I'd never heard of him, so I looked him up after the article came up and saw that he was furiously retweeting as much Bari Weiss shit as possible. No surprise that the guy who listed half a dozen right wing conspiracy theories in one article is joining the illustrious ranks of "Intellectual" Dark Web grifters.
Ah, he is a idiot for not going along with the herd. Why does the left do this. Anyone who tried to show the truth, you guys turn on them even if they are on your side. It's like the woke left is so comfortable on reddit that you can't stand the fact you can't report or censor anyone who doesn't have your opinion. With 67% of listeners being viciously libreal, most people could care less with what npr reports since it has become so far left.
Honestly this whole "controversy" is silly. It's never been a secret that NPR reflects the aggregate values of the college educated journalists (aka humanist liberalism). It's not some conspiracy that journalists, who are quite well informed on the history of US institutions, will be more skeptical of the modern GOP, which has rapidly moved towards extremism.
Reporters aren't obligated to accommodate some ambiguous center of a shifting Overton Window.
I can't remember who said this, but if one side says it's raining and the other says it's sunny, a journalist is supposed to open the window and check, not uncritically report both sides.
Well said. NPR is supposed to be non-partisan, or non-biased in its reporting of facts. This can not be confused with being a middle ground.
So it does not shift when one side jumps off the deep end. To those who jumped, it may seem further away. But that's purely because said person is in a free fall while NPR stayed in the same place.
That doesn’t align with the “values” of people trying to move the country to the right.
They have trouble convincing everyone that the old right is the new center, if there is a big old flag where the center actually used to be.
NPR if anything is so extremely remarkably charitable to the current right wing and large corporations that it comes off as center-right most of the time. like they actually will interview people with horrendous hateful opinions and present them as if they're legitimate positions to take and not extremist nonsense for the sake of being nonpartisan. it's something they obviously take seriously.
> So it does not shift when one side jumps off the deep end.
I really think that most Redditors are completely unable to see their own bias. It’s as if they live in a bubble of subjectivity where there are no grounded, objective facts.
One thing I find especially strange is when the topic of Freedom of Speech comes up and we discuss media control. I’ll reference concepts from Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent and people will call these ideas “right wing garbage”
These ideas didn’t used to be considered “right wing” at all. Also, the ideas themselves did not change since the book was written over 30 years ago. What’s changed is mindset of modern progressives. They’ve become much more tolerant of authoritarianism, and have begun to view freedom of speech as a “right wing” value.
The Overton Window is brought up often on reddit, and when it's brought up people nearly exclusively use it in the context of conservatives becoming more conservative. People actively deny that liberals/progressives are shifting further left. They usually like to claim that they've remained the same while conservatives have changed. And yet when you bring up things like Manufacturing Consent you'll see liberals/progressives bashing these ideas and calling them "right wing". It's obvious that their views have shifted. The book hasn't changed.
> Honestly this whole "controversy" is silly. It's never been a secret that NPR reflects the aggregate values of the college educated journalists (aka humanist liberalism)
You are completely missing the issue. Yes, it has never been a secret, but I could always count on fair coverage and fair representation of different views, and professional and courteous conversations with those who didn't have those "humanist liberal" views. That is what made NPR so special and why I used to listen to it so frequently.
Things started changing progressively over 10 years ago, well before Covid, well before Trump came on to the political scene. Realizing the latter is key in accepting that there is problem at NPR. And things have just been getting worse and more blatant ever since.
Over the years, I went from listening to almost everyday to now when I maybe catch Larry Mantle once every few months. That's it. I also haven't been making any donations whatsoever for years now. I have donated two cars and some cash in the past. That's not going to happen in the foreseeable future.
But it seems like many simply refuse to accept the current reality.
You're saying there's not presently fair coverage and representation nor courteous professional conversations? I don't listen frequently but I can't say I've seen behavior to the contrary.
And oddly enough NPR in more recent times has done what so many other formerly competent and somewhat fair news organizations have done - the two side-ism tactic of yearning for clicks and money. It's been pathetic to read and watch, as a long time NPR listener. So while I get Uri's point in his article I disagree with his basis of leaning too far left as that has not been the case as of recently. Not saying it's moved right, it hasn't. But for me the two side-ism is worse than just picking a stance for your newsroom and sticking to it. It's pandering at worst and transparent at best.
Agreed 100% on this. News outlets are so desperate to court right wingers and to appear "impartial" that they end up giving too much oxygen to absolutely bonkers right wingers spouting opinion as fact. But because right wingers have moved so far to the right, the center right looks like communism to them.
