As if NPR, or anyone in their place, had any alternative to telling their listeners how to think! As if any of their "conservative" counterparts hesitate, for a split second, to tell their listeners how to think. You work with the audience you have, not the audience you wish you had. To a newborn, everything is propaganda.
Journalists are always acting as though only liberals have agency. "If we just talk about things differently, everything will be great." But if someone is hitting you over the head, not every element of the relationship is in your control.
From its first day of operation there have been people wanting to tear NPR down precisely because they do not control its content. The choice they have offered is "be controlled by us or we will destroy you." These aren't listeners saying this, but people who do control other media the listeners listen to. People who control ever more media with each passing year, in fact. At this rate, they control more every week.
The people seeking to control NPR don't want to argue about particular articles. They want to argue about NPR itself, and no newsroom wants themselves to be the story. It's a hard beat to cover. No matter how hard you strive to be honest, thorough, disinterested, and engaging, you are in fact one of the parties, so anything you say is suspect and easily characterized as biased.
Both-sides'ing stuff is a way to resist control, but there has been a backlash against that, because it is a compromise with the truth. It's lying by implication while not lying by outright assertion. It's lying in the interest of the people shaking you down.
Looking at the political climate of the past 10 -15 years, I have a hard time believing it was NPR that really changed, or maybe - that NPR led the change. The fact that this article is in the free press of all places I think exemplifies that, sure NPR probably did change, but I assert there was zero chance of NPR holding a diverse audience in the age of Trump. And watching the free press now takeover legacy media exacerbates that.
I don’t disagree there’s a problem here, and I don’t disagree it is something that rhymes with what the author is suggesting, but I also think the nature of right wing media is that it has become more reactionary. Is this person suggesting that Fox News, or breitbart, or daily wire is where all those moderate journalists have gone?
I suppose he would say they’ve gone to free press (which would be a very narrow exodus) and this actually might be an interesting observation. What was it that cause the rift between someone like Bari Weiss and traditional media, then again, it’s hard to look at Bari Weiss’ rise to power as coming from a value of objectivity.
One idea I wonder about is the idea that it is biased to present Trump objectively.
If I were to put together a "Very Serious New Source"TM. I would probably get a bunch of erudite types from the right and left to break down international relations, and dig into policy debates and read lots of details about the types of decisions that were being made. What I would not do is chase down every last Trump tweet to try and understand our current political situation.
But I would be wrong to do so. If you want to understand our current political situation, you have to quote our leaders directly. I remember Mark Cuban said that Trump supporters were like that friend of yours with a bad partner. They don't want to admit they made a mistake, but they're humiliated by the abuse they receive. And I think that's a lot of Conservatives. They don't want you to tell a story about the world as it is, they want you to tell a story about the way it could be with strong conservative leadership.
As if NPR, or anyone in their place, had any alternative to telling their listeners how to think! As if any of their "conservative" counterparts hesitate, for a split second, to tell their listeners how to think. You work with the audience you have, not the audience you wish you had. To a newborn, everything is propaganda.
Journalists are always acting as though only liberals have agency. "If we just talk about things differently, everything will be great." But if someone is hitting you over the head, not every element of the relationship is in your control.
From its first day of operation there have been people wanting to tear NPR down precisely because they do not control its content. The choice they have offered is "be controlled by us or we will destroy you." These aren't listeners saying this, but people who do control other media the listeners listen to. People who control ever more media with each passing year, in fact. At this rate, they control more every week.
The people seeking to control NPR don't want to argue about particular articles. They want to argue about NPR itself, and no newsroom wants themselves to be the story. It's a hard beat to cover. No matter how hard you strive to be honest, thorough, disinterested, and engaging, you are in fact one of the parties, so anything you say is suspect and easily characterized as biased.
Both-sides'ing stuff is a way to resist control, but there has been a backlash against that, because it is a compromise with the truth. It's lying by implication while not lying by outright assertion. It's lying in the interest of the people shaking you down.
https://archive.is/kX4dH
Looking at the political climate of the past 10 -15 years, I have a hard time believing it was NPR that really changed, or maybe - that NPR led the change. The fact that this article is in the free press of all places I think exemplifies that, sure NPR probably did change, but I assert there was zero chance of NPR holding a diverse audience in the age of Trump. And watching the free press now takeover legacy media exacerbates that.
I don’t disagree there’s a problem here, and I don’t disagree it is something that rhymes with what the author is suggesting, but I also think the nature of right wing media is that it has become more reactionary. Is this person suggesting that Fox News, or breitbart, or daily wire is where all those moderate journalists have gone?
I suppose he would say they’ve gone to free press (which would be a very narrow exodus) and this actually might be an interesting observation. What was it that cause the rift between someone like Bari Weiss and traditional media, then again, it’s hard to look at Bari Weiss’ rise to power as coming from a value of objectivity.
One idea I wonder about is the idea that it is biased to present Trump objectively.
If I were to put together a "Very Serious New Source"TM. I would probably get a bunch of erudite types from the right and left to break down international relations, and dig into policy debates and read lots of details about the types of decisions that were being made. What I would not do is chase down every last Trump tweet to try and understand our current political situation.
But I would be wrong to do so. If you want to understand our current political situation, you have to quote our leaders directly. I remember Mark Cuban said that Trump supporters were like that friend of yours with a bad partner. They don't want to admit they made a mistake, but they're humiliated by the abuse they receive. And I think that's a lot of Conservatives. They don't want you to tell a story about the world as it is, they want you to tell a story about the way it could be with strong conservative leadership.
2024. This is the dude who, just like Bari Weiss, had to resign to prove that he was discriminated against, Uri Berliner.
Updated title with year. Thanks for catching that.