Uri Berliner, a senior business editor at NPR, has written a buzzy article at the Free Press about how NPR has recently fallen apart. He attributes this to widespread changes following the murder of George Floyd in 2020:
There’s [now] an unspoken consensus about the stories we should pursue and how they should be framed. It’s frictionless—one story after another about instances of supposed racism, transphobia, signs of the climate apocalypse, Israel doing something bad, and the dire threat of Republican policies. It’s almost like an assembly line.
I haven't listened to NPR in decades, but I don't doubt there's some truth to this. Oddly, though, it comes only in the second half of Berliner's piece. In the first half he offers three examples of stories where NPR "faltered," and not one of them has anything to do with racism, transphobia, and so forth. Nor is it clear the NPR actually faltered much. Here they are:
- NPR ran lots of stories about Donald Trump's collusion with Russia but never issued a mea culpa when special prosecutor Robert Mueller exonerated him.
.
Mueller specifically said he never even addressed "collusion" because it's not a legal term. However, he did document a large number of links between Trump and Russia. These links are the things everyone was reporting about, and Mueller mostly confirmed that they had happened. He just didn't think they rose to the level of indictment.
- NPR ignored the Hunter Biden laptop story during the tail end of the 2020 presidential campaign. But the laptop later turned out to be real.
.
"Later" is doing a lot of work here. At the time the laptop story was dodgy in the extreme. The narrative about a blind PC repair guy who just happened to contact Rudy Giuliani was bizarre. Multiple outlets passed on the story before the New York Post ran it, and even one of their reporters was so skeptical he refused to allow his byline to be used. Other reporters who followed up on the story found nothing. Giuliani refused to let anyone examine the hard drive. There was never any evidence implicating Joe Biden. The entire thing bore all the hallmarks of Republican ratfuckery and deserved to be treated skeptically by reputable journalists.
- NPR consistently reported that COVID-19 had a natural origin even though there was plenty of evidence that it might have been the result of a lab leak.
.
In this case NPR was entirely in the right. The authors of "Proximal Origins," which supported the natural origins theory very early on, didn't have any secret doubts about what they wrote. There's no serious evidence that Anthony Fauci or anyone else manipulated evidence in favor of natural origins. The lab leak theory was motivated from the start not by scientific evidence but by (admittedly legitimate) suspicion of China's behavior combined with the coincidence of the virus breaking out in a city that contained a major biolab. The lab leak hypothesis has always been unlikely, and over time has gotten ever more unlikely. It's all but completely discredited now.
In all three of these instances, Berliner has fallen prey to a sort of conventional centrist wisdom that requires liberal reporters to bend over backward in order to be "fair" to right-wing inventions. But at least in these three cases, conservatives don't have a leg to stand on. Berliner is accusing NPR of nothing more than exercising pretty good editorial judgment.
Yep. The one I have particular knowledge of, as a molecular biologist and medical school professor, is the COVID lab leak hypothesis. It was a hypothesis worth considering at one time, but it long ago passed its sell-by date. Now, it's just an anti-China propaganda talking point.
It was *never* worth considering. The theory was created to promote racism. Until some gathered clear evidence of a lab leak, which never happened, there was no good reason to publish nor advertise that theory.
AND, NPR did publish and promote that racist theory.
Wrong. The lab leak hypothesis may have been amplified to promote racism, but it was perfectly viable as a scientific hypothesis. Until some gathered clear evidence, there was sound scientific reason to consider the hypothesis. And that is good and sufficient reason to publish and discuss openly that theory.
To assert otherwise simply shows that you know nothing about viral epidemiology and prefer censorship over sound science.
There's a large difference in virologists openly discussing the origins of an outbreak and politicians and more importantly the media discussing the topic in a public forum.
I dont think the previous poster is advocating the supression or censoring of analysis.
When a women is found murdered, it is not censorship to argue that the police should investigate,
but politicians and the media should not be openly discussing whether or not Hillary Clinton killed her to drain her blood.
If you believe that a public discussion of the lab leak hypothesis (which was at least plausible and anyway was being discussed, with or without NPR) is the equivalent of a public discussion of whether Hillary Clinton is a vampire, then you are completely unserious and are just trolling.
Many of the same people who were pushing the lab leak theory the loudest were were previously pushing the Hillary is a vampire theory. This was not my theory nor my discussion. But identifying the unseriousness of the people involved is an important point that you elided in your previous posts and precisely why I used this example.
You dont seem to be engaging in the topic seriously, instead your posts are just attempts to claim superiority and shut down discussion. You are winning the internet!
LOL! Troll projecting. How cute of you.
The number of replication available in nature versus the number in a lab makes a lab source highly unlikely.
And all the claims of a lan leak rely upon misreading technical terms.
There's no evidence of any connection to a lab, either.
There is no evidence for a lab leak *now,* but we're not talking about now.
The original lab leak hypothesis didn't rely on misreading, it relied on circumstances, lack of contradictory data and Chinese government interference.
The lab leak hypothesis may have been unlikely, but that's not the same as impossible. Ask Stan Prusiner: prions were highly unlikely when he proposed them, and he proved to be right.
Science doesn't care what you think is likely. Science cares what experiment could be done to test, and possibly falsify, the hypothesis. At the beginning of the pandemic, those experiments had not been done yet.
Literally noone is arguing that the initial investigation and analysis was unwarranted. Your strawman is a bad one, but keep beating it.
Your trolling is lame. Butt out.
Lol, its so bizarre when people leave a comment and then throw a hissy fit when people respond to their subject. Rage on!
read your own posts upthread, dude.
You're arguing in the wrong direction. Get some perspective.
LOL! You're arguing in the wrong direction. Get some perspective.
See how that works? Trolling isn't an argument. Bring an argument or butt out.
The lab leak hypothesis may have been unlikely, but that's not the same as impossible.