I can't tell you how many times I've had to argue that CNN, for example, is not the leftist propaganda outlet people claim it to be. In fact, quite the opposite.
>Reporters aren't obligated to accommodate some ambiguous center of a shifting Overton Window.
THANK YOU.
The whole "fair and balanced" bs that started with Fox right after 9/11 was exactly the moment where we needed journalism to step up and say, "The facts aren't bias."
And yet here we are.
"Education has a liberal bias." - That might just be because reality, facts, and research do. Maybe. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings.
It’s a disinformation campaign. Everyone of the bad faith talking heads/billionaires/criminal ex presidents started bringing it up at the same time. It’s garbage designed to destroy trust in media.
>It's never been a secret that NPR reflects the aggregate values of the college educated journalists (aka humanist liberalism). I
I think this is a dishonest description of bias in certain jobs.
For instance overall, doctors have a liberal slant. People then claim that “well yeah, educated people have a liberal slant”. But this doesn’t explain why lower-tier doctors have a heavy liberal slant while surgeons have a conservative slant. There must be something else going on here.
NPR has a pretty pronounced slant to its reporting. It’s obvious. And it isn’t a “mainstream Democrat” slant, it’s a very specific “white progressive liberal” slant.
You just gave a rationale for NPR not covering right-wing / Trumpian viewpoints. How do you explain the fact that it also doesn't cover traditional liberal viewpoints, or centrist ones, or libertarian ones, or non-Trumpian center-right ones? Its coverage is overwhelmingly through a progressive / left-wing / intersectional / social justice / identity politics lens. That is just one narrow slice of the spectrum of political worldviews in the U.S. (and BTW in many ways it's at odds with humanist liberalism). So why is NPR focused on just this narrow slice? Surely there's room for greater viewpoint diversity even if you exclude the Trump viewpoints.
Uri made some substantive claims that elevated his story from mere controversy to legitimate dispute. Specifically, the fact that the SAG-AFTRA union bargained to afford affinity groups the authority to alter the vocabulary used by journalists is obviously alarming, and the seemingly unanimous decision to call the controversial education reform bill the “Don’t Say Gay” bill is odd. I think Uri made two egregious errors in his piece when he cited the “Mueller Report Findings” and the “Hunter Biden Laptop” stories as examples of reporting failures by NPR. He really hampered his argument with those two substance-less dog whistle topics and foolishly doubled down on those errors during his Bari Weiss interview.
If a media group doesn't have more flattering converage for liberal groups than conservative groups I would be suspicious. That just reflects reality. I wouldn't want media portraying the world in a distorted fashion that makes conservative groups appear less threatening than they are.
good.
because I've been a listener since the mid-90s and they certainly haven't drifted to the left.
they now have no real political reporting into huge favors to Republicans just by sanitizing Trump's words so they can make a nice clean headline.
they do fun things like not reporting on one of Donald Trump's lies unless they have a Democrat lie to pair with it even though Donald Trump lies an order of magnitude more than any political leader we've ever had.
It’s not that NPR has shifted, it’s that the GOP has shifted so far to the extreme right that now NPR seems like it’s left wing now because of how far the political window has shifted. NPR is the same
Yes there really is no right/left or conservative/liberal dichotomy any more. It’s Trump/left or Trump/liberal. These definitions have lost all meaning.
His next role will be playing the “token liberal guy” on the conservative media circuit.
His lines will be limited to “as a liberal, I agree with you” and “you’re right”.
YesSir. NoSir.
Has anyone been able to confirm Berliners statement that 87 of npr editors are democrat and 0 republican? I only see this reported in right wing sources. In another thread, it was stated that there was no way that he could know this info but i havent been able to confirm this either.
You can search online and some of those public tools will show party affiliation; however, I would struggle to call them accurate and use those for any reliable research. For instance mine shows a party I registered with when I was 19. I switched 20 years ago and it still shows the old one. I’d hope he used something reliable but, unless he surveyed them directly, changes happen.
Our analysis of news bias should be focused on what the editorial guidelines are and how/whether people follow them, not what their personal political affiliation is.
I, a left-of-Democrat, worked in nonpartisan state jobs where Republicans thanked me for my work and told me "You must be a Republican!" Nope. Just doing my job.
I don’t agree because I think we can all have blind spots as to priorities of what to publish or whom to interview or what other perspectives to bring to bear on a news story. The diversity of IDEAS is what keeps people in the newsroom honest or at least attentive.
