How NPR lost America's trust

[jon-nyc]

I don’t get the table 5 comment

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in How NPR lost America's trust:

I don’t get the table 5 comment

I took it as "Keith's career isn't doing well these days. Get off of X and do your job - waiting tables."

[George K]

"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."

[Jolly]

There are none so blind...

[George K]

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."

[Jolly]

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.

[Mik]

Word.

[Doctor Phibes]

@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.

[Mik]

I think you're a confusist. Which is not to say Confucian, just confused.

[Horace]

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.

[Doctor Phibes]

@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)

[George K]

(tinfoil hat on?)

The 41 year old CEO of NPR:

[Horace]

I guess my interest in conspiracy theories like this end with my realization that if she's a plant, then her handlers are as stupid as she seems to be anyway. Of what value is a conspiracy to explain the world when people self-organize based on the same principles in a free market as they do in a clandestine conspiracy?

[Doctor Phibes]

"Only 41 years old"

Only?

Maybe he's having a mid-life crisis and realising that people who are his age are way more successful than he is.

[George K]

@Doctor-Phibes said in How NPR lost America's trust:

"Only 41 years old"

Only?

Yeah,

I think about where I was in my career at age 41.

[Doctor Phibes]

@George-K said in How NPR lost America's trust:

I think about where I was in my career at age 41.

I was in the same place I'm in now

[Horace]

At 41 I had developed only a small handful of hundreds of groundbreaking theories of the human experience and the meaning of life. An embarrassingly low output compared to my current pace.

[Aqua Letifer]

I'm 41. And also very glad I didn't do the shit she did.

[Mik]

At 41 she couldn't have put a great deal of time into any one of those activities and organizations.