finger on the pulse of the populist left. But those aren't the only (or in my view, at all) interesting things to read about.
Those other publications do indeed have their fingers on the pulse of the dominant populist faction on the right, just like their progressive counterparts have their finger on the pulse of the populist left. But those aren't the only (or in my view, at all) interesting things to read about.
You're framing unrepentant neoconservatism as some underrepresented moderate alternative that a disaffected middle America is secretly clamoring for. I have not met any normal people who think the way French and Stephens do.
I don't think the words "middle America" or "secretly clamoring" show up in my comment.
It's fine (good, even, IMO) that you disagree with conservatives (I do as well), but that doesn't mean they don't exist. The "normal people" that you've met, or that I've met, are not a good sample of the range of political viewpoints that exist.
The people who voted for Reagan and HW Bush and John McCain - who was way more popular than any current Republican leader, and put up a strong showing against Barack Obama, the most popular politician of our era - and Mitt Romney haven't all died or joined Trump's weird and actually pretty tiny cult of personality. They're still out there stewing about what has happened to the Republican party.
It's fine (good, even, IMO) that you disagree with conservatives (I do as well), but that doesn't mean they don't exist. The "normal people" that you've met, or that I've met, are not a good sample of the range of political viewpoints that exist.
The people who voted for Reagan and HW Bush and John McCain - who was way more popular than any current Republican leader, and put up a strong showing against Barack Obama, the most popular politician of our era - and Mitt Romney haven't all died or joined Trump's weird and actually pretty tiny cult of personality. They're still out there stewing about what has happened to the Republican party.
> But they do have some serious, thoughtful conservatives in their opinion pages. Like David French and Ross Douthat.
You do a serious disservice to David French by including him in the same boat as Ross Douthat. Mr. French does often post thoughtful pieces from a conservative viewpoint, but most of what I’ve read from Mr. Douthat is quite the opposite.
Indeed, most of what I’ve read from Mr. Douthat is just a thinly-veiled sermon that paints “liberals” as one-dimensional characters that (along with our whole society) just need to find god. A conservative catholic god, specifically.
Really, he’s a religion columnist masquerading as political commentator. And not a particularly good one, at that.
David French, though, is a decent writer.
You do a serious disservice to David French by including him in the same boat as Ross Douthat. Mr. French does often post thoughtful pieces from a conservative viewpoint, but most of what I’ve read from Mr. Douthat is quite the opposite.
Indeed, most of what I’ve read from Mr. Douthat is just a thinly-veiled sermon that paints “liberals” as one-dimensional characters that (along with our whole society) just need to find god. A conservative catholic god, specifically.
Really, he’s a religion columnist masquerading as political commentator. And not a particularly good one, at that.
David French, though, is a decent writer.
Why do you think religion isn’t important enough to be discussed in a major newspaper?
Check out the Matter of Opinion podcast. Douthat is very comfortable engaging in give and take with liberals who have very different views. He presents orthodox Catholic opinions yes, but he’s intelligent enough to understand what’s a good or a bad argument.
Check out the Matter of Opinion podcast. Douthat is very comfortable engaging in give and take with liberals who have very different views. He presents orthodox Catholic opinions yes, but he’s intelligent enough to understand what’s a good or a bad argument.
I don’t appreciate the conflation of conservative views and religious views, which is my main problem. I never said it wasn’t important to discuss; don’t put words in my mouth.
My other problem is that I just find his writing and rhetoric to be very weak.
My other problem is that I just find his writing and rhetoric to be very weak.
Where do you draw the line around what voices need to be included? Conservative politics have moved so far to the right that centric liberal politics is what old conservative politics used to be (because democrats are big tent, and the republicans have been shedding voters due to extremism).
Balance isn't positive or useful when it shifts things further one direction, especially when there's such a massive shift.
Balance isn't positive or useful when it shifts things further one direction, especially when there's such a massive shift.
That’s why they have voices like French and Douthat.
It’s hard to find a thoughtful full on Trump supporter, because his “arguments” don’t lend themselves to thoughtful reflection or analysis.
It’s hard to find a thoughtful full on Trump supporter, because his “arguments” don’t lend themselves to thoughtful reflection or analysis.
Indeed. While you might dislike Neo-liberalism, Reagan-ism, or Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism," as Walter Sobchak said: at least it's an ethos.
Trumpism believes in nothing but suborning yourself to Trump's will and needs. Sure there's some vague isolationism and xenophobia, and some pandering to Christian nationalism, but the only consistent policy position is fielty to Trump. That's why there aren't any interesting Trumpist pundits. The House is twisting itself in knots right now because they can't decide what he wants or will tolerate regarding Ukraine funding. A real party with a policy would have an articulatable agenda, probably with some dissenters on this or that, but all the current Republican party can agree on is how great dear leader is, and Democrats are bad.
Trumpism believes in nothing but suborning yourself to Trump's will and needs. Sure there's some vague isolationism and xenophobia, and some pandering to Christian nationalism, but the only consistent policy position is fielty to Trump. That's why there aren't any interesting Trumpist pundits. The House is twisting itself in knots right now because they can't decide what he wants or will tolerate regarding Ukraine funding. A real party with a policy would have an articulatable agenda, probably with some dissenters on this or that, but all the current Republican party can agree on is how great dear leader is, and Democrats are bad.
Yes and: what ever their pre Trump "conservative" bonafidas, neither French or Douthat land any where near today's mainstream movement conservatives (MAGA).
They have conservative bonafides, no scare quotes necessary. The Republican party mainstream (MAGA) is not attempting conservatism, it is right wing populism. The word "conservative" does not have a new definition, the change has been that it no longer applies to the political party it once did (at least more so).
A news organization that chased “diversity of opinion” would not be a good news organization.
Some opinions are not worth entertaining. If NPR were broadcasting the rantings of flat earthers, Sasquatch hunters, and anti-vax weirdos, it may be entertaining but it wouldn’t be news.
Also: the reason DEI initiatives ignore “diversity of political views” is because that is not a trait you are born with.
Some opinions are not worth entertaining. If NPR were broadcasting the rantings of flat earthers, Sasquatch hunters, and anti-vax weirdos, it may be entertaining but it wouldn’t be news.
Also: the reason DEI initiatives ignore “diversity of political views” is because that is not a trait you are born with.
Sure; but its a mistake to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Its true that I don't want any of my news to come from flat earthers. But if all of my news (or all of my friends) share the same set of political biases, I'll end up wrong about important things and unable to connect with people around me.
Its a balancing act. Like every balancing act, you can fail on both sides - by being too open minded (and believing Alex Jones or whatever), or by being too closed minded.
I think if you live in a country where half of the population has some particular view of the world, you're being a bad democratic citizen if you don't take the time to understand that point of view.
Its a balancing act. Like every balancing act, you can fail on both sides - by being too open minded (and believing Alex Jones or whatever), or by being too closed minded.
I think if you live in a country where half of the population has some particular view of the world, you're being a bad democratic citizen if you don't take the time to understand that point of view.
I agree, but the solution is to consume a variety of news sources rather than expecting some perfect formula from one.
Hoping that people consume a variety of news sources sounds naively optimistic to me. And when a single news station 100% caters to their audience's biases, you end up in situations like Fox News knowingly lying to their audience over the idea that the election was stolen. (If they told the truth as they saw it, they would have lost viewers. So they chose to back Trump's lie.)
I think its much healthier when news sources actively struggle against the pressure to be an echo chamber. And be self aware enough to know their own biases & make them clear to their readers. I also like hearing the reasonable arguments against their position: "We endorse candidate A, but here are some reasonable criticisms of A that their opponents bring up."
The Economist does this. Other commenters in this thread mention the New York Times does this. Generally, I want to follow journalists who know more about the topic than I do, and can help me see a bigger picture.
I think its much healthier when news sources actively struggle against the pressure to be an echo chamber. And be self aware enough to know their own biases & make them clear to their readers. I also like hearing the reasonable arguments against their position: "We endorse candidate A, but here are some reasonable criticisms of A that their opponents bring up."
The Economist does this. Other commenters in this thread mention the New York Times does this. Generally, I want to follow journalists who know more about the topic than I do, and can help me see a bigger picture.
> Also: the reason DEI initiatives ignore “diversity of political views” is because that is not a trait you are born with.
Is that true? You're born from your parents[0]. I don't think it's actually much of an important distinction that you would have different socialization if you were adopted. Younger LGBTQ/NB people don't agree with this nearly as much as they used to, for instance. Several of those groups are just things you decide to do.
[0] as the vice president said: https://twitter.com/brownskinthem/status/1712665740069724184
Is that true? You're born from your parents[0]. I don't think it's actually much of an important distinction that you would have different socialization if you were adopted. Younger LGBTQ/NB people don't agree with this nearly as much as they used to, for instance. Several of those groups are just things you decide to do.
[0] as the vice president said: https://twitter.com/brownskinthem/status/1712665740069724184
> If NPR were broadcasting the rantings of flat earthers, Sasquatch hunters, and anti-vax weirdos, it may be entertaining but it wouldn’t be news.
Surely you can see the difference between airing the view that it's reasonable and expected for the modern IRS to have significantly fewer employees per capita than they did before the advent of computers, and airing the view that autism is caused by Lizardmen.
Surely you can see the difference between airing the view that it's reasonable and expected for the modern IRS to have significantly fewer employees per capita than they did before the advent of computers, and airing the view that autism is caused by Lizardmen.
No?
Computers can do audits and litigate cases now?
Computers can do audits and litigate cases now?
Computers remove the need to have an army people to open envelopes and file all of the tax returns of the many millions of people who aren't getting audited and now file electronically, and electronically process payments or tax refunds, and validate the numbers on each tax return against the 1099s and W2s submitted by employers to make sure they match etc. All of these things used to be done by hand and it should certainly not require anywhere near as much labor to do them electronically.
[deleted]
Honestly no, because cuts to the IRS have clearly and blatantly been motivated by lobbying and the desire to make the IRS less effectual at tax collection.
The vast majority of the contemporary debate revolves around the defunding of the IRS's legal team and their ability to hire external council, and the observed fact that they have been pursuing less and less tax cases over time against large companies in particular.
there's a number of reasonable "defund the IRS" arguments I could entertain, such is "tax collection is bad", but the idea that computers simply means the cuts in IRS employees is "reasonable and expected" just ain't so. The cuts were directly agitated for by lobbying groups like CEETA, of which Microsoft is a member, Microsoft having a massive pending IRS tax case.
The vast majority of the contemporary debate revolves around the defunding of the IRS's legal team and their ability to hire external council, and the observed fact that they have been pursuing less and less tax cases over time against large companies in particular.
there's a number of reasonable "defund the IRS" arguments I could entertain, such is "tax collection is bad", but the idea that computers simply means the cuts in IRS employees is "reasonable and expected" just ain't so. The cuts were directly agitated for by lobbying groups like CEETA, of which Microsoft is a member, Microsoft having a massive pending IRS tax case.
> Honestly no, because cuts to the IRS have clearly and blatantly been motivated by lobbying and the desire to make the IRS less effectual at tax collection.
The other side of this coin is that every time the IRS audits anyone, they have to incur significant uncompensated costs to deal with the audit even if they've done nothing wrong. Anyone subjected to this obviously and reasonably is not going to like it, and allowing the government to convert all of the efficiency gains from computerization into more staff to impose those costs on innocent people is not inherently the right thing to do.
> The vast majority of the contemporary debate revolves around the defunding of the IRS's legal team and their ability to hire external council, and the observed fact that they have been pursuing less and less tax cases over time against large companies in particular.
How many staff they have and who they target with those resources are two separate issues.
> the idea that computers simply means the cuts in IRS employees is "reasonable and expected" just ain't so.
If they had N employees doing audits and M employees doing clerical work, and now computers mean they only need 10% as many employees to do clerical work, it is completely reasonable to say that they should now be able to do the same work as before with 10% as many clerical employees because that is what happened.
The other side of this coin is that every time the IRS audits anyone, they have to incur significant uncompensated costs to deal with the audit even if they've done nothing wrong. Anyone subjected to this obviously and reasonably is not going to like it, and allowing the government to convert all of the efficiency gains from computerization into more staff to impose those costs on innocent people is not inherently the right thing to do.
> The vast majority of the contemporary debate revolves around the defunding of the IRS's legal team and their ability to hire external council, and the observed fact that they have been pursuing less and less tax cases over time against large companies in particular.
How many staff they have and who they target with those resources are two separate issues.
> the idea that computers simply means the cuts in IRS employees is "reasonable and expected" just ain't so.
If they had N employees doing audits and M employees doing clerical work, and now computers mean they only need 10% as many employees to do clerical work, it is completely reasonable to say that they should now be able to do the same work as before with 10% as many clerical employees because that is what happened.
>How many staff they have and who they target with those resources are two separate issues.
They may be two separate issues, but they are two interconnected issues, as with limited legal resources its more profitable to audit average people than to audit the wealthy who can evidently hold you up in court for decades, whereas with more legal resources there's more of an incentive to go after the high-hanging fruit since you'll already have the low-hanging fruit covered and have exhausted their resources already.
They may be two separate issues, but they are two interconnected issues, as with limited legal resources its more profitable to audit average people than to audit the wealthy who can evidently hold you up in court for decades, whereas with more legal resources there's more of an incentive to go after the high-hanging fruit since you'll already have the low-hanging fruit covered and have exhausted their resources already.
It's the "having exhausted their resources already" which is the problem.
Suppose the IRS can audit a thousand small businesses and they recover more from this than their own costs. But at the same time most of the small businesses are innocent, and the audits collectively cost them several times as much as the IRS "profits". This is not a socially beneficial undertaking because the net costs across society exceed the net benefits, even if it has higher margins to the IRS than auditing large companies.
If you specifically want the IRS to target large companies then you can have them do that regardless of whether the margin of that to the IRS is less lucrative than the behavior that imposes more uncompensated costs on smaller businesses.
Suppose the IRS can audit a thousand small businesses and they recover more from this than their own costs. But at the same time most of the small businesses are innocent, and the audits collectively cost them several times as much as the IRS "profits". This is not a socially beneficial undertaking because the net costs across society exceed the net benefits, even if it has higher margins to the IRS than auditing large companies.
If you specifically want the IRS to target large companies then you can have them do that regardless of whether the margin of that to the IRS is less lucrative than the behavior that imposes more uncompensated costs on smaller businesses.
Maybe give them a collar and throw them a bone in the same legislation? I feel strongly like large companies have successfully lobbied and propagandised to conflate funding the IRS enough to effectually go after their rampant tax evasion with hurting small businesses.
It's not really all that hard to earmark a certain amount of IRS funds to only go after companies over XX size. I think this is actually essential under neoliberalism because one of the fatal flaws of neoliberalism is giving large companies more wealth & power and then expecting to be able to tax that back to fund the welfare state, which generally falls on its face as you've just given large companies all the wealth and power in the world to stop that from even happening. If neoliberalism is to survive as a political ideology and for us to not end up adopting socialism (which is bureaucratic and corrupt and inefficient), it's sort of essential that organisations like the IRS have a decent amount of power and for them to direct that power at large institutions.
It's not really all that hard to earmark a certain amount of IRS funds to only go after companies over XX size. I think this is actually essential under neoliberalism because one of the fatal flaws of neoliberalism is giving large companies more wealth & power and then expecting to be able to tax that back to fund the welfare state, which generally falls on its face as you've just given large companies all the wealth and power in the world to stop that from even happening. If neoliberalism is to survive as a political ideology and for us to not end up adopting socialism (which is bureaucratic and corrupt and inefficient), it's sort of essential that organisations like the IRS have a decent amount of power and for them to direct that power at large institutions.
NPR flat out got some stories wrong due to their biases.
Everyone does. Even as a baseline of "Things that almost all members of it can agree on", our society is incredibly biased in how it views the world.
So is every other society in history. I'm sure ancient Greeks were convinced that they had it all figured out, too.
Fish don't have a word for water. Spend a significant part of your life immersed in a society with a radically different worldview, and it'll be very clear just how arbitrary team blue/red complaints about bias are.
You don't actually want unbiased reporting. It would be either useless, or make you extremely uncomfortable all the time. You're just unhappy that it's got the wrong bias.
So is every other society in history. I'm sure ancient Greeks were convinced that they had it all figured out, too.
Fish don't have a word for water. Spend a significant part of your life immersed in a society with a radically different worldview, and it'll be very clear just how arbitrary team blue/red complaints about bias are.
You don't actually want unbiased reporting. It would be either useless, or make you extremely uncomfortable all the time. You're just unhappy that it's got the wrong bias.
The New York Times is an example of a liberal news organization that does a much better job of checking their biases to get their stories right.
Probably. Every news organization gets stories wrong. That’s why reputable news sites issue corrections: https://www.npr.org/corrections/
My opinion is that news coverage and liberal politics should focus less on race and identity, not more. That isn't to say we ignore it, but not every issue in cities and states and countries revolves around identity, and an over-emphasis on it comes off as ideological.
But your position starts from the basis that we were race-neutral to begin with. I think part of the reason that there is an emphasis on "positive black voices" is the belief that the default narrative is implicitly negative toward blacks. So without intention you'll simply perpetuate the negative voices.
For example, would the same people who say "we focus too much on race" view Desantis's policies and opinions as "race neutral"?
For example, would the same people who say "we focus too much on race" view Desantis's policies and opinions as "race neutral"?
> But your position starts from the basis that we were race-neutral to begin with
No, it starts from the position that race is not the most important facet of a human being's life.
> So without intention you'll simply perpetuate the negative voices.
Almost none of a person's daily life is dominated by racial issues, except maybe people who specifically work in that field of course, and so very little news would have racial relevance. Going out of your way to use race as a lens on every issue is why it's forced.
No, it starts from the position that race is not the most important facet of a human being's life.
> So without intention you'll simply perpetuate the negative voices.
Almost none of a person's daily life is dominated by racial issues, except maybe people who specifically work in that field of course, and so very little news would have racial relevance. Going out of your way to use race as a lens on every issue is why it's forced.
> Almost none of a person's daily life is dominated by racial issues
I can't say race "dominates" my daily life -- but as a matter of politics it probably ranks #2 after issues directly related to income (mostly taxes). And I can confidently say that almost all of the negative in-person interactions I've had in my life have almost exclusively been because of race.
Why do you think racial politics works so well? Why do Black women align more strongly with racial causes than gender causes? Is it because gender issues aren't really important? Do you think that if there was less identity politics that things would actually be better for minorities? Or would it mostly be better for the majority?
I can't say race "dominates" my daily life -- but as a matter of politics it probably ranks #2 after issues directly related to income (mostly taxes). And I can confidently say that almost all of the negative in-person interactions I've had in my life have almost exclusively been because of race.
Why do you think racial politics works so well? Why do Black women align more strongly with racial causes than gender causes? Is it because gender issues aren't really important? Do you think that if there was less identity politics that things would actually be better for minorities? Or would it mostly be better for the majority?
There are frequently better lenses for examining these issues, like culture and socioeconomics. These explain a larger portion of the variance than race in many circumstances. For example, black immigrants from Africa have a very different outlook than American descendants of slavery [1], with black immigrants having higher educational attainment than any other demographic [2] in the US. A similar finding has been observed in the UK [3]. It's true that systemic racism has disadvantaged African Americans even after the Civil Rights movement, but interestingly the income gap is wider for black men than it is for black women [4] indicating there are more factors at play than racism alone since black women face similar amounts of discrimination as black men [5].
That said, I don't discount the impact that both implicit and explicit racism can have. I just think it's important to take a more holistic view rather than falling back on identity as the main causal factor.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/slavery-black-immigran...
[2]: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2007/03/18/black-immigrants-c...
[3]: https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-10/the_a...
[4]: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-inheritance-of-black-...
[5]: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2020/07/black-women-...
That said, I don't discount the impact that both implicit and explicit racism can have. I just think it's important to take a more holistic view rather than falling back on identity as the main causal factor.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/slavery-black-immigran...
[2]: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2007/03/18/black-immigrants-c...
[3]: https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-10/the_a...
[4]: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-inheritance-of-black-...
[5]: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2020/07/black-women-...
> I can't say race "dominates" my daily life -- but as a matter of politics it probably ranks #2 after issues directly related to income (mostly taxes).
I'm sure it does for many, but the question is why does it rank that high? Is it because it materially affects your life, or because of other qualitative, personal reasons that don't have much material impact? You just said that material impact ranks higher than race (eg. income, taxes), so do you think race has a higher material impact on you than foreign policy, or education policy?
> And I can confidently say that almost all of the negative in-person interactions I've had in my life have almost exclusively been because of race.
I'm genuinely curious whether you think a white person in your place would not have had most of the same negative experiences, all else being equal. You said "almost all", so if we put that at 80%, do you really think white people in your same circumstances (education, socioeconomic status, etc.) have only 20% of the negative interactions you experience? Doesn't that seem a bit implausible?
Isn't it also plausible that at least some of those people were already angry at you for other reasons, and then used racial insults because they knew it would anger you in return? Also a shitty thing to do, but it's meaningfully different to say that you had a negative interaction caused by your race, as opposed to a racist insult caused by a negative interaction.
> Why do you think racial politics works so well?
Because human beings are tribal and love defining in-groups for solidarity and blaming out-groups for their problems, justified or not.
> Why do Black women align more strongly with racial causes than gender causes? Is it because gender issues aren't really important?
Yes, most gender issues these days are relatively unimportant compared to historical norms, and shared culture defines in-groups more strongly than gender.
> Do you think that if there was less identity politics that things would actually be better for minorities? Or would it mostly be better for the majority?
I think this is a false dichotomy at the core of identity politics. The most significant objective group that materially impacts literally everyone is class, and identity politics is an excellent tool for destroying class unity. Power intentionally amplifies identity politics to play on people's tribal instincts for exactly this reason.
I'm sure it does for many, but the question is why does it rank that high? Is it because it materially affects your life, or because of other qualitative, personal reasons that don't have much material impact? You just said that material impact ranks higher than race (eg. income, taxes), so do you think race has a higher material impact on you than foreign policy, or education policy?
> And I can confidently say that almost all of the negative in-person interactions I've had in my life have almost exclusively been because of race.
I'm genuinely curious whether you think a white person in your place would not have had most of the same negative experiences, all else being equal. You said "almost all", so if we put that at 80%, do you really think white people in your same circumstances (education, socioeconomic status, etc.) have only 20% of the negative interactions you experience? Doesn't that seem a bit implausible?
Isn't it also plausible that at least some of those people were already angry at you for other reasons, and then used racial insults because they knew it would anger you in return? Also a shitty thing to do, but it's meaningfully different to say that you had a negative interaction caused by your race, as opposed to a racist insult caused by a negative interaction.
> Why do you think racial politics works so well?
Because human beings are tribal and love defining in-groups for solidarity and blaming out-groups for their problems, justified or not.
> Why do Black women align more strongly with racial causes than gender causes? Is it because gender issues aren't really important?
Yes, most gender issues these days are relatively unimportant compared to historical norms, and shared culture defines in-groups more strongly than gender.
> Do you think that if there was less identity politics that things would actually be better for minorities? Or would it mostly be better for the majority?
I think this is a false dichotomy at the core of identity politics. The most significant objective group that materially impacts literally everyone is class, and identity politics is an excellent tool for destroying class unity. Power intentionally amplifies identity politics to play on people's tribal instincts for exactly this reason.
> so do you think race has a higher material impact on you than foreign policy, or education policy?
Probably so. At least more day-to-day. At the extremes I imagine foreign policy could be huge (if we go to war with China, for example), but even the war with Ukraine/Russia has had little impact on my day-to-day life (that I've noticed).
> I'm genuinely curious whether you think a white person in your place would not have had most of the same negative experiences
Probably not. And to be clear, these aren't small day to day interactions. But major negative interactions I've had in my life. From being put up for adoption because my birth-moms family didn't want her to have a black child (I have this directly from my birth grandmother), to being picked on as the only black kid in my class, to having my fiancée say that her family won't come to our wedding due to race (never got married, so won't know if they'd follow through or not -- but it put an extra strain on the relationship that didn't help).
And these are selected examples where race was explicitly noted as the reason. There's also a bunch where race wasn't noted, but I have strong suspicions. And while this makes me cautious, it doesn't make me disengage because most day-to-day interactions with people are tend toward quite positive.
> Because human beings are tribal and love defining in-groups for solidarity and blaming out-groups for their problems, justified or not.
These tribes are social constructs, as it applies to identity politics. But you're ignoring the fact that real politics have been used against the out-groups. Whether it was slavery, internment camps, home loans, segregation, medical care, etc... Sure you can say, "their just constructed tribes", but when one tribe has used this construct to great advantage -- it won't go unnoticed. And I'm unclear if you're saying it should be ignored or that the advantage gained doesn't exist.
Probably so. At least more day-to-day. At the extremes I imagine foreign policy could be huge (if we go to war with China, for example), but even the war with Ukraine/Russia has had little impact on my day-to-day life (that I've noticed).
> I'm genuinely curious whether you think a white person in your place would not have had most of the same negative experiences
Probably not. And to be clear, these aren't small day to day interactions. But major negative interactions I've had in my life. From being put up for adoption because my birth-moms family didn't want her to have a black child (I have this directly from my birth grandmother), to being picked on as the only black kid in my class, to having my fiancée say that her family won't come to our wedding due to race (never got married, so won't know if they'd follow through or not -- but it put an extra strain on the relationship that didn't help).
And these are selected examples where race was explicitly noted as the reason. There's also a bunch where race wasn't noted, but I have strong suspicions. And while this makes me cautious, it doesn't make me disengage because most day-to-day interactions with people are tend toward quite positive.
> Because human beings are tribal and love defining in-groups for solidarity and blaming out-groups for their problems, justified or not.
These tribes are social constructs, as it applies to identity politics. But you're ignoring the fact that real politics have been used against the out-groups. Whether it was slavery, internment camps, home loans, segregation, medical care, etc... Sure you can say, "their just constructed tribes", but when one tribe has used this construct to great advantage -- it won't go unnoticed. And I'm unclear if you're saying it should be ignored or that the advantage gained doesn't exist.
> Probably so. At least more day-to-day.
What's an example of a race-based policy that has been or you think can be realistically enacted that has had or should/will have material benefits?
> From being put up for adoption because my birth-moms family didn't want her to have a black child (I have this directly from my birth grandmother), to being picked on as the only black kid in my class, to having my fiancée say that her family won't come to our wedding due to race (never got married, so won't know if they'd follow through or not -- but it put an extra strain on the relationship that didn't help).
That all sucks and I don't at all doubt that such people still exist, but I'm confused how you think race-based politics would help. To recap, you said that race issues are #2 in your political priorities after material/economic issues, ostensibly because of experiences like this, so what sort of municipal, state or federal policies or laws could be enacted that would help?
> But you're ignoring the fact that real politics have been used against the out-groups.
If identity politics have been used against out-groups, I'm skeptical that you can fix it by doubling down on identity politics in some "opposite" direction.
> And I'm unclear if you're saying it should be ignored or that the advantage gained doesn't exist.
Depends what you mean by "ignored", but to be clear I've been saying a few things:
1. identity politics is a pseudo-zero sum game and divides people who should unite against the people with the actual power.
2. class politics is materially more important than identity politics.
3. groups that have been disproportionately disadvantaged by identity politics, as you point out, are also disproportionately advantaged by a focus on class politics, and this has been born out by studies on the economic impacts of class-focused policies vs. identity-focused policies.
You don't have to ignore history to ally with someone against a common foe.
What's an example of a race-based policy that has been or you think can be realistically enacted that has had or should/will have material benefits?
> From being put up for adoption because my birth-moms family didn't want her to have a black child (I have this directly from my birth grandmother), to being picked on as the only black kid in my class, to having my fiancée say that her family won't come to our wedding due to race (never got married, so won't know if they'd follow through or not -- but it put an extra strain on the relationship that didn't help).
That all sucks and I don't at all doubt that such people still exist, but I'm confused how you think race-based politics would help. To recap, you said that race issues are #2 in your political priorities after material/economic issues, ostensibly because of experiences like this, so what sort of municipal, state or federal policies or laws could be enacted that would help?
> But you're ignoring the fact that real politics have been used against the out-groups.
If identity politics have been used against out-groups, I'm skeptical that you can fix it by doubling down on identity politics in some "opposite" direction.
> And I'm unclear if you're saying it should be ignored or that the advantage gained doesn't exist.
Depends what you mean by "ignored", but to be clear I've been saying a few things:
1. identity politics is a pseudo-zero sum game and divides people who should unite against the people with the actual power.
2. class politics is materially more important than identity politics.
3. groups that have been disproportionately disadvantaged by identity politics, as you point out, are also disproportionately advantaged by a focus on class politics, and this has been born out by studies on the economic impacts of class-focused policies vs. identity-focused policies.
You don't have to ignore history to ally with someone against a common foe.
> What's an example of a race-based policy that has been or you think can be realistically enacted that has had or should/will have material benefits?
The Equal Employment Opportunity Act is an example. Affirmative Action is another example that I have mixed feelings on, but an example nevertheless. Other examples include things like access to voting, typically at a state level.