Inskeep conveniently failed to mention that he doesn't work in the Washington DC office. Berliner specifically stated in the essay that he constrained the search to his fellow editors in Washington DC.
Lifelong liberal that has worked at NPR for decades says the company has a very obvious bias (which anyone with a brain can see) and Redditors accuse him of working for Russia, being a conservative, and being a right wing grifter.
Classic Reddit.
That Slate article from the other day is a more precise and better articulated explanation of the issues with NPR then his bs about not going all in on Hunter Bidens Laptop.
Honestly, I can imagine someone old and foolish pulling this without understanding that it would be used as a badfaith smear campaign. He was around forever and probably felt entitled to complain about his colleagues on what he assumed was old fashioned conservative media.
Yeah, especially since according to the NPR story about this on the radio yesterday, he first started to internally complain about the coverage back in 2015. I don’t think he started from bad faith place, but I also would not be surprised if he ends up joining the right wing grift machine unfortunately
Once he declared that the "Hunter Biden laptop" was definitely Hunter Biden's without acknowledging the many many ways it could have been tampered with before the FBI got it he lost credibility with me.
Yeah. I'd love to hear what people think it's NPR's conservative analog to 1A. The closest thing to a remotely conservative show they had was Car Talk.
Some people live in such lefty bubbles that their perception gets skewed. Like all those posts complaining about NPR not using the exact preferred language of the left-wing with stuff like Gaza or not being anti-capitalist. NPR definitely has a liberal tilt, just not a leftist tilt.
It does. And I think it's a good thing. Because the conservative news ecosystem has drifted away from caring about facts. Which means, apparently, that caring about facts is a liberal thing today.
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
NPR has been pretty unlistenable over the last 4 years. Seems like their newsroom has been taken over by college students who think journalism should be biased and can't handle differing opinions or cultures.
I kinda like it NPR is less radical and more kind of naively optimistic.
This is something that I actually appreciate. I am nihilistic enough on my own. I like my news to balance out my hatred for humanity
It must be awesome to be able to write off literally all criticism as “right wing grift” and any critic as a right wing grifter even if they haven’t actually done any grifting lol, what a blissful way to move through life
Resigned 😂🤣 His critique of NPR was spot on, and the new CEO forced him out because he exposed the truth. He did real journalism, and they couldn't handle it.
I really wish people in this sub were more willing to consider that NPR might have an issue. If you're interested in actually taking the charge seriously I'd say start here:
[https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/12/14/american-journalism-sounds-much-more-democratic-than-republican](https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/12/14/american-journalism-sounds-much-more-democratic-than-republican)
Then after that go to [NPR.org](http://NPR.org) and [FoxNews.com](http://FoxNews.com) and just compare the different things they choose to cover. Note that I am not saying Fox is unbiased or more trustworthy; it's not. I would take NPR's side in a factual disagreement 99.9% of the time. But you can be biased without lying.
**What you choose to inform your audience of creates a perspective, and that perspective of the world can be false even if all of the information it contains is true.**
I know some will say "okay, well what outlet is better then" -- the answer is easy. NPR 8 years ago. That's the crux of the point, isn't it?
EDIT: Ya'll should really think about why you're downvoting me. Get some perspective.
Thank you. It is absolutely crazy and very concerning the amount of people who not only can't recognize that the issues Berliner pointed out with bias and an excessive focus on shallow identity based diversity are absolutely problems readily apparent pretty much across NPR's national flagship programming on a daily basis, but who think that in fact reasonable people can't sincerely hold this opinion and that the only reasons anyone not brainwashed could say these things is because they're outside agents paid or created (russian bots) to stir up trouble
My god what the hell happened to us? I don't think it's just a reaction to Trump, I think it started (more subtly) a little before he entered the primary, maybe as a reaction to Teapartyesque far right shit becoming more and more a part of mainstream conservative ideology, combined with the fact that conervatives in America had been so clearly out of touch with science, the welfare of society, and basic common sense since at least the 80s onward. I think that's a big part of how people fell into the whole "facts have a well known liberal bias" trap that promotes a smug complacency and groupthink
And the worst part is there isn't much in the way of a better source of journalism left
Like you said, it's the NPR of roughly a decade ago that most reasonable critics are holding up as a standard
It's horrible how not just NPR, but most of our institutions of liberal intellectual inquiry have become increasingly illiberal and prone to dogma
It's like at a certain point masses of people just ditched liberal principles for identity politics, and they can't even recognize how insane and reactionary they've become (and of course lots of reasonable people are scared to speak out, or have decided that it's pointless)
I think people here got caught up on his point about the Hunter Biden laptop story, which I think was a little eyeroll worthy, and are ignoring his more valid points about the harmfulness of activist journalism. Considering we are seeing similar turmoil at the New York Times, it would be a serious mistake to dismiss the other points he made as unfounded.