Right, but above you characterized the lab leak hypothesis as initially being "perfectly viable." That's too strong. It was something that couldn't be ruled out in the early days, sure, but "perfectly viable" to my ears makes it sound as if it was rightly in the same probability universe as zoonotic spillover. Which was never the case, but what is still what a lot of misguided people apparently think.
I still listen to NPR--maybe that's the problem....
Instead of NPR, I'm guessing people have moved to podcasts.
Please get your local newspaper (presuming it's not bought up by certain media companies) and donate to your local PBS and Public Radio stations.
NPR doesn't even know it is being liberal.
It is liberal on Trans rights.
It is liberal on AGW, not that AGW isn't real, but that recycling plastic will help keep the temperature from rising.
It is liberal on gun control.
It is liberal on racism.
Kevin is a moderate liberal and knows it. NPR is probably to the left of Kevin and doesn't know it.
Reality has a liberal bias. So you're saying NPR reporting is closer to reality?
Bingo.
Minnesota NPR was really good. Listened every time I was in the car
Then I moved to the Bay Area and it’s unlistenable. They have loony activists on their straight news programs. Yeah I just switched to podcasts
"The hero of 911"
Yeah, that's when I stopped listening. Long ago.
I haven't listened to NPR in about 20 years because I can't stand how often it frames issues in ways that hurt Democrats and favor Republicans. Yeah they get in on the culture war stuff, but it's always at the expense of the Democratic party. And for so many years so many of their opinion commentators were hard core right wingers. So no thanks.
Ummn, they ran one of the earliest stories on the plastics recycling scam.
Media Bias Fact Check puts NPR _slightly_ left of center, but also as among the very least biased news sources in the U.S. Ad Fontes reaches the same conclusion. Kevin Drum is almost certainly quite a bit to the left of NPR.
On Mueller, not only did he document lots of contacts, he also documented a ton of obstruction. But for that obstruction he might well have uncovered more evidence of coordination and maybe enough evidence for an indictment. He took pains to explain one of the reasons he felt he couldn't indict on a conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws was because the elements of proof included that the data exchanged was worth more than $25,000 and also that the individual actors knew their conduct was illegal (yes, for this particular charge, ignorance of the law is a defense). https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/04/mueller-didnt-bring-campaign-finance-charges-over-trump-tower/
I largely quit listening to NPR years ago. Two much "both sides do it" and a serious lack of insightful reporting. It took them four years to use the L-word (LIE!) in describing Trump's claims. They reported Trump's claim that he would be meeting with union workers in Detroit when he was actually meeting with paid actors at a non-union plant. From their reporting it is clear they view Biden's age as a greater existential threat than Trump’s dictatorial ambitions. Like the NYT, their inevitable lead is "How does this hurt Jor Biden".
As to Berliner's account, Russian intelligence hacked the DNC and handed all the emails over to Assange to leak in a continual stream. This by itself may have cost Democrats the election. Similarly there seems a more than likely possibility that "Hunter's Laptop" was actually a plant loaded with stuff the Russians hacked out of the cloud. Berliner sounds like just another right-wing nut searching for bias confirmation.
This. At least in my neck of the woods, I just couldn't stand the "both-siderism."
J. Frank phrased it much better than I did. This a million times.
Sounds like Berliner is just another right-winger whining about "liberal bias" in the media, which usually turns out to be a bias toward the truth. The fact that he's "business editor" at NPR supports my view.
Agreed. He’s just another MAGA asshole whining about easily and previously debunked news. Maybe he would be happier working for Fox News. I know as someone who occasionally gives my local NPR station some money, I personally would be much happier if he worked someplace else.
(cough) Bernard Goldberg (cough)
Of course, he probably had to mention those three shibboleths to access Bari Weiss. (talk about credibility . . . )
The three examples are an odd selection of "failures" but I suppose they contribute to the overall point of "Why we've lost trust" - e.g. they weren't willing to at least address the issue, if only to say "We looked at this laptop thing and for the moment it looks like a ratfuck operation. We'll let you know if there's anything more to it.
But the stuff about the union specified affiliation committees is very interesting and explains a lot ... and why in 2021 I had to stop listening to a lot of public broadcasting (not necessarily NPR... but looking specifically at you Radiolab). When the young (and black) interviewer of the PM of Barbados asked if their independence movement was inspired by George Floyd (duh, it had been in the works for years and its THEIR OWN COUNTRY) I was pretty much done. They'd clearly turned the mic over to a bunch of young idealogues who had no idea what they were doing.
“ they weren't willing to at least address the issue, if only to say "We looked at this laptop thing and for the moment it looks like a ratfuck operation. We'll let you know if there's anything more to it.”
I like this point. News outlets, in general, are a little too secretive about how they make the decisions they make. In the Hunter case, I think it was enough of a furor that outlets who were ignoring it should have reported that this allegation existed and then mention that there was not the slightest bit of evidence and that the Republicans wouldn’t let anyone see the laptop. I may be imagining it, but I seem to be seeing outlets doing a better job of noting how dodgy certain allegations are and less of being just stenographers (which is how the media failed the American people in the buildup to the Iraq war).
But they were, and did.
His complaints are that they wouldn't confirm it in the right-wing frame.
Also, your example is stupid. A movement that exists can be inspired to take action or be spurred on by events that happen later.
The Arab Spring were almost all movements that pre-existed, for instance.
Berliner is being more pernicious than that. This is trying to enforce the notion that big media's business plan and journalistic ethics are the same thing.
NBC, CNN, &tc. all depend on HugeCo advertising. The only way they can reliably attract it is to both-sides politics. That's just the nature of the business they are in.
Berliner is claiming that is the only ethical model for reporting. And he is so wrong that he's upside down on that one, but that's not uncommon for centrists - tying themselves in knots goes with the territory.