> but I'm confused how you think race-based politics would help.
Those were personal interactions meant to show where the underpinnings for where racial identity comes from. I don't think there's a policy that would fix those things.
> If identity politics have been used against out-groups, I'm skeptical that you can fix it by doubling down on identity politics in some "opposite" direction.
It's been the only thing that has worked so far. Slavery didn't stop because people suddenly forgot about identity. But rather because there were people who fought against it. The "opposite direction" doesn't mean being "equally racist", but rather not being racist AND mitigating against leverage created by past racism.
> groups that have been disproportionately disadvantaged by identity politics, as you point out, are also disproportionately advantaged by a focus on class politics,
The problem is that once this association is known the in-group fights these class policies too, even if it would've helped them. Aka, Drained Pool Politics. Welfare is a common example of this. Or even healthcare reform. Public school funding another. And if you're not aware of the underlying reason for this it'll be exceptionally frustrating because it will seem like they're going against their own interest.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Act is an example. Affirmative Action is another example that I have mixed feelings on, but an example nevertheless. Other examples include things like access to voting, typically at a state level.
> but I'm confused how you think race-based politics would help.
Those were personal interactions meant to show where the underpinnings for where racial identity comes from. I don't think there's a policy that would fix those things.
> If identity politics have been used against out-groups, I'm skeptical that you can fix it by doubling down on identity politics in some "opposite" direction.
It's been the only thing that has worked so far. Slavery didn't stop because people suddenly forgot about identity. But rather because there were people who fought against it. The "opposite direction" doesn't mean being "equally racist", but rather not being racist AND mitigating against leverage created by past racism.
> groups that have been disproportionately disadvantaged by identity politics, as you point out, are also disproportionately advantaged by a focus on class politics,
The problem is that once this association is known the in-group fights these class policies too, even if it would've helped them. Aka, Drained Pool Politics. Welfare is a common example of this. Or even healthcare reform. Public school funding another. And if you're not aware of the underlying reason for this it'll be exceptionally frustrating because it will seem like they're going against their own interest.
>Almost none of a person's daily life is dominated by racial issues
I won't presume to know your race but many americans do not live with such comfort. Studies have documented how race is correlated to outcomes in everyday encounters such as traffic stops, employment interviews, rental applications, health care treatment, and school performance.
I won't presume to know your race but many americans do not live with such comfort. Studies have documented how race is correlated to outcomes in everyday encounters such as traffic stops, employment interviews, rental applications, health care treatment, and school performance.
> Studies have documented how race is correlated to outcomes in everyday encounters such as traffic stops, employment interviews, rental applications, health care treatment, and school performance.
Traffic stops, employment interviews, rental applications, and health care treatment are not events a single person experiences every day, so even if race was a huge factor in all of them, and "huge" is debatable, this is all besides the point.
Traffic stops, employment interviews, rental applications, and health care treatment are not events a single person experiences every day, so even if race was a huge factor in all of them, and "huge" is debatable, this is all besides the point.
But all of those things directly affect their every day lives. Your experience and the assumptions you've drawn are not representative for large swaths of america.
> Traffic stops, employment interviews, rental applications, and health care treatment are not events a single person experiences every day
Really? You don't think the outcomes from those events impact your everyday life?
Really? You don't think the outcomes from those events impact your everyday life?
that's your religion
I don't think folks that focus on race would actually disagree with your first point, it is the goal of every minority to have their minority status not be the dominating force in how they're perceived.
The long game has always been to take some contentious minority status and make it boring and commonplace. An example where you can see the success of the LGBT movement in real time is how "coming out" for gay folks is fading away because it's not some big deal most places anymore. Saying you like girls is trending towards the moral gravity of saying you prefer chocolate ice cream.
And how we got to this point is by making sexual orientation a lens on lots of different issues — gay marriage, sodomy laws, public indecency, access to prep, blood donations, aids treatments,... until people just start to consider their existence by default. You stop having to "advocate" for them.
And in an ironic twist of fate one of the largest contributing factors to lgbt acceptance happening so fast was huge amounts of marketing pushing pretty white people, specifically pretty white femme women as the least offensive gays to raise all ships with the tide. Once you see it you can't unsee it, the same playbook is happening with the trans folks with pretty white trans women and afab enbys.
The long game has always been to take some contentious minority status and make it boring and commonplace. An example where you can see the success of the LGBT movement in real time is how "coming out" for gay folks is fading away because it's not some big deal most places anymore. Saying you like girls is trending towards the moral gravity of saying you prefer chocolate ice cream.
And how we got to this point is by making sexual orientation a lens on lots of different issues — gay marriage, sodomy laws, public indecency, access to prep, blood donations, aids treatments,... until people just start to consider their existence by default. You stop having to "advocate" for them.
And in an ironic twist of fate one of the largest contributing factors to lgbt acceptance happening so fast was huge amounts of marketing pushing pretty white people, specifically pretty white femme women as the least offensive gays to raise all ships with the tide. Once you see it you can't unsee it, the same playbook is happening with the trans folks with pretty white trans women and afab enbys.
I disagree. For all the criticism color-blindness gets now, there was a lot of progress from the 70s through the early 2000s that seems to have been forgotten in favor of divisive reporting and social media outrage posts. Just because the post-civil rights color-blind era wasn't perfect doesn't meant there wasn't legitimate progress, and that seems under threat now. Some of it is foreign actors, and some of it's coming from both the extreme right and left. They have amplifiers in social media and have managed to get prominent places of power, so they can forment their social revolutions. I count NPR as one of those now, which is a shame because it used to have good and entertaining reporting.
It sounds too much like "So without intention you'll simply perpetuate the negative voices" is "you are either for us, or against us", which has caused the world no end to misery.
Desantis is an idiot that I have zero interest in hearing about.
Unless the person has done something worth mentioning that isn't being mentioned only because of their so called "identity" I've zero interest in hearing about it, and would consider such a discussion to be bordering on racist.
Unless the person has done something worth mentioning that isn't being mentioned only because of their so called "identity" I've zero interest in hearing about it, and would consider such a discussion to be bordering on racist.
As a counterpoint, I listen to The economist’s coverage of US politics. They often interview people involved with the Democrat and Republican campaigns. And I’ve found some of the interviews fascinating - particularly the republican ones because most of my friends and news are left of center.
For example, one interviewee in the trump reelection campaign said they talk a lot internally about obstruction. And so, the campaign has lined up a bunch of politically aligned people ahead of time to take over key departments in the US government if trump gets re-elected, so trump can change a lot of government policies on day 1. I find that fascinating. No matter your politics, it’s interesting to know that the “opposing parties, taking turns governing in different ways” angle seems to be getting stronger.
Hearing from people I don’t have the opportunity to understand in daily life is exactly what I listen to podcasts like this for. I’m glad this coverage exists.
For example, one interviewee in the trump reelection campaign said they talk a lot internally about obstruction. And so, the campaign has lined up a bunch of politically aligned people ahead of time to take over key departments in the US government if trump gets re-elected, so trump can change a lot of government policies on day 1. I find that fascinating. No matter your politics, it’s interesting to know that the “opposing parties, taking turns governing in different ways” angle seems to be getting stronger.
Hearing from people I don’t have the opportunity to understand in daily life is exactly what I listen to podcasts like this for. I’m glad this coverage exists.
angiosperm(3)
>the belief that the default narrative is implicitly negative toward blacks
Well, I disagree with that.
I just said NPR specifically focuses too much on identity politics, and I think Desantis is implementing anti-LGBT, anti-education, anti-freedom and anti-democracy legislation.
I dont support the dichotomy that one must either desire an abundance of identity-based journalism or be blind to the issues minorities face. I think many of the problems this country faces, which may disproportionately affect minorities, can be covered without it being race-based. Poverty, healthcare, education, environment, climate change, foreign policy affect all.
Well, I disagree with that.
I just said NPR specifically focuses too much on identity politics, and I think Desantis is implementing anti-LGBT, anti-education, anti-freedom and anti-democracy legislation.
I dont support the dichotomy that one must either desire an abundance of identity-based journalism or be blind to the issues minorities face. I think many of the problems this country faces, which may disproportionately affect minorities, can be covered without it being race-based. Poverty, healthcare, education, environment, climate change, foreign policy affect all.
NPR is the voice of white progressives, even if more of the reporters are minorities. NPR’s audience is disproportionately white.
It’s part of the reason polls show some minority voters shifting towards Trump. They don’t see their opinions and beliefs reflected in white progressivism, even with the surface emphasis on DEI.
It’s part of the reason polls show some minority voters shifting towards Trump. They don’t see their opinions and beliefs reflected in white progressivism, even with the surface emphasis on DEI.
No, but a "We're not taking your tax money anymore" should be forced.
American Fiction satirizes this aspect of modern media incredibly well.
I wonder if it has parallels to the Salem Witch Hunt? If they spend x/2% of their time accusing others of being racist, they must expend x/2% "uplifting blacks" so they cannot be accused of it as well.
I don't listen anymore but still like to use text.npr.org for news, its pretty easy to scan the headlines and mentally filter out most of the social justice pieces (and there are a lot of them).
TBF I don't think NPR is really much different then most other mainstream lefty sources. I think axios is way worse than NPR (a lot of their "articles" are just vibes with really poor evidence, at least NPR still tries to do some traditional reporting).
TBF I don't think NPR is really much different then most other mainstream lefty sources. I think axios is way worse than NPR (a lot of their "articles" are just vibes with really poor evidence, at least NPR still tries to do some traditional reporting).
You may like https://brutalist.report/ - very easy to filter just by changing the URL query too.
Same, and it’s pretty good. Not sure what the complaints are as I only use the text only version.
NPR has been downgraded, intellectually. They follow the rest of the news, discussing the same topics with the same framing as the rest of the media, following whatever hot topic there is at the moment, no matter how trivial. News and discussion is often spoon-fed in bite sized chunks that miss nuance and lack the willingness to go past the headlines to the real meat of the issue for fear of boring less sophisticated listeners. Its become boring, repetitive, and uninformative in the vast majority of the stories I hear on NPR One. It is a sad state of affairs.
A lil game I play is to see how long until a pandering buzzword is said from the time I turn on the radio. Usually T < 3 seconds if not the very first word I hear.
> Almost every piece of reporting is now some kind of soft-outrage human-interest pseudo news.
God yes I hate it! I can listen for 20 minute and not walk away with a single fact or learn anything new.
God yes I hate it! I can listen for 20 minute and not walk away with a single fact or learn anything new.
One time they said that fast food was cheaper than grocery food.
It was so wrong, that I never listened to NPR since.
It was so wrong, that I never listened to NPR since.
I've been thinking about this recently and articles that make cost comparisons of that sort tend to compare only the cost of ingredients and assume you have the equipment to cook it, the skills to cook it and that your time is worth zero.
I don't know how to come up with good metrics for measuring that but I think currently all such articles are seriously bad because most don't even list their set of implicit assumptions concerning the costs that they are bothering to measure.
I don't know how to come up with good metrics for measuring that but I think currently all such articles are seriously bad because most don't even list their set of implicit assumptions concerning the costs that they are bothering to measure.
Even if you limit the consideration to foods that can be eaten as-is with zero preparation or tools, grocery stores still BTFO of fast food. Anybody saying that fast food is cheap is deranged. You want fried chicken and you don't have a kitchen? The grocery store will sell you 2x as much for the same price as a KFC. If you want a sandwich, you can make a dozen for the same price as one from a sandwich shop. If you can stomach the thought of eating something green, the produce aisle is cheap as dirt. It's an internet meme to say that some people can't afford fresh produce. Absolute horse shit. I can buy a bag of carrots with the change I find on the ground walking to the store. Produce is the cheapest food there is.
If you think all of that is too boring to tolerate, then scrounge up a can opener and the possibilities explode.
If you think all of that is too boring to tolerate, then scrounge up a can opener and the possibilities explode.
You're rebutting something I made zero comment on.
There never seems to be any good way to share my thoughts and get meaningful engagement. I was not suggesting fast food is cheap.
I blog about food somewhat frequently. It has no traction and likely never will have traction, much less engagement.
Sometimes I say a thing on hn and it gets some kind of useful engagement.
I understand your inference given the context, but you are replying to stuff I didn't comment on at all.
There never seems to be any good way to share my thoughts and get meaningful engagement. I was not suggesting fast food is cheap.
I blog about food somewhat frequently. It has no traction and likely never will have traction, much less engagement.
Sometimes I say a thing on hn and it gets some kind of useful engagement.
I understand your inference given the context, but you are replying to stuff I didn't comment on at all.
That's factually correct- it is often cheaper to buy the equivalent of a hamburger, fries, and coke at McDonalds, Burger King, or other similar stores, for less than you can buy the ingredients at the supermarket. This is actually a "known thing" which has been factually verified.
I wouldn't stop listening over that.
I wouldn't stop listening over that.
This simply isn't true and you should cite some source for this "known fact". It seems to be a "known fact" passed around by people who "don't know how much anything costs at a grocery store."
Example: A quarter lb with cheese at McD
Average price at a US McDonald's, $6.65: https://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com/how-much-mcdonalds-quarte...
Average price according to USDA for home cooked: $2.17 https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery...
Fast food is typically much more expensive than home cooked from scratch and people have very confused ideas about this.
Example: A quarter lb with cheese at McD
Average price at a US McDonald's, $6.65: https://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com/how-much-mcdonalds-quarte...
Average price according to USDA for home cooked: $2.17 https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery...
Fast food is typically much more expensive than home cooked from scratch and people have very confused ideas about this.
I mean it's a known fact in that there are published articles that calculate the fully loaded cost of a (the most discounted) fast-food meal and compare it to the fully loaded cost of buying ingredients and preparing it.
The economics all look great- about 10-30% cheaper for raw costs- except that the articles also include costs to prepare the meal (time cost, resource cost of fuel) and cleanup (time cost and often more garbage/cleanup).
also, the article that were published were mostly published about a decade ago, when the prices for fast food were a lot lower. This changed in the past few years as fast food prices went up a lot, even more than inflation on basic goods.
I typically don't include citations because nobody is here on hacker news to argue about the finer details of academic studies that carefully control for all the factors, and most of us don't have the time and inclination to read the studies in details to see where the problem lie. Instead, we build generalized models of the world that incorporate a great deal of different data and use those to explain our observations to others. My own model is based on 30+ years of shopping and preparing my own food at home, as well as working in fast food (MCDonald's), talking to franchise owners (always an interesting perspective into how McDonald's works), and regular restaurants.
Note: I live in California, a state with a different economic distribution than any other state in the country (with New York and Texas being the closest comparable states in terms of wealth distribution, relative prices of groceries and fast food, amounts of transportation required to obtain food, etc). Some people I know hunt for their own food- they enjoy the sport and it produces enough meat for a family to eat in a year! Obviously, that's a case where fast food isn't really cheaper.
The economics all look great- about 10-30% cheaper for raw costs- except that the articles also include costs to prepare the meal (time cost, resource cost of fuel) and cleanup (time cost and often more garbage/cleanup).
also, the article that were published were mostly published about a decade ago, when the prices for fast food were a lot lower. This changed in the past few years as fast food prices went up a lot, even more than inflation on basic goods.
I typically don't include citations because nobody is here on hacker news to argue about the finer details of academic studies that carefully control for all the factors, and most of us don't have the time and inclination to read the studies in details to see where the problem lie. Instead, we build generalized models of the world that incorporate a great deal of different data and use those to explain our observations to others. My own model is based on 30+ years of shopping and preparing my own food at home, as well as working in fast food (MCDonald's), talking to franchise owners (always an interesting perspective into how McDonald's works), and regular restaurants.
Note: I live in California, a state with a different economic distribution than any other state in the country (with New York and Texas being the closest comparable states in terms of wealth distribution, relative prices of groceries and fast food, amounts of transportation required to obtain food, etc). Some people I know hunt for their own food- they enjoy the sport and it produces enough meat for a family to eat in a year! Obviously, that's a case where fast food isn't really cheaper.
You can just look at your own grocery store and your local McDs. I also live in CA and for a quarter lb with cheese comparison I looked up:
My local McD's: $6.39 My local Safeway (not a budget option, no sales, you can do better than all of this): 1 1/4 lb beef patty $1.69, 1 slice cheddar cheese $0.37, 1 hamburger buns $0.22 = $2.28, misc condiments are negligible but let's say $0.25 total = $2.53
That's less than half the cost. The time and resources cost of frying that patty in a skillet and throwing it on a bun with cheese and ketchup comes nowhere close to doubling that, it's not even close.
My local McD's: $6.39 My local Safeway (not a budget option, no sales, you can do better than all of this): 1 1/4 lb beef patty $1.69, 1 slice cheddar cheese $0.37, 1 hamburger buns $0.22 = $2.28, misc condiments are negligible but let's say $0.25 total = $2.53
That's less than half the cost. The time and resources cost of frying that patty in a skillet and throwing it on a bun with cheese and ketchup comes nowhere close to doubling that, it's not even close.
can you add in an estimate of your time spent preparing the food? What about cleanup? It takes me more time to clean my food prep and cook area than actually make food most of the time. And compare that to the time spent waiting in the grocery line/fast food line? What about storage costs- I just threw away a 2-week old pile of nasty ground beef that went bad before we had an opportunity to use it (totally on me, I should have cooked burgers for my kids a couple more nights).
That's what I mean by "fully loaded"- when economists compare things like this, they don't just take the published dollar costs in a single location and compare them. They made a best-effort good-faith attempt at considering all the other costs which lead to a consumer making a decision.
Also, fast food prices shot up in the past few years, faster than grocery prices. Most of the articles about this were written about 10-15 years ago.
That's what I mean by "fully loaded"- when economists compare things like this, they don't just take the published dollar costs in a single location and compare them. They made a best-effort good-faith attempt at considering all the other costs which lead to a consumer making a decision.
Also, fast food prices shot up in the past few years, faster than grocery prices. Most of the articles about this were written about 10-15 years ago.
I used for cost comparison a pre-formed hamburger patty from Safeway. If it takes you more than 10 minutes to pull this from fridge, heat a pan and fry, something is wrong. You put it on a bun and put things on it and you eat it. There is no prep area to clean. Wash a pan and your plate. This isn't even a scaling issue, this is negligible time and cleanup for anywhere 1 to 4 people. This is a real side by side comparison as a McD's quarter lb also has nothing on it requiring prep.
I understand what you are trying to say about "fully loaded cost". It's also wrong. The fully loaded cost is still much lower for home vs fast. Unless you insist that you really desire specifically something like deep fried french fries, a specific cooking method that is extremely scalable and well suited to restaurant production and very inconvenient at home. But it is emphatically not true that a meal of similar ingredients/macro nutrition (burger and potato) is in general ever cheaper in fast food form.
If you want to promote the myth that fast food is cheaper, you should cite any other source than that you vaguely remember there being articles 10-15 years ago.
I understand what you are trying to say about "fully loaded cost". It's also wrong. The fully loaded cost is still much lower for home vs fast. Unless you insist that you really desire specifically something like deep fried french fries, a specific cooking method that is extremely scalable and well suited to restaurant production and very inconvenient at home. But it is emphatically not true that a meal of similar ingredients/macro nutrition (burger and potato) is in general ever cheaper in fast food form.
If you want to promote the myth that fast food is cheaper, you should cite any other source than that you vaguely remember there being articles 10-15 years ago.
> If it takes you more than 10 minutes to pull this from fridge, heat a pan and fry, something is wrong.
Something is wrong, then, because I have to go all the way back to my place to put it on a bun and put things on it and eat it. I don't have to make that commute with fast food.
You two aren't arguing about which is cheaper; you're arguing about which externalities you're willing to ignore.
Something is wrong, then, because I have to go all the way back to my place to put it on a bun and put things on it and eat it. I don't have to make that commute with fast food.
You two aren't arguing about which is cheaper; you're arguing about which externalities you're willing to ignore.
Literally not being at home to eat home made food is obviously a case where other factors dominate.
However, I really don't think that's the general case people are thinking of when trying to argue that it makes some kind of economic sense for people to eat a fast food diet. The average person does go home at some point, especially so for families.
Or more specifically, it's the claim "I can't go to the grocery store and make this meal for less than a fast food meal", that is absurd.
However, I really don't think that's the general case people are thinking of when trying to argue that it makes some kind of economic sense for people to eat a fast food diet. The average person does go home at some point, especially so for families.
Or more specifically, it's the claim "I can't go to the grocery store and make this meal for less than a fast food meal", that is absurd.
> you're arguing about which externalities you're willing to ignore
Love this! So many arguments boil down to exactly this!
Love this! So many arguments boil down to exactly this!
Unless you're going to otherwise be paid for your time, it is inaccurate to count it as a cost.
What about the time spent driving to/from the fast food joint, waiting in line, waiting for them to give you your order, etc.?
I often eschew eating out because it takes too long.
> What about cleanup?
Put it on the floor and let the dog lick it clean.
I often eschew eating out because it takes too long.
> What about cleanup?
Put it on the floor and let the dog lick it clean.
" It takes me more time to clean my food prep and cook area than actually make food most of the time."
You don't clean as you go? Your area should be clean before and after your work.
But maybe my proficiency comes from starting at a Chinese restaurant at the tender age of 15, back in the 1990s.
You don't clean as you go? Your area should be clean before and after your work.
But maybe my proficiency comes from starting at a Chinese restaurant at the tender age of 15, back in the 1990s.
Time is lost getting "fast" food too. Like, the time to cook a patty in the skillet is the same time as the time waiting through the drive thru. And now factor in burning fuel.
The patty doesn’t get in my fridge unless I put it there… after I’ve gone grocery shopping and picked it up. On the other hand, I pass McDonald’s everyday on the way home from work anyways.
I worked in kitchens for years so I'm not the average home cook but even so I think if you're finding a two week old pile of ground beef in the fridge that's on you. You might have to accept that you are disorganized. A home refridgerator isn't a big place to point your eyeballs at and assess and marshall ingredients. Aside from that, I mean as far as "prep" goes... I hesitate to even use the word prep. Prepping is usually a term used for something more involved. Like if you were making your own ketchup and mustard from scratch, that would be prep and would take time. If you've just got pre-made ingredients ready to assemble into a dish then that's not really prep.
Hamburgers for a family of five with a counter-top mise en place...
Place five buns opened up on a large cutting board (1 minute tops). Squirt your bottled condiments on the buns (1 minute tops). Hand-rip your lettuce, five servings, place on buns (3 minutes tops). Slice tomato rounds for each burger (3 minutes I guess if your knife skills are really bad). Take ground beef and hand-form five patties (5 minutes tops). Cook all five patties at once in a large pan or whatever you use (10 minutes tops - smash them if you want them well done or done fast). Spatula out the patties onto the buns and you've got burgers.
Shouldn't take more than 20 or so minutes really and I even left the cooking part for last so as to not complicate things. What you should really be doing is cooking the burgers WHILE you set up the buns. Personally I could go from all those ingredients sitting visibly in a fridge to five burgers ready to serve in about 10 minutes.
Maybe what we have here with you and with many others in America is just a lack of food knowledge. Home food culture used to be all there was before fast food. Those traditions are lost and everyone's skill in preparing meals at home as atrophied over decades.
I mean I get that there's no more Nana in the kitchen makin the sauce and both parents work but there's so many easy, quick meals that can be made for very cheap if people simply acquired the knowledge and practiced. You don't wanna eat those fast food patties anyways they're probably like half fake with fraudulent filler material or whatever. It's hard to even recreate that lab-researched frankenfood.
Hamburgers for a family of five with a counter-top mise en place...
Place five buns opened up on a large cutting board (1 minute tops). Squirt your bottled condiments on the buns (1 minute tops). Hand-rip your lettuce, five servings, place on buns (3 minutes tops). Slice tomato rounds for each burger (3 minutes I guess if your knife skills are really bad). Take ground beef and hand-form five patties (5 minutes tops). Cook all five patties at once in a large pan or whatever you use (10 minutes tops - smash them if you want them well done or done fast). Spatula out the patties onto the buns and you've got burgers.
Shouldn't take more than 20 or so minutes really and I even left the cooking part for last so as to not complicate things. What you should really be doing is cooking the burgers WHILE you set up the buns. Personally I could go from all those ingredients sitting visibly in a fridge to five burgers ready to serve in about 10 minutes.
Maybe what we have here with you and with many others in America is just a lack of food knowledge. Home food culture used to be all there was before fast food. Those traditions are lost and everyone's skill in preparing meals at home as atrophied over decades.
I mean I get that there's no more Nana in the kitchen makin the sauce and both parents work but there's so many easy, quick meals that can be made for very cheap if people simply acquired the knowledge and practiced. You don't wanna eat those fast food patties anyways they're probably like half fake with fraudulent filler material or whatever. It's hard to even recreate that lab-researched frankenfood.
> Maybe what we have here with you and with many others in America is just a lack of food knowledge.
This is exactly what's happening. This is why I find it so upsetting to hear a source like NPR mindlessly repeating the myth that fast food is cheaper. People have gotten totally out of touch with basic home economics type stuff and the food industry is all too happy for them to stay in the dark.
This is exactly what's happening. This is why I find it so upsetting to hear a source like NPR mindlessly repeating the myth that fast food is cheaper. People have gotten totally out of touch with basic home economics type stuff and the food industry is all too happy for them to stay in the dark.
I can do a variation on bolognese sauce with ground beef, a few bits of thin sliced onions and finally a dab of tomato pasta sauce. 15 minutes top and done while the pasta cooks.
Cooking at home is just stupendously cheaper. I don't understand how anyone can claim otherwise. I made the switch 3 years ago and the impact on budget was phenomenal.
Cooking at home is just stupendously cheaper. I don't understand how anyone can claim otherwise. I made the switch 3 years ago and the impact on budget was phenomenal.
> My local McD's: $6.39
Are those menu costs or paid costs?
McDonald's has moved to a model where you get the app and it has valuable coupons that take like 30% off the price that renew every day. Which is part of why the menu costs have gone up.
Are those menu costs or paid costs?
McDonald's has moved to a model where you get the app and it has valuable coupons that take like 30% off the price that renew every day. Which is part of why the menu costs have gone up.
Menu cost, I downloaded the app to look up the price, I was not offered a coupon.
But the exact same thing applies to the grocery prices I quoted. I gave the non-sale prices from my area's more expensive grocery store, that's what I consider the starting point, you can definitely do better.
But the exact same thing applies to the grocery prices I quoted. I gave the non-sale prices from my area's more expensive grocery store, that's what I consider the starting point, you can definitely do better.
The McDonald’s coupons are always available under a menu in the app. You have to know to look for them though. Might be regional but in my area there’s always a 20% off your whole order coupon plus some others that can do even better.
Not to dispute your point that grocery stores also have a lot of coupons and promotions and it’s definitely cheaper than fast food (also grocery store food has even cheaper options like beans, rice, canned goods etc that may not be equivalent to a fast food meal but are vastly cheaper and may not take any real time or effort to prepare).
Not to dispute your point that grocery stores also have a lot of coupons and promotions and it’s definitely cheaper than fast food (also grocery store food has even cheaper options like beans, rice, canned goods etc that may not be equivalent to a fast food meal but are vastly cheaper and may not take any real time or effort to prepare).
I see the 20% in my app, but it is for orders above $10 so may not work for a single sandwich order being discussed above. But for 2 people or more, it could be quite useful. Never used this and not a McD regular, but will remember this next time.
> the articles also include costs to prepare the meal and cleanup
So because a contractor makes 500 an hour every burger they make costs 500 dollars. Yeah that sounds plausible. They should be maximalising their economic output and leaving menial labor to others.
So because a contractor makes 500 an hour every burger they make costs 500 dollars. Yeah that sounds plausible. They should be maximalising their economic output and leaving menial labor to others.
That's a silly measure, though, and not what anyone actuallywants to know when deciding their eating habits. What matters is amortized dollars per calorie, or maybe dollars per time period, and grocery shopping easily beats fast food on that.
the articles I've seen that provide more detailed analysis typically suggest that you can get more "poor quality calories" from fast food. The real challenge here is most comparisons completely ignore prep and cook time as a cost, but that matters a lot for busy parents who don't have time to make the cheapest possible stew out of the cheapest ingredients.
Fast food bulk-buys, prepares at industrial scale, and automates as much as possible. It's going to be hard to fight against that level of volume discounting.
Fast food bulk-buys, prepares at industrial scale, and automates as much as possible. It's going to be hard to fight against that level of volume discounting.
Prep time is a real concern, but a vastly more complicated one than comparing dollar amounts. Even if you manage to figure out a fixed dollar cost of prep time, most people aren't in a position to directly trade hours between food prep and making money.
Anyway, as long as we're throwing random cost factors into the air, fast food has much bigger labor, utilities, and real estate costs that their food prices have to cover. And individuals can do pretty well buying bulk if they put in the effort. But we talked about effort already. It's definitely not going to be simple if you want to fully quantify all the tradeoffs, but if you just count dollars, well, there's a pretty wide spread of effort levels where you can beat fast food.