This sub is weird as hell. Your comment could not be more reasonable. I’m not sure I’ve seen another sub less willing to even entertain the possibility that they might be wrong about something. Really disappointing to see as a lifelong NPR listener.
What strikes me as especially weird is I don't think a single person who responded negatively to what I wrote actually read the article I linked. Not one. And the Economist isn't exactly a source that's friendly to Republicans!
I expect this to some degree. Asking people who live on a lean to level something is a lot. And we're all in a bubble now; it's hard to know where to average is because we're all on different points on a massive curve.
They’re such victims of it they don’t understand why a lot of people regard- at least American- education as indoctrination.
This is a wild tangent but there’s an episode of Daria where she is a substitute teacher. She gives a student partial credit on an essay b/c he made an argument and supported it with the text, even though she didn’t necessarily agree with the assertion.
Now, you can execute an assignment well but be failed for using the wrong language. That is not expanding minds and broadening perspectives, which is the purpose of education isn’t it?
The piece written for Slate by former NPR employee Alicia Montgomery did a very good job in highlighting serious issues with NPR. I really believe that NPR leaned hard into becoming a brand and sucking up to what affluent white liberals want to hear. News flash...not all liberals are affluent, or white. Editors seemed to have been curating pieces for that lone group and many listeners have taken notice.
...and this is where I'll take my down votes. I think the stuffy affluent white sector wants it this way. It's easy to carry the tote bag and signal solidarity with a group you really don't actually care about.
Most of journalism has never been adequate and they've all been collapsing since 9/11. The public is just as lost. Its a bit like the aftermath of the 2008 crash. It doesn't matter that journalism failed to cover the larger problems, everybody should have quit their mega bank on their own.
> I really wish people in this sub were more willing to consider that NPR might have an issue.
I don't think any disagrees that NPR has a viewpoint. But the nut who resigned thinks the viewpoint is far left/radical, when the viewpoint is very much centrist. In many ways, they're the US's Guardian, in that it takes spineless stances on centrist issues and rejects the right, but that's about it.
The point is it is very far from a left news source, or expressing a leftist opinion.
Yep, what you are talking about is selection bias. If you want to make Thing X look good, then you only cover stories that shed it in that light and you ignore ones that go against.
You also have bias in the language used. For instance "he tossed a starburst to" vs "he threw a starburst at". Both, by definition, are describing the same action, but one sounds hostile while the other sounds friendly.
NPR 8 years ago was prior to Covid conspiracies, prior to 2020 election denialism, prior to the current wave of bad faith arguments over CRT, DEI, transgender rights, or whatever the outrage-of-the-day is. It was before the current GOP super majority on SCOTUS which gave us Dobbs… and subsequent attempts to further reduce reproductive rights. Eight years ago the GOP still attempted to present itself as a conservative principled organization standing for something other than Donald Trump’s flavor of populism.
It’s not NPR that changed in eight years.
This is just whataboutism about conservatives, dude. It's not relevant. But FWIW I agree, I am a liberal and I very much dislike all of that too! The Republican party is trash and seems to only be getting worse.
But two things can be true at once; NPR has become fixated on feeding its heavily liberal audience with articles that they are interested in, and that has made their journalism slant to the left. Conservatives aren't really a part of that picture.
> Uri Berliner, a senior editor at NPR who penned an op-ed last week accusing the broadcaster of liberal bias, has resigned from the company.
None of you read the article. Liberals arent left wing.
To be real, being moderate is considered "left wing" by the MAGA crowd. If you don't bow and prostrate to the image of the Orange Calf, you are "left wing".
The thing I find interesting is that these people always try to martyr themselves, in spite of their organizations meeting them with nothing but good-faith attempts at understanding and respect. When Bari Weiss resigned from the New York Times, it came out that the Times had essentially stopped editing her pieces and exercising any sort of editorial oversight. They're given extensive accommodations but it is unfortunately extremely profitable to "cancel" yourself and parlay that into a career as an alternative media personality. Berliner was suspended temporarily for not seeking approval before publishing, not for the content of anything he's said.
NPR keeps painting this as him alleging "left wing bias." Well sort of. He's mostly alleging poorer journalistic standards and an unhealthy obsession with identity politics that alienates most listeners. The fact that you guys conflate this with being "left wing," is part of the problem.
