The problem with that stance is, not all ideas are equally credible and deserve airtime. As the adage goes, “If one person says it’s raining outside, and another says it’s sunny, a reporter’s job isn’t to present both as fact. It’s to open the fucking window.”
What the right are really angry about is that their lies aren’t being given the same weight as the truth for the most part at NPR.
I’ve found NPR to be pretty good at that. It’s particularly apparent when it comes to Trump’s lies about the 2020 election; they are consistent about pointing out when claims have been conclusively disproven, and often use the word “lie”.
That said, I agree with Berliner’s fundamental point; I’ve noticed an increasing slant in the stories NPR emphasizes. It’s not that their reporting is unfair, but their choice of what to cover aligns pretty closely with the positions of the progressive left.
Is the slant created by NPR or by the political climate, though?
Let’s use an extreme:
If a person says that all strawberries are red, then another person says “hey, this guy said that strawberries give cancer!” and NPR says “What the first person said was that all strawberries were red,” then all good. Then 1,000 people claim that no, what was said was that strawberries cause cancer. And NPR insists on indicating that no, it’s just a statement about strawberries being red - will you say that the “red strawberry” slant was caused by NPR?
NPR talked a lot about investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign while investigations were ongoing, but was “sparse” in its coverage of the Mueller report’s finding that there was no credible evidence of such collusion.
Hunter Biden’s laptop, containing evidence of influence peddling was deemed non-newsworthy; Berliner believes it was newsworthy.
NPR dismissed the SARS-CoV-2 lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory and failed to report on it seriously. While it is not the leading hypothesis, there’s credible evidence for it, and at some points in the past the evidence looked fairly compelling.
These examples are very different from ignoring someone who claims without evidence that strawberries cause cancer, that the 2020 election was rigged, or that wildfires in California were started by Israeli space lasers.
I’ve read it and all of the examples are misleading at best. These are all thoroughly flawed and it’s been covered by many others.
Mueller didn’t say there was no collusion, it said that they found some coordination, collusion itself isn’t a legal term and the DOJ can’t prosecute a sitting president.
The Hunter Biden laptop is a different beast than the contents there of. Even if you prove the device is his and some of the data is his, because of the poor forensic practices in handling it you have to prove that any incriminating data is also his and that’s not been done yet.
You don’t have to give time to every theory, especially ones that are still waiting on actual validation. Just because his political pet theory wasn’t covered with the same vigor when it’s considered less likely by general consensus of experts, doesn’t mean it was suppressed.
Odd, I listen to NPR regularly and they definitely mentioned all three of those. But, not extensively because each ended up being a bit of a nothing burger.
I specifically recall talking about the lab leak when that got mentioned, since I thought the prospect was interesting. It eventually got dismissed and NPRs stance, iirc, was that there wasn’t enough evidence to really say any particular explanation was definitely true. They mostly moved on since everyone else moved on in that story.
The problem with that stance is, not all ideas are equally credible and deserve airtime. As the adage goes, “If one person says it’s raining outside, and another says it’s sunny, a reporter’s job isn’t to present both as fact. It’s to open the fucking window.”
What the right are really angry about is that their lies aren’t being given the same weight as the truth for the most part at NPR.
I’ve found NPR to be pretty good at that. It’s particularly apparent when it comes to Trump’s lies about the 2020 election; they are consistent about pointing out when claims have been conclusively disproven, and often use the word “lie”.
That said, I agree with Berliner’s fundamental point; I’ve noticed an increasing slant in the stories NPR emphasizes. It’s not that their reporting is unfair, but their choice of what to cover aligns pretty closely with the positions of the progressive left.
Is the slant created by NPR or by the political climate, though?
Let’s use an extreme:
If a person says that all strawberries are red, then another person says “hey, this guy said that strawberries give cancer!” and NPR says “What the first person said was that all strawberries were red,” then all good. Then 1,000 people claim that no, what was said was that strawberries cause cancer. And NPR insists on indicating that no, it’s just a statement about strawberries being red - will you say that the “red strawberry” slant was caused by NPR?
Have you read Berliner’s article yet? He gives three examples:
These examples are very different from ignoring someone who claims without evidence that strawberries cause cancer, that the 2020 election was rigged, or that wildfires in California were started by Israeli space lasers.
Lol. As soon as you mention the “laptop”, you lose all credibility.
What about Al Capone’s vault!? Why aren’t we focusing on that?!?
I’ve read it and all of the examples are misleading at best. These are all thoroughly flawed and it’s been covered by many others.
Mueller didn’t say there was no collusion, it said that they found some coordination, collusion itself isn’t a legal term and the DOJ can’t prosecute a sitting president.
The Hunter Biden laptop is a different beast than the contents there of. Even if you prove the device is his and some of the data is his, because of the poor forensic practices in handling it you have to prove that any incriminating data is also his and that’s not been done yet.
You don’t have to give time to every theory, especially ones that are still waiting on actual validation. Just because his political pet theory wasn’t covered with the same vigor when it’s considered less likely by general consensus of experts, doesn’t mean it was suppressed.
Odd, I listen to NPR regularly and they definitely mentioned all three of those. But, not extensively because each ended up being a bit of a nothing burger.
I specifically recall talking about the lab leak when that got mentioned, since I thought the prospect was interesting. It eventually got dismissed and NPRs stance, iirc, was that there wasn’t enough evidence to really say any particular explanation was definitely true. They mostly moved on since everyone else moved on in that story.
Yes, I’ve read it, and I was scratching my head because I’ve definitely heard NPR cover those in a reasonable manner.
Did you… Read the article? I agree with you, but you may be thinking the headline means something it doesnt since it also agrees with you.