Anyway, as long as we're throwing random cost factors into the air, fast food has much bigger labor, utilities, and real estate costs that their food prices have to cover. And individuals can do pretty well buying bulk if they put in the effort. But we talked about effort already. It's definitely not going to be simple if you want to fully quantify all the tradeoffs, but if you just count dollars, well, there's a pretty wide spread of effort levels where you can beat fast food.
Fast food isn't poor quality depending on what you get. Fries and soda are bad, but cheeseburgers are not particularly unhealthy. They are low fiber.
I can't speak for every market, but that's absolutely not true in New Zealand. Like... not even close. For the price of one portion of ood at McD's you could make the meal for an entire family.
"it is often cheaper to buy the equivalent of a hamburger, fries, and coke at McDonalds, Burger King, or other similar stores, for less than you can buy the ingredients at the supermarket. This is actually a "known thing" which has been factually verified."
I've worked fast food and grocery stores - the only time a grocery store is more expensive is when you go 100% brand name goods, and even then the price difference in total is a couple bucks.
I've worked fast food and grocery stores - the only time a grocery store is more expensive is when you go 100% brand name goods, and even then the price difference in total is a couple bucks.
WELL AKTUALLY
look at the website Efficiency Is Everything. Your 'factually verified' has been debunked in like 100 different fast food studies.
look at the website Efficiency Is Everything. Your 'factually verified' has been debunked in like 100 different fast food studies.
This comment sparked a really good debate - one which I am pretty sure I remember seeing on HN before. But what it makes me think of is seeing the parent issue: that accounting can be abused to spin the truth however you want. I really want to go in the meta direction with this and say I wish accounting shenanigans could be identified and labelled as fallacies or at least sneaky tools used for persuasion, just like people are becoming wise to established fallacies like strawman or relative privation.
Does it "cost more" based on calories/dollar, or weight of food, or cooked-meals-per-dollar? (I'm not asking for an answer, thats what everyone below your comment has been arguing about I assume). Are cigarettes "just as addictive" as heroin? Well, it depends on how you measure/define _____. I keep seeing effort wasted in arguments that all point back to the "well, it depends on how you measure it", but to me, the arguments never actually get anywhere and nobody seems to realize that they are playing with movable goalposts.
Does it "cost more" based on calories/dollar, or weight of food, or cooked-meals-per-dollar? (I'm not asking for an answer, thats what everyone below your comment has been arguing about I assume). Are cigarettes "just as addictive" as heroin? Well, it depends on how you measure/define _____. I keep seeing effort wasted in arguments that all point back to the "well, it depends on how you measure it", but to me, the arguments never actually get anywhere and nobody seems to realize that they are playing with movable goalposts.
A Happy Meal is frequently sold for $3. YOu're saying to can buy the raw ingredients for a hamburger, fries, apple slices, and juice box for less?
I feel like the price of restaurant dining scales linearly to the number of people you're feeding, while cooking at home scales more logarithmically. [1]
If you're feeding one person, I don't know that it's that much cheaper to get stuff from the grocery store compared to just eating Taco Bell every day. If you're feeding 5-6 people, it's absolutely cheaper; I can make two large pizzas at home to feed 6 people for like $8.
Also, where are you finding $3 Happy Meals in the US?
[1] Probably not literally true, but more or less how I think about it.
If you're feeding one person, I don't know that it's that much cheaper to get stuff from the grocery store compared to just eating Taco Bell every day. If you're feeding 5-6 people, it's absolutely cheaper; I can make two large pizzas at home to feed 6 people for like $8.
Also, where are you finding $3 Happy Meals in the US?
[1] Probably not literally true, but more or less how I think about it.
If you can make feed N people for X, the only reason you can't feed one person for X/N is if you're buying too much of things and throwing them away because they go bad. This can be mitigated by freezing things, accepting eating leftovers repeatedly, making smaller quantities, etc., although indeed it's more difficult.
[deleted]
Yeah but if you have stuff that isn’t freezable, even if you’re ok with eating leftovers, you end up having to buy smaller quantities of stuff else you risk stuff going bad before you eat it. Smaller quantities tend to be more expensive.
For example, I don’t buy milk anymore since I do not remember the last time I have finished a carton. I keep some powdered stuff around because I sometimes use it for cooking, but I don’t buy liquid milk anymore. If I did need liquid milk, I would probably end up buying the smallest quantity of milk available to minimize waste, but they would probably be a much higher per-ounce cost.
That’s what I mean about it scaling logarithmically. If you can buy a higher quantity the prices get much cheaper.
For example, I don’t buy milk anymore since I do not remember the last time I have finished a carton. I keep some powdered stuff around because I sometimes use it for cooking, but I don’t buy liquid milk anymore. If I did need liquid milk, I would probably end up buying the smallest quantity of milk available to minimize waste, but they would probably be a much higher per-ounce cost.
That’s what I mean about it scaling logarithmically. If you can buy a higher quantity the prices get much cheaper.
You can always buy evaporated milk
I do that occasionally as well. In addition to the dry stuff, that more or less covers any milk need I might have.
My point was that there’s some items that would either lead to waste, or they gotta buy such a small quantity of it that the rate is bad.
My point was that there’s some items that would either lead to waste, or they gotta buy such a small quantity of it that the rate is bad.
In the sense that a 1lb thing of ground beef plus whatever fillers mcdonalds uses (I believe it's some kind of oatmeal) would probably produce like about 10 happy meals, and a 50lb bag of flour from winco (plus a few tbsp salt and water) would make hundreds of buns, I think you could get it way below $3 / meal. I mean, safeway often has ground beef for a few dollars a pound, that's a lot of happy meals.
In reality, these ragebait articles are written by young people (guessing young men) who have no experience cooking for a family.
In reality, these ragebait articles are written by young people (guessing young men) who have no experience cooking for a family.
Quick search...
$3 for pack of 8 hamburger buns
$4 for 2lb ground beef
$3 for 10lb russett potatoes
$4 for four apples
$4 for a 52oz jug of OJ
$18 total for ~8 "Happy Meal equivalents", or $2.25 per meal, so less than the actual Happy Meal, but you need 1. $20 cash to buy the supplies and 2. the time/equipment/knowledge to prepare the meals.
Yes, the headlines are rage-bait, but fast food is still ridiculously inexpensive. Yes, you ca reproduce the fast food at home, or live on rice+beans, for less. But add some quality protein and a pile of fresh veg and the price goes up.
$4 for 2lb ground beef
$3 for 10lb russett potatoes
$4 for four apples
$4 for a 52oz jug of OJ
$18 total for ~8 "Happy Meal equivalents", or $2.25 per meal, so less than the actual Happy Meal, but you need 1. $20 cash to buy the supplies and 2. the time/equipment/knowledge to prepare the meals.
Yes, the headlines are rage-bait, but fast food is still ridiculously inexpensive. Yes, you ca reproduce the fast food at home, or live on rice+beans, for less. But add some quality protein and a pile of fresh veg and the price goes up.
2 lb of ground beef is way more beef than a happy meal. A kids meal patty is only 1/10 of a lb, you've given enough for 20 kids meals.
The rest of your numbers are similarly off: - you are giving each happy meal 1.25 lbs of potato!? - apple serving size is 1.2 ozs - An average apple is 8-10 ozs, 4 apples = 26 happy meals minimum.
You realize how expensive fast food is if you are at all used to cooking at home from scratch all the time.
The rest of your numbers are similarly off: - you are giving each happy meal 1.25 lbs of potato!? - apple serving size is 1.2 ozs - An average apple is 8-10 ozs, 4 apples = 26 happy meals minimum.
You realize how expensive fast food is if you are at all used to cooking at home from scratch all the time.
> You realize how expensive fast food is if you are at all used to cooking at home from scratch all the time.
But cooking from scratch all the time has a time cost, too. Many families are time poor as well as money poor so there's a balancing act to be done.
But cooking from scratch all the time has a time cost, too. Many families are time poor as well as money poor so there's a balancing act to be done.
When I say "cooking from scratch", I specifically mean the super fast and easy stuff. Starting from raw materials doesn't mean you do anything complicated to it.
For the burger example: buying pre-formed burger patties is still massively cheaper. Throwing a pre-formed burger patty from your fridge in a pan and putting it on a bun with a slice of cheese will take you ten minutes. Microwave small potatoes while you fry. You are done. There is no prep, you have made 1 easily washed pan and bowl for potatoes and your plate.
Is it the exact same thing taste-wise as your fast food meal? No, the potatoes aren't fried, sorry. Does it hit all the macro nutrients for far cheaper, and probably less time than even going to the fast food place? Yes.
For the burger example: buying pre-formed burger patties is still massively cheaper. Throwing a pre-formed burger patty from your fridge in a pan and putting it on a bun with a slice of cheese will take you ten minutes. Microwave small potatoes while you fry. You are done. There is no prep, you have made 1 easily washed pan and bowl for potatoes and your plate.
Is it the exact same thing taste-wise as your fast food meal? No, the potatoes aren't fried, sorry. Does it hit all the macro nutrients for far cheaper, and probably less time than even going to the fast food place? Yes.
Bag o'tots and an air fryer solves the "no fries" problem.
Tots > Fries
Tots > Fries
It does, but that is a highly subjective value that depends on the person in question. You can't just plug in the average wage for someone doing cooking for a living and assume it's meaningful. And you especially can't do that while running a clickbait headline that just straight up says fast food is cheaper without also explicitly and prominently explaining this caveat.
He's the young man who doesn't cook for a family I was talking about I'm guessing.
My kid is 30. But yeah I’m cooking for two, not four or five.
I would download the safeway app. Hamburger buns are $1 usually. Ground beef is $0.99/lb. 10 lbs of russett potatoes makes way more than 8 happy meals. frozen orange juice is like $1 each. This is insanity, and exactly expresses my point above. And if you go to a food bank, it's all free. Most are throwing away entire grocery stores worth of food.
McDondalds Hamburgers have always been 100% ground beef. The hamburger in a happy meal is 1/10th a pound 80% ground beef. So about $0.55 worth of ground beef; the bun is $.33, pickle, onion, ketchup, and mustard - $.05 (probably less but I don't know how to calculate), cheese $.15 (I can't find how many slices are in a large block so I estimated). Potato $.25 (again I'm not sure how many potatoes in a fry but this seems right). Soda - $.01 sugar/flavor, $.05 ice (they are selling Coke products not making the soda directly but even still $.10 is about all soda costs in bulk).
So $1.30 if you buy the food yourself and make it all at home from scratch. Add $.70 for a cheap toy and you have a happy meal (McDonald's buys toys in bulk - you can't get toys for that price unless you are buying thousands)
Above prices are what I'd pay at my local higher priced grocery store online - I can get better deals at other stores but they don't have a good online prices to look up.
So $1.30 if you buy the food yourself and make it all at home from scratch. Add $.70 for a cheap toy and you have a happy meal (McDonald's buys toys in bulk - you can't get toys for that price unless you are buying thousands)
Above prices are what I'd pay at my local higher priced grocery store online - I can get better deals at other stores but they don't have a good online prices to look up.
> Add $.70 for a cheap toy and you have a happy meal (McDonald's buys toys in bulk - you can't get toys for that price unless you are buying thousands)
Most of the toys these days are cards, but you don't need to buy in that much bulk: https://www.orientaltrading.com/toys-games-and-novelties/nov...
The first one has 144 mini skateboards for 20 cents each.
Most of the toys these days are cards, but you don't need to buy in that much bulk: https://www.orientaltrading.com/toys-games-and-novelties/nov...
The first one has 144 mini skateboards for 20 cents each.
What about if you add the following: the cost of the time spent preparing the meal. And the cost (mostly time) associated with cleanup- such as driving that leftover oil to the recycling center.
How long do you think it takes to grill a hamburger patty?
To your second point: This is where exact apples to apples comparison breaks down. The sane home cook skips deep frying at home and associated hassles unless it's a special occasion. Microwave the potatoes or boil. Fast, minimal cleanup, and now it isn't junk food either.
To your second point: This is where exact apples to apples comparison breaks down. The sane home cook skips deep frying at home and associated hassles unless it's a special occasion. Microwave the potatoes or boil. Fast, minimal cleanup, and now it isn't junk food either.
Well, I like deep fried potatoes, that's why I included it. I actually do deep fry my potatoes, straining the oil, re-using it, and ultimately recycling it. None of the alternatives are acceptable to me in terms of flavor or texture.
Could you explain in more detail why you think that cooking potatoes not in oil makes it not junk food? (in the sense of, I've looked at a wide range of comparisons and it does not seem like frying in oil magically turns healthy potatoes into cancer daemons).
It takes me about 7 minutes to fry a hamburger patty on my Griddle (to rare!), ignoring the heat-up time and clean-up time. The actual cooking is quite fast. On the other hand, I can end up waiting an hour in line at In-and-Out. So while I agree that it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, the economics articles I've seen that compare bsed on fully loaded costs (to the best that they can) seem to conclude that fast food can be about 10-20% cheaper than grocery.
It takes me about 7 minutes to fry a hamburger patty on my Griddle (to rare!), ignoring the heat-up time and clean-up time. The actual cooking is quite fast. On the other hand, I can end up waiting an hour in line at In-and-Out. So while I agree that it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, the economics articles I've seen that compare bsed on fully loaded costs (to the best that they can) seem to conclude that fast food can be about 10-20% cheaper than grocery.
> it does not seem like frying in oil magically turns healthy potatoes into cancer daemons
well, akshually... https://www.fda.gov/food/process-contaminants-food/acrylamid...
however the main concern with fried potatoes is cardiovascular, not cancerogenic.
well, akshually... https://www.fda.gov/food/process-contaminants-food/acrylamid...
however the main concern with fried potatoes is cardiovascular, not cancerogenic.
frying, roasting, and baking all produce acrylamides. There's a paper from sweden that shows you can even find acrylamides in bread that was cooked at standard temp.
The story of frying and cardio is still ongoing; I've seen several full reversals in the public health field over the past 30 years. It's really painful being a quantitative physical biologist watching the press around papers that when carefully inspected provide little to no evidence supporting their position.
The story of frying and cardio is still ongoing; I've seen several full reversals in the public health field over the past 30 years. It's really painful being a quantitative physical biologist watching the press around papers that when carefully inspected provide little to no evidence supporting their position.
> driving that leftover oil to the recycling center.
Right, because people who don't have money/time to cook real food are definitely doing that. Besides, deep frying is not the only way to cook potatoes.
Right, because people who don't have money/time to cook real food are definitely doing that. Besides, deep frying is not the only way to cook potatoes.
Do you get your McDs delivered to you instantly at no cost? If not, then takes less time to cook than drive to McDonalds, wait in line to make an order and wait for your meal to be cooked.
people trade time for money. Cooking yourself is often a family affair and so a cheap use of the little free time and money a poor person has, it pays back well because a boor person isn't then looking for something else toespendmoney on for entertainment.
> A Happy Meal is frequently sold for $3.
Not anymore. I just checked, a hamburger happy meal at the McD's nearest to my house (i.e. not an abnormally expensive location such as an airport) is $4.49. Extra $0.20 to add cheese. This is for a 1/10 lb hamburger (!). As others have pointed out, I think it's very possible to acquire the ingredients for this for less than that, assuming you can buy enough for 3-4 at once.
Not anymore. I just checked, a hamburger happy meal at the McD's nearest to my house (i.e. not an abnormally expensive location such as an airport) is $4.49. Extra $0.20 to add cheese. This is for a 1/10 lb hamburger (!). As others have pointed out, I think it's very possible to acquire the ingredients for this for less than that, assuming you can buy enough for 3-4 at once.
You have to use each chain’s app, now, to get what used to be menu prices. They figured out they could raise menu prices a ton and lots of folks would still pay it, while still keeping poor folks paying them money by providing the app option.
It’s still pretty cheap if you get whatever’s the best option from the deals and freebies they offer in the app, rather than buying whatever you want off the menu.
It’s still pretty cheap if you get whatever’s the best option from the deals and freebies they offer in the app, rather than buying whatever you want off the menu.
Who you calling poor folks!? I make big-tech SWE money and I never order from McDonalds without using the app. I guess I’d actually call it “price sensitive” vs. “price insensitive” which IMHO has only a moderate correlation with income.
> You have to use each chain’s app, now, to get what used to be menu prices.
Yes, I used their app. I have kids so I know happy meals used to be crazy cheap. They've gone up substantially in price in the past 3 years.
We used to get McDonald's once in a while as a quick, cheap meal that our kids liked. At some point within the past year or so I realized that it's not actually cheap anymore - I think they've raised their prices more than many competitors. IMO, they are now roughly at the same prices as some much more appealing options, so we don't really go there anymore.
Yes, I used their app. I have kids so I know happy meals used to be crazy cheap. They've gone up substantially in price in the past 3 years.
We used to get McDonald's once in a while as a quick, cheap meal that our kids liked. At some point within the past year or so I realized that it's not actually cheap anymore - I think they've raised their prices more than many competitors. IMO, they are now roughly at the same prices as some much more appealing options, so we don't really go there anymore.
We’re in the middle of moving so normal meals have been rather disrupted. We’ve used a 20 nuggets + 2 large fries deal a few times, about $9 with tax. Feeds three kids and then some.
I see a lot of single-happy-meal deals, but few for multiple, so that’s kinda been our go-to instead. Gotta go with what the app wants you to get. I much preferred when the menu prices were just pretty-good all the time…
I see a lot of single-happy-meal deals, but few for multiple, so that’s kinda been our go-to instead. Gotta go with what the app wants you to get. I much preferred when the menu prices were just pretty-good all the time…
> assuming you can buy enough for 3-4 at once.
I don’t think you can make that assumption. For someone living alone, that burger from McD’s may well be cheaper than the equivalent made from supermarket ingredients. When I used to live alone, I stopped buying salad ingredients because they would usually go off in the fridge before I used them all. It was cheaper to eat out.
I don’t think you can make that assumption. For someone living alone, that burger from McD’s may well be cheaper than the equivalent made from supermarket ingredients. When I used to live alone, I stopped buying salad ingredients because they would usually go off in the fridge before I used them all. It was cheaper to eat out.
I think that's partly why stuff like frozen pizza is kind of a meme with single people. Stuff in the freezer can generally keep for years before it really has anything off with it, and even after it starts getting a bit off, it's probably still not going to kill you.
Frozen pizzas can be had for as low as like $3.50 if you get them on sale, and since they keep forever in the freezer there's no reason not to stock up at that point...
I lived not-quite-exclusively on frozen pizza when I lived alone for about a year. It wasn't healthy for me, but it was pretty cheap living, at least in the short term.
Frozen pizzas can be had for as low as like $3.50 if you get them on sale, and since they keep forever in the freezer there's no reason not to stock up at that point...
I lived not-quite-exclusively on frozen pizza when I lived alone for about a year. It wasn't healthy for me, but it was pretty cheap living, at least in the short term.
Most fresh ingredients last at least a week. What kind of salads are you making that a single person can't finish before they go off?
I was out a lot anyway - lunch with work, dinner with friends, weekend catchups with family and so on. When you live alone, you need to leave the house to socialise. I was only home for meals a few times a week. And I didn’t want salad every time I made food for myself.
So yeah, usually I’d buy salad ingredients, make one salad (or veggie sandwich or something). Then a week later I would take a look in the fridge and notice my ingredients had gone bad. I did this several times before I gave up.
So yeah, usually I’d buy salad ingredients, make one salad (or veggie sandwich or something). Then a week later I would take a look in the fridge and notice my ingredients had gone bad. I did this several times before I gave up.
Did you check on a delivery app, or in store? App prices will usually be inflated
Just the lowest price in the first row of Google shopping. Admittedly unscientific. Just trying to get a ballpark sense for relative prices.
As noted elsewhere, I’m an empty nester. Cooking for two adults, both of whom are athletic and celiac, so my perception of what’s cheap is WAY skewed. We eat lots of fish, chicken, and fresh produce.
As noted elsewhere, I’m an empty nester. Cooking for two adults, both of whom are athletic and celiac, so my perception of what’s cheap is WAY skewed. We eat lots of fish, chicken, and fresh produce.
I used the McDonald's app, creating an order for drive-through pickup (they don't seem to put prices on their website that I could find). So, I believe that should be their regular menu prices. I didn't look at 3rd party websites or apps because of the extra expense.
> One time they said that fast food was cheaper than grocery food.
It often is. I can get a burger and fries at McDonalds for far less than the cost in ingredients to make it myself.
It often is. I can get a burger and fries at McDonalds for far less than the cost in ingredients to make it myself.
Back of the envelope, using prices from safeway.com (in Seattle) I get the cost of a quarter pound cheeseburger being about $2.60. Significant error bars on that, because it's hard to estimate how much onions and ketchup and mustard McDonald's uses, and I'm estimating on the lettuce and pickle slices.
But, in no case would I say it costs more than $3.50 to make a quarter pounder with cheese at home. I'm also assuming the ingredients McDonald's uses are not better than even the cheapest ingredients for sale at an okay grocery store, so I'm just giving them that advantage to make it possible to compare.
The current price of a quarter pounder with cheese at McDonald's looks to be $6.22[1]. So, let's call it twice as expensive.
I didn't even bother estimating the cost of making french fries after that, since there's no way they make up the difference.
[1]https://mcdonaldsprices.com/mcdonalds-prices/
I do not, for the record, doubt that some menu items at McDonald's cost less for them to produce and sell than the equivalent would cost to make at home. I would be VERY surprised if it cost less in the long run to buy all your meals at McDonald's versus making food yourself at home. Even buying ingredients in bulk, McDonald's does have a lot of overhead to pay for and profit to make.
But, in no case would I say it costs more than $3.50 to make a quarter pounder with cheese at home. I'm also assuming the ingredients McDonald's uses are not better than even the cheapest ingredients for sale at an okay grocery store, so I'm just giving them that advantage to make it possible to compare.
The current price of a quarter pounder with cheese at McDonald's looks to be $6.22[1]. So, let's call it twice as expensive.
I didn't even bother estimating the cost of making french fries after that, since there's no way they make up the difference.
[1]https://mcdonaldsprices.com/mcdonalds-prices/
I do not, for the record, doubt that some menu items at McDonald's cost less for them to produce and sell than the equivalent would cost to make at home. I would be VERY surprised if it cost less in the long run to buy all your meals at McDonald's versus making food yourself at home. Even buying ingredients in bulk, McDonald's does have a lot of overhead to pay for and profit to make.
You must be the type to buy ingredients in units of 1 of each and then complain that its more expensive than buying the fast food meal.
It's hilarious reading these posters fully convinced fast food is cheaper than cooking at home. Actually no it's sad because it shows the culinary poverty mindset so many people live with.
Buy a big package of hamburger buns and put it in the freezer if you must; it'll be fine for a while there. Thaw as you go when you want a burger: bread thaws in no time. Buy a large package of ground beef, super cheap, and segment it, re-wrap it, freeze it in amounts you know you will use when it is thawed. Want a burg? Water-thaw the meat, air-thaw the bun. Pickles are pickles and are always ready. Pre-made condiments last forever. Pull from your evolving collection of veggies OR make sure you swiped some toms and lettuce or whatever on your way home along with other ingredients for further meals because that's called planning ahead.
There, cheapest burgers you can possibly have, and better than fankenfood. It's just... organization.
Buy a big package of hamburger buns and put it in the freezer if you must; it'll be fine for a while there. Thaw as you go when you want a burger: bread thaws in no time. Buy a large package of ground beef, super cheap, and segment it, re-wrap it, freeze it in amounts you know you will use when it is thawed. Want a burg? Water-thaw the meat, air-thaw the bun. Pickles are pickles and are always ready. Pre-made condiments last forever. Pull from your evolving collection of veggies OR make sure you swiped some toms and lettuce or whatever on your way home along with other ingredients for further meals because that's called planning ahead.
There, cheapest burgers you can possibly have, and better than fankenfood. It's just... organization.
And if you're too lazy to do any of that, there are about a million complete meals you could decide on which are both easier and cheaper than making a burger, let alone buying fast food.
Even if you're lazy you can buy frozen Bubba Burgers and it still comes out way cheaper than McD's.
No. I never said I actually made that complaint, because I don't. I was just pointing out that contrary to resource_waste's assertion above, fast food can in fact be less expensive than grocery food. It is not a statement of error so egregious as to be worth writing off the content of an entire media organization.
It's a statement, that even if you "well acshually" it hard enough to make it work, is still useless.
Can a particular fast food meal be cheaper than some similar grocery store meal? Yes.
Is a fast food meal cheaper that the maximum cheapness calories per dollar than everything you can get at a grocery store? No.
Will people who hear it hear the second or the first?
Can a particular fast food meal be cheaper than some similar grocery store meal? Yes.
Is a fast food meal cheaper that the maximum cheapness calories per dollar than everything you can get at a grocery store? No.
Will people who hear it hear the second or the first?
> Will people who hear it hear the second or the first?
Definitely unambiguously the first unless they're the ones trying to "well acshually" it. At the point of the second you're not even talking about burgers - the maximum cheapness calories per dollar is a five gallon jug of corn syrup or something.
Definitely unambiguously the first unless they're the ones trying to "well acshually" it. At the point of the second you're not even talking about burgers - the maximum cheapness calories per dollar is a five gallon jug of corn syrup or something.
Have you literally ever been shopping before that wasn't a Trader Joes or a Whole foods?
It boggles my mind anyone can think that fast food is cheaper than grocery store food for the dollar. Its basically on the level of flat earthers to me.
It boggles my mind anyone can think that fast food is cheaper than grocery store food for the dollar. Its basically on the level of flat earthers to me.
[deleted]
Same, used to be my default radio and podcast listening, then a few years ago they had a major jump in their style/producers/journalists and just couldn't keep listening anymore.
Their podcasts went from non-fiction stories to advertisements for peoples random cultural book.
I used to love listening to All Things Considered followed by Planet Money every day on my grueling commute home from work. It was my only companion. I haven't turned it on in years.
I mourn the loss. Living in a red area NPR was a much-needed breath of Fresh Air.
I mourn the loss. Living in a red area NPR was a much-needed breath of Fresh Air.
In fairness, all that soft-outrageous shit is actually happening.
But yes, turning off the news from time to time is, in general, good for your health.
But yes, turning off the news from time to time is, in general, good for your health.
There are 8 billion people on the planet. You can fill 24/7 with whatever kinds of stories you wish—-sad, maddening, inspiring, funny, joyful, and outrageous too. It’s pure choice to pick the last one, it’s not in any way forced by reality.
It's not pure choice, though. Because people react stronger to outrage, news tend to focus on such stories, so you end up seeing disproportionally more of them in the feed by default. You have to actively seek out more balanced media if you want that.
So you mean to say it IS choice, which is being exercised to choose outrage-inducing material for profit.
I mean to say that it's not a conscious choice most of the consumers of news media, but yes, it absolutely is a choice by the producers.
Yeah. I always find it a strong tell when people make statements like “make the world a bit less shitty” or “… in reaction to the horribleness of everything”. The world is no more shitty than it was 40 years ago - but the general public perception of the world seems to have gotten much bleaker.
Like you, I attribute a lot of that to social media. I left Twitter and Facebook a few years ago and my outlook on life got much better. I want my news to be balanced. Not all positive or all negative. I want to be pandered to sometimes, and sometimes challenged on my world views. So I found sources that would give me that.
I totally agree with your comment - you media diet is pure choice. Make it a healthy diet for you.
Like you, I attribute a lot of that to social media. I left Twitter and Facebook a few years ago and my outlook on life got much better. I want my news to be balanced. Not all positive or all negative. I want to be pandered to sometimes, and sometimes challenged on my world views. So I found sources that would give me that.
I totally agree with your comment - you media diet is pure choice. Make it a healthy diet for you.
> The world is no more shitty than it was 40 years ago - but the general public perception of the world seems to have gotten much bleaker.
I'll call bullshit (what is it about a thread on the media that so often necessitates this?).
I don't have an objective measure for shittiness, but in terms of the bleakness of public perception of the world I feel more confident in making a comment: forty years ago, The Day After had just aired.
I'll call bullshit (what is it about a thread on the media that so often necessitates this?).
I don't have an objective measure for shittiness, but in terms of the bleakness of public perception of the world I feel more confident in making a comment: forty years ago, The Day After had just aired.
GenX wasn’t moping around not having sex or kids or fun because they were upset about the state of the world. Even in the freaking blitz they were having more sex and kids and fun than Generation Eeoyore.
I don't know how to comment on how much sex the kids are having these days without sounding like a creep, but if you weren't there, you'll need to take my word that the cold war had its highly bleak moments involving fear of armageddon and the AIDS epidemic, with which nothing today really compares. Today has more ennui and blatant idiocy, perhaps, but we were pretty good at that too.