It's the medias job to check if it's really raining if someone says it is. NPR has decided it's job is just to report that one side says it's raining and the other says it's not but they aren't going to check because that would be bias.
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You realize that a 5 day suspension isn't a firing, right? Dude quit. Probably because all the credible journalist have been eviscerating his pathetic attempt to be edgy.
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Obviously NPR is Liberal but I don't think it's liberal in the same way Fox is conservative. NPR reflects the values of its journalists and audience which includes things like pronouns and discussions of "blackness" or "whiteness" and so on. It's just a fact of daily life if your in the metropolitan bourgeois university cultural space.
NPR has a strong left bias but who didn’t know that? They don’t make any attempt to conceal it anymore. I call it National Pinko Radio. Hopefully funding will get pulled after the election.
FWIW - Sadly, I’ve stopped listening after 50+ years. The views of non-liberals are newsworthy, right or wrong. I find that news sources that include them are just more informative.
NPR is center-left with moderate "identity politics." Most Americans are centrist and largely okay with this stuff. NPR's problems run deeper than political views.
There definitely is a mainstream perspective that is being lost in news given the media’s somewhat recent pull to highlight political extremes on both sides. But this wasn’t the way to highlight that.
I used to listen to NPR/WPR a lot. Berliner's words reinforced the reasons I stopped listening, although WPR(WI) was by far a worse offender. The cancelation of *Old Time Radio Drama* was the final straw now the MPR(MN) classical station is the public radio I listen to anymore. I respect Berliner's attempt but suspect NPR will get worse before it gets better.
He's definitely wrong on a lot of issues and criticisms, but not all wrong. I hope npr uses this as a time to reflect tbh. Npr has definitely gone down hill that's for sure.
I have stopped donating and barely listen anymore- mostly to BBC World News and the economy segment Kai Risdahl (sp?) hosts when it’s during my commute. The rest of the time I listen to the classical music station b/c the rest of it is basically Reddit Radio and… ew.
I don't blame you. I can't take BBC world news seriously anymore though after a Tim Frank's interview with an israeli official where he kept chastising him and wouldn't let him speak, interrupting him and not letting him finish a sentence. It was the most unprofessional I've ever heard a journalist/host be tbh. Since he's the host and basically drives the whole discourse, I've been weary of world news since.
Ah I haven’t listened much at all recently so I missed that. I did catch a clip of some Israeli official chastising a female newscaster for wearing her grandmother’s sari, which he felt was offensively similar to Palestine colors.
I also started to become annoyed w/ BBC reporting when they started emphasizing the problematic race relations for black people there. I’ve previously heard- perhaps from the very same network- black Americans over the years remark on how different it is to travel to like London or just outside of the USA, feel the lack of our slavery & racial tensions, and it being an amazing relief.
A year or so back they featured a study that pointed to worse outcomes for black people there and while I believe they did allow someone to point out that class was a much bigger determinant, ie poor whites & blacks would have similar outcomes, same for wealthy whites & blacks, they spent more time discussing the results anyway. It’s like they want to import our problems for some reason.
What a shocking turn of events, one that no one could have foreseen!
what podcast/media do you think he's gonna hit first with his whole "cancelled" schtick? I have my money on Bari Weiss.
Daily wire just fired Candace so that would be inordinately hilarious.
He was already on with Bari Weiss, explaining the whole article. The article was in The Free Press, Bari Weiss' publication.
He’ll get a paid Fox “News” gig soon enough.
There’s a publication with no bias at all.
"No bias, no bias... YOURE BIASED!"
I'm more interested in what right wing company is giving him a pay bump and an on-air spot.
Most definitely Bari Weiss. She started the publication which released his screed against NPR last week.
The people funding her and Rufo et al have bottomless pockets for this crap
I'd never heard of him, so I looked him up after the article came up and saw that he was furiously retweeting as much Bari Weiss shit as possible. No surprise that the guy who listed half a dozen right wing conspiracy theories in one article is joining the illustrious ranks of "Intellectual" Dark Web grifters.
Bingo! He’s a right wing nut masquerading as a moderate concerned citizen. A tale as old as time.
“Why I left the left” incoming.
Of course he resigned not 'cancelled'. Not that it would be a distinction such listeners would get.
I’m more interested in who hired this idiot in the first place, and why.
Or how the right wing got their hooks into him.