But it is not only deeply wrong and dangerous, it is also as ignorant and provincial as it is arrogant. When the story of how democracy failed in the US is written, journalists deserve several chapters.
More like "The Decline and Fall of Uri Berliner." In Albuquerque, NPR is alive and well, on two different stations. TWO. That's more than the number of daily papers.
+1
I view these stories as similar to the old "The Civil War Wasn't About Slavery" chestnut. I once gave that some headspace. Then I read (the internet is a wonderful thing) the South Carolina Articles of Secession. Yeah, the Civil War was about slavery. Duh.
But that sort of story can take up headspace for a long, long time. ESPECIALLY, if there's no money riding on it directly.
Nothing undermines a good lie like losing money while betting on it.
Keep the Cornerstone Speech handy to quote when it comes up on the nets.
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech
Also a mic drop for when some guy starts going on about the villainy of the Founding Fathers.
I have lambasted NPR many times in the comment section of Kevin's blog. As far as I can remember, however, this is the first time that Kevin has written anything about the obvious problem that NPR has become.
So, I appreciate Kevin's willingness to confront what is no doubt a sensitive issue for many Liberals. I also agree with Kevin that the article under discussion is far from perfect. The mischaracterization of the Mueller report seems especially unfortunate. Nevertheless, these faults do not strike me as discrediting.
Thus, though this blog post is appreciated, its framing is still a bit odd: Kevin largely seems to just gloss over the article's most serious accusations against NPR. So, here are some of the article's statements that I find to be the most discrediting about a once valuable journalistic enterprise:
"A growing DEI staff offered regular meetings imploring us to 'start talking about race.' Monthly dialogues were offered for 'women of color' and 'men of color.' Nonbinary people of color were included, too ...
"All this reflected a broader movement in the culture of people clustering together based on ideology or a characteristic of birth ...
"But the role and standing of affinity groups, including those outside NPR, were more than that. They became a priority for NPR’s union, SAG-AFTRA—an item in collective bargaining. The current contract, in a section on DEI, requires NPR management to 'keep up to date with current language and style guidance from journalism affinity groups' and to inform employees if language differs from the diktats of those groups. In such a case, the dispute could go before the DEI Accountability Committee.
"In essence, this means the NPR union, of which I am a dues-paying member, has ensured that advocacy groups are given a seat at the table in determining the terms and vocabulary of our news coverage.
"And this, I believe, is the most damaging development at NPR: the absence of viewpoint diversity."
In other words, NPR no longer produces journalism. It hasn't been producing journalism for years. Any supposed news outlet that unwisely submits itself to a "DEI Accountability Committee" thereby severely curtails its own ostensible mission.
Rather than producing news, NPR now produces activism. Rather than commit itself to truth, it has committed itself to an identitarian ideology. Rather than providing information, it is (sorry not sorry) promoting propaganda.
And I don't even think that's the worst part. As best I am aware, NPR is free to choose its own path. And if it really wants to do so, it can go ahead and turn itself into a mouthpiece for Leftist extremism.
But, in that case, NPR then owes its audience an honest admission of what its actually doing. NPR cannot, on the one hand, decide to promote only one viewpoint and then, on the other hand, still claim to represent actual journalism. And yet that's what it is trying to get away with, as seen on its own website:
"NPR reports, produces, acquires and distributes news, information and other content that meet the highest standards of public service in journalism and cultural expression."
To me, that sort of dishonesty is the single most infuriating thing about this whole incredibly sad debacle. NPR likely realizes that it will effectively torpedo whatever, if anything, remains of its reputation if it were to admit that it now filters all of its reporting through a DEI committee. So it just lies and falsely states that it still "reports, produces, acquires, and distributes news and information" of the "highest standards."
That statement is now just as false as the Fox News "Fair and balanced" motto. NPR destroyed itself by caving to the very activism that it should have been analyzing rather than proselytizing. I don't know if it can be saved.
"NPR cannot, on the one hand, decide to promote only one viewpoint and then, on the other hand, still claim to represent actual journalism."
so you are arguing for CNN or Chuck Todd style bothsiderism then?
Bothsiderism journalism is not journalism, it is stenography.
as has been said "If someone says it's raining, and another person says it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the fucking window and find out which is true."
@SeanT:
But NPR isn't looking out the window to see what is true. That is more or less the whole point: and you seem to have missed it.
NPR now has a "DEI Accountability Committee" to decide what "truth" is.
That's the problem.
Currently, you are have the DEI fever. Once that disapates and evolves into the next fever, you'll have that fever. It sucks that you have fevers, but that's your lot. Stop pretending that your fevers have meaning. Get well.
“ NPR now has a "DEI Accountability Committee" to decide what "truth" is.”
This is where you lose me. Where does it say this panel has the final say on news content? If the panel makes recommendations, that’s a good thing. If npr had a panel on Conservatives, Lies and Opposing Democracy, that would he ok with me.
Quick point: You don't know what the f*$@ you're talking about.
Separate out real news from opinions and judgments. I think that’s the basic ask of any serious journalistic outfit
Even if I agree with the message, packaging together straight news and cutting in blurbs from activists and offhand comments from hosts is ridiculous. Every NPR show is an opinion column these days
Counterpoint: you're wrong.
“Kevin largely seems to just gloss over the article's most serious accusations against NPR.”
Berliner starts out with three examples of NPR’s supposed failings, and observes that, “Our coverage is out there in the public domain. Anyone can read or listen for themselves and make their own judgment.” Kevin did.
Then Berliner pivots to writing about what has been happening inside NPR. Some of what he writes sounds concerning, but it’s not clear how to verify it. Since Berliner strikes out three times out of three on the stuff he invites his readers to verify, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to believe claims by him that cannot be (or haven’t been) independently verified.