Perceptions are subjective, though, and in many ways defined by the baseline. When you've been living with constant fear of a nuclear war in the background for 30 years (or for new kids, since you were born), it loses its edge. I'm from the USSR originally, and I remember the shelter drills we had occasionally in the kindergarten - we all had our own tiny gas masks that we had to locate, put on, and then orderly proceed to the shelter. Then there were civic defense classes in school, with diagrams explaining in detail the effects of a nuclear weapon on a city, how far away you have to be to not be exposed to the blast wave and the burns, how deep of a shelter one needs to have to avoid irradiation, how to seal the apartment windows against immediate fallout etc. I can't say that it wasn't depressing, but we didn't panic about it either - it was just a part of life, things being usual, just like they have been when we were born.
OTOH for someone who lived in a world where a full-on nuclear exchange was not considered a serious possibility for decades, suddenly facing this possibility for the first time in their life, panic should be the expected response.
OTOH for someone who lived in a world where a full-on nuclear exchange was not considered a serious possibility for decades, suddenly facing this possibility for the first time in their life, panic should be the expected response.
I attended a school assembly in middle school (!) which featured an emaciated woman dying of aids that had gotten from being raped while jogging in a public park.
People weren’t walking around refusing to be teenagers because look at this terrible world we live in. This combination of sanctimonious, depressed, and boring probably hasn’t been seen on this continent since the 1700s in New England.
People weren’t walking around refusing to be teenagers because look at this terrible world we live in. This combination of sanctimonious, depressed, and boring probably hasn’t been seen on this continent since the 1700s in New England.
>GenX wasn’t moping around
Are you for real. They invented moping around.
Are you for real. They invented moping around.
Forty years ago, Threads aired. Watch it if you dare.
Some years ago I had a deeply weird conversation with a conservative political operative in my area wherein (among other things) they advanced the claim that liberals had demonstrably and totally won the culture wars, and then proceeded to go totally off the rails. I balked at the notion at the time but as the years have gone by I've come to the sullen realization that they had a point.
The indicator on NPR is one of my favorite podcasts, and doesn't play the outrage games.
And Berliner apparently helped to start planet money, which indicator is a spin off of. That’s almost the sum total of real news that’s still available at npr :(
They have an editorial bent but they still get facts right. Not to mention the invaluable local news that is miles above most other local coverage.
Oh, bullshit. Marketplace is also a great podcast.
Maybe pedantic, but Marketplace is produced by American Public Media[1], not National Public Radio, though you hear it on NPR affiliate stations.
[1] https://www.americanpublicmedia.org/
[1] https://www.americanpublicmedia.org/
I live in a very liberal part of America.
Wokeness is not popular with anybody.
20% of America is outraged, 60% is willing to give woke media a try as long is it’s entertaining and not too preachy, 15% gives extra points for “representation” but still wants a good story, and 5% thinks it doesn’t go far enough.
Part of this is generational.
In the workplace, I suspect “representation” is a proxy for age discrimination.
I’ve seen too many old white men pushed aside for much, much, much younger minorities.
Seems like thats happening at NPR.
Wokeness is not popular with anybody.
20% of America is outraged, 60% is willing to give woke media a try as long is it’s entertaining and not too preachy, 15% gives extra points for “representation” but still wants a good story, and 5% thinks it doesn’t go far enough.
Part of this is generational.
In the workplace, I suspect “representation” is a proxy for age discrimination.
I’ve seen too many old white men pushed aside for much, much, much younger minorities.
Seems like thats happening at NPR.
If you think NPR has fallen - and it has - try following The Economist on Instagram. Talk about a once reputable media outlet losing it's way. Nearly every post feels like they fell asleep next to a BuzzFeed pod.
The Economist has a firewall between its magazine and its social media team. The magazine is still good.
IDK, the articles they post on social are all over the road. More clickbait-y than The Economist-ic.
Stick with Consider This and the NPR News. NPR Politics Podcast is great too. I tend to avoid the opinion stuff since, yes, it's definitely got an overly-lefty outrage-bait angle.
I used to listen to NPR quite a bit after moving to the US, mostly during my commutes. Over the last few years, it has gotten worse and worse. The point where I stopped listening to it and switched to podcasts was when they had someone claiming that office breakrooms were "basically white spaces" where non-white people do not belong (and calling for remote work as the alternative). And the interviewer essentially took them at face value.
Have these people not heard of office breakrooms existing outside of white-majority countries? I would bet that having food together in a communal setting is a team-building and fun activity throughout the world regardless of skin-color. Most likely, this was some young, introverted person who was uncomfortable being in a group and wanted to somehow bring in race into that to justify their viewpoint.
As someone who isn't white, this sort of coddling non-sense is simply infuriating. I do not want to be judged based on what I look like, and platforming/pushing these sort of views does exactly that.
They have become the very caricature of what right-wing news makes out liberals to be.
Have these people not heard of office breakrooms existing outside of white-majority countries? I would bet that having food together in a communal setting is a team-building and fun activity throughout the world regardless of skin-color. Most likely, this was some young, introverted person who was uncomfortable being in a group and wanted to somehow bring in race into that to justify their viewpoint.
As someone who isn't white, this sort of coddling non-sense is simply infuriating. I do not want to be judged based on what I look like, and platforming/pushing these sort of views does exactly that.
They have become the very caricature of what right-wing news makes out liberals to be.
I recall hearing an NPR piece in the past couple months that was discussing how best to handle reparations for slavery. The entire piece clearly came from the conceit that reparations would be good and desirable. All of the expert interviewees supported and spoke favorably of reparations with no counterpoints, the few opponents were extemporaneous "man on the street" interviews. The end effect was an one sided piece almost contemptuously disregarding any opposition. Certainly not a convincing message to the 68% of US adults (including 49% of Democrats) that don't support reparations.
More than the staking a clear political position on the matter, it was the presumption and condescension that was the most off-putting. Far too often their pieces have adopted that tone. With the "right-thinking" guest or guests interviewed by the "right-thinking" host about a issue clearly the listener would agree with too... if they are "right-thinking."
More than the staking a clear political position on the matter, it was the presumption and condescension that was the most off-putting. Far too often their pieces have adopted that tone. With the "right-thinking" guest or guests interviewed by the "right-thinking" host about a issue clearly the listener would agree with too... if they are "right-thinking."
You've always had narcissistic people make everything about themselves or seeing victimhood everywhere.
However what's new is that as long as claims being made are of a certain type, they are not only accepted uncritically, but in fact trying to challenge them can be dangerous for your employment status. So essentially no one can call BS on their ideas because no dissent on these topics is allowed.
However what's new is that as long as claims being made are of a certain type, they are not only accepted uncritically, but in fact trying to challenge them can be dangerous for your employment status. So essentially no one can call BS on their ideas because no dissent on these topics is allowed.
I similarly stopped listening to NPR around 2018, because they really leaned into news commentary with a very one-sided bias. I could no longer stand the preachiness of their newer programming, and it seemed that the more established folks like Robert Siegel and Steve Inskeep got roped into toeing the line as well. I think the Trump era really broke a lot of news sources I previously relied on.
Car Talk with my dad was so fun
Sure. It's a real problen. But that was a verging-on-cover-story part of Berliner's criticism, which was just another crypto-fascist diatribe, of the kind that are currently so depressingly ubiquitious.
It's hard to say how much of that is manufactured outrage and how much is an unsettling new reality. It may not be your reality, but for an increasing number of people quality of life is deteriorating. Not saying you're wrong, just saying that we shouldn't completely tune out everything that doesn't fit our own reality.
> It's hard to say how much of that is manufactured outrage and how much is an unsettling new reality.
There's plenty of unsettling new reality, I'll give you that. And it should be reported on, even if it makes people uncomfortable.
But how is it reported on? There's a difference between "here's the economic reality of 20% of of the population" and "you should be outraged about the economy". And if you listen in order to analyze the way the story is told rather than to hear what the story is about, you can tell which is which fairly reliably.
Much of the left has gone from "we're going to report the stories that happen" to "we're going to report the things we think need to be reported, like poverty" (which is all right, as long as they also report the news), to "we're going to report things so as to make you become politically active on the side that we think you should". That last step is highly problematic. For one thing, once you're that blatantly a cheerleader for one side, can I trust that you're telling the truth about what you're reporting on, or are you distorting it out of all resemblance to reality?
There's plenty of unsettling new reality, I'll give you that. And it should be reported on, even if it makes people uncomfortable.
But how is it reported on? There's a difference between "here's the economic reality of 20% of of the population" and "you should be outraged about the economy". And if you listen in order to analyze the way the story is told rather than to hear what the story is about, you can tell which is which fairly reliably.
Much of the left has gone from "we're going to report the stories that happen" to "we're going to report the things we think need to be reported, like poverty" (which is all right, as long as they also report the news), to "we're going to report things so as to make you become politically active on the side that we think you should". That last step is highly problematic. For one thing, once you're that blatantly a cheerleader for one side, can I trust that you're telling the truth about what you're reporting on, or are you distorting it out of all resemblance to reality?
Yeah. There are sooo many good podcasts (so much so that I am still a “sustaining member” of OPB because of all the value they bring me), but if you turn it on in the car at a random time, you’re going to die of boredom.
[deleted]
Is this discomfort with the state of the world? Cause I think the goal is that you feel inclined towards action on that. The state of the world isn't... all good. We've got some serious issues right now. And it seems like a lot of people are complaining that they have to hear about that (I will point out almost no other news station is doing this, so also as a proportion of news this seems kinda reasonable) rather than that others are experiencing the bad things.
It's funny to me because their used to be a conservative take that liberals needed safe spaces to talk about all of this stuff, and when it's actually in the media people don't want to grapple with it. I would bet that the most vocal proponents of changing this dialogue lean conservative as well.
It's funny to me because their used to be a conservative take that liberals needed safe spaces to talk about all of this stuff, and when it's actually in the media people don't want to grapple with it. I would bet that the most vocal proponents of changing this dialogue lean conservative as well.
It's true that there's big problems and it's true that things should change.
The issue is that the solution that is proposed to the problem is to have more attention to the problem. This result in a virtuous circle where things have to address the problem more and more. It does help address the problem though, it's not falling on deaf ears and it is educational.
This then becomes a kind of noise drowning out other signals. It's the signals that listeners want not the noise.
Is anything actually improved, do people benefit? I would say yes!!
But it's a move away from signal and information towards problem education and political or social messaging.
The virtuous circle can get reinforced by objections to the changes. Objections or "discomfort" are often proof that more changes need to be made. The signal is further reduced and those in change become blind in their virtue. Metrics in how good they are doing are perceived in terms of the messages that are put out not in quality productions. A kind of seige mentality makes it hard to determine the difference between criticism of the content or format and political objections of the added messaging to the content. Both positions become opposition and encourage more of the same.
To me, the change to add more unbiased views or thoughts from the other side seem artificial and miss the actual change in content. It makes things more political and less about life.
The issue is that the solution that is proposed to the problem is to have more attention to the problem. This result in a virtuous circle where things have to address the problem more and more. It does help address the problem though, it's not falling on deaf ears and it is educational.
This then becomes a kind of noise drowning out other signals. It's the signals that listeners want not the noise.
Is anything actually improved, do people benefit? I would say yes!!
But it's a move away from signal and information towards problem education and political or social messaging.
The virtuous circle can get reinforced by objections to the changes. Objections or "discomfort" are often proof that more changes need to be made. The signal is further reduced and those in change become blind in their virtue. Metrics in how good they are doing are perceived in terms of the messages that are put out not in quality productions. A kind of seige mentality makes it hard to determine the difference between criticism of the content or format and political objections of the added messaging to the content. Both positions become opposition and encourage more of the same.
To me, the change to add more unbiased views or thoughts from the other side seem artificial and miss the actual change in content. It makes things more political and less about life.
> Is this discomfort with the state of the world?
There are two separate critiques going on:
1. There is a lot of bias in the news coverage.
2. There is a lot more to a radio station than covering the state of the world (news, social issues, etc). There's stuff like entertainment, humor, etc.
A lot of people are arguing about 2 above.
There's always malnutrition somewhere in the world (and yes, in the US). But we don't criticize the existence of movie theaters.
There are two separate critiques going on:
1. There is a lot of bias in the news coverage.
2. There is a lot more to a radio station than covering the state of the world (news, social issues, etc). There's stuff like entertainment, humor, etc.
A lot of people are arguing about 2 above.
There's always malnutrition somewhere in the world (and yes, in the US). But we don't criticize the existence of movie theaters.
I mean, I listen to a lot of NPR for entertainment/humor/etc... WWDTM, PCHH, This American Life, Planet Money.
If the complaint is about #2, then I don't see it in these NPR shows. So I'm assuming they must be talking about #1. OR, they're complaining cause not all of the newscasters are white (they sampled Garrison Keillor, and the Car Talk guys as their examples)? Either way, feels like more of a problem the listener is grappling with than a problem with the actual content, to me.
If the complaint is about #2, then I don't see it in these NPR shows. So I'm assuming they must be talking about #1. OR, they're complaining cause not all of the newscasters are white (they sampled Garrison Keillor, and the Car Talk guys as their examples)? Either way, feels like more of a problem the listener is grappling with than a problem with the actual content, to me.
> The state of the world isn't... all good
That's true it's fucking amazing! It's so much better then any point in history it's hard to image how far we've come.
That's true it's fucking amazing! It's so much better then any point in history it's hard to image how far we've come.
Steven Pinker? Is that you?
I guess we can call it then. This is good enough. No reason to improve from here.
We should definitely just live with a perpetual war in the middle east. That seems fine. World Hunger is good enough. Racism is more or less solved. At least it's solved enough for my purposes as a white guy. Climate change will probably be fine as it is.
I'm sorry but "this is better than it's ever been" is less of a defense of the current time period, and more of an indictment of human history.
I guess we can call it then. This is good enough. No reason to improve from here.
We should definitely just live with a perpetual war in the middle east. That seems fine. World Hunger is good enough. Racism is more or less solved. At least it's solved enough for my purposes as a white guy. Climate change will probably be fine as it is.
I'm sorry but "this is better than it's ever been" is less of a defense of the current time period, and more of an indictment of human history.
The Middle East has been in a state of perpetual war for millennia. That's not "fine", but trying to bring long term peace there is utterly futile. When a problem has no solution then it's not really a problem, just a fact to be accepted.
I would actually argue it's strictly worse, because we have gotten terribly effective weapons in the last century.
No one in the ME was killing each other as effectively as they are now. That's a way things are demonstrably worse than "there was war a millenia ago."
I also don't think it's fair to say that the ME has been in a "perpetual war for millenia." Was the ME at war during the crusades? Or was Europe conducting Sieges on them.
No one in the ME was killing each other as effectively as they are now. That's a way things are demonstrably worse than "there was war a millenia ago."
I also don't think it's fair to say that the ME has been in a "perpetual war for millenia." Was the ME at war during the crusades? Or was Europe conducting Sieges on them.
The Middle East was at war when the Assyrian Empire conquered its neighbors in the 14th century BC. The Middle East was at war when the Achaemenid Empire conquered its neighbors in the 5th century BC. The Middle East was at war when Jewish tribes rebelled against the Roman Empire in the 1st century AD. The Middle East was at war when the Umayyad Caliphate expanded in the 8th century AD. The Middle East was at war when the Ottomans captured Turkey in the 15th century AD. And so on. Some of those groups managed to commit horrific genocides despite having only primitive weapons. This is all terrible but nothing has really changed and unfortunately there is no realistic prospect of breaking the cycle of violence.
As for outside invasions, the same thing has happened to almost every area of the world. Often multiple times. The Middle East is hardly unique in that regard.
As for outside invasions, the same thing has happened to almost every area of the world. Often multiple times. The Middle East is hardly unique in that regard.
I don't think it's the media's place to make us feel inclined to take action. What action, exactly? Progressive, conservative, green, techno-optimist, religious, etc? It's their job to report on whatever is news-worthy, and it's up to viewers what they want to do with that information. I don't agree with pushing agendas disguised as news. That used to be mainly a Fox News and AM-talk radio thing. It's dissapointing to see the rest of media follow suit.
I think I have some bad news for you. The media is incredibly biased with their own agenda. I think the only way you can truly account for that is to make up for it with multiple viewpoints. Maybe LLMs can write truly "unbiased" news articles when they stop hallucinating, but until then I think the best thing we can have is "transparent agendas."
> Maybe LLMs can write truly “unbiased” news articles
“bias” only exists relative to a desired result. There is no such thing as “unbiased”.
(Also, and closely related, LLM’s reproduce the biases of those creating them, and the more control we have over LLM’s, the more closely they will do so.)
“bias” only exists relative to a desired result. There is no such thing as “unbiased”.
(Also, and closely related, LLM’s reproduce the biases of those creating them, and the more control we have over LLM’s, the more closely they will do so.)
Even NYT didn't suspend Bari Weiss despite her bringing similar criticisms about NYT.
In all honesty, I never understood the appeal of NPR, and I've been consuming news all the time since I was in elementary school (I even got my elementary school library to get a weekly subscription for The Economist).
I love PBS, but NPR always felt like cultural commentary with no actual in depth reporting. NYT occasionally feels like that as well, but their track record has more than redeemed themselves.
In all honesty, I never understood the appeal of NPR, and I've been consuming news all the time since I was in elementary school (I even got my elementary school library to get a weekly subscription for The Economist).
I love PBS, but NPR always felt like cultural commentary with no actual in depth reporting. NYT occasionally feels like that as well, but their track record has more than redeemed themselves.
I don't listen to NPR directly, but I think RadioLab and This American Life are generally pretty good. I don't know how much those are NPR as a whole or works by affiliate stations, but they are media that I enjoy, so I kind of see why people would listen.
I will say, though, PBS is generally better. I think Frontline is very consistently excellent.
I will say, though, PBS is generally better. I think Frontline is very consistently excellent.
Older episodes of RadioLab are absolute gems. Around the time Robert Krulwich retired I noticed a palpable shift. The new hosts' motivation shifted from inform to influence. It still has good stories, but the framing is somewhat more manipulative, in a way that's hard to pin down but makes me distinctly uncomfortable and sometimes exhausted.
The way Radiolab chops their interviews into tiny little pieces and then glues them back together with snippets from the hosts is basically the best way to make sure your guests always tell the story YOU want them to tell...
RadioLab did the same thing. Was science for the first ~10 yrs, then turned politics from a fairly left POV. I finally stopped listening after they passed the torch.
This American Life is also pretty far left. It's still on my podcast list but I only listen when I run out of others. And then, 2 out of 3 times the story a race/identity piece and fast forward to the next part.
This American Life is also pretty far left. It's still on my podcast list but I only listen when I run out of others. And then, 2 out of 3 times the story a race/identity piece and fast forward to the next part.
This American Life is from PRI not NPR. Radiolab is NPR however, though of course not really news-focused.
Fair enough; I'm pretty sure I've listened to This American Life on NPR at some point but it was probably just a syndication thing.
Yeah, neither are really news-focused, more human-interest stories or deep dives into newer tech.
Yeah, neither are really news-focused, more human-interest stories or deep dives into newer tech.
Their news programming used to be pretty good (‘00s and earlier, maybe a little into the 20-teens). Now it’s at its best when my local station’s syndicating news from the BBC. :-( It’s markedly better, really highlights how bad NPR has gotten.
On the Media remains good. Their market show’s ok. I like Wait, Wait. That’s a complete list of their programs I’m still happy about listening to.
On the Media remains good. Their market show’s ok. I like Wait, Wait. That’s a complete list of their programs I’m still happy about listening to.
Here is the article that he was punished for - https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-tru...
Not really my thing, but this section suggests he likely has a valid point. Sometimes, being right is the most unforgivable thing you can be.
Back in 2011, although NPR’s audience tilted a bit to the left, it still bore a resemblance to America at large. Twenty-six percent of listeners described themselves as conservative, 23 percent as middle of the road, and 37 percent as liberal.
By 2023, the picture was completely different: only 11 percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, 21 percent as middle of the road, and 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. We weren’t just losing conservatives; we were also losing moderates and traditional liberals.
An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don’t have an audience that reflects America.
Back in 2011, although NPR’s audience tilted a bit to the left, it still bore a resemblance to America at large. Twenty-six percent of listeners described themselves as conservative, 23 percent as middle of the road, and 37 percent as liberal.
By 2023, the picture was completely different: only 11 percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, 21 percent as middle of the road, and 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. We weren’t just losing conservatives; we were also losing moderates and traditional liberals.
An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don’t have an audience that reflects America.
I mean, that data in itself doesn't say much, conservatism in the US changed dramatically in 2015/2016. The people who call themselves conservative now are different to back in 2011. For example the education levels are a lot lower among conservatives and a lot higher among liberals than before.
You're the man for sharing this
smrtinsert(3)
This is the same NPR that sold it's subscriber list to the Democratic party. In the US, the government has no business paying for speech, especially partisan speech.
Like most of the rest of the media, NPR is no longer liberal (in respect to protecting personal human rights, economic freedom, observable truth and government institutions) but rather Liberal causes (restricting speech against protected classes, skeptical of free markets, relative truths, tearing down government institutions).
Like most of the rest of the media, NPR is no longer liberal (in respect to protecting personal human rights, economic freedom, observable truth and government institutions) but rather Liberal causes (restricting speech against protected classes, skeptical of free markets, relative truths, tearing down government institutions).
> sold it's subscriber list to the Democratic party
Do you have a source for this? This is massive allegation you are giving, and can veer directly into disinformation.
Do you have a source for this? This is massive allegation you are giving, and can veer directly into disinformation.
To be fair, this was a long time ago - it's a quick reminder that I am a lot older then I remember - in the late 90s, NPR and CPB member stations were caught selling their membership lists. There was a compromise that preserved CPB and NPR funding in 1999 that explicitly forbid them from doing so:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-jul-21-mn-58123...
> in the late 90s, NPR and CPB member stations were caught selling their membership lists
The article specifically says partner television stations and apparently some sold their lists to Republican campaigns too ("including the 1996 presidential campaign of Sen. Bob Dole").
Your initial statement "NPR that sold it's subscriber list to the Democratic party" doesn't appear to be correct at all if this was the end of the story.
The article specifically says partner television stations and apparently some sold their lists to Republican campaigns too ("including the 1996 presidential campaign of Sen. Bob Dole").
Your initial statement "NPR that sold it's subscriber list to the Democratic party" doesn't appear to be correct at all if this was the end of the story.
COV was the entity that solid it. cPB was behind the TV stations, PBS and NPr.
> COV was the entity that solid it
Assuming you meant "CPB" and "sold" here, no, it wasn't.
> cPB was behind the TV stations, PBS and NPr.
You'll have to be a lot more specific about what "behind" means here, though, because your entire (mis)recollection is based on it.
There's no interpretation of these events in which NPR sold anything, though.
Assuming you meant "CPB" and "sold" here, no, it wasn't.
> cPB was behind the TV stations, PBS and NPr.
You'll have to be a lot more specific about what "behind" means here, though, because your entire (mis)recollection is based on it.
There's no interpretation of these events in which NPR sold anything, though.
Ok. This seems to be well before my time on the Hill.
Imo, you can't really compare NPR in 1999 with NPR in 2024 - almost everyone who was senior in the organization back then will have already retired 15-20 years ago, and their funding structure today is much more donor and advertiser driven than it ever was in the 1990s.
Imo, you can't really compare NPR in 1999 with NPR in 2024 - almost everyone who was senior in the organization back then will have already retired 15-20 years ago, and their funding structure today is much more donor and advertiser driven than it ever was in the 1990s.
So you blew the disinformation whistle, find out that it happened, but then argue from statute of limitations that it doesn't matter. But if NPR agreed with the type of argument you're making, then I don't think they would make a point of covering stuff like reparations-related grievances constantly.
Trust comes more easily for individuals / news organizations / political groups when we're all more focused on the framing of arguments on their own merits, with less focus on the in-groups/out-groups of who those arguments are against or who they are supporting.
Trust comes more easily for individuals / news organizations / political groups when we're all more focused on the framing of arguments on their own merits, with less focus on the in-groups/out-groups of who those arguments are against or who they are supporting.
Asking for a source isn't "blowing the disinformation whistle". It is a healthy thing. We should be skeptical about what we read on anonymous forums. Curiosity to know more and attempts to vet information is a good thing.
Also the source doesn't back up the claim at all. The linked article:
1. Isn't about NPR. It was about some affiliate Corporation for Public Broadcasting TV stations.
2. Points out it wasn't exclusive about selling to democrat campaigns. As mentioned in the article, Bob Dole's campaign was involved.
Also the source doesn't back up the claim at all. The linked article:
1. Isn't about NPR. It was about some affiliate Corporation for Public Broadcasting TV stations.
2. Points out it wasn't exclusive about selling to democrat campaigns. As mentioned in the article, Bob Dole's campaign was involved.
The post invoked disinformation. And having lived through it - and being a NPR and PBS fan at the time, I can tell you the vast majority of the sales where to democratic organizations before a whistle blower went to the press.
Regardless, know you know. And knowing is half the battle.
Regardless, know you know. And knowing is half the battle.
Sorry, that's too long ago to be relevant.
[deleted]
The Democratic Party is a private organization, not the government.
NPR's funding in part comes from CPB - which is government backed.
By in part, you mean < 1%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#:~:text=NPR%20receives%20a....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#:~:text=NPR%20receives%20a....
You can go straight to the source, i.e. the audited FY2023 financial statement[0]. You're right that revenues from CPB contracts amount to single-digit million dollars (roughly $7mm in 2023) a year, out of >$300mm of total annual revenues; but also from the same document:
> National Public Radio, Inc. (“NPR Inc.”) a nonprofit membership corporation incorporated in 1970 following passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, as amended
> [American Coalition for Public Radio, a wholly-owned subsidiary,] supports the educational mission of publicly funded, noncommercial, educational radio stations, networks, and systems (collectively, “Public Radio”) [...] aims to secure robust federal funding
One can register some legitimate disappointment in a "national public" radio organization, breathed into law by Congress, turning into something rather nakedly partisan. That only 1% of revenues come from tax dollars has little to do with that part.
[0]: https://media.npr.org/documents/about/statements/fy2023/Nati...
> National Public Radio, Inc. (“NPR Inc.”) a nonprofit membership corporation incorporated in 1970 following passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, as amended
> [American Coalition for Public Radio, a wholly-owned subsidiary,] supports the educational mission of publicly funded, noncommercial, educational radio stations, networks, and systems (collectively, “Public Radio”) [...] aims to secure robust federal funding
One can register some legitimate disappointment in a "national public" radio organization, breathed into law by Congress, turning into something rather nakedly partisan. That only 1% of revenues come from tax dollars has little to do with that part.
[0]: https://media.npr.org/documents/about/statements/fy2023/Nati...
> That only 1% of revenues come from tax dollars has little to do with that part.
If the public creates something but doesn't fund it very well, that thing has to go out and find other kind of funding, which means they have to sing for their supper. This will most definitely influence their content and reporting, because otherwise they simply don't get to exist at all.
If the public creates something but doesn't fund it very well, that thing has to go out and find other kind of funding, which means they have to sing for their supper. This will most definitely influence their content and reporting, because otherwise they simply don't get to exist at all.
That's a fair point, but the other perspective is that perhaps the organization grew far beyond its original remit, and is now run by its insiders for the benefit of its insiders, a la Robert Conquest's laws. The public not willing to fund it "very well" could be an indication that the organization itself should remain small and bounded by its charter.
$210mm of $323mm, or roughly two thirds, of 2023 expenses incurred by NPR were for employee compensation and benefits. $58mm of the compensation were unrelated to content production and distribution; that is, booked under SG&A and not COGS. $42mm of it was for management. At least 26 individuals made a salary of more than $250k[0]. I suppose their singing voice is quite good, to receive such a supper.
[0]: https://media.npr.org/documents/about/statements/fy2022/2021...
$210mm of $323mm, or roughly two thirds, of 2023 expenses incurred by NPR were for employee compensation and benefits. $58mm of the compensation were unrelated to content production and distribution; that is, booked under SG&A and not COGS. $42mm of it was for management. At least 26 individuals made a salary of more than $250k[0]. I suppose their singing voice is quite good, to receive such a supper.
[0]: https://media.npr.org/documents/about/statements/fy2022/2021...
They collect a lot of donation money during their funding drives, it’s obvious they have a fan base. College radio stations also get a funding source via NPR, and they provide a venue for local programming, but yes, colleges are going to be way to the left of…anything really. If people didn’t want NPR, it would be gone already, but the fact that those people aren’t everyone…well, the only kind of news that wouldn’t offend anyone would be as dry as C-Span.
I don’t really have a radio in my car anymore so it’s a moot point, I just stream whatever short newscast they have while driving just to catch up. I get the feeling that a lot of drivers are like this now, and they might be scrambling for a new model to match, and that’s going to cause some content upheaval (and if they didn’t adapt, they wouldn’t exist now, we wouldn’t be talking about them at all).
I don’t really have a radio in my car anymore so it’s a moot point, I just stream whatever short newscast they have while driving just to catch up. I get the feeling that a lot of drivers are like this now, and they might be scrambling for a new model to match, and that’s going to cause some content upheaval (and if they didn’t adapt, they wouldn’t exist now, we wouldn’t be talking about them at all).
do you know why "mm" (which to me means "millimeters") is used with $ values? I mean, a house can be $ 250K, a mansion might be $ 1.1M, and our national debt might be $ 34.4T. OK, I understand those.