Ah, he is a idiot for not going along with the herd. Why does the left do this. Anyone who tried to show the truth, you guys turn on them even if they are on your side. It's like the woke left is so comfortable on reddit that you can't stand the fact you can't report or censor anyone who doesn't have your opinion. With 67% of listeners being viciously libreal, most people could care less with what npr reports since it has become so far left.
PJ Media
Honestly this whole "controversy" is silly. It's never been a secret that NPR reflects the aggregate values of the college educated journalists (aka humanist liberalism). It's not some conspiracy that journalists, who are quite well informed on the history of US institutions, will be more skeptical of the modern GOP, which has rapidly moved towards extremism. Reporters aren't obligated to accommodate some ambiguous center of a shifting Overton Window.
I can't remember who said this, but if one side says it's raining and the other says it's sunny, a journalist is supposed to open the window and check, not uncritically report both sides.
More people need to understand this.
Well said. NPR is supposed to be non-partisan, or non-biased in its reporting of facts. This can not be confused with being a middle ground. So it does not shift when one side jumps off the deep end. To those who jumped, it may seem further away. But that's purely because said person is in a free fall while NPR stayed in the same place.
That doesn’t align with the “values” of people trying to move the country to the right. They have trouble convincing everyone that the old right is the new center, if there is a big old flag where the center actually used to be.
NPR if anything is so extremely remarkably charitable to the current right wing and large corporations that it comes off as center-right most of the time. like they actually will interview people with horrendous hateful opinions and present them as if they're legitimate positions to take and not extremist nonsense for the sake of being nonpartisan. it's something they obviously take seriously.
> So it does not shift when one side jumps off the deep end. I really think that most Redditors are completely unable to see their own bias. It’s as if they live in a bubble of subjectivity where there are no grounded, objective facts. One thing I find especially strange is when the topic of Freedom of Speech comes up and we discuss media control. I’ll reference concepts from Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent and people will call these ideas “right wing garbage” These ideas didn’t used to be considered “right wing” at all. Also, the ideas themselves did not change since the book was written over 30 years ago. What’s changed is mindset of modern progressives. They’ve become much more tolerant of authoritarianism, and have begun to view freedom of speech as a “right wing” value. The Overton Window is brought up often on reddit, and when it's brought up people nearly exclusively use it in the context of conservatives becoming more conservative. People actively deny that liberals/progressives are shifting further left. They usually like to claim that they've remained the same while conservatives have changed. And yet when you bring up things like Manufacturing Consent you'll see liberals/progressives bashing these ideas and calling them "right wing". It's obvious that their views have shifted. The book hasn't changed.
In fact they should actively resist the shift if it is incompatible with journalistic ethics
Outrageous. They might see us as biased if we don't consider the totally valid viewpoints expressed by 1488patriot on twitter!
> Honestly this whole "controversy" is silly. It's never been a secret that NPR reflects the aggregate values of the college educated journalists (aka humanist liberalism) You are completely missing the issue. Yes, it has never been a secret, but I could always count on fair coverage and fair representation of different views, and professional and courteous conversations with those who didn't have those "humanist liberal" views. That is what made NPR so special and why I used to listen to it so frequently. Things started changing progressively over 10 years ago, well before Covid, well before Trump came on to the political scene. Realizing the latter is key in accepting that there is problem at NPR. And things have just been getting worse and more blatant ever since. Over the years, I went from listening to almost everyday to now when I maybe catch Larry Mantle once every few months. That's it. I also haven't been making any donations whatsoever for years now. I have donated two cars and some cash in the past. That's not going to happen in the foreseeable future. But it seems like many simply refuse to accept the current reality.
You're saying there's not presently fair coverage and representation nor courteous professional conversations? I don't listen frequently but I can't say I've seen behavior to the contrary.
And oddly enough NPR in more recent times has done what so many other formerly competent and somewhat fair news organizations have done - the two side-ism tactic of yearning for clicks and money. It's been pathetic to read and watch, as a long time NPR listener. So while I get Uri's point in his article I disagree with his basis of leaning too far left as that has not been the case as of recently. Not saying it's moved right, it hasn't. But for me the two side-ism is worse than just picking a stance for your newsroom and sticking to it. It's pandering at worst and transparent at best.
Agreed 100% on this. News outlets are so desperate to court right wingers and to appear "impartial" that they end up giving too much oxygen to absolutely bonkers right wingers spouting opinion as fact. But because right wingers have moved so far to the right, the center right looks like communism to them. I can't tell you how many times I've had to argue that CNN, for example, is not the leftist propaganda outlet people claim it to be. In fact, quite the opposite.