@kennethalmquist:
I think this is a potentially valid observation:
“Some of what he writes sounds concerning, but it’s not clear how to verify it.”
But I was thinking about it from a somewhat different angle.
If NPR does not in fact have a "DEI Accountability Committee," it should be shouting that point from the rooftops.
Because there is little else I can think of more discrediting for a news organization than the accusation that it has surrendered its editorial independence to a group of ideological extremists.
But if NPR cannot refute that accusation (because it’s true) then I believe NPR is done. Or at least it’s done as a journalistic enterprise.
If it really did put Far Left activists in charge of what should have been journalistic decisions, and if it cannot honestly assert otherwise, then NPR has already destroyed itself. In that case, its decisions have been so catastrophic as to basically amount to self-immolation.
"Ideological extremists" ... the extreme of what, exactly?
Because you're naming an effort to not be insulting and bigoted as 'extreme'.
“ So, I appreciate Kevin's willingness to confront what is no doubt a sensitive issue for many Liberals. ”
No reason this should be a sensitive issue for liberals. When npr is wrong, they’re wrong, and npr should be called out. When Fox lies as it so often does, it should be called out. When the mainstream media calls Trump’s lies “mistruths” instead of lies, as n.y. times did recently, it should be called out. “Truth” is a political issue only for Republicans, because, right now, they are doing by far the most, not all, but the most, lying.
Did you really come here to complain that...
...employees wanted the best in inclusive, non-bigoted, and non-insulting language?
So wait, you expect people to be okay with co-workers being bigoted or allowing bigotry to occur?
"All this reflected a broader movement in the culture of people clustering together based on ideology or a characteristic of birth ...
Berliner is a being of pure light and logic, timeless and lacking any characteristics of birth or ideologies.
And until 2020, journalists existed outside of time and place on a plane of pure logic and reason, objectively observing and recording all without any values or opinions.
And Journalist saw every thing that they had made, and, behold, it was very good.
"In all three of these instances, Berliner has fallen prey to a sort of conventional centrist wisdom that requires liberal reporters to bend over backward in order to be "fair" to right-wing inventions."
Define centrist. Never mind. I'll do it.
There are two centrist definitions. The center is:
Like the flag attached to the rope in a tug of war, midway between the current progressive position and the current conservative position.
Like midway between the lines on the ground in a tug of war, midway between being too openminded and too skeptical.
Don't say Christians are bad because people who call themselves Christians are bad, don't say capitalists are bad because people who call themselves capitalists are bad, don't say scientists are bad because people who call themselves scientists are bad, don't say politicians are bad because people who call themselves politicians are bad, don't say centrists are bad because people who call themselves centrists are bad, and etcetera.
P.S.
And I won't say progressives are bad. Instead, I'll distinguish between real progressives, those who make positive contributions to society, and people who refer to themselves as progressives but act like entitled brats.
"I won't vote for Biden because the world makes me feel bad and he shouldn't be allowing the world to make me feel bad." Those entitled brats.
I stopped listening to NPR morning edition and ATC 15-20 years ago. Too much stenography and both-siderism. I’ve always wondered if things changed when they got that enormous donation from the Joan Kroc foundation. Any thoughts from KD readers?
I listen to them because they're the only alternative in central PA to the likes of Hannity and what's-his-name Levin (who are about the closest to moderate you can find on AM here). But it's been getting very hard the past few years.
For me the off-putting parts are partly coverage and partly production and sure, the Kroc money could be part of the coverage issues. But they've also been under constant attack from the R party and apparently a couple of years ago got audience demo numbers that scared the bejeezus out of them and convinced them they needed to get younger listeners ASAP if not sooner. They got rid of big numbers of senior air talent then and some of the newer ones are weak on historical background and seem kind of naive as well.
Coverage-wise, I most want them to stop giving so much direct air time to right-wing flake politicians, and talk more with people who can evaluate that kind of drivel. I also want them to be less self-congratulatory about how they handle their content.
In terms of production, boy, their vocal coaches must be under strict orders to cultivate and if possible exaggerate beyond all reason the individual vocal tics and mannerisms their on-air people have. And there seems to be a company-wide policy that they all have to gasp and rasp audibly when they take a breath. The afternoon regulars are the worst but it's spread pretty far. That used to be a strict radio no-no and it goes against their own written policy. But some BBC-trained reporters started doing it in stand-ups several years ago and somebody in the C-suite just loves them some airway sounds. A personal peeve but it often gets so bad I have to switch away.
So yeah, depending on big-money donors is probably a factor but behind that I think they're afraid of having their audience age out, plus having Congress yank their charter.
...they've also been under constant attack from the R party...
My day started with me complaining to my son in the car about a couple of Morning Report stories that were faux-centrist (in reality, pro-Republican) takes on news items from yesterday, one about Trump, one about Biden. It's impossible to listen to NPR and not be pissed off. Bad coverage of politics is a pet peeve and NPR is a frequent offender.
Tonight I'm browsing social media and see a link to a thread about Berliner's article complaining exposing NPR's bad turn. Well, it's about time someone comes out and admits it! That was my original thought. Then I begin reading Berliner. Jesus H. Christ! I'm floored. It's absolutely staggering. It's like the man spent too much time at re-education camp. But then it begins to make sense -- that is, the awful coverage it provides the public on the important matter of politics. It's because people like Berliner are there.
Anyway, I hadn't realized the thread I had first read was a bunch of conservatives applauding Berliner because he exposed the so-called liberal bias of the network. What's their conclusion? "NPR should be defunded." The problems there are only going to get worse.
> NPR consistently reported that COVID-19 had a natural origin even though there was plenty of evidence that it might have been the result of a lab leak.