How does 'mm' equate to 'M'? And if it does equate, why not use 'M' as a simpler way to designate a quantity of "millions" ?
How does 'mm' equate to 'M'? And if it does equate, why not use 'M' as a simpler way to designate a quantity of "millions" ?
It’s Greeks vs Romans.
Western finance/accounting industries adopted ‘M’ from the Roman numeral for 1,000 to mean “thousand”. MM (or mm) meaning “thousand thousand”, or a million.
Separately, when the French invented the metric system they used the Greek prefixes for multiples (kilo, derived from the Greek for “thousand”, being the best known). Which is why ‘k’ denotes thousands in most other industries.
Conversely, the metric system used Roman prefixes for submultiples, which is where centi- (same root as Centurion) and milli- come from.
Western finance/accounting industries adopted ‘M’ from the Roman numeral for 1,000 to mean “thousand”. MM (or mm) meaning “thousand thousand”, or a million.
Separately, when the French invented the metric system they used the Greek prefixes for multiples (kilo, derived from the Greek for “thousand”, being the best known). Which is why ‘k’ denotes thousands in most other industries.
Conversely, the metric system used Roman prefixes for submultiples, which is where centi- (same root as Centurion) and milli- come from.
Thank you.
As for SI, I have never liked the 'non-thousands' submultiples e.g. centimeters. I think it's confusing. You have km, m, and mm. factors of 1,000. Seems reasonable. Just like we have F, mF, uF, nF, pF for capacitors.
I think the various units are there because people like 'comfortable' numbers; e.g. people seem to prefer 8.9 cm to 89 mm ('8' is a number between 1 and 9, the most preferred numbers -- because we can count them on our fingers?).
As for SI, I have never liked the 'non-thousands' submultiples e.g. centimeters. I think it's confusing. You have km, m, and mm. factors of 1,000. Seems reasonable. Just like we have F, mF, uF, nF, pF for capacitors.
I think the various units are there because people like 'comfortable' numbers; e.g. people seem to prefer 8.9 cm to 89 mm ('8' is a number between 1 and 9, the most preferred numbers -- because we can count them on our fingers?).
OK, fine. What are you objecting to? The Democratic party part, or the government-backing part?
This comment thread is almost entirely people who think NPR of today is worse than it used to be (with some exceptions for local news).
It makes me wonder if NPR news leadership thinks they are doing a good job? Is there an audience out there that think NPR is doing a good job in absolute terms? It's easy to say they are better than Newsmax or some other outlet, but that's not the same as saying NPR is good all by itself.
It makes me wonder if NPR news leadership thinks they are doing a good job? Is there an audience out there that think NPR is doing a good job in absolute terms? It's easy to say they are better than Newsmax or some other outlet, but that's not the same as saying NPR is good all by itself.
I don't think there's much audience that thinks they're doing a good job, but there are very different reasons for those opinions.
On one hand, you have the majority of bewildered moderates who are increasingly annoyed about getting a lecture about their "privilege" every time they want to read the news, and seeing everything reduced to a small set of talking points in a very forced and artificial manner.
On the other hand, you have genuine progressives who very much buy into the whole privilege stuff etc, but at the same time they are broadly anti-establishment, and - quite rightly - see traditional news media, including NPR, as establishment. To that audience, it just all feels like a very crude and meaningless attempt to pander to them to get their attention (and money). If they want news told from an authentic perspective that aligns with theirs, they are much more likely to get it from podcasts, blogs etc.
The end result is that nobody is happy.
On one hand, you have the majority of bewildered moderates who are increasingly annoyed about getting a lecture about their "privilege" every time they want to read the news, and seeing everything reduced to a small set of talking points in a very forced and artificial manner.
On the other hand, you have genuine progressives who very much buy into the whole privilege stuff etc, but at the same time they are broadly anti-establishment, and - quite rightly - see traditional news media, including NPR, as establishment. To that audience, it just all feels like a very crude and meaningless attempt to pander to them to get their attention (and money). If they want news told from an authentic perspective that aligns with theirs, they are much more likely to get it from podcasts, blogs etc.
The end result is that nobody is happy.
The first thought that came to my mind was the Google Gemini debacle, as a useful analogy. How did Google release it in the state it was in? How did they not notice the problems? How did leadership think it was a good idea? I think you'd find a lot of similar answers in both cases.
A simpler question to ask is "How would anyone trying to report this 'bug' internally before launch have been treated?"
I agree with most of the criticisms regarding NPR's decline, but totally disagree with the idea that it's at all comparable to the Gemini situation. NPR is deliberately pushing an editorial agenda, not a product that they immediately took offline because it was performing poorly.
Every diffusion image model produces all kinds of arbitrarily bizarre behavior, this particular permutation just happened to catch fire in the media because it's culture war tinder. The idea that Google leaders thought it was "a good idea" to generate black Nazis and native American founding fathers is a caricature.
Every diffusion image model produces all kinds of arbitrarily bizarre behavior, this particular permutation just happened to catch fire in the media because it's culture war tinder. The idea that Google leaders thought it was "a good idea" to generate black Nazis and native American founding fathers is a caricature.
It makes me wonder if NPR news leadership thinks they are doing a good job? Is there an audience out there that think NPR is doing a good job in absolute terms?
Yes and yes. As rags have become increasingly partisan, the only ones that are sticking around and engaging/paying are those that have also become increasingly partisan. And they think the rag is doing a swell job so the execs only have their echo chamber of ardent supporters to get feedback from.
Yes and yes. As rags have become increasingly partisan, the only ones that are sticking around and engaging/paying are those that have also become increasingly partisan. And they think the rag is doing a swell job so the execs only have their echo chamber of ardent supporters to get feedback from.
It seems to be a mix of donor capture and lack of relevance at the national level.
Local NPR affiliates produce locally relevant content, but national level NPR has no actual differentiator. The forces them to be much more heavily dependent on their donors (who have clearly chosen a specific side) and also means they aren't top of the list to get breaking news (no Congress member is going to spend 1-2 hours interviewing at NPR when they can have multiple interviews with nationally prominent news sources).
This seems to have caused a vicious cycle for NPR as they need to keep their donors and listeners happy, but at the expense of the long term feasibility of the product.
Furthermore, podcasts are a major portion of national NPR's "bundle", and the podcasting industry is extremely democratized/commodified now.
Local NPR affiliates produce locally relevant content, but national level NPR has no actual differentiator. The forces them to be much more heavily dependent on their donors (who have clearly chosen a specific side) and also means they aren't top of the list to get breaking news (no Congress member is going to spend 1-2 hours interviewing at NPR when they can have multiple interviews with nationally prominent news sources).
This seems to have caused a vicious cycle for NPR as they need to keep their donors and listeners happy, but at the expense of the long term feasibility of the product.
Furthermore, podcasts are a major portion of national NPR's "bundle", and the podcasting industry is extremely democratized/commodified now.
> and also means they aren't top of the list to get breaking news (no Congress member is going to spend 1-2 hours interviewing at NPR when they can have multiple interviews with nationally prominent news sources).
This has been a problem with NPR forever though, at least since the late '90s. Donor capture and the podcast market are probably bigger reasons.
This has been a problem with NPR forever though, at least since the late '90s. Donor capture and the podcast market are probably bigger reasons.
I think it's institutional capture by a group, coastal liberal elite progressive woke, whatever you want to call them, and they have their own subculture and viewpoint that are disconnected from the majority of Americans. You have similar things happening in a lot of other news agencies too.
My two cents is that Berliner was just dead wrong and his opinion based on some really spurious reasoning. He pretty badly mischaracterized several key stories and then cherry-picked some bits and pieces of articles where guests said things he didn't like.
Having read his article and then checked on the stories, I came away with a different take, that Berliner's characterization seemed fair.
Saying the Mueller report disproved collusion is disingenuous. Collusion isn't a legal term and and the Mueller report absolutely enumerated communication and coordination between the campaign and Russian agents. I don't think NPR ran anything untrue before during or after the Mueller investigation. They certainly never asserted conclusions without evidence. It was more a fantasy of the right that the MSM was overly credulous of anything.
Hunter Biden's laptop may have been mostly a real thing but it was not and still is not newsworthy. There have been zero revelations from it that weren't public record.
And lab leak also remains a dubious topic. For one, there is no solid proof one way or another. And two I heard more than leak advocate given air time to espouse their theory and answer critical questions.
Honestly my absolute bar none go-to source for dissecting hot button issues and their coverage is On the Media. Technically it's WNYC but I think it's carried in a lot of markets.
Hunter Biden's laptop may have been mostly a real thing but it was not and still is not newsworthy. There have been zero revelations from it that weren't public record.
And lab leak also remains a dubious topic. For one, there is no solid proof one way or another. And two I heard more than leak advocate given air time to espouse their theory and answer critical questions.
Honestly my absolute bar none go-to source for dissecting hot button issues and their coverage is On the Media. Technically it's WNYC but I think it's carried in a lot of markets.
This comment thread is mostly populated by people who are more like Uri Berliner than they are like Katherine Maher, so isn't surprising that they agree with Berliner about the issues he brought up.
NPR listener for 30 years and I'm having a similar reaction to many of you in this thread. For the first time, I'm finding myself turning off the radio once I'm awake.
It seems like Berliner breaking the rules (or norms) and throwing bombs by way of another media outlet was his last-ditch effort to break through and be heard. In that, at least, he's getting attention, and now let's hope it leads to change.
The examples he gave in the FP piece all seemed very political, focusing on not covering "the other side". Honestly I don't want any of that crap coming at me in the morning, I don't want "other side" coverage just like I don't want "my side" coverage. I can get that anywhere. I listen to NPR because I want good journalism, not both-sidesism. I hope this event can lead coverage back there. With the new CEO, perhaps there's an opportunity.
It seems like Berliner breaking the rules (or norms) and throwing bombs by way of another media outlet was his last-ditch effort to break through and be heard. In that, at least, he's getting attention, and now let's hope it leads to change.
The examples he gave in the FP piece all seemed very political, focusing on not covering "the other side". Honestly I don't want any of that crap coming at me in the morning, I don't want "other side" coverage just like I don't want "my side" coverage. I can get that anywhere. I listen to NPR because I want good journalism, not both-sidesism. I hope this event can lead coverage back there. With the new CEO, perhaps there's an opportunity.
Despite having been near the top of the homepage mere minutes ago, this news article is now seemingly entirely delisted from HN without being marked flagged...
[It has since been marked flagged. My comment was seemingly changed by someone to "and marked flagged", I've changed it back for posterity]
I went back through five pages of posts.
I understand the desire to keep politics out of HN but this seems like a big story to cover up.
[It has since been marked flagged. My comment was seemingly changed by someone to "and marked flagged", I've changed it back for posterity]
I went back through five pages of posts.
I understand the desire to keep politics out of HN but this seems like a big story to cover up.
Unfortunately any political thread gets a lot of attention from people with ulterior motives to "steer" the thread. It almost never feels organic or authentic, just a lot of astroturf pushing a particular viewpoint.
I don't want to have to dig through folks' comment histories to try to determine if they're actually being truthful or engaged. So I'd rather the political stuff stays on reddit and x.
I don't want to have to dig through folks' comment histories to try to determine if they're actually being truthful or engaged. So I'd rather the political stuff stays on reddit and x.
Flags affect a post's ranking before the [flagged] marker appears. The [flagged] marker indicates that there are a large number of flags relative to upvotes.
Can you please comment on donatj's claim that his post was edited by someone else? Can you or anyone else do this, and did that happen in this case? Does this happen often?
The only person who edited https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40052403 was donatj. Does that answer your question?
We don't edit other people's comments, except perhaps if the whitespace is messed up or something like that. I make up for it by obsessively editing my own though.
We don't edit other people's comments, except perhaps if the whitespace is messed up or something like that. I make up for it by obsessively editing my own though.
I see. Thanks.
For what it's worth, it's possible I somehow typo'd it. I was on mobile, still in bed and using swype to type... But it smelled very suspicious at the time
I appreciated this one making the front page because I encountered the original article on HN and wondered if there’d be retaliation. I like having the follow-up, shame it was more than we could handle I guess.
>... this news article is now seemingly entirely delisted from HN without being marked flagged...
>I went back through five pages of posts.
It's currently on the first page, post #16. Methinks there has been a rush to judgement.
>I went back through five pages of posts.
It's currently on the first page, post #16. Methinks there has been a rush to judgement.
No, it was flagged for hours until recently.
I see it differently. I see inauthentic users boosting these stories so people lose trust in the press.
That ship has long since sailed.
[deleted]
[deleted]
"This article is completely false and misleading! We'll show everyone how fair and unbiased we are by... suspending anyone who dares to criticize us?"
That's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off.
That's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off.
The reason for his suspension is: "the organization told the editor [i.e. Berliner] he had failed to secure its approval for outside work for other news outlets, as is required of NPR journalists."
Not because he criticized them.
It this a punishment that is always applied; or used selectively? If the first, then it's fine, if the latter... then yeah there's a problem.
Not because he criticized them.
It this a punishment that is always applied; or used selectively? If the first, then it's fine, if the latter... then yeah there's a problem.
> It this a punishment that is always applied; or used selectively?
Steve Inskeep, a fellow NPR journalist, published a rebuttal on his own Substack[0] to Uri Berliner's article. Considering that Inskeep's Substack is also for profit (meaning people must pay a subscription to read non-public articles), it seems that unless he is also suspended, there is in fact selective enforcement.
[0]: https://steveinskeep.substack.com/p/how-my-npr-colleague-fai...
Steve Inskeep, a fellow NPR journalist, published a rebuttal on his own Substack[0] to Uri Berliner's article. Considering that Inskeep's Substack is also for profit (meaning people must pay a subscription to read non-public articles), it seems that unless he is also suspended, there is in fact selective enforcement.
[0]: https://steveinskeep.substack.com/p/how-my-npr-colleague-fai...
The policy doesn't say all outside works is banned. It says approval must be sought. Do you have any evidence Inskeep didn't have approval to post on Substack?
Being a mere outside observer, I naturally do not have any such evidence, but I do wonder what that approval process is like? Do employees have to, for example, agree not to disparage NPR in such outside work?
From the NPR story:
>In its formal rebuke, NPR did not cite Berliner's appearance on Chris Cuomo's NewsNation program last Tuesday night, for which NPR gave him the green light. (NPR's chief communications officer told Berliner to focus on his own experience and not share proprietary information.)
I haven't seen that episode of NewsNation, but I'd be surprised if this editor were invited as a guest for a different topic. So he did seek and receive permission in one case.
>In its formal rebuke, NPR did not cite Berliner's appearance on Chris Cuomo's NewsNation program last Tuesday night, for which NPR gave him the green light. (NPR's chief communications officer told Berliner to focus on his own experience and not share proprietary information.)
I haven't seen that episode of NewsNation, but I'd be surprised if this editor were invited as a guest for a different topic. So he did seek and receive permission in one case.
A lot of employers have this. This isn't that strange. You might have the same. I've had to run open source work past employers when it's similar to the company's domain.
> A lot of employers have this. This isn't that strange.
Right, but NPR isn't any old employer. It was created by Congress with the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 and is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit with a mission of "creating a more informed public, one that is challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciation of events, ideas, and cultures." Despite it not receiving that much taxpayer funding, I would hold it to a standard of a government organization; and I expect diverse viewpoints and dissent to be a core part of that mission.
Right, but NPR isn't any old employer. It was created by Congress with the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 and is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit with a mission of "creating a more informed public, one that is challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciation of events, ideas, and cultures." Despite it not receiving that much taxpayer funding, I would hold it to a standard of a government organization; and I expect diverse viewpoints and dissent to be a core part of that mission.
If you were a direct employee of the government, went out and spoke publicly about your organization, in your official capacity, using confidential internal information when told you needed approval before hand, would you expect it to go differently?
Also an outsider, but seeing the approval process in my own organization, I am 110% sure such "outside work" wouldn't have been approved, had the author sought it.
lol they probably asked him to write the article
one article criticizes them, of course they're not gonna allow that. the other article praises them, of course they're gonna allow that.
one article criticizes them, of course they're not gonna allow that. the other article praises them, of course they're gonna allow that.
"it seems that unless he is also suspended or sought & received approval there is in fact selective enforcement."
Yeah, couldn't possibly be that he got approval for outside work. That's too hard to even comprehend.
I didn’t think Berliner’s article made very good points, but did appreciate that the conversation was being had. Suspending him doesn’t look good, even if there was some rule he violated. The article mentioned other instances that he wasn’t punished for.
Grew up in a purple state listening to NPR. For many many years, it was the only smart talk radio available. But it turned into partisan cant a few years ago. A great tragedy.
I've been a lifelong listener, since I was a nerdy kid. I'm down to hate-listening to Morning Edition, mostly for the audio cues that help get the kids out the door.
This morning they had a short piece on the kidney transplant list, and how it affect Black recipients differently. They spent 90% on a personal story and how this impacted him, and I know nothing about why the process is racist or how it was created.
I rant to my friends, but recently Mike Pesca (an NPR alum) had a good take on the decline and failure of the network: https://www.mikepesca.com/thegist/episode/30939dec/public-ra...
This morning they had a short piece on the kidney transplant list, and how it affect Black recipients differently. They spent 90% on a personal story and how this impacted him, and I know nothing about why the process is racist or how it was created.
I rant to my friends, but recently Mike Pesca (an NPR alum) had a good take on the decline and failure of the network: https://www.mikepesca.com/thegist/episode/30939dec/public-ra...
Recently I bought a car from the early 2000s, no aux jack or BT and I've been having an interesting time just listening to the radio rather than dropping my phone ecosystem into the car. So I'm listening to a lot more NPR than I have for at least a decade.
And I have no idea where people who are saying NPR has made some kind of hard partisan shift are coming from. If anything, as far as I can tell, most programming is still trying to walk a middle-of-the-road multiple-perspectives this-side-says-this but that-side-says-that, sometimes annoying so.
Of course, there is one group of people that has been casting NPR as particularly partisan for at least 25 years, and a lot of these comments sound like a cross between their rhetoric and NYT Pitchbot.
And I have no idea where people who are saying NPR has made some kind of hard partisan shift are coming from. If anything, as far as I can tell, most programming is still trying to walk a middle-of-the-road multiple-perspectives this-side-says-this but that-side-says-that, sometimes annoying so.
Of course, there is one group of people that has been casting NPR as particularly partisan for at least 25 years, and a lot of these comments sound like a cross between their rhetoric and NYT Pitchbot.
When one agrees with content they are much more likely to say it sounds non-partisan, middle ground, common sense, etc.
The issues with NPR reporting stem from word choice (inclusions and exclusions), choice of stories to report (crickets about things they disagree with and wall-to-wall on things they want you to be outraged with), etc.
NPR is about as partisan as it gets... it's a smoke screen to bill themselves as non-partisan - and some people just eat it up.
The issues with NPR reporting stem from word choice (inclusions and exclusions), choice of stories to report (crickets about things they disagree with and wall-to-wall on things they want you to be outraged with), etc.
NPR is about as partisan as it gets... it's a smoke screen to bill themselves as non-partisan - and some people just eat it up.
Who said I agreed with whatever I'm hearing from NPR? Not me. See the phrase "sometimes annoyingly so", the general lack of any particular praise.
NPR is... fine, more or less, both helped and hobbled by its efforts at journalistic triangulation while basically doing its job of touching on some points of currency and providing mental snack material. I roll my eyes and keep listening at some things, I make a note to check out others, I switch stations in boredom or anger in other cases.
My mention of it here or my tuning into it isn't an endorsement any more than my time listening to Christian radio networks in similar dial segments, or college radio, or freakin' Pacifica.
The point of my observation isn't an absolute assessment of its value. It's a relative one compared to "the old days" -- that it hasn't changed much at all. Arguably it should have changed more given extraordinary times and figures.
People are giving their vague experiences here, I'm sharing mine.
And this Berliner guy is apparently airing the reasons why he really needs an editorial board or shouldn't be with an organization that actually has the journalistic integrity he's posturing about. Why do I say this? His summary of the Mueller report alone in his op-ed is justification for the idea that the world would be better off in every last way with nothing of value lost if he'd never been involved with the field.
NPR is... fine, more or less, both helped and hobbled by its efforts at journalistic triangulation while basically doing its job of touching on some points of currency and providing mental snack material. I roll my eyes and keep listening at some things, I make a note to check out others, I switch stations in boredom or anger in other cases.
My mention of it here or my tuning into it isn't an endorsement any more than my time listening to Christian radio networks in similar dial segments, or college radio, or freakin' Pacifica.
The point of my observation isn't an absolute assessment of its value. It's a relative one compared to "the old days" -- that it hasn't changed much at all. Arguably it should have changed more given extraordinary times and figures.
People are giving their vague experiences here, I'm sharing mine.
And this Berliner guy is apparently airing the reasons why he really needs an editorial board or shouldn't be with an organization that actually has the journalistic integrity he's posturing about. Why do I say this? His summary of the Mueller report alone in his op-ed is justification for the idea that the world would be better off in every last way with nothing of value lost if he'd never been involved with the field.
The GP isn't praising them for their middle ground reporting. The truth often doesn't have a middle ground.
> The truth often doesn't have a middle ground.
There is rarely, if ever, such a thing as objective truth when it comes to politics. There are always multiple perspectives.
Make no mistake here - NPR has an agenda to push and they are masterfully skilled in doing so; evidenced by the people who still believe it's a non-partisan "just the truth" journalism outfit.
There is rarely, if ever, such a thing as objective truth when it comes to politics. There are always multiple perspectives.
Make no mistake here - NPR has an agenda to push and they are masterfully skilled in doing so; evidenced by the people who still believe it's a non-partisan "just the truth" journalism outfit.
The “lab leak hypothesis” is one instance where NPR seems to have buried the most plausible explanation; there are many other similar examples.
Buried in what way? Googling “npr lab leak hypothesis” yields dozens of stories published on NPR sites reporting on that theory, primarily quoting WHO and US government reports. I wouldn’t call that burying. You might not like what their sources say and may think there are sources they ignored, but calling that burying without pointing out those omissions doesn’t seem reasonable.
[edit: add a question mark]
[edit: add a question mark]
Ah yes, the Good O' Memory Hole.
Every story that shows in search results is something that dismisses the Lab Leak theory as being farcical and pushed by a Right-Wing Anti-China agenda.
Yet... it was and still is the single most plausible theory - and today there's a lot of evidence to indicate it is more likely true than not.
So yes, NPR did suppress the lab leak hypothesis, very successfully. There are many today that still hold it to be some sort of racist conjecture.
As the parent mentioned - there's many other examples if we review the past few years major stories, including the Hunter Biden Laptop fiasco that, according to NPR and others seeking to suppress the story, was "certified Russian disinformation", etc.
Every story that shows in search results is something that dismisses the Lab Leak theory as being farcical and pushed by a Right-Wing Anti-China agenda.
Yet... it was and still is the single most plausible theory - and today there's a lot of evidence to indicate it is more likely true than not.
So yes, NPR did suppress the lab leak hypothesis, very successfully. There are many today that still hold it to be some sort of racist conjecture.
As the parent mentioned - there's many other examples if we review the past few years major stories, including the Hunter Biden Laptop fiasco that, according to NPR and others seeking to suppress the story, was "certified Russian disinformation", etc.
> the Hunter Biden Laptop fiasco
While I agree NPR was too quick to reject and smear the lab-leak hypothesis, it doesn't help your case to include the Hunter Biden Laptop hysteria that was fabricated whole-cloth and never had an ounce of substance to it.
While I agree NPR was too quick to reject and smear the lab-leak hypothesis, it doesn't help your case to include the Hunter Biden Laptop hysteria that was fabricated whole-cloth and never had an ounce of substance to it.
> the Hunter Biden Laptop hysteria that was fabricated whole-cloth and never had an ounce of substance to it.
None of what you have said is even close to any resemblance of any sort of truth. I hope you will dig past the partisan reporting to educate yourself further on this particular political cover up.
None of what you have said is even close to any resemblance of any sort of truth. I hope you will dig past the partisan reporting to educate yourself further on this particular political cover up.
Is it the job of responsible news media to report on hypotheses, as opposed to substantiating things with facts? The lab leak hypothesis was initially pushed in the mainstream as pure speculation in support of the do nothing President deflecting blame onto anyone else rather than accepting the responsibility of leadership. That echoes to this day. There is indeed a huge intellectual travesty around the topic, as well as most other matters about Covid, and blame for that is shared between both teams of partisans.
> Is it the job of responsible news media to report on hypotheses, as opposed to things able to be substantiated with facts?
> do nothing President trying to deflect blame onto anyone else rather than accepting the responsibility of leadership
This is some very interesting high-level spin you have going on here.
> do nothing President trying to deflect blame onto anyone else rather than accepting the responsibility of leadership
This is some very interesting high-level spin you have going on here.
What else would you call reflexively blaming China rather than acknowledging there is a problem? Even if China deliberately created and spread Covid, we still needed domestic leadership, not "it's just like the flu". I was still giving Trump the benefit of the doubt figuring he was going to come around to addressing reality by at least June, but nope. He essentially had been handed a shoe-in second term on a silver platter for being a crisis time President, but threw it away for what we can only guess.
We can debate policy and what-not until we're both blue in the face.
What facts there are clearly demonstrate the Trump Administration started the development and roll-out for mass vaccination. All of the shutdowns and other well-meaning-but-misguided "flatten the curve" plans became politically virtuous. In hindsight, almost all of these efforts were for not, and many caused more harm than good.
Within all that noise - China most likely did have a lab leak from a lab that the US Government already knew was severely lacking safety precautions. Trump saying that out loud caused a knee-jerk reaction from his opponents and suddenly China was made to look like a victim of racism, etc.
NPR and similar ran with that narrative and buried the most probable cause because it made Trump look like an incompetent racist moron - which is good for their agenda.
Today, here we are, debating NPR propaganda like it was reality. So, I'd say it worked quite well...
What facts there are clearly demonstrate the Trump Administration started the development and roll-out for mass vaccination. All of the shutdowns and other well-meaning-but-misguided "flatten the curve" plans became politically virtuous. In hindsight, almost all of these efforts were for not, and many caused more harm than good.
Within all that noise - China most likely did have a lab leak from a lab that the US Government already knew was severely lacking safety precautions. Trump saying that out loud caused a knee-jerk reaction from his opponents and suddenly China was made to look like a victim of racism, etc.
NPR and similar ran with that narrative and buried the most probable cause because it made Trump look like an incompetent racist moron - which is good for their agenda.
Today, here we are, debating NPR propaganda like it was reality. So, I'd say it worked quite well...
I was talking about leadership. Making broad appeals to all constituents, to encourage people to do societally beneficial things without having to resort to the force of law. "Stay home and wear a respirator when you do go out" would have gone a long way to obviating the draconian state responses. In my state, the governor made such a stay at home suggestion but no actual order. It worked great because most people followed the advice rather than seeing the subject as an impingement on their rights to rage against.
I do agree that half of the sensationalist media reflexively reaches for the racism card to create outrage, and often times it's baseless or a red herring at best. But it takes two "sides" to stoke the "culture war", and Trump most certainly played the part.
I do agree that half of the sensationalist media reflexively reaches for the racism card to create outrage, and often times it's baseless or a red herring at best. But it takes two "sides" to stoke the "culture war", and Trump most certainly played the part.
Berliner pointed out multiple stories they got wrong due to their political biases.
They’ve been actively burying true news that doesn’t fit their narrative- that isn’t even reporting, it’s advancing an agenda.
> The truth often doesn't have a middle ground.
This is the line of thinking that leads to gulags and gas chambers.
This is the line of thinking that leads to gulags and gas chambers.
This. There is a reason why I included the phrase "sometimes annoyingly so" and didn't particularly praise it. It's... fine, more or less, both helped and hobbled by its efforts at journalistic triangulation while doing its job of touching on some points of currency and providing mental snack material.
And the fact that I listen to it or find it interesting is not an endorsement much less an absence of criticism. I'm listening to Christian radio networks as well (share similar dial segments, it's interesting to find out what's going on there, get a different take on the news, hear what's going 'round in terms of sermons and CCM these days, what's that you say, a Christian values investment fund, sounds not grifty at all, I am intrigued), college radio, freakin' Pacifica.
And the fact that I listen to it or find it interesting is not an endorsement much less an absence of criticism. I'm listening to Christian radio networks as well (share similar dial segments, it's interesting to find out what's going on there, get a different take on the news, hear what's going 'round in terms of sermons and CCM these days, what's that you say, a Christian values investment fund, sounds not grifty at all, I am intrigued), college radio, freakin' Pacifica.
Also, perhaps this is stating the obvious, but this article is posted on npr.org itself, and it is quite an in-depth treatment and analysis of the situation. While other news orgs my have a short blurb (often buried somewhere on their website), I rarely see them airing their own dirty laundry with such gusto.
This isn't laudable, it's defensive. The snafu has been covered in the NYT so there's no burying it. They are making sure their side is told by covering it themselves.
