NPR taking heat

It's an attempt to prove the fact they are non-partisan and the lengths they are willing to go to accommodate Trump and make him a friend. Unfortunately I think their efforts are going unappreciated.
 
how so?

news-sources-fdu.jpg

Can I get a source on this? I'm fascinated that people with no news exposure outperform people who only listen to FOX and are are comparable to people who listen to CNN or MSNBC. Also, the Daily Show's surprisingly strong performance despite it's reputation as a biased source s interesting.
 
They are a self-styled moderate news source that mostly covers left leaning news items. When they have guest speakers, they are usually left leaning speakers. I used to listen to them every day on the way to work and on the way home. I stopped when I noticed none of the special interest pieces or news coverage I was hearing truly presented equal time or consideration for conservative viewpoints. They are by no means radical left, but they are certainly left leaning in the topics they present, the guests they bring on and in the opinions of their presenters when it comes to domestic concerns.

noticed this a while ago too, turned me off to them
 
As NPR said in addressing this. They do not want to appear partisan and they understand using the word "lie" is going to be perceived as such.
 
Like I said in the other thread, this is a stupid thing to focus on and I hope the administration ignores it.

That said, "alternative facts" has been twisted to mean what the left wants it to mean. They clarified what they meant by that and everyone chose to ignore it and keep showing pics of Obama's inauguration.

Was it petty to mention it in the first place? Sure. Is it petty to keep this going on as though it matters? Of course it is.


I have no idea what Trump admin disagreeing with well understood facts has to do with the left.

and basically your asnwer is that if Trump tells you the sun rises int he west you will beleive him or complain about 'lefties'.
 
Can I get a source on this? I'm fascinated that people with no news exposure outperform people who only listen to FOX and are are comparable to people who listen to CNN or MSNBC. Also, the Daily Show's surprisingly strong performance despite it's reputation as a biased source s interesting.
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/final.pdf

It's from 2012, the Daily Show still had Stewart and wasn't a *complete* shit show yet.
 
I have no idea what Trump admin disagreeing with well understood facts has to do with the left.

and basically your asnwer is that if Trump tells you the sun rises int he west you will believe him or complain about 'lefties'.
That not my answer at all. The very first thing I said in the post you quoted was that it was a stupid thing to focus on.

Please put a little more thought into responses to me.
 
Can I get a source on this? I'm fascinated that people with no news exposure outperform people who only listen to FOX and are are comparable to people who listen to CNN or MSNBC. Also, the Daily Show's surprisingly strong performance despite it's reputation as a biased source s interesting.

https://www.poynter.org/2012/survey...ormed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/174826/

i looked over the questions that participants were asked at one point. they seemed very fair to me.
 
That not my answer at all. The very first thing I said in the post you quoted was that it was a stupid thing to focus on.

Please put a little more thought into responses to me.

It understood your use of the word "thing" was me focusing on alternative facts.

Please try to be more specific.
 
It understood your use of the word "thing" was me focusing on alternative facts.

Please try to be more specific.
Its a stupid thing for anyone to focus on. The president, the democrats and the media.
 
https://www.poynter.org/2012/survey...ormed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/174826/

i looked over the questions that participants were asked at one point. they seemed very fair to me.
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/final.pdf

It's from 2012, the Daily Show still had Stewart and wasn't a *complete* shit show yet.

Very interesting. I'm glad I stopped watching Fox News. Wonder if there's a more recent version of this out there.

Of course, I wonder about correlation. People interested in accuracy might lean towards more highbrow sources like NPR to begin with.
 
NPR & the MSM will become even more aggressive and more biased against nationalists. That is great, as it will erode their credibility even more
 
is NPR still railing about the Russians? Last I checked, they were still salty over russians hacking their way into the white house.
 
Very interesting. I'm glad I stopped watching Fox News. Wonder if there's a more recent version of this out there.

Of course, I wonder about correlation. People interested in accuracy might lean towards more highbrow sources like NPR to begin with.

I dont listen to NPR because of their 'accuracy', but because some programs are interesting. For example, when Terry Gross stays away from politics she puts on interesting shows.

NPR is accurate yet highly biased in their political reporting.
 
Very interesting. I'm glad I stopped watching Fox News. Wonder if there's a more recent version of this out there.

Of course, I wonder about correlation. People interested in accuracy might lean towards more highbrow sources like NPR to begin with.

This is an interesting link:
http://www.businessinsider.com/what...et-says-about-your-political-ideology-2014-10
note: the headline is very misleading. It tracks bias of outlet readership, not the bias of outlets. Also note it's a couple years old.
I want to sit down and see what happens when you cross reference the data in this article with the summaries on https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ (thanks @Lanx )
 
I dont listen to NPR because of their 'accuracy', but because some programs are interesting. For example, when Terry Gross stays away from politics she puts on interesting shows.

NPR is accurate yet highly biased in their political reporting.

And I think it's been covered in other threads that they're less biased than most other sources. Highly biased would be inaccurate.

I'm might be misremembering but your definition of biased re:NPR was that the subjects they covered were things you didn't think needed the coverage. If that wasn't you, ignore this.

If it was you then the bias doesn't lie with NPR but with you, the listener. If NPR is providing a cross-section of coverage but the listener prefers a more limited selection the listener's listening preferences are biased. As my mom says, she listens to Rush because she doesn't want to hear other versions of things. She accepts her bias and her desire to limit her exposure to contradictory perspectives. We should all be so honest with ourselves.

It's an important difference. If I like high fantasy but my book club includes mystery along with the high fantasy, I can't call the book club biased for covering books I don't want to read. It's my reading bias in effect, not theirs. Why? Because some people might like mysteries and have no interest in high fantasy - they would claim that the book club is biased for covering the books I like to read. The book club isn't biased against either of us, we're biased against the other person's book preferences.
 
Very interesting. I'm glad I stopped watching Fox News. Wonder if there's a more recent version of this out there.

Of course, I wonder about correlation. People interested in accuracy might lean towards more highbrow sources like NPR to begin with.

i havent seen any studies like this lately. there was one other that came out almost the same time as this one, and had very similar results. i think fox and msnbc switched places for which was shittier.
 
Back
Top