Bullshit. I wrote a letter to NPR calling them out for their racism because they reported the lab leak theory. The lab leak theory originated as racist slander. It both claims that the Chinese are evil because they develop biological weapons, and claims that the Chinese are incompetent by allowing viruses to leak from their lab. This type of slander requires great evidence before being reported, and such evidence has *never* been provided.
Me, White CIS Male, loves NPR....I have no idea what people are talking about....not just Uri Berliner, (who appears to be insane), but a number of commentators above also.
Are they listening to the same NPR I am? The criticisms seem crazy to me....here in Los Angeles what else are you going to listen to while driving or, in the kitchen cooking or washing dishes....NPR is just great, we need more of it.
I really don't understand at all what people are saying....I sense they are not listening to NPR at all...I listen every day, in snips or for an hour while driving...I am a content consumer and I have no complaints, no problems with NPR.
Of course, maybe I am just a radical leftist, but I Urge Everyone to send money to NPR to keep their wonderful programing on the Air. Do it! Best Wishes, Traveller
@Traveller:
I realize that it's almost certainly not your intention to do so, but you are implicitly confirming the accusations that NPR is now a hopelessly biased outlet for Left-wing groupthink.
First of all, you indicate that you live in one of the largest urban centers of the most Democratic state in the USA. Also, you're not just reading but you're going so far as to comment on Kevin Drum's blog. On top of that, you appear to be such an earnest proponent of Left Wing identity politics that you announce your "White CIS Male" identity markers. I think it's safe to assert that you are very far left.
And, lo and behold, you don't find anything at all to object to regarding NPR's programming! Well, yes. Indeed, that's rather the point, isn't it? NPR (Neo-Puritan Revival) has more or less recreated itself in your image. It has dedicated itself to the mission not of serving the truth but of serving the ideology which you also profess.
I would have more faith in NPR (Nothing but Progressive Religion) if you disliked at least some of the viewpoints you heard on its programming, or if you faulted at least some of their editorial decisions. Instead, you have "no complaints" and "no problems." Preaching to the choir is apparently a great way to keep the choir happy. Who knew?
Dear Leo
You know....you know, you know, you know...You know!
I be smart enough to agree with what I agree with and I am fully able to suss out nuances in meanings and parse what I might disagree with.
But by in large, I don't hear what you are hearing...and apparently many other people also...humm, tis a mystery to me.
Gotta love The Moth Radio Hour, TED Radio Hour, Market Place with Kai Ryssdal, every day, great stuff all the time....Film Week, Air Talk, etc
I am also smart enough to know you gentle peoples are just wrong.
Here is a complete list of...almost mandatory shows, if you are human.
https://laist.com/shows
Best Wishes, Traveller
It's ok. Well not really, Leo has a fever. Leo will deny it. But when the DEI fever wears off, another will take its place. You're right, just the few shows you've listed are varied and have multiple viewpoints and thus prove Leo needs acetaminophen.
Kai Ryssdal is terrible, though.
Journalists aren't supposed to be balanced. They are supposed to be accurate. A desire for balance may or may not help the quest for accuracy. Accuracy must be paramount.
Leo, who has no love for truth, just can't see that.
Ahh, yes, the 'group think' of...
...check's Leo's complaints...
"Identity politics"
Look, if your complaint is that we have language to describe ourselves and not be bigots, why not say you want bigotry back?
This makes me want to scream until my lungs explode.
Sorry for the ALL CAPS below, but that's the only option for emphasis.
Mueller did NOT exonerate anyone. His rationale for the mealy-mouthed report was (a) DOJ policy (not law) forbids indictment of a sitting president; and (b) if trump can't be indicted, it would not be FAIR to say his actions would merit indictment because he would not have the opportunity to DEFEND HIMSELF IN COURT. And Mueller did not indict members of the trump campaign (Manafort) because there was no evidence of a FORMAL agreement between the campaign and the Russian GOVERNMENT -- only INFORMAL collaboration between the campaign and Russian CUTOUTS. Oh, so legally proper!
Hunter Biden? The "reality" of the laptop is a classic straw man. Real or not, it has nothing to do with his father. Bringing this up as an example of NPR "falling apart" is beyond absurd.
And finally, the screamingest of all: the "lab leak" hypothesis. Here is what must be repeated at least 100 million times: LAB LEAK does NOT mean CREATED IN A LAB. LAB LEAK does NOT mean CREATED IN A LAB. LAB LEAK does NOT mean CREATED IN A LAB. LAB LEAK does NOT mean CREATED IN A LAB. LAB LEAK does NOT mean CREATED IN A LAB. 99,999,995 more times to go. The lab leak hypothesis posits that a NATURALLY OCCURRING bat virus MAY have been under study in the Wuhan lab, and a worker MAY have become infected with it. No one has credibly shown that it was fabricated as a bioweapon. But the clueless, robotic mainstream media dutifully repeated the words "lab leak" so many times that OF COURSE the public took it mean "created in a lab." And, naturally, no media outlet, including NPR, made any effort to debunk this politically explosive misconception. And even the less explosive hypothesis that a naturally occurring bat virus could have escaped the lab by infecting a worker has been pretty clearly thrown in the trash can. In any case, the evidence is overwhelming that a naturally occurring bat virus got into the human population via one or two animal hosts that then exposed one or more humans. THE END.
This guy Berliner is nothing more than a troll.
Of course, a lab leak would mean it was in a lab in the first place and we have all the samples that were under study and... none match the virus.
Here's my daily opportunity to bitch about the lack of thumbs up/down function here. So someone above (as is often seen here) resorted to a +1 reply.
Thumbs up. -
By the way, unlikely lab leak or highly likely transmission from a completely unhygienic live effing wild animal market - it made zero difference. The lab leak story way based on racism, anti-commie stuff from a generation ago, and was a conspiracy theory to find some culprit for a worldwide pandemic. It made no sense that China would somehow intentionally start a pandemic that they had no way to keep from damaging their own country and people. You would think it was engineered to only infect white people.
