I can’t remember what T.V. or radio station I had on but the topic was the polarization of the media. Whoever was speaking was decrying the bias of various media outlets. He then said something like “You’ve got Fox and Breitbart one one side and (I can’t remember who) and NPR on the other”. I listen to NPR all the time and, while I consider it to be fairly liberal, don’t think its in the same bias league as Fox and Bretibart. Not even close. Am I missing something here? Have I been tricked by sneaky liberals?
NPR is unrelenting in its liberal viewpoint, but neither lies as a matter of course nor runs items that have no more factual basis than National Inquirer cover stories.
Not even close to equivalent. NPR and… National Review or Bloomberg, maybe.
I second that, although I’d add that NPR has not just a “liberal bias” but an intellectual bias. They assume that listeners can think for themselves and they do interviews with right-wing politicians, out-and-out racists, etc. – I think they do honestly try to provide a rounded view on their news shows. Their talk-shows, of course, and opinion shows are different. I think in looking at news (and “news”) networks, it’s important to distinguish between the op-ed pieces and the “factual presentations.” NPR doesn’t confuse the two; Fox News does.
I don’t think that it’s reasonable to compare “biased slant” to “direct falsehoods.”
Yes: NPR doesn’t present news for stupid people, which may be their greatest “fault” - I’m glad there is a calm, intellectual, honest news source that doesn’t feel it has to whittle stories down to sixth-grade language and concepts, but it can be a hurdle for people who, for whatever reason, choose news sources that require little more than open ears.
That’s not a left-right slam, by the way. There’s no shortage of left-leaning news sources that talk just like widdle babies to their audience.
And no, a slant is not necessarily a bias. Most important news can be viewed in multiple ways and we should be able to choose a viewpoint presentation; but distorting the story to score points with the widdle babies should be a ratings-crash penalty. And I’d like a pony, and a castle…
Out of interest… which ones?
If news can be thought of as either “probably bullshit” and “probably not bullshit” then yes, that’s a fair assessment.
RawStory.com comes close. If Trump farted, their headline would be: “Trump Unleashes Gas Attack On Populace”
LearnProgress.org is another one, but I wouldn’t call it dumbing down so much as turning nothing stories into pure click-bait. I have a Facebook friend who “likes” these things incessantly.
Yeppers. I read a great analysis (forget where, sorry) that reading (newspapers, say) requires thought. Listening and watching doesn’t, you just sit and absorb. Thus, the sound-bite (which includes the quick lie) is more compelling. Denying or disproving the lie requires much verbage and thought, and so the lie attracts and convinces the populace.
I’d agree re RawStory.com. Haven’t ever come across LearnProgress.org. I didn’t doubt they exist – I just haven’t had much contact with them.
I’m engaged in this very battle on another forum that leans much in favor of the alt-right audience and will appreciate having some comparable leftie “news” sources to compare to Fox, Breitbart, Infowars, Zerohedge, etc. To me, getting more people to grasp the difference between factual news – even that with a bias – and purely made-up propaganda intended solely to indoctrinate and manipulate, is the critical struggle.
And there you have it. Most of this, Breitbart included, is no longer “journalism” in any meaningful sense but carefully crafted efforts to extract wealth from this internet thingy. It’s shocking, to me, how many otherwise well-intended companies, bloggers, news sources and info sites have fallen into the trap of “shit attract flies with money” - and by the tenets of the Church of Econ 101, that’s Good.
If their audiences are any measure, then NPR is in the same league as The New York Times, Colbert Report, or Daily Show as a news source and more left leaning than Huffington Post or Buzzfeed. See Washington Post report on a Pew Research survey.
On the continuum created from Pew’s data, NPR ranks as far left as Drudge Report ranks to the right.
That Pew data is from 2014. Briedbart has move far further to the right since then. In addition, it measures their audiences, not their slant.
There’s a bunch of junk “news” sources on the left like OccupyDemocrats, USuncut, Rawstory, etc that pop up in Facebook feeds. The difference is that none of the have nearly the same audience or credibility (even among their intended audience) as Breitbart.
Agreed. Unfortunately, the only reason I know about RawStory is that it has been cited here, which I find disheartening.
One of the fundamental problems in discussing “bias” in the media is that too many people seem not to understand that a particular political orientation need not be an indicator of dishonesty or poor journalistic values. It is possible to have a political or ideological leaning, of whatever direction, and still be a good, competent, professional reporter and analyst of news and events.
I’m a historian, and the history profession itself has, since its founding in the late nineteenth century, spent considerable time and effort trying to understand what we mean when we talk about good history, and especially about the ideal of “objectivity” in the study of history. Objectivity was a key goal for many early historians, and while the term itself has fallen out of favor somewhat, the ideals that animated it are still important in discussion of historical practice. The historian Peter Novick even devoted a 660-page book to the ideal of objectivity among historians in the United States since the emergence of professional academic history. I think that many of the same debates can be applied to journalism and news reporting, especially news analysis and commentary.
I think that one of the most compelling discussion of objectivity among historians is an essay written, about Novick’s book, by Thomas Haskell. The title of Haskell’s argument gives away his central thesis: it’s called “Objectivity is not Neutrality.” He argues that objectivity is not simply an effort to be neutral; it does not consist of making oneself an empty vessel, a “perfectly passive and receptive mirror of external reality.” He recognizes, as historians have for a long time, that the people who do history bring with them their own ideals and politics and principles and value systems. For Haskell, objectivity is not about denying those things, or pretending they don’t exist, but making a determined effort to overcome them in a genuine quest for understanding. Much of this “self-overcoming,” he believes, involves a willingness, indeed and eagerness, to engage with an understand opposing viewpoints, and to put oneself in the place of people with whom one disagrees, and try to understand the world from their point of view. He values detachment, but not simply as avoiding politics; he sees it as a conscious effort to treat diverging positions and viewpoints honestly.
Haskell sees objectivity as a set of thought process and attitudes and habits and practices that force us to deal honestly with our material, but he also sees it as compatible with strongly-held political opinions and moral principles and worldviews. I have a few quotes from his essay, which give a better idea of his argument, and which could, i think, be applied equally well in a discussion of news analysis and political commentary:
The quote is a bit long, but it’s from a 30-page article (600 words out of about 15,000), so i think it’s within fair use guidelines. If you have access to JSTOR, you can find the piece here.
It’s a problem that I have with Rachel Maddow. Smart lady and all that, but her delivery on her show drives me crazy, as she repeats the same things over and over and over, as if her audience has the attention span of a gnat.
Yeah, i like Rachel Maddow and i agree with her politics, but i have real trouble watching this type of straight-to-camera editorial. So often, i feel like i’m being spoken to like a 12-year-old. One of the few people who do it well, i think, is John Oliver.
Yep. It’s a symptom of most of these shows, but she seems to be one of the worst offenders. I really like her when she’s on someone else’s show. But I can’t watch her show.
I can’t speak directly on NPR since I don’t listen to it, but in the lefty circles I travel when NPR comes up people tend to dismiss or make fun of it as the epitome of mushy establishment liberalism. I especially remember during the Bush years and Obama’s first term they were often called “National Propaganda Radio” for its fawning coverage of the government, the war on terror, Wikileaks, and their sympathetic coverage of their corporate sponsors. If you want to make a conservative set his hair on fire, I think Democracy Now with Amy Goodman would be a better example.