You should scroll through more articles by the author of the linked post. His focus is on the media and ethics. He very regularly goes after NPR and member stations and airs dirty laundry. It isn't a reflexive thing. It's central to their culture and something they actively protect and fund.
I mean, I'd love to see, as an example, as in-depth of a report from Fox News detailing the sexual harassment allegations against Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly, but I had no luck searching.
I also don't think NPR would be successful in "burying" it, but they could easily just choose to not report on it.
I also don't think NPR would be successful in "burying" it, but they could easily just choose to not report on it.
... and if they hadn't covered it, would you criticize them for burying the story?
No. They can't bury a story after it's been in the NYT.
You have an idiosyncratic definition for what the phrase means. Or maybe I do.
When the source about the Biden's bribes in Ukraine turned out to be a Russian asset, it was widely reported, including the NYT. Fox and other right news sources glossed past it. To me, that is burying the story, even though it was widely reported in other outlets.
When the source about the Biden's bribes in Ukraine turned out to be a Russian asset, it was widely reported, including the NYT. Fox and other right news sources glossed past it. To me, that is burying the story, even though it was widely reported in other outlets.
That's because he forced the issue by going to every outlet he could, mostly liberal ones, and he was right too.
He'd be buried if he didn't and wasn't.
He'd be buried if he didn't and wasn't.
> having an interesting time just listening to the radio
The NPR member station you're listening to is distinct from National Public Radio, Inc. The former controls its own programming. Uri Berliner was employed by the latter.
The NPR member station you're listening to is distinct from National Public Radio, Inc. The former controls its own programming. Uri Berliner was employed by the latter.
A large fraction of NPR programming, particularly drive-time programming, comes from NPR. I’m pretty sure OP can distinguish between All Things Considered and What’s Up Spokane.
Local NPR affiliates also carry shows from other national organizations like PRI. It's not just ATC versus local programming. Many people think such shows are NPR even though they aren't.
Yes, I know this quite well. But that’s not really relevant to the point the parent commenter was making. And the larger context of the discussion is news, and other than Marketplace, most public radio news coverage is either locally generated or comes from NPR.
Yep.
But I wonder if some of the people who are characterizing NPR as partisan/ideological can't distinguish between NPR programming and public radio stations carrying, say, Pacifica content.
But I wonder if some of the people who are characterizing NPR as partisan/ideological can't distinguish between NPR programming and public radio stations carrying, say, Pacifica content.
I’m a never-Trumper, came up as a voter in the Reagan era, omnivorous consumer of all news content, listened to NPR prior to the pandemic near daily, and still regularly afterwards, until the bias just completely turned me off.
Your take seems wildly off to me. NPRs non-straight news programming has always been left, but the regular news programming at least mildly tried to be viewpoint neutral.
That disappeared post-Trump. All programming took a strong PoV, and unless the politician was actively anti-Trump their interactions with non-leftists were adversarial.
Again, as a now third party voter because of Trump/Maga this is not because I felt any commonality with the other side of the coin, but purely that I was essentially being fed propaganda rather than news.
Your take seems wildly off to me. NPRs non-straight news programming has always been left, but the regular news programming at least mildly tried to be viewpoint neutral.
That disappeared post-Trump. All programming took a strong PoV, and unless the politician was actively anti-Trump their interactions with non-leftists were adversarial.
Again, as a now third party voter because of Trump/Maga this is not because I felt any commonality with the other side of the coin, but purely that I was essentially being fed propaganda rather than news.
You’re basically me. I was a daily NPR listener until the Trump era. If a never-Trumper can’t handle NPR abandoning all pretense of objectivity, that might be a bad sign.
This is not a surprising take to find online as it's been well demonstrated that while conservatives mostly understand where liberals are coming from, liberals have a really hard time understanding right wing concerns.
I haven't seen that demonstrated myself. Could you point me to a study or two that provides the details on that?
Without vouching for the validity of this source, a quick search on perplexity.ai (which is good for this kind of thing) gives:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01461672231198...
It also mentions a 2017 article in The Atlantic that I wasn't able to dig up.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01461672231198...
It also mentions a 2017 article in The Atlantic that I wasn't able to dig up.
Jesse Graham, Brian A. Nosek, Jonathan Haidt, "The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives: Exaggeration of Differences across the Political Spectrum" https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050092
Jonathan Haidt in his book "Righteous Mind" https://righteousmind.com/
Jonathan Haidt in his book "Righteous Mind" https://righteousmind.com/
These were what I was thinking of. I believe they asked liberals to answer a political question about their own beliefs, and then again to answer for a 'stereotypical' liberal and conservative. The liberals were not accurate for anyone. The conservatives were able to better match the 'average' for those groups. In other words, the study claims that this means they are better able to put themselves in the shoes of the 'other' side
> The participants were 2,212 visitors (62% female; median age 28; only U.S. residents or citizens) to ProjectImplicit.org, where they were randomly assigned to this study. All participants in the research pool had previously filled out demographic information, including sex, age, and political identity (7-point scale, strongly liberal to strongly conservative). 1,174 participants self-identified using one of the three liberal options, 538 chose the “moderate” midpoint, and 500 chose one of the three conservative options.
The strong left-leaning bias in the sample makes me suspicious that this sample isn't representative of the wider population. I can't find the raw data, but given the selection method I strongly suspect that the sample is mostly college students.
If so, one hypothesis that might explain the results is that conservatives who go to college of necessity have a stronger understanding of the other side than liberals because they're the minority on campus for many years. If you repeated this study with a more representative sample of conservatives, including conservatives who do not have the opportunity to interact with many liberals, do you get different results?
The strong left-leaning bias in the sample makes me suspicious that this sample isn't representative of the wider population. I can't find the raw data, but given the selection method I strongly suspect that the sample is mostly college students.
If so, one hypothesis that might explain the results is that conservatives who go to college of necessity have a stronger understanding of the other side than liberals because they're the minority on campus for many years. If you repeated this study with a more representative sample of conservatives, including conservatives who do not have the opportunity to interact with many liberals, do you get different results?
[deleted]
Speaking as someone who leans very slightly left in a deep red state (I would probably be considered a conservative anywhere else), this is nonsense. It may or may not have been true in the Reagan years, I'm too young to know, but Trump conservatives have absolutely no idea where liberals are coming from. Their perspectives on liberal views are just as skewed by stereotypes and propaganda as leftists' views of conservatives are.
who you are calling "Trump conservatives" is really a populist coalition of groups, very similar actually to the populist coalition that makes up the bulk of liberal voters. What marks "Trumpism" is precisely the appeal that Trump has to groups of working class people.
But what is usually meant by "conservatives" are intellectual conservatives, similar again to intellectual liberals who write for the NY Times and NPR. There's an old saying, "if you are not a [liberal/socialist] when you are young, you have no heart; if you are not a [conservative/capitalist] when you are older, you have no brain." Obviously, no leftist wants to agree they're all heart and no brain, but the saying exists nonetheless, from multiple observers; and perhaps in that adage is the same "common sense": if that's some sort of common progression, we can see that those conservatives might very well understand liberalism better than the liberals in that formulation would correspondingly understand conservatism.
But what is usually meant by "conservatives" are intellectual conservatives, similar again to intellectual liberals who write for the NY Times and NPR. There's an old saying, "if you are not a [liberal/socialist] when you are young, you have no heart; if you are not a [conservative/capitalist] when you are older, you have no brain." Obviously, no leftist wants to agree they're all heart and no brain, but the saying exists nonetheless, from multiple observers; and perhaps in that adage is the same "common sense": if that's some sort of common progression, we can see that those conservatives might very well understand liberalism better than the liberals in that formulation would correspondingly understand conservatism.
If you're going to restrict "conservatives" to the intellectuals, then yes, I'll concede that intellectual conservatives as a rule understand liberals better than the average liberal does conservatives.
However, if you control for intellectualism, either by restricting both pools to intellectuals or expanding both pools to include everyone who identifies as left/right of center, that difference disappears. Neither wing understands the other very well at all, both sides as a rule choose to engage with strawmen versions of their opposition, and each side claims that its strawman is a more truthful model than the other's.
However, if you control for intellectualism, either by restricting both pools to intellectuals or expanding both pools to include everyone who identifies as left/right of center, that difference disappears. Neither wing understands the other very well at all, both sides as a rule choose to engage with strawmen versions of their opposition, and each side claims that its strawman is a more truthful model than the other's.
I'm not at all convinced that 'intellectual' liberals understand 'intellectual' conservatives, speaking as someone educated in the American higher education system.
My stance is pretty firmly that neither side understands the other at all, whether we're talking about intellectuals or otherwise.
I think the only predictor of understanding is the amount of exposure that someone has to actual human beings who hold the opposing view. Intellectual conservatives may have a slight advantage in this regard because college campuses tend to lean left, but I've interacted with plenty of college-educated conservatives who buy fully in to the stereotypes of liberals that are hawked on populist channels.
I think the only predictor of understanding is the amount of exposure that someone has to actual human beings who hold the opposing view. Intellectual conservatives may have a slight advantage in this regard because college campuses tend to lean left, but I've interacted with plenty of college-educated conservatives who buy fully in to the stereotypes of liberals that are hawked on populist channels.
>My stance is pretty firmly that neither side understands the other at all
but you are ignoring the point I made, writing a comment a priori as if this thread doesn't already exist. I am reasonably conservative, and I understand leftists completely.
I was raised from the crib very left wing, full on commie, with socialist/social justice sensibilities. I was woke before you were born (yes, the word is that old). Then I studied classical econ, and watched the fearmongering about conservatives in the media ("Ronald Raygun is going to start a nuclear war!") never come true.
So, without changing any of my heartfelt sensibilites, I instead realized that the free market ("capitalism") actually delivers the things that working class people need: jobs and cheap goods; and that greedy rapacious capitalist employers have no interest in discriminating against anybody: if women truly earn 60 cents on the dollar for equal work, what capitalist wouldn't hire women to more cheaply make more money? but we don't see that happen, so what the left believes has to be wrong: either the capitalists are not driven by greed, or it's not equal work for less money.
so, no, many on the left who are just like I was do not understand the right, and plenty of us who have moved right from the left do understand perfectly well what noble goals that left sensibilities are trying to accomplish.
but you are ignoring the point I made, writing a comment a priori as if this thread doesn't already exist. I am reasonably conservative, and I understand leftists completely.
I was raised from the crib very left wing, full on commie, with socialist/social justice sensibilities. I was woke before you were born (yes, the word is that old). Then I studied classical econ, and watched the fearmongering about conservatives in the media ("Ronald Raygun is going to start a nuclear war!") never come true.
So, without changing any of my heartfelt sensibilites, I instead realized that the free market ("capitalism") actually delivers the things that working class people need: jobs and cheap goods; and that greedy rapacious capitalist employers have no interest in discriminating against anybody: if women truly earn 60 cents on the dollar for equal work, what capitalist wouldn't hire women to more cheaply make more money? but we don't see that happen, so what the left believes has to be wrong: either the capitalists are not driven by greed, or it's not equal work for less money.
so, no, many on the left who are just like I was do not understand the right, and plenty of us who have moved right from the left do understand perfectly well what noble goals that left sensibilities are trying to accomplish.
Well in my experience as someone who's been very conservative for my entire life, most Trump conservatives are ex-democrats who lean left, but find themselves alienated by a corporate / country-club democratic party, and so have joined the Republicans for some reason... I mean... kind of like Trump himself.
Yeah, that's not the case in the deep red states. The Republican party that's voting for Trump in my state this year is the same Republican party that threw the Tea Party because the Republicans weren't conservative enough. Same leadership, same constituents. And I'm not just talking general numbers, they're literally the same people.
Long-term Republicans are shocked not because their party suddenly and without warning became a populist vehicle but because the populist wave that fled the Democratic party during the civil rights era finally took over the party instead of just voting in their preferred old-school candidates.
Long-term Republicans are shocked not because their party suddenly and without warning became a populist vehicle but because the populist wave that fled the Democratic party during the civil rights era finally took over the party instead of just voting in their preferred old-school candidates.
Have you ever voted conservative?
Do you have friends that vote conservative?
Do you have collegues that vote conservative.
Is it possible you are in the bubble?
Just here in HN is progressive to ultra progressive. Any mention of the other side is a sure way to get downvoted to oblivion.
Do you have collegues that vote conservative.
Is it possible you are in the bubble?
Just here in HN is progressive to ultra progressive. Any mention of the other side is a sure way to get downvoted to oblivion.
Completely agree. Being a conservative here is not much fun.
HN culture is progressive on some things but very libertarian on others. It's not very left wing because a large portion of the posters here are quite insulated from the plight of blue collar workers.
[deleted]
blue collar workers have always been populist, and isolated from leftists. Read up on Marxist ideas about the necessity of a revolutionary "vanguard", by which they don't mean workers, they mean activists, agitators, professional revolutionaries, who work to create the conditions for revolution. Blue collar workers are too busy working and supporting their families.
Have you read this thread that is currently pinned to the top of the page [0]?
I'm a one-time conservative who moved to the center after Trump. I live in a deep red state but work remotely with an extremely left-wing company (the kind that regularly has deep discussions of identity politics during work hours). I like to think I have a pretty good idea of what each extreme looks like and every shade in between, and HN has by far the most balanced political discussions I've ever seen in any forum in-person or online.
Part of my evidence in favor of that claim is that people on each extreme both perceive HN to be biased in the opposite direction.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40051728
I'm a one-time conservative who moved to the center after Trump. I live in a deep red state but work remotely with an extremely left-wing company (the kind that regularly has deep discussions of identity politics during work hours). I like to think I have a pretty good idea of what each extreme looks like and every shade in between, and HN has by far the most balanced political discussions I've ever seen in any forum in-person or online.
Part of my evidence in favor of that claim is that people on each extreme both perceive HN to be biased in the opposite direction.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40051728
True, it one of the rare place where there is intelligent discussion that pop from time to time.
I find that the left mob is still very present and ready to shut down fast.
As it's a place of early adopters and visionary what we see here usualy get reflected back in other places one to many years later.
I see a shift toward conservatives values is happening here too that might then progress toward other places reddit, wikipedia, mass media, etc.
Both vision have their places and are necessary. The world is changing crazy fast so we need the progressives to adapt at the same time changing everything is destructive so we need to also save and cherish what work and has for a long time.
As long as the conversation is open there is hope.
I find that the left mob is still very present and ready to shut down fast.
As it's a place of early adopters and visionary what we see here usualy get reflected back in other places one to many years later.
I see a shift toward conservatives values is happening here too that might then progress toward other places reddit, wikipedia, mass media, etc.
Both vision have their places and are necessary. The world is changing crazy fast so we need the progressives to adapt at the same time changing everything is destructive so we need to also save and cherish what work and has for a long time.
As long as the conversation is open there is hope.
> Just here in HN is progressive to ultra progressive. Any mention of the other side is a sure way to get downvoted to oblivion.
The idea that a forum that's a discussion and PR arm for a venture capital firm is progressive at heart is almost funny. If HN is anything, it's technocratic first, then libertarian to classic liberal matched with business/market friendly, then progressive at whatever margins are left. Plenty of room for someone who can argue non-progressive politics in the first two terms, and people do.
> Have you ever voted conservative? Do you have friends that vote conservative? Do you have colleagues that vote conservative.
Since you asked: yes, yes, and yes.
Bubbles are pretty much irrelevant to the question of whether NPR has changed over time. Someone who listened a lot in the 00s and then came back in the last few years is qualified to weigh in on that. And it's not like my comment is a glowing endorsement of NPR.
But assuming reasonable models of how you'd tell I'm in some kind of vacuum isolated from non-progressives... in terms of radio/audio habits alone I also spend a good deal of time listening christian radio networks that occupy the same parts of the dial as public radio stations, Rogan / Friedman and adjacent, I've spent an ungodly amount of time listening to Jordan Peterson although I dialed it way back once he became a vaccine crank and Russian shill. I get lots of whatever Musk and people who are still there because they like the direction he's taking Twitter get. I get lots of exposure from a social circle that has as many conservatives as progressives.
So, why is it you think I might be in a bubble again? Or was that just your rhetorical strategy to say "well your opinion is no less biased than anyone else's, if anything you're the biased one"?
The idea that a forum that's a discussion and PR arm for a venture capital firm is progressive at heart is almost funny. If HN is anything, it's technocratic first, then libertarian to classic liberal matched with business/market friendly, then progressive at whatever margins are left. Plenty of room for someone who can argue non-progressive politics in the first two terms, and people do.
> Have you ever voted conservative? Do you have friends that vote conservative? Do you have colleagues that vote conservative.
Since you asked: yes, yes, and yes.
Bubbles are pretty much irrelevant to the question of whether NPR has changed over time. Someone who listened a lot in the 00s and then came back in the last few years is qualified to weigh in on that. And it's not like my comment is a glowing endorsement of NPR.
But assuming reasonable models of how you'd tell I'm in some kind of vacuum isolated from non-progressives... in terms of radio/audio habits alone I also spend a good deal of time listening christian radio networks that occupy the same parts of the dial as public radio stations, Rogan / Friedman and adjacent, I've spent an ungodly amount of time listening to Jordan Peterson although I dialed it way back once he became a vaccine crank and Russian shill. I get lots of whatever Musk and people who are still there because they like the direction he's taking Twitter get. I get lots of exposure from a social circle that has as many conservatives as progressives.
So, why is it you think I might be in a bubble again? Or was that just your rhetorical strategy to say "well your opinion is no less biased than anyone else's, if anything you're the biased one"?
It's from my experience, I live in progressive buble (Québec) that I could say is fighting with California for the top spot.
I too was progressive most of my life, it's the water I was in for all my life. I didn't understand the other side. Here Trump, Maga, guns, red states and faith are seen as backward, stupid and evil.
It's in the last few year that I poped that buble of thinking and now can see and understand the other side.
Here it's almost impossible to any discussion with a bit of nuance, the minute you stear away from the CBC talking point you get asked "are you a Trump supporter" with a raised eyebrow.
I have seen the censure in action in Twitter, Facebook, Google and most mass media in the last few years and also the statistic of political leaning in all the big tech company and all universities.
With the lastest thing happening at NPR, I am not surprised to heard that they are also ideologicaly compromised.
I could be wrong, but I think if we were to see the political leaning of journalists and people of power at NPR it think we would find again a 90%+ of left leaning that is very far from what we see in the population.
A test I was thinking, can you say openly at work or with friend that you will vote for Trump and keep your career options and your friends?
I know I couldn't here.
I too was progressive most of my life, it's the water I was in for all my life. I didn't understand the other side. Here Trump, Maga, guns, red states and faith are seen as backward, stupid and evil.
It's in the last few year that I poped that buble of thinking and now can see and understand the other side.
Here it's almost impossible to any discussion with a bit of nuance, the minute you stear away from the CBC talking point you get asked "are you a Trump supporter" with a raised eyebrow.
I have seen the censure in action in Twitter, Facebook, Google and most mass media in the last few years and also the statistic of political leaning in all the big tech company and all universities.
With the lastest thing happening at NPR, I am not surprised to heard that they are also ideologicaly compromised.
I could be wrong, but I think if we were to see the political leaning of journalists and people of power at NPR it think we would find again a 90%+ of left leaning that is very far from what we see in the population.
A test I was thinking, can you say openly at work or with friend that you will vote for Trump and keep your career options and your friends?
I know I couldn't here.
This take only works if you tunnel-vision yourself to only looking at the United States. It's all too easy to say "we believe X and you believe Y; who's to say which is right!? From our point of view, you're the one in the bubble!" But if you step back and look at the American political spectrum from a global and historical perspective, it's abundantly clear that it's the conservative side that is in a bubble; nearly even a cult. The rest of us would love to have two rational political parties to pick from. Few people are ideologically beholden to the Democratic Party directly, it's just literally our only option.
you've clearly never lived anywhere else. on cultural topics the US is far left nowadays.
- limits on abortion are more strict in most of the world's developed countries.
- legally-enforced and culturally-encouraged discrimination against the local majority race is is very unusual, it mostly happens in anglo countries.
- legalizing theft under $1000 in the name of anti-racism, legalizing the intentional infecting of other people with AIDS... laws like that are considered absurd in most of the world.
- limits on abortion are more strict in most of the world's developed countries.
- legally-enforced and culturally-encouraged discrimination against the local majority race is is very unusual, it mostly happens in anglo countries.
- legalizing theft under $1000 in the name of anti-racism, legalizing the intentional infecting of other people with AIDS... laws like that are considered absurd in most of the world.
You realize that this comment does literally nothing to persuade anyone that HN isn't a left-wing bubble? You just provided a rather sweeping and frankly offensive assertion with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. You don't come off as a reasonable interlocutor, you come off as a bitter partisan and you got rewarded for it. If I didn't have enough exposure to HN to have been in threads where an equally lazy conservative take got upvoted, I'd agree with OP that there's a slant.
As it is, I strongly disagree with OP—HN tends to have very balanced conversations—but I wish that you would provide substance instead of shallow dismissals.
As it is, I strongly disagree with OP—HN tends to have very balanced conversations—but I wish that you would provide substance instead of shallow dismissals.
[deleted]
>I have no idea where people who are saying NPR has made some kind of hard partisan shift are coming from.
Perhaps this will help you out:
A veteran National Public Radio journalist slammed the left-leaning broadcaster for ignoring the Hunter Biden laptop scandal because it could have helped Donald Trump get re-elected.
>Of course, there is one group of people that has been casting NPR as particularly partisan for at least 25 years
Congratulations on contradicting yourself.
Perhaps this will help you out:
A veteran National Public Radio journalist slammed the left-leaning broadcaster for ignoring the Hunter Biden laptop scandal because it could have helped Donald Trump get re-elected.
>Of course, there is one group of people that has been casting NPR as particularly partisan for at least 25 years
Congratulations on contradicting yourself.
As usually invoked the Melter Liden Bipbop Sandal is less a story people are actually interested in than a conceptual container for non-specific aspersions (hence it may as well be referred to as I just did). The most instructive thing about it is how readily certain people take enthusiastically to guilt by association with pretty vague allegations of ostensible corruption when they can't get anything closer (especially ironic when paired with denial about the absolutely overwhelming tidal wave of obvious and directly connected corruption for another figure). Maybe someday a story about someone who's never held public office and is barely a public figure will be actually be worthy of news when a court case or two conclude.
But on a more concrete level, the idea that NPR ignored the specific topic invoked here is wrong, not just considering that there's no there there, but in absolute terms. I have heard NPR segments discussing it and seen posts about it. I don't expect you to take my word for it, here's some front page results from a search:
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/15/1231884999/fbi-informant-char...
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/26/1201691151/hunter-biden-sues-...
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/11/1193465237/hunter-biden-inves...
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/09/1091859822/more-details-emerg...
But on a more concrete level, the idea that NPR ignored the specific topic invoked here is wrong, not just considering that there's no there there, but in absolute terms. I have heard NPR segments discussing it and seen posts about it. I don't expect you to take my word for it, here's some front page results from a search:
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/15/1231884999/fbi-informant-char...
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/26/1201691151/hunter-biden-sues-...
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/11/1193465237/hunter-biden-inves...
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/09/1091859822/more-details-emerg...
The entire Hunter Biden obsession blows my mind. Rural America at large has been devastated by drug addiction, with very few families being spared. While I voted for Biden in the last election, and am very likely to do so again, I’ve also looked at most of the actual evidence that has been presented by Republicans. I’ll admit that a part of me has been dreading the day that we see evidence that he has been involved in fraudulent activity. And yet, nothing that I’ve seen connects the President to illegal activity beyond his familial connection to his son. What I have seen is a very caring father who has tried to help his addicted son in the wake of losing another son tragically. This is something that families across the nation, but especially rural families - Republicans and Democrats alike -have had to deal with as well. Should we disqualify all families who have members that struggle with addiction? That seems absurd.
The origins of the laptop story have been fairly suspicious. The handling of the laptop by the computer repair shop, Giuliani, and others, has been shameful, in my opinion, and reflects their willingness to violate anyone’s rights in the pursuit of power. Lev Parnas’ recent comments seem to confirm many of the suspicions that were talked about back then.
The fact that NPR didn’t immediately run the story seemed like a good idea to me, and they even reported on why they delayed reporting it, at the time. Maybe that’s my bias showing, but it’s hard to deny that this type of story would be relegated to tabloids a decade ago.
The origins of the laptop story have been fairly suspicious. The handling of the laptop by the computer repair shop, Giuliani, and others, has been shameful, in my opinion, and reflects their willingness to violate anyone’s rights in the pursuit of power. Lev Parnas’ recent comments seem to confirm many of the suspicions that were talked about back then.
The fact that NPR didn’t immediately run the story seemed like a good idea to me, and they even reported on why they delayed reporting it, at the time. Maybe that’s my bias showing, but it’s hard to deny that this type of story would be relegated to tabloids a decade ago.
He’s saying he doesn’t see the basis for the complaints. The Hunter Biden laptop scandal? Even the New York Post (not exactly a left-leaning publication) only ran with the story with the original reporter insisting his byline be omitted and the reporter who was given the byline wasn’t informed of this happening because while the laptop was Biden’s, the validity of the contents could not be verified and had roughly the validity of the Bush National Guard letter.
>He’s saying he doesn’t see the basis for the complaints.
Their partisan political coverage is the basis for the complaints.
>the validity of the contents could not be verified
The contents were verified as authentic. Additionally, the FBI had the contents years before the public release and they knew it was authentic.
>Testimony Reveals FBI Employees Who Warned Social Media Companies about Hack and Leak Operation Knew Hunter Biden Laptop Wasn’t Russian Disinformation
>DOJ confirms in new court filing it indeed belonged to Hunter Biden
Their partisan political coverage is the basis for the complaints.
>the validity of the contents could not be verified
The contents were verified as authentic. Additionally, the FBI had the contents years before the public release and they knew it was authentic.
>Testimony Reveals FBI Employees Who Warned Social Media Companies about Hack and Leak Operation Knew Hunter Biden Laptop Wasn’t Russian Disinformation
>DOJ confirms in new court filing it indeed belonged to Hunter Biden
They were not verified as authentic. You and whoever read that filing misunderstood it. (More importantly, if any component was verified that does not mean the whole thing is.)
Also, in the same special counsel[0] filing they attached a picture of a table saw covered in sawdust and said it was a picture Hunter Biden had taken of "apparent cocaine".
[0] who is a DOJ employee but it's misleading to call him "DOJ", since he's not controlled by them
Also, in the same special counsel[0] filing they attached a picture of a table saw covered in sawdust and said it was a picture Hunter Biden had taken of "apparent cocaine".
[0] who is a DOJ employee but it's misleading to call him "DOJ", since he's not controlled by them
Yes it was verified authentic. The emails were also verified.
Last time I listened to NPR was in an Uber ride in 2020, it sounded like some kind of right wing parody of far-left activists. I couldn’t believe people considered that “middle of the road”.
I’m rather disgusted that my tax dollars go to them.
I’m rather disgusted that my tax dollars go to them.
right, "middle of the road" is now "far left", "crazy batshit rightwing BS" is "the truth". This is overton window war stuff.
> And I have no idea where people who are saying NPR has made some kind of hard partisan shift are coming from.
right wing extremist groups and leaders like Chris Rufo
> And I have no idea where people who are saying NPR has made some kind of hard partisan shift are coming from.
right wing extremist groups and leaders like Chris Rufo
Middle of the road used to be that maybe gay people could have civil unions but not actual marriage.
Middle of the road used to be that cross-dressing was fine as a hobby, but trans people had a mental illness that is harmful to enable.
Middle of the road used to be "I don't like what you say but I'll defend your right to say it".
On most issues, the Overton window in America has and continues to slide left, not right.
Middle of the road used to be that cross-dressing was fine as a hobby, but trans people had a mental illness that is harmful to enable.
Middle of the road used to be "I don't like what you say but I'll defend your right to say it".
On most issues, the Overton window in America has and continues to slide left, not right.
I think the concept of an Overton window doesn't work well with our modern politics. The window hasn't really slid left so much as split in half and slid both left and right.
The far right now says and does things that would have been completely out of the Overton window three decades ago, as does the far left in the other extreme. It's like there are two Overton windows depending on which wing you associate with, which is why increasingly people find that they can't engage with those on the other side at all—they're operating with different windows of acceptable expression.
The far right now says and does things that would have been completely out of the Overton window three decades ago, as does the far left in the other extreme. It's like there are two Overton windows depending on which wing you associate with, which is why increasingly people find that they can't engage with those on the other side at all—they're operating with different windows of acceptable expression.
The far right now says and does things that would have been completely out of the Overton window three decades ago
This just seems like projection by the left who don't want to admit that they're the only extremists doing insane things in America. The left will make an extremist claim - "men can be women" - and then when the other side says "no", they'll claim that the right is being extremist for opposing their own extremist claim.
This just seems like projection by the left who don't want to admit that they're the only extremists doing insane things in America. The left will make an extremist claim - "men can be women" - and then when the other side says "no", they'll claim that the right is being extremist for opposing their own extremist claim.