Berliner sounds like just another Trump synchant, carry water for his master.
"Berliner is accusing NPR of nothing more than exercising pretty good editorial judgment."
Well, yeah, hence the republican dislike of it.
Berliner is a conservative who seems to be a bit of an ass.
Nonetheless, he is correct in that NPR has moved to the progressive Left over the past few years. I am a long-time listener because while it always had a bit of a leftist bias, it also had excellent journalism, covering important behind the headlines stories that were not covered elsewhere. It was a treasure.
These days, it is mostly progressive left stories with a heavy focus on identity politics, as are the the various talk shows and programs. The good stuff is mostly gone. For normie Liberals like myself, it grows tedious and annoying. I swear, they would cover the Zombie Apocalypse with headlines like " Zombie Outbreak expected to disproportionately victimize Communities of Color due to systematic racism..."
I am pretty sure this all has to do with Trump as much as the Floyd murders, or maybe just how younger journalists these days are rather progressive left and dragging the mainstream media newsrooms along with them in that direction.
*citation not included
What turn to the left? 'Identity politics'
How dare those black, latinx, gay, trans, whatever local culture get representation!
You do realize when you say that, you're saying you're upset because you're a bigot, right?
Yeah, that's it, if I am a normie liberal who prefers focusing on the Child Tax Credit rather than using the term Latinx, it must mean I am a bigot.
Which will be news to my non-white spouse and children, for one.
" I am a long-time listener because while it always had a bit of a leftist bias,"
A bit? Do you honestly believe conservatives tried to kill NPR because it was a "bit" to the left of center? You're as bad as Berliner.
Does the question "Why are you still here?" need to be asked of Berliner? Ratfucking your employer is not a great employment move, Not to mention that "Hunter Biden's laptop" is STILL a "nothingburger" His problem is taxes.
I think "Israel doing something bad" is at the bottom of Uri's complaint. Everything else is just lipstick on the pig.
Berliner is either gaslighting everybody or he is insane. His essay is a perfect encapsulation of what's wrong with the network, a semi-sober/-serious reflection on the problems they have in-house that leads exactly to the opposite of the right conclusion.
How in god's name could any sentient life form, let alone a correspondent at a national new network writing in 2024, look at past coverage of Trump's links to Russia and believe NPR spent too much time trying to make something out of nothing? My god! Trump is and was a wholly owned subsidiary of Putin Inc., and now the entire Republican Party is hamstrung to do anything without the blessing of the man in Moscow. The devastation in Ukraine is not happening because NPR was too tough on Trump. What the hell is Berliner smoking?
That's just one of a number of glaring problems with Berliner's analysis. I listen several times a week to the two flagship shows, Morning Report and All Things Considered. The coverage of some stories is straightforward and unremarkable (if not boring ... everything feels stale there). Pop culture coverage gets a favorable progressive slant. But its coverage of politics can only be described as Republican. It's not a MAGA network, but clearly the crew bends over backward to normalize GOP crazy and ding Dems for every fault, no matter how slight or imagined.
We are on the eve of an election that could bring fascism to this country as we've never seen before, and a newsperson like Berliner thinks the problem at a major news network is that it's unfairly tough on the would-be fascist running for president. Tells you a lot about the state of our media.
I think the issue is 'collusion'. Mueller was asked to investigate collusion but because it was not a crime he investigated conspiracy and coordination instead. And then, as you know from reading the report, he went on to repeatedly say over and over and over that they did not establish the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated (ie. colluded) with Russia in their election interference activities.
This is the issue that I think the NPR employee is referring to. That after the Mueller investigation, it wasn't really widely reported that the issue that he was asked to investigate, collusion, was not established. You can see that it's still even being obscured by Mr Drum here.
"Mueller specifically said he never even addressed "collusion" because it's not a legal term. However, he did document a large number of links between Trump and Russia. These links are the things everyone was reporting about, and Mueller mostly confirmed that they had happened. He just didn't think they rose to the level of indictment."
I think it would have been more accurate for him to say "Mueller specifically said he never even addressed "collusion" because it's not a legal term. He said (on the first page of the report) he addressed conspiracy and coordination as a replacement for collusion and emphatically and methodically showed over and over and over that there was no conspiracy or coordination found between the Trump campaign and Russia. Often he cited there was no evidence at all. Eg he said there was no evidence any American citizen coordinated or conspired with the IRA on their social media interference."
Saying Mueller documented a large number of links between Trump and Russia doesn't really mean much. What political campaign doesn't have links with Russia?
But that Mueller didn't find collusion (as he defined it on the first page) wasn't really reported very well if at all by the media.
Obscured? Kevin says that wasn't the crime.
This is like there's a wrongful death suit and because there was not 'murder charges' therefore the deaths weren't wrongful.
That bullshit.
Hi Crissa, I don't understand your logic or what you are trying to say.
By 'obscured' I meant that when Mueller specifically said he never even addressed "collusion" because it's not a legal term, he (on the second page of the report) substituted terms that were legal (conspiracy and coordination) in order to "analyze questions of joint criminal liability" between Trump and Russia. And on the score, he said "he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
He said this over and over in the report as you know from reading it.
"What political campaign doesn't have links with Russia?"
Um, is that really a question? Under US law, political campaigns are forbidden to take money or material help from foreign entities.
In 2000 the Gore campaign received a notebook of debate prep notes that was being used by the Bush campaign. The thing appeared legit, but they still took it to the FBI, because they didn't know who had delivered it to them. If it turned out to be someone foreign then that would have made it a crime.
But go ahead, keep acting like the Trump campaign was normal.