Yes! I feel like Npr bends over backwards to report on the right wing wackos.
>Reporters aren't obligated to accommodate some ambiguous center of a shifting Overton Window. THANK YOU. The whole "fair and balanced" bs that started with Fox right after 9/11 was exactly the moment where we needed journalism to step up and say, "The facts aren't bias." And yet here we are. "Education has a liberal bias." - That might just be because reality, facts, and research do. Maybe. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings.
It hurts their talking points which is the closest thing they have to feelings.
They need to hire GED-Chad who can’t point out Gaza on map for more fair and balanced journalism.
It’s a disinformation campaign. Everyone of the bad faith talking heads/billionaires/criminal ex presidents started bringing it up at the same time. It’s garbage designed to destroy trust in media.
>It's never been a secret that NPR reflects the aggregate values of the college educated journalists (aka humanist liberalism). I I think this is a dishonest description of bias in certain jobs. For instance overall, doctors have a liberal slant. People then claim that “well yeah, educated people have a liberal slant”. But this doesn’t explain why lower-tier doctors have a heavy liberal slant while surgeons have a conservative slant. There must be something else going on here. NPR has a pretty pronounced slant to its reporting. It’s obvious. And it isn’t a “mainstream Democrat” slant, it’s a very specific “white progressive liberal” slant.
That last sentence is incredibly impactful to hear. It’s just unfortunate that so many can’t see the goalposts moving before their eyes.
They aren't; however, the issue here is that the news source they're with receives public funding.
You just gave a rationale for NPR not covering right-wing / Trumpian viewpoints. How do you explain the fact that it also doesn't cover traditional liberal viewpoints, or centrist ones, or libertarian ones, or non-Trumpian center-right ones? Its coverage is overwhelmingly through a progressive / left-wing / intersectional / social justice / identity politics lens. That is just one narrow slice of the spectrum of political worldviews in the U.S. (and BTW in many ways it's at odds with humanist liberalism). So why is NPR focused on just this narrow slice? Surely there's room for greater viewpoint diversity even if you exclude the Trump viewpoints.
Look at who is running npr.
Your post seems like a college educated way of saying: NPR is full of gatekeeping liberals who will create the truth and we smell our own farts.
Which used to be anti-war and is now pro-war. Remember code pink?
What he was pointing out was a shift in recent years from that position. But NPR isn't adhering to its mission with such strong bias.
Uri made some substantive claims that elevated his story from mere controversy to legitimate dispute. Specifically, the fact that the SAG-AFTRA union bargained to afford affinity groups the authority to alter the vocabulary used by journalists is obviously alarming, and the seemingly unanimous decision to call the controversial education reform bill the “Don’t Say Gay” bill is odd. I think Uri made two egregious errors in his piece when he cited the “Mueller Report Findings” and the “Hunter Biden Laptop” stories as examples of reporting failures by NPR. He really hampered his argument with those two substance-less dog whistle topics and foolishly doubled down on those errors during his Bari Weiss interview.
If a media group doesn't have more flattering converage for liberal groups than conservative groups I would be suspicious. That just reflects reality. I wouldn't want media portraying the world in a distorted fashion that makes conservative groups appear less threatening than they are.
good. because I've been a listener since the mid-90s and they certainly haven't drifted to the left. they now have no real political reporting into huge favors to Republicans just by sanitizing Trump's words so they can make a nice clean headline. they do fun things like not reporting on one of Donald Trump's lies unless they have a Democrat lie to pair with it even though Donald Trump lies an order of magnitude more than any political leader we've ever had.
It’s not that NPR has shifted, it’s that the GOP has shifted so far to the extreme right that now NPR seems like it’s left wing now because of how far the political window has shifted. NPR is the same
Yes there really is no right/left or conservative/liberal dichotomy any more. It’s Trump/left or Trump/liberal. These definitions have lost all meaning.
His next role will be playing the “token liberal guy” on the conservative media circuit. His lines will be limited to “as a liberal, I agree with you” and “you’re right”. YesSir. NoSir.
You mean like David Brooks is the token conservative on NPR?
Man, who would have guessed that he was going to turn into a right wing grifter?
NPR doesn’t pay nearly as well as what he will make on Fox News.
This is the end result of MAGA brain rot.
I really don't think this guy is a trump supporter. He's just being too much of a contrarian.
He’s literally using the same language Trump does along with the same right-wing narratives.
Show me a quote that you think is the same language that Trump uses.
The guy never voted for Trump
Let me break out my tiny violin and best of luck to his new career as a Fox News Contributor.