"Middle of the road" used to be "separate but equal" aka segregationist.
Guess that's part of a "slide left" too?
Guess that's part of a "slide left" too?
Funny you mention that. There are now "affinity groups" and "POC spaces" and so forth whose entire conceit is to create separate but equal spaces away from white people. Separate student lounges, clubs, meetings, discussions, graduation "celebrations" that totally aren't illegal ceremonies, and so forth.
What the segregationists lost, the left has convinced people is for their own benefit. Soon enough, we'll have POC-only schools and drinking fountains and sections on the bus and pretend these are the most progressive of ideas.
What the segregationists lost, the left has convinced people is for their own benefit. Soon enough, we'll have POC-only schools and drinking fountains and sections on the bus and pretend these are the most progressive of ideas.
> There are now "affinity groups"
Wait until you learn about Meetup.com. Or the importance of carefully policed gender-segregated bathrooms!
> graduation "celebrations" that totally aren't illegal ceremonies,
OK captain of the party police.
WTF is an "illegal ceremony"? Sounds antireligious.
> Soon enough, we'll have POC-only schools
They're called HBCUs. Lots like Howard, Tuskegee, Morehouse are like 150 years old, so if you're anxiously awaiting the arrival of POC-only schools so that you can make your own entry into the oppression olympics, you don't have to -- the scary future you're imagining arrived before your grandparents were born! It's a wonder any of us who weren't privileged enough to attend scrabbled our way through this oppressive society created by the out-of-control left of the 19th century, but here we are, a credit to our race.
> POC-only drinking fountains and sections on the bus
If the day were to come when a policy of creating POC-separate public services like drinking fountains and buses, which principles would you appeal to when organizing opposition to that?
Wait until you learn about Meetup.com. Or the importance of carefully policed gender-segregated bathrooms!
> graduation "celebrations" that totally aren't illegal ceremonies,
OK captain of the party police.
WTF is an "illegal ceremony"? Sounds antireligious.
> Soon enough, we'll have POC-only schools
They're called HBCUs. Lots like Howard, Tuskegee, Morehouse are like 150 years old, so if you're anxiously awaiting the arrival of POC-only schools so that you can make your own entry into the oppression olympics, you don't have to -- the scary future you're imagining arrived before your grandparents were born! It's a wonder any of us who weren't privileged enough to attend scrabbled our way through this oppressive society created by the out-of-control left of the 19th century, but here we are, a credit to our race.
> POC-only drinking fountains and sections on the bus
If the day were to come when a policy of creating POC-separate public services like drinking fountains and buses, which principles would you appeal to when organizing opposition to that?
> WTF is an "illegal ceremony"? Sounds antireligious
Segregating students by race is a violation of federal anti-discrimination laws. Some schools continue to push the boundaries of what does and does not constitute a violation of this.
HBCUs are not race segregated schools; people of any color are lawfully allowed to apply and attend. Hence the "historically" in the name- they were once, by policy, exclusively for black students, but now it is not so.
Even today, illegal scholarships, internships and networking opportunities continue to be created and challenged in court as various universities attempt to balance growing diversity without affirmative action. I don't actually foresee us getting to the point of lawfully segregated schools (or drinking fountains) but variations on those old policies do keep making comebacks.
Segregating students by race is a violation of federal anti-discrimination laws. Some schools continue to push the boundaries of what does and does not constitute a violation of this.
HBCUs are not race segregated schools; people of any color are lawfully allowed to apply and attend. Hence the "historically" in the name- they were once, by policy, exclusively for black students, but now it is not so.
Even today, illegal scholarships, internships and networking opportunities continue to be created and challenged in court as various universities attempt to balance growing diversity without affirmative action. I don't actually foresee us getting to the point of lawfully segregated schools (or drinking fountains) but variations on those old policies do keep making comebacks.
It's interesting that the majority of those comments are focused on a single issue. It sounds more like a preconceived notion rather than an informed criticism, where one would also likely be annoyed by discussions of economic injustice, ideas around UBI, taxation discussion, the criminality-or-not-of-Donald-Trump's actions (a primary thing Berliner himself actually mentioned in multiple instances, even!), etc...?
> sometimes annoying so.
Agreed.
I've been an regular NPR listener for like 15 years now, and if I had a complaint about their reporting, it would be that they shy away from being based if it could potentially alienate the right wing audience.
It's good to be empathic to your audience, especially when reporting on sensitive topics. But tiptoeing around the facts because it might give ammo to people who already hate you shows a lack of self-confidence.
Agreed.
I've been an regular NPR listener for like 15 years now, and if I had a complaint about their reporting, it would be that they shy away from being based if it could potentially alienate the right wing audience.
It's good to be empathic to your audience, especially when reporting on sensitive topics. But tiptoeing around the facts because it might give ammo to people who already hate you shows a lack of self-confidence.
> they shy away from being based if it could potentially alienate the right wing audience.
Funny typo, considering that "based" means something completely different in the political realm. NPR is most certainly not based...
Funny typo, considering that "based" means something completely different in the political realm. NPR is most certainly not based...
Tiptoe around the facts like Hunter Biden's laptop? I agree NPR needs to stick to facts, not editorially choose to censor a topic that the public has deemed important.
Yeah, the article in question that got this guy suspended was like reading about an alternate mirror reality. If anything has gone wrong at NPR (and similar media orgs) in the past decade it's the willingness to bend over backwards to try to satisfy their harshest bad-faith critics, which is utterly impossible, and results in really terrible coverage.
I find the five day suspension thing bizarre... either fire the guy or don't, whatever. But his claims that they didn't give enough credence to the craziest, most pernicious lies out there is the opposite of true.
I find the five day suspension thing bizarre... either fire the guy or don't, whatever. But his claims that they didn't give enough credence to the craziest, most pernicious lies out there is the opposite of true.
I listen to both NPR and Fox news summary every day, and both of them are virtually identical in how they cover things.
Every once in a while you'll hear a slant in how they will frame something, like the context or who they chose to quote. But it's clear that both NPR and Fox try very hard to be neutral.
(Note the Fox TV show with "personalities" is not the same as their news show.)
Every once in a while you'll hear a slant in how they will frame something, like the context or who they chose to quote. But it's clear that both NPR and Fox try very hard to be neutral.
(Note the Fox TV show with "personalities" is not the same as their news show.)
I only watch Fox News during elections and I find it just as good as any other outlet if not slightly better.
Fox Business seems about the same.
TheHill seems fairly balanced and surprisingly enough newsmax seems fairly balanced.
Redstate on the other hand has a double standard and ignores anything negative about Trump. They kicked out all of thier traditional conservatives.
Fox Business seems about the same.
TheHill seems fairly balanced and surprisingly enough newsmax seems fairly balanced.
Redstate on the other hand has a double standard and ignores anything negative about Trump. They kicked out all of thier traditional conservatives.
It's people who want the polarity to be "what we say" and fake news.
NPR and other liberal media works really hard to not pierce the facade of conservative arguments even when they consistently create incongruous reasons and end up explicitly stating that they're doing things for political benefit and no other reason.
Anyway, like most conservative media, NPR is just a target to chill and try and draw them into producing news that better builds the conservative facade of "rational" discourse they want people to believe is the basis for their decisions.
As opposed to the racism and corrupt business practices that is the entire American Republicans.
NPR and other liberal media works really hard to not pierce the facade of conservative arguments even when they consistently create incongruous reasons and end up explicitly stating that they're doing things for political benefit and no other reason.
Anyway, like most conservative media, NPR is just a target to chill and try and draw them into producing news that better builds the conservative facade of "rational" discourse they want people to believe is the basis for their decisions.
As opposed to the racism and corrupt business practices that is the entire American Republicans.
Huh. That article is.. alright. Reads as pretty emotional. The inciting article (linked in a sibling comment, well worth reading) does not deserve the criticisms as portrayed by the quick quotes included in this article.
The bit about political 'ammunition' is interesting to me though, given that the inciting article is briefly but thoroughly damning of the political camp evidently using this as 'ammunition'.
The bit about political 'ammunition' is interesting to me though, given that the inciting article is briefly but thoroughly damning of the political camp evidently using this as 'ammunition'.
Welp, this is one way to validate his criticisms and prevent others from ever speaking out again. This is journalistic oppression.
Having mastered the art of the circular firing squad, NPR continues to practice it.
Juan Williams may be laughing now. Don't know about the person who fired him, then lost her job in the fallout.
Juan Williams may be laughing now. Don't know about the person who fired him, then lost her job in the fallout.
Haven’t read Mr. Berliner’s piece, but I was a listener for 15 years before I stopped altogether shortly after the events of 2020 that do not need to be named (and whose particular name chosen by the speaker usually reveals their political leanings)
Coverage seems to have gotten stuck around that time.
Coverage seems to have gotten stuck around that time.
Try: "The recent unpleasantness".
It’s really disheartening to hear so many objections to “race” or “class” stories on NPR as these are the pieces that speak of experiences like my own. I’m in my 40s today but I remember being one of barely a handful of Tejano game developers in Austin back in the 90s and no one called our inclusion DEI - they just called it hiring locally. It seems all these good things that were the norm have been hijacked and brought the worst of the objectivists. Maybe if listening to understand (vs listening to react) a lot of these comments here wouldn’t look fence walking outbursts.
I still have hope for the future. Not much to be found in these comments tho.
I still have hope for the future. Not much to be found in these comments tho.
>no one called our inclusion DEI - they just called it hiring locally.
because it wasn't DEI.
because it wasn't DEI.
It 100% was but your take is the kind of dismissive, attempts invalidation I’m referring to so thank you for the example.
lol no
>It’s really disheartening to hear so many objections to “race” or “class” stories on NPR as these are the pieces that speak of experiences like my own
They could reasonably apply to me, too (I'm Jewish, raised in a Christian town, was wildly bullied through middle school for being Jewish). Yet somehow I've always felt that aspect of my identity was the least interesting about me. I don't care about Judaism, or Jewishness. After the Nth Holocaust movie it was like "Enough already, I get it." I wanted to talk about science fiction and physics and music and girls and sailing and yoga and computers and all kinds of other things. It's a strange impulse to want to "center" aspects of yourself that other people feel are important but you don't. (Of course, Jewishness is odd, because later in life people wanted to talk about it because of their positive prejudices - this was, if anything, even more annoying, because it was something I didn't care about and it was uncomfortable flattery and it was well-meaning so it was hard to put the kabosh on it.)
It's funny but I notice how many of the liberals pushing against left-wing extremism are Jewish. Jonathan Haidt comes to mind, but there are many others (who currently escape me). My hypothesis is that we are, as a group, relatively recently assimilated, and we know how much worse it could be, and how damn good Enlightenment Culture is compared to all the rest, and how far America has come with Jewish acceptance. Assimilation is great because it works both ways - I can't tell you how much it warms my heart to see people use words like "schmuck" or "kosher"! I don't think it would have helped me then, or helped now, to have "race" stories about Jews in American Christian suburban middle schools. If anything, I can imagine making it much worse, giving me a victim complex and a habit of blaming the system, instead of taking my social L's, and out-performing the shit out of my dumb-ass classmates, and laughing all the way along the rosy path of nerd-dom. Maybe one thing Jews really do have is a sense of humor about racism and bigotry, since we've dealt with so much of it over time. But I recall no stories of Jewish minorities guilting the majority into "centering" their experience and hating themselves and their own culture. And if I did I don't think I'd see this as a win, but as a dastardly act of passive-aggression and dominance that is unhealthy for both groups. Oppression is not the way, of either the minority OR the majority. We grow and merge and love each other and take on the best qualities of each and that's awesome.
They could reasonably apply to me, too (I'm Jewish, raised in a Christian town, was wildly bullied through middle school for being Jewish). Yet somehow I've always felt that aspect of my identity was the least interesting about me. I don't care about Judaism, or Jewishness. After the Nth Holocaust movie it was like "Enough already, I get it." I wanted to talk about science fiction and physics and music and girls and sailing and yoga and computers and all kinds of other things. It's a strange impulse to want to "center" aspects of yourself that other people feel are important but you don't. (Of course, Jewishness is odd, because later in life people wanted to talk about it because of their positive prejudices - this was, if anything, even more annoying, because it was something I didn't care about and it was uncomfortable flattery and it was well-meaning so it was hard to put the kabosh on it.)
It's funny but I notice how many of the liberals pushing against left-wing extremism are Jewish. Jonathan Haidt comes to mind, but there are many others (who currently escape me). My hypothesis is that we are, as a group, relatively recently assimilated, and we know how much worse it could be, and how damn good Enlightenment Culture is compared to all the rest, and how far America has come with Jewish acceptance. Assimilation is great because it works both ways - I can't tell you how much it warms my heart to see people use words like "schmuck" or "kosher"! I don't think it would have helped me then, or helped now, to have "race" stories about Jews in American Christian suburban middle schools. If anything, I can imagine making it much worse, giving me a victim complex and a habit of blaming the system, instead of taking my social L's, and out-performing the shit out of my dumb-ass classmates, and laughing all the way along the rosy path of nerd-dom. Maybe one thing Jews really do have is a sense of humor about racism and bigotry, since we've dealt with so much of it over time. But I recall no stories of Jewish minorities guilting the majority into "centering" their experience and hating themselves and their own culture. And if I did I don't think I'd see this as a win, but as a dastardly act of passive-aggression and dominance that is unhealthy for both groups. Oppression is not the way, of either the minority OR the majority. We grow and merge and love each other and take on the best qualities of each and that's awesome.
As Tejano I am constantly bombarded by falsehoods, revisionism, and racism about my identify.
Sorry to hear that, but can you quantify it? Like, do you get verbal abuse at work 5x a day, sneers at the grocery store every time you go, or what? Or are you talking about online talk about your identity? (I hate to break it to you, but with that last one literally every human being on Earth can find a metric ton of online abuse directed at them if they look for it.)
What people say about you (or your ethnicity) is orthogonal to the reality. Its hurtful only insofar as you attach yourself to their perceptions, and people are fundamentally ignorant. One of the things people seem to forget is that humans are by default deeply bigoted (and authoritarian). It's a miracle that there exist any places on Earth that have managed to curtail those instincts. If you live in such a place (and I'd count America, even Texas, as one of them) count yourself lucky. Let ignorant people flap their gums; it's hot air, signifying nothing.
What people say about you (or your ethnicity) is orthogonal to the reality. Its hurtful only insofar as you attach yourself to their perceptions, and people are fundamentally ignorant. One of the things people seem to forget is that humans are by default deeply bigoted (and authoritarian). It's a miracle that there exist any places on Earth that have managed to curtail those instincts. If you live in such a place (and I'd count America, even Texas, as one of them) count yourself lucky. Let ignorant people flap their gums; it's hot air, signifying nothing.
>It's funny but I notice how many of the liberals pushing against left-wing extremism are Jewish. Jonathan Haidt comes to mind, but there are many others (who currently escape me).
Scott Aaronson and Scott Alexander come to mind. Also Edward Blum, though he's more of a "classical liberal" than a liberal in the modern sense.
Scott Aaronson and Scott Alexander come to mind. Also Edward Blum, though he's more of a "classical liberal" than a liberal in the modern sense.
[deleted]
I listen to public radio a lot. I am not exactly a liberal or progressive but I know exactly what I am getting into when I turn on public radio. None the less, I can still enjoy it the same way I enjoy an action movie or WWE so long as I am willing to suspend disbelief.
Npr was great when Bush Jr was in office. Once Obama became elected, it went downhill and hasn't recovered. I stopped listening to it years ago and it's a shame what has become of the network.
I used to listen to NPR regularly. I enjoyed many of the programs. But that all changed when the "news" reporting became so heavily biased that I couldn't distinguish NPR from main stream media. In fact, I've become so irritated by the bias that I now openly call for defunding NPR and I've removed them from all my radio presets. I didn't leave NPR, they left me....
Used to like NPR back when talk of the nation was decent circa 2005 ish. But it's really changed and a lot of the news reporting is of lower quality and so much more of the overall content has distinct viewpoints on purpose.
In all fairness, I think generations of folks aren't really able to set viewpoints aside and have come to believe that attempting to is bad. Which is complicated. But it no doubt meant that they needed to meet that audience to keep donations up.
And at least it's better than Fox News or talk radio and their ilk.
In all fairness, I think generations of folks aren't really able to set viewpoints aside and have come to believe that attempting to is bad. Which is complicated. But it no doubt meant that they needed to meet that audience to keep donations up.
And at least it's better than Fox News or talk radio and their ilk.
Thread ended up way more conservative than i'd imagine.
People getting sick and tired of news outlets becoming increasingly partisan are now automatically "conservative"? You're part of the problem
In all honestly it really didn't. You're probably just significantly more liberal then you thought you were.
My issue is not NPR showing overt partisanship, but the way NPR trivializes global events of major import by interleaving them with softball human interest or culture stories in their primary news feed. Just totally lacking any organization, and playing to a presumably dumbed down public.
Self fulfilling prophecy.
Several posts here have interesting,
critical comments on the past and recent
content of NPR.
Sounds like some of the HN audience wants content that is some of entertaining, interesting, informative and, instead, is getting some quite different content, superficial, and based on some topics common in current journalism and/or partisan politics.
Why??
For "partisan politics" content, one candidate explanation is simply money.
But for journalism, that's more difficult. A guess is that journalism is an old profession with some accepted assumptions and techniques.
One such assumption is:
"Keep it short, simple, superficial. Avoid credible information as too difficult, demanding of the audience."
One technique is:
"Keep it emotional about problems of people."
With the Web, for a focused audience journalism may be changing.
Maybe I'll pay attention to journalism again when, for a start. they report numerical data with graphs, done like STEM field students do.
Sounds like some of the HN audience wants content that is some of entertaining, interesting, informative and, instead, is getting some quite different content, superficial, and based on some topics common in current journalism and/or partisan politics.
Why??
For "partisan politics" content, one candidate explanation is simply money.
But for journalism, that's more difficult. A guess is that journalism is an old profession with some accepted assumptions and techniques.
One such assumption is:
"Keep it short, simple, superficial. Avoid credible information as too difficult, demanding of the audience."
One technique is:
"Keep it emotional about problems of people."
With the Web, for a focused audience journalism may be changing.
Maybe I'll pay attention to journalism again when, for a start. they report numerical data with graphs, done like STEM field students do.
I've never expected NPR to have all that much diversity of opinion really, I expect them to be centre-left but way closer to the centre than is advertised. I only listen to the podcasts, never the radio, because it's an obsolete format other than in term of robustness.
I wish NPR would follow the BBC model. Multiple radio stations devoted to different topics with high quality hosts and a completely ad-free experience for those living in the host country. Instead, it’s quite political and pretty small in scale.
Don’t tell people how to think. Sums it up perfectly.
If NPR wanted to improve, they would fire their bigoted CEO and make Berliner the new one.
Gotta hand it to NPR for at least linking to the public criticism and interviewing people within their org and getting comment from Uri. Maybe this will tamp down the ideological bent NPR has been on for the past few years.
I looked up the article: https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-tru...
Generally speaking NPR rarely shows up on my radar. Punishing him for this article though sure has the opposite effect of what they hope to achieve. In fact, with this they just sent a message to all their journalists that they are not allowed to express viewpoints making their problem worse.
Objective outsider view, NPR is guilty as charged. How can NPR ever repair trust in their reporting with this over their head?
Generally speaking NPR rarely shows up on my radar. Punishing him for this article though sure has the opposite effect of what they hope to achieve. In fact, with this they just sent a message to all their journalists that they are not allowed to express viewpoints making their problem worse.
Objective outsider view, NPR is guilty as charged. How can NPR ever repair trust in their reporting with this over their head?
The reason for his suspension is: "the organization told the editor [i.e. Berliner] he had failed to secure its approval for outside work for other news outlets, as is required of NPR journalists."
Not because he criticized them.
It this a punishment that is always applied; or used selectively? If the first, then it's fine, if the latter... then yeah there's a problem.
Not because he criticized them.
It this a punishment that is always applied; or used selectively? If the first, then it's fine, if the latter... then yeah there's a problem.
Objective outsider view, NPR is guilty as charged. How can NPR ever repair trust in their reporting with this over their head?
NPR can't fix itself because any time they get someone that shows promise at being a stand-up reporter, they leave for a better gig.
Case in point: Joshua Johnson[0] who used to run the The1A. The show was incredible while he was there. MSNBC picked him up and now it's daily partisan propaganda.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Johnson_(journalist)
NPR can't fix itself because any time they get someone that shows promise at being a stand-up reporter, they leave for a better gig.
Case in point: Joshua Johnson[0] who used to run the The1A. The show was incredible while he was there. MSNBC picked him up and now it's daily partisan propaganda.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Johnson_(journalist)
This opinion piece is less a incisive criticism of NPR than it is a resume line item for Berliner applying to The Atlantic. His three leading “big” examples are largely wrong. The Mueller report didn't say “no collusion”. Barr did. The report said that it was not possible to conclude with prosecutorial confidence what level of cooperation had taken place because there had been so much obstruction of justice, so charging for that would be the appropriate law enforcement action after Trump resumed his role as a regular citizen.
Conversely, the Hunter laptop thing has never been a compelling above-the-fold story. Hunter Biden is a politician's kid, not some elected official or, ahem, a politician's kid who has been appointed to a cabinet or advisory role within an administration. There has been no evidence that implicated Joe Biden was a meaningful participant or benefactor in whatever name-dropping grift he's gotten on at. Why would a news outlet spend airtime on this?
The lab leak story is somewhat more compelling. Although I think at this point because of analysis that concluded there were two different, yet closely related strains of the virus simultaneously present at different sections of the wet market, it's hard to conclude a lab origin is more likely than it coming from wild origins. But at the time he's referring to, it was simply a matter of dogma to conclude a lab origin was off the table.
And commenting that the DC staff is 87 Democrat is... amazing. That's the natural demographic of DC, one of the most Democratic regions in the country.
Conversely, the Hunter laptop thing has never been a compelling above-the-fold story. Hunter Biden is a politician's kid, not some elected official or, ahem, a politician's kid who has been appointed to a cabinet or advisory role within an administration. There has been no evidence that implicated Joe Biden was a meaningful participant or benefactor in whatever name-dropping grift he's gotten on at. Why would a news outlet spend airtime on this?
The lab leak story is somewhat more compelling. Although I think at this point because of analysis that concluded there were two different, yet closely related strains of the virus simultaneously present at different sections of the wet market, it's hard to conclude a lab origin is more likely than it coming from wild origins. But at the time he's referring to, it was simply a matter of dogma to conclude a lab origin was off the table.
And commenting that the DC staff is 87 Democrat is... amazing. That's the natural demographic of DC, one of the most Democratic regions in the country.
This is a very low bar, but when a journalist at Fox News (not the opinion shows, just their regular news outlet) is fired, disciplined, calls out issues, whatever…
How many times do you recall seeing coverage of it on Fox News itself, whether on TV or their web site? How many times have you seen a similar piece of self-reflection on OANN? Or Newsmax? Or CNN?
Most of the time, news outlets clam up and you read the articles about them on other outlets.
How many times do you recall seeing coverage of it on Fox News itself, whether on TV or their web site? How many times have you seen a similar piece of self-reflection on OANN? Or Newsmax? Or CNN?
Most of the time, news outlets clam up and you read the articles about them on other outlets.
I appreciate NPR's unbiased reporting on internal conflict. They could have dragged Berliner but chose to report the facts as they are.
That's why they're in my top three rotation.
That's why they're in my top three rotation.
How do you know they could have dragged him? If what he said was fair then they wouldn't have been able to land any punches.
This is the reason I stopped donating. They don’t even bother trying to look objective and impartial anymore. It’s no different from Fox or CNN. At least PBS News is still decent.
>“NPR has formally punished Uri Berliner, the senior editor who publicly argued a week ago that the network had "lost America's trust" by approaching news stories with a rigidly progressive mindset.”
>”Berliner's five-day suspension without pay, which began last Friday, has not been previously reported.”
What’s the point of free speech if you have no meaningful way to exercise it?
>”Berliner's five-day suspension without pay, which began last Friday, has not been previously reported.”
What’s the point of free speech if you have no meaningful way to exercise it?
Complaints about bias in journalism only exist because of an idealist assumption that unbiased "news" or "facts" is something that exists. But it does not. Sure, there are some "objective facts," but they're really more measurements or scientific observations — today's temperature, yesterdays death totals, the price of a stock, the score of a sports game, etc.
Anything beyond the boundaries of this ticker of raw measurements depends on some level of narrative, and therefore bias. Even the driest, most unbiased reporting of "what happened" is not immune to selection bias in choosing which events to report.
Ironically, the more that a news organization pretends this purist ideal of unbiased news exists, the more biased it becomes in its effort to hide its natural biases.
In terms of raw signal/noise, a pair of oppositely polarized news organizations are more informative than a single "unbiased" one. I learn more about the "truth" (which is mostly a matter of perception) by reading both Fox and CNN, and comparing the overlaps and differences between them, than I ever could by reading a single "unbiased" source of news in the middle.
Anything beyond the boundaries of this ticker of raw measurements depends on some level of narrative, and therefore bias. Even the driest, most unbiased reporting of "what happened" is not immune to selection bias in choosing which events to report.
Ironically, the more that a news organization pretends this purist ideal of unbiased news exists, the more biased it becomes in its effort to hide its natural biases.
In terms of raw signal/noise, a pair of oppositely polarized news organizations are more informative than a single "unbiased" one. I learn more about the "truth" (which is mostly a matter of perception) by reading both Fox and CNN, and comparing the overlaps and differences between them, than I ever could by reading a single "unbiased" source of news in the middle.
> Ironically, the more that a news organization pretends this purist ideal of unbiased news exists, the more biased it becomes in its effort to hide its natural biases.
Strong disagree. You're saying that the more someone tries to be unbiased, the more they end being biased? This seems like an excuse to embrace bias and push a narrative. I've never agreed with that regarding news.
Strong disagree. You're saying that the more someone tries to be unbiased, the more they end being biased? This seems like an excuse to embrace bias and push a narrative. I've never agreed with that regarding news.
I am a proponent of _openly_ embracing bias and pushing a narrative. The problems come when they try to hide it, by claiming to be unbiased (either deceptively or naively) while actually pushing a narrative. If everyone is open about their agenda, then the reader has more agency to triangulate the "truth" without first needing to cut through some layer of obfuscation.
I read his post which led to this. You should consider reading it, he cites specific examples. I think he had some good points.
There are serious journalistic problems with his concrete claims. For example the early part of it hinges on the Mueller report showing "no credible evidence of collusion" which is a straight up misrepresentation. It found many specific instances of collaboration, and some evidence of collusion but not enough to indicate criminal conspiracy. Which is messier than what he is implying and very relevant to his argument.
Later when he talks about the political affiliations of the newsroom, how did he access the voter registrations? How many of those people don't live in DC and so aren't registered there, and how did he count them? What are the professional-ethical implications of researching your coworkers in this way?
Later when he talks about the political affiliations of the newsroom, how did he access the voter registrations? How many of those people don't live in DC and so aren't registered there, and how did he count them? What are the professional-ethical implications of researching your coworkers in this way?
Your points seem irrelevant to this
NPR listener demographics
2011: 26% conservative, 23% center, 37% liberal, 14% ?
2023: 11% conservative, 21% center, 67% liberal, 1% ?
NPR listener demographics
2011: 26% conservative, 23% center, 37% liberal, 14% ?
2023: 11% conservative, 21% center, 67% liberal, 1% ?
Is or should be their main editorial goal to exactly mirror the political affiliations of americans? Is that the issue Berliner was raising in his essay?
I didn't read it that way, and I do find this relevant to the points he was making, which were much more about journalistic practice and ethics than about the demographics of listeners per se.
I didn't read it that way, and I do find this relevant to the points he was making, which were much more about journalistic practice and ethics than about the demographics of listeners per se.
Part of the problem with this stat, which I saw someone point out on Twitter, is that conservative demographics have changed since 2011. College-educated white voters, especially women, have shifted significantly toward the Democratic party during the Trump years, and that was probably the biggest listener demographic for NPR.
So NPR listeners in 2011 and 2023 could be the exact same people and the % of conservative listeners would have gone down. (That said, I suspect this isn’t the only explanation - NPR content has gotten more ideologically left during that timeframe too)
So NPR listeners in 2011 and 2023 could be the exact same people and the % of conservative listeners would have gone down. (That said, I suspect this isn’t the only explanation - NPR content has gotten more ideologically left during that timeframe too)
To what degree is this shift due to NPR's own actions vs. the pressure of the former president?
I would guess that any news source that is not specifically pro-Trump has bled conservative viewers/listeners/readers in the last 8 years.
I would guess that any news source that is not specifically pro-Trump has bled conservative viewers/listeners/readers in the last 8 years.
No, YOU are misrepresenting the Mueller findings. As per the American Bar Association:
The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2...
With respect to obstruction: As far as obstruction, the Mueller report laid out facts on both sides but did not reach a conclusion. Barr’s letter said that “the Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”
The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2...