I'm not talking about receiving anything. I'm just speaking about links. I can't think of any modern political campaign that would not have links to Russia. It would be extremely strange if they did not. Think of all the links that Hillary Clinton campaign had with Russia. Having links to a country like
Russia is normal for a presidential campaign.
Mueller said this on page 66 of his report"
"The Office identified multiple contacts—“links,” in the words of the Appointment Order— between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government. ... the investigation examined whether these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination."
Do you feel me on this?
Now that an NPR "business editor" has said these things, I expect we'll see his remarks cited endlessly, preceeded by "...even the liberal NPR says..."
Berliner: "But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR’s coverage was notably sparse. Russiagate quietly faded from our programming."
Drum's paraphrase of same: "NPR...never issued a mea culpa when special prosecutor Robert Mueller exonerated him."
This isn't great. your paraphrase is hostile and borderline dishonest.
The Mueller report documented that Russia interfered in the 2016 election "in sweeping and systematic fashion," that the Trump campaign had at least 140 contacts with Russian nationals and intermediaries, and that there was a mountain of credible evidence of "collusion" (as most people understand the term) between Russia and Trump. Anyone could see that who followed the news during the campaign. Putin admitted as much when he said his government worked to try to get Trump elected.
Berliner thinks otherwise but he clearly has his head up his ass. I don't know why you'd want to defend him. He stinks.
Berliner is an asshole, but that doesn't make it okay to lie about what he said. what he said is plenty wrong, and it can be attacked just fine without dishonesty
You're lying about what he said.
There really wasn't a mountain of credible evidence of "collusion" (as most people understand the term) between Russia and Trump. Mueller (on the first page of the report) described how he defined the term and quickly said he could not establish any collusion between Trump and Russia. And went on to repeat this over and over in the report as you know from reading it.
This misunderstanding is proof that the reporting of what Mueller found has been not super great.
Re. all the scary links Mueller found. You know from when you read the report he said the following about them. Yet you are implying here the link represent some kind of collusion. Why is that?
The Office identified multiple contacts—“links,” in the words of the Appointment Order—
between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government. ... the investigation
examined whether these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the
Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the
Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available
information, the investigation did not establish such coordination.
This is misleading as it leaves out everything else Mueller said in his report.
Specifically that the Trump campaign actively worked with Russia and was receptive to offers of help from Russia. And there were numerous contacts. And because the witnesses refused to cooperate, the investigators were unable to determine what Don Jr, Paul Manafort and Carter Page were doing in their communications with Russia. Without this determination, the investigators were unable to bring criminal coordination/conspiracy charges. Mueller said very directly that the lack of criminal charges does not mean there was not significant evidence of collaboration between the two parties.
Reading the report is a good idea. Copy/pasting a few sentances is just an attempt to mislead.
Hi Jdubs,
As you know from reading the report, Mueller did not say the lack of criminal charges does not mean there was not significant evidence of collaboration between the two parties.
He didn't even use he word collaboration once.
Also, he did not say investigators were unable to determine what the Trump campaign was doing in their communications with Russia because the witnesses refused to cooperate.
Not exactly. He said something somewhat similar but nothing close to what you imply here. Eg. "Because of questions about Manafort’s credibility and our limited ability to gather evidence on what happened to the polling data after it was sent to Kilimnik, the Office could not assess what Kilimnik (or others he may have given it to) did with it."
Maybe you did not read the report. Because your characterization of it is nowhere close to accurate.
If you ever have a chance to read the report from beginning to end you'll see it makes completely clear that there was no conspiracy or coordination or collision between Trump and Russia in 2016. Any suggestion that there was such coordination and conspiracy between them but the report just couldn't say it for one reason or another is totally false which you will see when you get around to reading it.
That's the reality of the situation that the NPR employee was probably trying to get across. To have people make the suggestions you're making and all of these other comments here are making is proof that major news organizations did not come clean with their readers about what the report said and about how the quality of their reporting leading up to it was really bad.
This is a very important issue that these media institutions are going to have to face at some point one way or the other. You see, some people do read the report. And when they do they see that the characterizations of it we see still to this day, from obviously intelligent people like yourself for example, are horseshit. And that destroys faith in these media institutions. And that's a huge problem for the whole country.
The Mueller report documented discussions, meetings and requests between various members of the Trump campaign and the Russia govt. While you claim (an oddly strong and repeated claim) to have read the report, you seem unaware of what it contains.
The report states very clearly that while they do not have enough evidence to bring criminal charges, this should not be interpreted to mean there was not evidence. You even pasted such evidence.
I do respect your copy/paste skills, but copy/pasting a few sections from a voluminous report and using those to misstate the findings of the report is obviously misleading.
In your last response you comically provide a copy/paste that shows the Trump campign working with the Russian Govt and then later insist that there was no coordination.
I have to assume that you are not operating in good faith here.
Hi Jdubs -
The documentation of discussions, meetings and requests between various members of the Trump campaign and the Russia govt in the report is why, when one takes the time to read it, as I hope you can at some point, any accusations of collusion become actually ... silly. The documented links of which you speak are benign and really actually silly .. which you will see when you get around to reading the report.
This is why Mueller did not find the discussions, meetings and requests between various members of the Trump campaign and the Russia govt involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia.
The Trump Tower meeting is a good example. Reading the description of it in the Mueller report it's almost like a scene out of VEEP. Two incompetent, egotistical blow-hard organizations having a bullshit fest that added up to nothing.
You'll see when you get around to reading it.
FAIR WARNING: doing so puts you in a strange position of having to explain sometimes to other people with whom you agree politically how they've been deceived about this matter. How news organizations have deceived them. (Which is the point the NPR employee was making.) And this put you in the position of being accused by people with whom you agree politically as being arguing in bad faith or even on the side of Russia. So it does take a little courage to read it objectively and then be honest about it.
In the case of someone like Drum, he may not be able to be honest about it just because his readers would abandon him for going outside of this established dogma.
