How NPR lost America's trust
-
@Jolly said in How NPR lost America's trust:
I think he was trying to bring a whiff of ethics to NPR.
He failed.
I don't think that came as a surprise to him, either. Last-ditch effort to confirm his decision.
-
@Jolly said in How NPR lost America's trust:
I think he was trying to bring a whiff of ethics to NPR.
He failed.
For the moment. from little acorns..
I think there is a growing realization of journalism's current status as quite near propaganda, and a thirst for honest coverage.
-
I’m sure his exit was planned before writing the letter.
-
@jon-nyc said in How NPR lost America's trust:
I’m sure his exit was planned before writing the letter.
-
He would have to be a mentally ill attention whore on the level of a Dylan Mulvaney to want to work for a place where he'll be hated.
@Horace said in How NPR lost America's trust:
He would have to be a mentally ill attention whore on the level of a Dylan Mulvaney to want to work for a place where he'll be hated.
You should meet my former CEO.
-
@Horace said in How NPR lost America's trust:
He would have to be a mentally ill attention whore on the level of a Dylan Mulvaney to want to work for a place where he'll be hated.
You should meet my former CEO.
@Doctor-Phibes said in How NPR lost America's trust:
@Horace said in How NPR lost America's trust:
He would have to be a mentally ill attention whore on the level of a Dylan Mulvaney to want to work for a place where he'll be hated.
You should meet my former CEO.
Sociopathy is a helluva drug.
-
-
-
"We strive to do this by being truly open to a "diversity of viewpoints," and wish to continue doing so without having our journalistic integrity called into question by one of our own colleagues."
In the comments, someone says: "The end is hysterical. They really think they’re open to a “diversity of viewpoints” while demanding protection from any viewpoint that disagrees with them."
-
The editors at National Review:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/04/defund-npr/
"If NPR wants to run a journalist enterprise that is dedicated to advancing progressive ideology, it should do so with income from sponsorships, donations, subscriptions, or other avenues — just like every other media organization. It should not benefit from subsidies from U.S. taxpayers."
-
Amen.
Public Radio should either run right down the middle on everything or run the news straight and include entertainment shows from all significant political persuasions.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Amen.
Public Radio should either run right down the middle on everything or run the news straight and include entertainment shows from all significant political persuasions.
@Jolly said in How NPR lost America's trust:
Amen.
Public Radio should either run right down the middle on everything or run the news straight and include entertainment shows from all significant political persuasions.
I'm not defending NPR, but even if they were unbiased, everybody would still say they were biased.
How does one define 'the middle'? The lefties currently running NPR would probably consider me a right-winger. Some people would undoubtedly think I'm a communist, when clearly I'm a centralist with an abundance of common sense.
-
It helps when you realize that social/political issues are infinitely complex, and most of what we end up arguing about and taking sides over are not reasonably provable one way or the other. We each have our gut instinct and we choose talking points which support it. Those talking points are mostly true, for any given side of any given issue. If two sides of a political issue are mutually exclusive, then only one can be true, but all the talking points that support each side can still be true.
-
It helps when you realize that social/political issues are infinitely complex, and most of what we end up arguing about and taking sides over are not reasonably provable one way or the other. We each have our gut instinct and we choose talking points which support it. Those talking points are mostly true, for any given side of any given issue. If two sides of a political issue are mutually exclusive, then only one can be true, but all the talking points that support each side can still be true.
@Horace said in How NPR lost America's trust:
If two sides of a political issue are mutually exclusive, then only one can be true
Or both can be false (Confusious say)