With respect to obstruction: As far as obstruction, the Mueller report laid out facts on both sides but did not reach a conclusion. Barr’s letter said that “the Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”
Interesting when you say the parent is misrepresenting when that American Bar article is just a summary of the Muller report by Barr and Rosenstein, who both have come under criticism for their review of the report.
Are you really accusing the left-leaning American Bar Association of supporting Trump?
I'm merely pointing out your misrepresentation of the situation. It's not an article from the American Bar Association in support of your statement. It's a news article summarizing the findings of Barr. It has nothing to do with whether the bar is left or right leaning.
Yeah, this is what I remember. And I remember the media hype around his investigation.
There's literally one verified fact to the whole story, Trump's idiot son took a meeting he shouldn't have taken and then nothing serious came from it.
The entire liberal media was in a tizzy for a year about "collusion" and pee tapes, pulitzer prizes got handed out over it, and then everybody just got really quiet and stopped talking about it.
The entire liberal media was in a tizzy for a year about "collusion" and pee tapes, pulitzer prizes got handed out over it, and then everybody just got really quiet and stopped talking about it.
Kind of true, and very false.
Don't think of "bias" as a boolean. Think of it as a real value between 0 and 1.
You can't get perfectly unbiased. (I actually think I agree - you can't.) But you can get more biased and less biased, and the difference really matters.
Was Walter Cronkite perfectly unbiased? No. But he tried. Was the result better than, say, Fox News? Yes, it was.
There was an editor of the New York Times who, recognizing that his reporters leaned left, deliberately leaned the editorial stance of the paper somewhat to the right, in order to keep the results closer to neutral. He literally had "He kept the paper straight" put on his tombstone. The results were not perfect - they never are - but they were better than the results of "bias is inevitable, so we won't bother even trying" (which quickly transforms into "bias is inevitable, so we might as well run with our biases").
Don't think of "bias" as a boolean. Think of it as a real value between 0 and 1.
You can't get perfectly unbiased. (I actually think I agree - you can't.) But you can get more biased and less biased, and the difference really matters.
Was Walter Cronkite perfectly unbiased? No. But he tried. Was the result better than, say, Fox News? Yes, it was.
There was an editor of the New York Times who, recognizing that his reporters leaned left, deliberately leaned the editorial stance of the paper somewhat to the right, in order to keep the results closer to neutral. He literally had "He kept the paper straight" put on his tombstone. The results were not perfect - they never are - but they were better than the results of "bias is inevitable, so we won't bother even trying" (which quickly transforms into "bias is inevitable, so we might as well run with our biases").
> Ironically, the more that a news organization pretends this purist ideal of unbiased news exists, the more biased it becomes in its effort to hide its natural biases.
"Citation needed".
I don't disagree with your general premise, that journalism always has some level of bias; it's likely impossible to create an unbiased narrative. That said, I find it difficult to get on board with the notion that seeking this perfection is self-defeating.
I also find it difficult to believe that choosing to simply get your news from two "known biased" news organizations is the more correct choice. Some of the so-called news reported on by a certain news agency is factually false. It's misinformation, and the only use it has is exposing the bias of the agency. Presuming the agency on the other extreme end of the spectrum is doing the same thing, all you have are two pieces of incorrect data. You haven't learned anything because there's nothing of value to be learned from something completely false.
"Citation needed".
I don't disagree with your general premise, that journalism always has some level of bias; it's likely impossible to create an unbiased narrative. That said, I find it difficult to get on board with the notion that seeking this perfection is self-defeating.
I also find it difficult to believe that choosing to simply get your news from two "known biased" news organizations is the more correct choice. Some of the so-called news reported on by a certain news agency is factually false. It's misinformation, and the only use it has is exposing the bias of the agency. Presuming the agency on the other extreme end of the spectrum is doing the same thing, all you have are two pieces of incorrect data. You haven't learned anything because there's nothing of value to be learned from something completely false.
> by reading both Fox and CNN
Most of us don't have time for that. I mostly prefer news oriented at business people, where too much bias would cost their readers real money, so the reporting tends to be more factual. So read WSJ rather than watch FoxNews, since even though both are owned by Murdoch, the former is for rich conservatives who have less time for idealistic BS.
Most of us don't have time for that. I mostly prefer news oriented at business people, where too much bias would cost their readers real money, so the reporting tends to be more factual. So read WSJ rather than watch FoxNews, since even though both are owned by Murdoch, the former is for rich conservatives who have less time for idealistic BS.
WSJ is hilariously biased. It might as well be the financial arm of the NY Post at this point.
I've got no love for NPR, but as a result of the comments here I've had to do some self-reflection, and keep coming back to that saying about a table with ten people and that story about the bartender who kicked a dude out.
@dang please ban this account.
@dang please ban this account.
> Berliner said the social media posts demonstrated Maher was all but incapable of being the person best poised to direct the organization.
> "We're looking for a leader right now who's going to be unifying and bring more people into the tent and have a broader perspective on, sort of, what America is all about," Berliner said. "And this seems to be the opposite of that.
Berliner could have stopped at criticism of the coverage, but now seems to be looking for ways to attack the institution in destructive ways. Berliner knows these attacks could bury and destroy NPR. NPR holding onto Berliner this long might be a mistake - it invites the tidal wave of attacks from the right, and the 'centrist' Dems will join in (like cowards joining the bully) - but at this point, it may be time to fire them.
The real test of the CEO will be handling this crisis. It should not be unexpected in the modern world, and there are playbooks for being effective. It's now part of the job.
> "We're looking for a leader right now who's going to be unifying and bring more people into the tent and have a broader perspective on, sort of, what America is all about," Berliner said. "And this seems to be the opposite of that.
Berliner could have stopped at criticism of the coverage, but now seems to be looking for ways to attack the institution in destructive ways. Berliner knows these attacks could bury and destroy NPR. NPR holding onto Berliner this long might be a mistake - it invites the tidal wave of attacks from the right, and the 'centrist' Dems will join in (like cowards joining the bully) - but at this point, it may be time to fire them.
The real test of the CEO will be handling this crisis. It should not be unexpected in the modern world, and there are playbooks for being effective. It's now part of the job.
Seems this editors article needs to be better fact checked
https://steveinskeep.substack.com/p/how-my-npr-colleague-fai...
https://steveinskeep.substack.com/p/how-my-npr-colleague-fai...
From my own PoV, NPR and their stations in my area mostly went to crap back ~2000 - shifting formats from music-heavy to much more talk-heavy and news-heavy (especially after 9/11), and seeming far more idiotic and partisan as part of that.
I still recall listening to an especially wretched NPR news story ~2003 - where (in effect) Senator Slime(D) insisted that 2 + 2 was 3, Senator Sleaze(R) insisted that 2 + 2 was 5, and NPR was far too fair, balanced, and brain-dead to even hint at the possibility of 4. I stopped tuning in, and never donated another dime.
I still recall listening to an especially wretched NPR news story ~2003 - where (in effect) Senator Slime(D) insisted that 2 + 2 was 3, Senator Sleaze(R) insisted that 2 + 2 was 5, and NPR was far too fair, balanced, and brain-dead to even hint at the possibility of 4. I stopped tuning in, and never donated another dime.
He’s now resigned: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/business/media/uri-berlin...
NPR programming has been non-partisan left-of-center with a bias towards humanity over raw factual presentation for as long as I can remember. It's essentially the NPR "house-style".
> "Did we offer coverage that helped them understand — even if just a bit better — those neighbors with whom they share little in common?"
I find the person leading the coverage “solution” has the same emblematic word choice issues as the organization as a whole. I love NPR and the local public affiliates but they cannot see their own failings.
Are there any two people, anywhere in this world that truly “share little in common”?
I find the person leading the coverage “solution” has the same emblematic word choice issues as the organization as a whole. I love NPR and the local public affiliates but they cannot see their own failings.
Are there any two people, anywhere in this world that truly “share little in common”?
[deleted]
The journalists at NPR seem appalled that a member of their staff would "violate everyone’s trust" by speaking publicly about this, which is odd since so much of their profession relies on people breaking confidentiality and trust to speak to the press...
[1] https://twitter.com/titonka/status/1778461456410800339
[1] https://twitter.com/titonka/status/1778461456410800339
Anyone remember how awesome This American Life was? They used to be about just that — an American [in their life] with an amazing story to tell. So simple and elegant. Then they went massively down hill around the time Trump was elected. They seemed to be “on the campaign trail” more often than not, or about some kind of grievance or “injustice”. I stopped listening.
I used to have NPR on in my car basically all the time since I started driving in the early aughts.
I am in no way a Trump supporter but the way the tone shifted into vitriolic acid spitting after his election, I just can’t abide or frankly listen anymore. I just want the news.
I am in no way a Trump supporter but the way the tone shifted into vitriolic acid spitting after his election, I just can’t abide or frankly listen anymore. I just want the news.
Funny how the right lose their shit when media outlets take a progressive stance but don't say a thing about right wing media and their obvious ideological bias.
The right are huge hypocrites. Seems like only the progressives need to apologise for holding their views but the right never does.
NPR should tell everyone to fuck off and go watch fox news if they don't want a progressive and fact based view point.
The right are huge hypocrites. Seems like only the progressives need to apologise for holding their views but the right never does.
NPR should tell everyone to fuck off and go watch fox news if they don't want a progressive and fact based view point.
"NPR goes woke, loses listeners" is a great viral narrative, but I think it's causally backwards. NPR, like every media entity, is now in constant completion with endless social media influencers pretending to be rich, videos of every possible permutation of interspecies baby animal cuddling, tweaking Minecraft streamers, logorrheic racists and paranoid schizophrenics with enormous research budgets, an infinite amount of disturbing pornography beyond the nightmares of de Sade, ISIL/Los Zetas beheading videos ... all of this I can personally attest to, and rumor has it that on the very darkest corners of the web there exists video of Ben Shapiro rapping. There is no such thing as "the news" anymore, it is just one niche in the monolithic media marketplace in ferocious completion for your drooling, doomscrolling attention, and "sober presentation of the facts" has never gotten anyone to bang that subscribe button.
Now, I don't listen to NPR anymore, and it is for exactly the reasons described, but my media consumption at this point is limited to 3blue1brown videos (veritasium can sometimes get a bit sensationalistic). Outrage politics and in group/out group signalling is a perfectly valid competitive strategy in the modern media monomarket, and the Old Media graveyard is littered with previously esteemed names in journalism who were too principled to let trending Twitter narratives drive their reporting.
Now, I don't listen to NPR anymore, and it is for exactly the reasons described, but my media consumption at this point is limited to 3blue1brown videos (veritasium can sometimes get a bit sensationalistic). Outrage politics and in group/out group signalling is a perfectly valid competitive strategy in the modern media monomarket, and the Old Media graveyard is littered with previously esteemed names in journalism who were too principled to let trending Twitter narratives drive their reporting.
The most telling part about this "debate" is conservative activists blasting center and center-left outlets for barely off-center comments, while ignoring the blatant extreme partisanship coming out of right wing media outlets like Fox.
Why do these "activists" always seem like they're operating in bad faith?
Why do these "activists" always seem like they're operating in bad faith?
The suspension proves his point. NPR could've taken this in such a different direction. Not punishing the journalist, and instead providing evidence for their fair and accurate reporting standards in a transparent way. Instead, they got angry and went right for the suspension "without pay" for a pathetic reason.
I used to love NPR growing up.
I used to love NPR growing up.
If you listened to it in the 90's or before, it was a different place. Then the Republicans attacked its funding in the culmination of a general attack at funding of the arts, and a specific attack on hearing hated perspectives on particular issues (80% of those issues being Palestinians being allowed to speak.)
The head was replaced with the ex-head of Radio Free Europe (a propaganda station), and a permanent pair of ombudsmen were placed there (one meant to always be a Democrat and the other always meant to be a Republican) to help censor news and editorial on behalf of the two private clubs who trade off leadership in the US. Funding from the government was decimated, and funding was taken over by giant managed funds, heavy extractive industries, and medical/insurance companies.
Any semblance of the hoped-for manufactured balance (to be provided by the ombudsmen) was eliminated by 9/11 and the need to invade Iraq for some reason. I'm pretty sure the positions are long gone (the mainstream media hates ombudsmen, the job attracts the ethical.) The place became neocon central until the property-inflation bubble burst. Everything that went on in society with the crash, and with weariness from the wars and the draconian surveillance laws and media censorship that resulted from them, resulted in the Obama media frenzy and election victory.
Democrats who had felt silenced during G.W. Bush felt like they had turned the tables. The problem with that was twofold. One, the Democrats who had stayed with NPR for that entire period were people with no values at all, who had continued working as if nothing had changed.
Two, the Obama presidency was not going to be a significant departure from the previous presidency, was going to extend the Bush doctrine and the surveillance indefinitely, and he made it his first priority to indemnify the people who had done very illegal things up to and including atrocities and a torture network. He was even eventually going to bring back the Espionage Act, and start surveilling journalists and political campaigns. He was also going to put all of his economic effort into protecting wealthy people from the fallout of all of those poor people losing their homes. Years later, there would be a big to-do about Trump's taxes, and the most horrifying thing in them is that Obama's legislation irt the crash had simply refunded an entire year of Trump's taxes.
Obama couldn't be more liberal, economically, other than the favoritism towards party insiders, the weakening of the boundaries between church and state, and the idea that government social programs should all be outsourced to nonprofits through heavy, usually indirect, infusions of cash. In fact, the only thing left of the social ambition that had characterized the Democratic Party from Kennedy until the destruction of the Rainbow Coalition by the Clintons' New Democrats (and their funders) was the constant discussion of race, homosexuality, immigration, abortion, and gun control (edit: and global warming.) Never decisively, of course, but stretched into endless length and endless detours, with constant claims of being too weak to actually change any policy in the face of Republican evil, eventually resulting in executive orders, again carrying forward GWB's antidemocratic executive philosophy.
That's how you end up with an NPR totally staffed with elite, careerist Democrats who are somehow now also completely neoconservative and neoliberal. The only consistent position they have on any issue is that elite Democrats are the best people to be deciding on them, not the ignorant, evil Republicans whom they agree with on almost every issue. The big controversy between them? How guilty should they feel. Democrats say very guilty. Republicans say, not guilty at all, but actually proud.
This is Democrats arguing with Republicans about who should feel guilty and who should feel powerful, not anything meaningful. The only reason Republicans are speaking up is because Palestinians are trying to talk again, and the Democrats at NPR have to give in at about a million starving children, especially if there are pictures. The guilt messes with their digestion.
The head was replaced with the ex-head of Radio Free Europe (a propaganda station), and a permanent pair of ombudsmen were placed there (one meant to always be a Democrat and the other always meant to be a Republican) to help censor news and editorial on behalf of the two private clubs who trade off leadership in the US. Funding from the government was decimated, and funding was taken over by giant managed funds, heavy extractive industries, and medical/insurance companies.
Any semblance of the hoped-for manufactured balance (to be provided by the ombudsmen) was eliminated by 9/11 and the need to invade Iraq for some reason. I'm pretty sure the positions are long gone (the mainstream media hates ombudsmen, the job attracts the ethical.) The place became neocon central until the property-inflation bubble burst. Everything that went on in society with the crash, and with weariness from the wars and the draconian surveillance laws and media censorship that resulted from them, resulted in the Obama media frenzy and election victory.
Democrats who had felt silenced during G.W. Bush felt like they had turned the tables. The problem with that was twofold. One, the Democrats who had stayed with NPR for that entire period were people with no values at all, who had continued working as if nothing had changed.
Two, the Obama presidency was not going to be a significant departure from the previous presidency, was going to extend the Bush doctrine and the surveillance indefinitely, and he made it his first priority to indemnify the people who had done very illegal things up to and including atrocities and a torture network. He was even eventually going to bring back the Espionage Act, and start surveilling journalists and political campaigns. He was also going to put all of his economic effort into protecting wealthy people from the fallout of all of those poor people losing their homes. Years later, there would be a big to-do about Trump's taxes, and the most horrifying thing in them is that Obama's legislation irt the crash had simply refunded an entire year of Trump's taxes.
Obama couldn't be more liberal, economically, other than the favoritism towards party insiders, the weakening of the boundaries between church and state, and the idea that government social programs should all be outsourced to nonprofits through heavy, usually indirect, infusions of cash. In fact, the only thing left of the social ambition that had characterized the Democratic Party from Kennedy until the destruction of the Rainbow Coalition by the Clintons' New Democrats (and their funders) was the constant discussion of race, homosexuality, immigration, abortion, and gun control (edit: and global warming.) Never decisively, of course, but stretched into endless length and endless detours, with constant claims of being too weak to actually change any policy in the face of Republican evil, eventually resulting in executive orders, again carrying forward GWB's antidemocratic executive philosophy.
That's how you end up with an NPR totally staffed with elite, careerist Democrats who are somehow now also completely neoconservative and neoliberal. The only consistent position they have on any issue is that elite Democrats are the best people to be deciding on them, not the ignorant, evil Republicans whom they agree with on almost every issue. The big controversy between them? How guilty should they feel. Democrats say very guilty. Republicans say, not guilty at all, but actually proud.
This is Democrats arguing with Republicans about who should feel guilty and who should feel powerful, not anything meaningful. The only reason Republicans are speaking up is because Palestinians are trying to talk again, and the Democrats at NPR have to give in at about a million starving children, especially if there are pictures. The guilt messes with their digestion.
> behalf of the two private clubs who trade off leadership in the US
You've confused the US with the UK. There is no gatekeeping of political parties in the US, no way to stop someone from joining them, and no way to kick them out if they claim to be in it.
What they do have is primary elections.
You've confused the US with the UK. There is no gatekeeping of political parties in the US, no way to stop someone from joining them, and no way to kick them out if they claim to be in it.
What they do have is primary elections.
I don’t like NPR but I also don’t like this guy. He lacks loyalty.
Funny how self-proclaimed progressives are not considered progressive by any means by liberals both in EU and Asian countries. But I guess impudence and stupidity can get you a long way in US.
I'm liberal, and in 2016 NPR failed to even say the name Bernie Sanders in any of it's election coverage during the week following his victory in the Iowa Caucuses. I rapidly lost trust in NPR. Any of the subsequent visits haven't shown any signs of reform.
I miss the good old NPR, the narrative machine that's replaced it needs to go away.
I miss the good old NPR, the narrative machine that's replaced it needs to go away.
So this didn't seem right at first glance. NPR just not covering a primary contest, and especially one as important as Iowa, seems wrong. I was curious and went to check. Sanders didn't even win Iowa.
It's wild to me that the "facts" recorded on the internet vary so wildly from my recollection of events at the time. Perhaps I mistook the "straw poll" for the "caucuses"?
So, I was wrong, but NPR certainly hasn't remained true to their original format.
So, I was wrong, but NPR certainly hasn't remained true to their original format.
that was a dumb move, it was obvious that he wasn't happy there and probably would eventually retire/resign from NPR. I still listen to it almost every day, but it's hard to deny it has a left leaning bias. That doesn't bother me in the slightest because they back up what they say with facts or clearly delineated opinions, unlike certain other news networks.
Berliner said that the newsroom had all Democrats, and zero Republicans. Yet magically they're going to have a balanced approach anyway?
They interviewed Adam Schiff 25 times in the RussiaGate "scandal." They dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop story as a "non-story" and somehow they still want to claim they're non-partisan?
It might be more straightforward and honest for all you NPR-defenders to just come out and say, "It's OK when we do it, because we're right. And we're SO tired of hearing about that laptop."
They interviewed Adam Schiff 25 times in the RussiaGate "scandal." They dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop story as a "non-story" and somehow they still want to claim they're non-partisan?
It might be more straightforward and honest for all you NPR-defenders to just come out and say, "It's OK when we do it, because we're right. And we're SO tired of hearing about that laptop."
[deleted]
Realistically there is no way to do news without a bias nowadays. A Trump supporter told me there was no war between Russia and Ukraine. I said “OK, conflict”. His reply was “mainstream media has you brainwashed”.
To cover Jan 6 do we have to say that maybe it was Trump supporters who peacefully went to the Capitol or maybe it was Antifa who stormed it - we have to treat all possible scenarios as equally likely?
To cover Jan 6 do we have to say that maybe it was Trump supporters who peacefully went to the Capitol or maybe it was Antifa who stormed it - we have to treat all possible scenarios as equally likely?
> Realistically there is no way to do news without a bias nowadays.
There never has been; there is no such thing as unbiased reporting.
There is only reporting that is open about it's assumptions, premises and biases, and reporting that purports to be "unbiased". The latter is insidious and dangerous. With the former, you can simply avoid it, if you want to live in a bubble; or you can consume it, and evaluate it based on the known proclivities of the source.
There never has been; there is no such thing as unbiased reporting.
There is only reporting that is open about it's assumptions, premises and biases, and reporting that purports to be "unbiased". The latter is insidious and dangerous. With the former, you can simply avoid it, if you want to live in a bubble; or you can consume it, and evaluate it based on the known proclivities of the source.
There is a clear distinction between trying to be objective and pushing agendas. Just as there is a difference between news and propaganda. What's dangerous is blurring those lines. That's Orwellian.
I think it’s honestly annoying how they feel they have to parenthetically add every time something is a lie or untrue. While their intention is good I think it does a service to no one and underestimates the intelligence of their listeners.
Also almost every story gets tied to either identity politics or climate change. Also just gets annoying even for those who agree. It’s like watching a movie with too much exposition dialogue.
Also almost every story gets tied to either identity politics or climate change. Also just gets annoying even for those who agree. It’s like watching a movie with too much exposition dialogue.
Nope. The idea that all viewpoints are equally valid is intellectually bankrupt and a classic example of weaponized human stupidity because anything is possible when you don't know what you're talking about. Playing into the bullshit asymmetry principle in an effort to sway crackpots only mainstreams their lunacy.
Nobody is demanding that the editors at NPR entertain the idea that the earth is flat. There are legitimate disagreements among Americans, difficult to resolve ideological and pragmatic differences, that we compromise on mostly peacefully via our political process. Not unbiased discussion on these contentious issues is dishonest, people treating opposing political views as "of course" wrong and therefore not meriting discussion misses the point: we all think we are right and our opponents are wrong, which is precisely why we have to talk about it. Dismissing them as lunacy is arrogance at best, malicious shutting down of discussion you don't want to have at worst. Q is lunacy, the idea that transgenderism is a mental illness for example, to pick a very contentious, mostly party line division, is a genuine disagreement. Our society has to address these disagreements, that almost always all sides of think the opposing view is ridiculous, if we want to continue calling ourselves one people.
I think you meant to say there are manufactured disagreements and ideological differences among Americans, construction of which is impossible without the full-throated support of media outlets. Peddling opinion in lieu of fact is bullshit full stop. If you're trying to frame this as a political issue know that I'm deadass certain that supporters of both major political parties are useful idiots carrying water for the oligarch class to their own detriment, so arguments that either side of the current suite of public debates has legitimacy is a tough sell on most issues. As an example, the current tempest in a teapot over transgenderism, however well-intentioned, elevates the notional concerns of a group roughly equivalent to the population of Houston, Texas to a position of a national wedge issue. Attention that has arguably done more harm than good for the very community it's intended to serve. So no, I don't believe disagreements like this need to be serviced since they're entirely synthetic in nature and other than giving fodder to religious and political extremists produce nothing of benefit.
So to continue on the example we are running with, you don't believe disagreements like this need to be serviced. So the status quo as it was, say, 20 years ago was perfectly acceptable? Or would you like the status quo today, after the disagreement was serviced in favor of one side of the issue? Basically, are you conveniently deciding that it's not worth discussing now that an outcome you like (I don't know what outcome you like) has become reality, or do you genuinely not give a shit one way or another because it's a non issue to you?
On another point, what constitutes a manufactured disagreement and what constitutes a genuine one?
On another point, what constitutes a manufactured disagreement and what constitutes a genuine one?
Perfectly acceptable? Certainly not, but it was provably better than what we're dealing with currently. To be maybe a little clearer I'm asserting that the culture wars writ large, especially as they're framed today, are (soup to nuts) complete bullshit designed specifically to distract the voter base and atomize society. Understand hassling people generally isn't legal, regardless of the root cause, so loudly proclaiming <victim group du jour> shouldn't be hassled is a waste of column inches and everyone's time unless or until someone decides to actually pass legislation based on a demonstrable loophole in current anti-hassle legislation. It's also instructive to note how political organizations that make bitching about people notionally being hassled conveniently let party majority opportunities to actually pass new or update existing legislation quietly slide with no meaningful action taken. This recommends to suspicion that the stated goal and the actual goal are not the same.
As to what constitutes a manufactured disagreement, that seems somewhat self-evident. A more familiar term might be "wedge issue". You correctly mention upthread how disagreements on even the most contentious social issues was handled peacefully and arguably with some tact. This is demonstrably no longer the case so my question to you is this: what changed, who changed it, and who's benefiting from the change?
As to what constitutes a manufactured disagreement, that seems somewhat self-evident. A more familiar term might be "wedge issue". You correctly mention upthread how disagreements on even the most contentious social issues was handled peacefully and arguably with some tact. This is demonstrably no longer the case so my question to you is this: what changed, who changed it, and who's benefiting from the change?
Actually, ability to keep two or more competing hypotheses in mind at the same time is a sign of intelligence.
"There is no war between Russia and Ukraine" is not a "competing hypothesis", it's unmitigated bullshit. Alternative facts. A complete lie. Whatever you want to call it.
And using the phrase "competing hypotheses" in relation to q-anon, vaccine conspiracy gibberish, Stop The Steal, this list goes on, is an unmitigated insult to intelligence as a concept. Not all positions are equal. If they were every NASA communique involving lunar missions would have to include several paragraphs platforming the fake lunar landing conspiracy and a gaggle of random attention-seeking shitheads on youtube who've decided claiming the moon is in fact made of cheese is their ticket to fame.
Strawman.
Existence of batsh*t crazy conjectures do not imply that the idea of entertaining multiple hypotheses has no value.
With accumulation of evidence, probabilities attached to the propositions are revised. Thats how scientific investigation evolves.
Existence of batsh*t crazy conjectures do not imply that the idea of entertaining multiple hypotheses has no value.
With accumulation of evidence, probabilities attached to the propositions are revised. Thats how scientific investigation evolves.
[deleted]
Lol strawman? Think not. Try re-reading the entire thread and come back to us when you're prepared to argue the actual point being made.
richrichie(1)
In the stories he’s listing in the article, plenty of organizations were taking the “team x” positions he describes. It’s not like NPR had the only newsroom having to make choices.
Summing it up as a lack of transparency (would he rather say “fairness?”) and viewpoint diversity (“balance?”) seems somewhat disingenuous. At a higher level view, different organizations are going to take different positions. Arguably, obligated to do so.
Surely he doesn’t believe every org has to pretend there are “both sides” to every story. But if he’s no longer aligned with NPR, then perhaps the suspension is in everyone’s best interest.
Summing it up as a lack of transparency (would he rather say “fairness?”) and viewpoint diversity (“balance?”) seems somewhat disingenuous. At a higher level view, different organizations are going to take different positions. Arguably, obligated to do so.
Surely he doesn’t believe every org has to pretend there are “both sides” to every story. But if he’s no longer aligned with NPR, then perhaps the suspension is in everyone’s best interest.
A public organization, funded by public money, should not be taking a political stance against more than half the population. It's one thing to just report some fact that goes against a narrative that half the population believes. That's not what is going on at NPR. If they want to take a team x position, fine, team y shouldn't be funding them under threat of imprisonment. They can get their funding the way all the other newsrooms having to make choices do.
Is it possible half the population is wrong? Or maybe over counted?
By “wrong” you mean in disagreement with you? If not then what do you mean by half the population being “wrong”?
Over counted, probably not considering the thin margins of election outcomes. Wrong? Yes, half the population is wrong. Which half is wrong depends on which half you're asking. We are all probably wrong about a lot. This cooperation we do in spite of it helps us figure that out.
> Which half is wrong depends on which half you're asking.
No, sometimes people are actually factually wrong.
I don't have any beef with anything else you said.
No, sometimes people are actually factually wrong.
I don't have any beef with anything else you said.
Yes, someone is factually wrong. The likelihood that it's you is about 50%.
It receives < %1 of its funding from "public" money.
Exactly. To me it sounds like he's a corporate stooge who tried to steer NPR into being yet another fake centrist outlet, full of tailored opinions.
I'm not much for radio.
But based on all this whinging, today's NPR sounds awesome. I may have to start listening.
But based on all this whinging, today's NPR sounds awesome. I may have to start listening.
This guy fails basic critical thinking; Occams razor, and Sagans Standard, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
> Occams razor
What does Occam's razor have to do with anything here? Unless you want to assert that assuming NPR acts in bad faith should be rejected in favor of them just being complete, out-of-touch morons?
What does Occam's razor have to do with anything here? Unless you want to assert that assuming NPR acts in bad faith should be rejected in favor of them just being complete, out-of-touch morons?
To a casual observer this looks like a case of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_woke,_go_broke
Speaking as a lifelong NPR listener who recently had to cut them off because of ideological exhaustion: yep!