The whole affair is extremely interesting.
Wishing you a good weekend Jdubs!
Berliner' full piece : "But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR’s coverage was notably sparse.
What’s worse is to pretend it never happened, to move on with no mea culpas,"
You purposefully cut out the key part of the Berliner piece that Kevin quoted and pretended that Kevin made it up. Your line about being dishonest and hostile appears to be projection.
To be perfectly clear: You put an ugly and stupid word (exonerate) in his mouth that he didn't say.
And you claim that he wrote that an apology was in order, when his actual complaint was simply that they didn't run follow-up stories. Maybe such follow-up could have amounted to a "mea culpa" as you paraphrase, but also maybe not. It's a deeply uncharitable paraphrase.
I read the Berliner piece after reading your critique. The piece I found was very different from the piece I'd been led to expect.
This is an odd post because you are actually altering what Kevin said in order to create an argument that Kevin did that same thing to the journalist.
Kevins take seems spot on. The journalist literally called for a 'mea culpa' just as Kevin wrote.
You need to work on your reading, or your honesty.
Here is the exact text from Berliner's article:
"What’s worse is to pretend it never happened, to move on with no mea culpas, no self-reflection"
"What’s worse is to pretend it never happened, to move on with no mea culpas, no self-reflection"
Which sounds like a lot like how Fox News reacts when it makes a mistake - do nothing and it will all go away.
Berliner is accusing NPR of nothing more than exercising pretty good editorial judgment.
This in reality. Berliner's critiques have nothing to do with news. What even I as a skeptic of "woke" understand is that all of this is a mask for what really irks Berliner and that's the newsroom and NPR in general is more diverse in terms of color than ever before and I imagine these educated persons of color now in the newsroom are going to have a different perspectives of things than the old white liberals who inhabited NPR when Berliner was there. So be it. If I don't like what I hear, I just change the channel, not bitch about it in writing.
I may be wrong but it wouldn't surprise me if Berliner was a victim of layoffs that took place on NPR (and PBS) staff largely due to the pandemic ruining revenues for a time four years ago. But it was also an excuse for public broadcasting to diversity itself because, quite frankly, its audience of old white liberals was getting older and dying off. It was this upper-middle class demo that gravitated to NPR (no doubt driven there by Garrison Keillor and Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio show hosts) during the 80s and 90s and made it quite profitable. But the idea it was "diverse" in terms of thought back then is laughable. Conservatives didn't try to kill NPR funding so many times between 1981 and 2018 because they thought it was "fair and balanced", something Berliner should have admitted. He may think he is, most on the Right do not.
I'm sure there may have been some Republicans may have listened to NPR because they're in the same old white upper-middle class demo and appreciated its professionalism compared to the conservative hucksters and loudmouths on the airwaves, call them the highbrows of the movement (or better yet "Crunchy Cons") If that's changed at all I don't blame them, but so what? Once upon a time, the Feds completely funded public broadcasting. Then Reagan came along and said hey, you want it that bad, pay for it. Fine, public broadcasting fans said and they did and public broadcasting reflected what they wanted for their money. And if they're pleased with NPR's direction, they'll continue to listen and pay for it. And if they don't they won't.
I've got news for you Uri, NPR is actually under no obligation to be "fair" any more than Newsmax is. Deal with it instead whining about it to Bari Weiss.
Things that are actually wrong with NPR:
* hosts during the flagship news magazines who laugh and say "uh-huh"or "right, right" in response to things said by guests/interviewees
* increasing use of glottal stops/hard attacks by program hosts
* as usual for mainstream media, relentless status quo bias: "this particular thing that i've just reported on is pretty fucked up but basically things are OK and they certainly won't get better if we start destroying or restructuring institutions so just chillax and here's some very new music by an artist you probably won't find very compelling"
* underwriting announcements (i.e. ads) that mention the underwriter's Web site but don't spell out the URL so the listener can't figure out how to access it
Regarding the lab leak hypothesis, Berliner quotes Andrew Rambaut: “I literally swivel day by day thinking it is a lab escape or natural.” Rambaut wrote that on Feb 20. Four days later, Holmes shared the Yunnan bat sample that convinced the group to go with the natural origins theory and they rewrote their paper to reflect this new evidence.
Berliner's larger point is spot on. I've listened to NPR for years and it's reporting has lost most of its value. It's become Intersectional Advocacy News. Af the top of the hour briefing, most of its "News" is all but worthless. It's been a sad decline.
Spot on, in that he's a lying bastard?
Why is it you can't point to anything specific?
Ever the silly girl. Read the piece. Maybe you'll understand. Maybe.
"silly girl"
Well, at least you made it immediately clear that you are a piece of sh*t. The rest of us are now free to ignore everything you say.
I read that article in a really different way. It offered three episodes of lack of journalistic curiosity and investigation. That you dismissed the Adam Schiff example is hard for me to excuse. Adam Schiff stood up and said that he had seen evidence of Trump's collusion numerous times and became a spokesman for the Russia collusion theory. When Muellers report didn't present evidence to support that, Schiff said "I must have been misinformed". I would call that lying. Now he's most likely to be a senator.
I agree with your interpretation of the laptop, too sketchy to be believed but again, no NPR or liberal investigation, the New York Post got the story. I do consider the lab leak theory suppression to have been primarily political. Partly to try to control anti-asian American feeling and possibly because Fauci was involved in funding that lab. The last National reporting on these two theories that I saw, various US Agencies disagreed with each other about the most likely source.
Berliner attributes the three examples to anti-Trump bias. His discussion of NPR wokeness following George Floyd's murder is additional to his argument, and not dependent on the previous examples.
Of course you haven't listened to NPR for a decade, it's been almost worthless the whole time.
Boring.
Almost everything you said in this post is some kind of falsehood.