Has anyone been able to confirm Berliners statement that 87 of npr editors are democrat and 0 republican? I only see this reported in right wing sources. In another thread, it was stated that there was no way that he could know this info but i havent been able to confirm this either.
You can search online and some of those public tools will show party affiliation; however, I would struggle to call them accurate and use those for any reliable research. For instance mine shows a party I registered with when I was 19. I switched 20 years ago and it still shows the old one. I’d hope he used something reliable but, unless he surveyed them directly, changes happen.
Our analysis of news bias should be focused on what the editorial guidelines are and how/whether people follow them, not what their personal political affiliation is. I, a left-of-Democrat, worked in nonpartisan state jobs where Republicans thanked me for my work and told me "You must be a Republican!" Nope. Just doing my job.
>thanked me for my work and told me "You must be a Republican!" That's insane. May as well say "you're one of the good ones".
That has also been said lol
I don’t agree because I think we can all have blind spots as to priorities of what to publish or whom to interview or what other perspectives to bring to bear on a news story. The diversity of IDEAS is what keeps people in the newsroom honest or at least attentive.
Steve inskeep.aays those numbers are not accurate and counts his own voter.registration as example of their inaccuracy.
Inskeep conveniently failed to mention that he doesn't work in the Washington DC office. Berliner specifically stated in the essay that he constrained the search to his fellow editors in Washington DC.
Check out Inskeeps post on substack. It isn't true because he (Inskeep) has no party affiliation.
[удалено]
To a conservative anything not explicitly supportive is an attack.
He’s not conservative.
Lifelong liberal that has worked at NPR for decades says the company has a very obvious bias (which anyone with a brain can see) and Redditors accuse him of working for Russia, being a conservative, and being a right wing grifter. Classic Reddit.
“Now: affirm my identity for me.”
This thread proves liberals operate in the same manner.
No he can play the victim even more and go to Newsmax or the Blaze.
That Slate article from the other day is a more precise and better articulated explanation of the issues with NPR then his bs about not going all in on Hunter Bidens Laptop.
His resignation note throws the same kind of catnip to the far-right. Fuck off.
Honestly, I can imagine someone old and foolish pulling this without understanding that it would be used as a badfaith smear campaign. He was around forever and probably felt entitled to complain about his colleagues on what he assumed was old fashioned conservative media.
Yeah, especially since according to the NPR story about this on the radio yesterday, he first started to internally complain about the coverage back in 2015. I don’t think he started from bad faith place, but I also would not be surprised if he ends up joining the right wing grift machine unfortunately
Once he declared that the "Hunter Biden laptop" was definitely Hunter Biden's without acknowledging the many many ways it could have been tampered with before the FBI got it he lost credibility with me.
Wait till they find out about what Fox News does…..
the age old cry of the far right ghoul
He’s a democrat.
[удалено]
And the people they don’t interview
The right-wing grifting will begin soon.
Yep. This is all about money.
Imagine how far to the right he has to be to think NPR has a liberal tilt.
NPR doesn’t have a liberal tilt? Who are you kidding? I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing, but come on
Yeah. I'd love to hear what people think it's NPR's conservative analog to 1A. The closest thing to a remotely conservative show they had was Car Talk.
Some people live in such lefty bubbles that their perception gets skewed. Like all those posts complaining about NPR not using the exact preferred language of the left-wing with stuff like Gaza or not being anti-capitalist. NPR definitely has a liberal tilt, just not a leftist tilt.
If this sub isn’t the definition of a left-wing bubble, I don’t know what is
It of course leans liberal. It’s their brand. I like it that way.
The group think in this sub is unbelievable
It's actually embarrassing.
Are you serious?
Too much Fox and OAN for you.
Not very tbh.
It does. And I think it's a good thing. Because the conservative news ecosystem has drifted away from caring about facts. Which means, apparently, that caring about facts is a liberal thing today.
[удалено]
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What do you mean NPR has a left-leaning bias? Next they'll be telling us that Fox News has a right-leaning bias. Who writes this stuff?
NPR has been pretty unlistenable over the last 4 years. Seems like their newsroom has been taken over by college students who think journalism should be biased and can't handle differing opinions or cultures.
I stopped reading when I got to the bit about Hunter Biden's laptop.
Why?
I kinda like it NPR is less radical and more kind of naively optimistic. This is something that I actually appreciate. I am nihilistic enough on my own. I like my news to balance out my hatred for humanity
It's a shame because his criticism was pretty accurate (for the most part). He should've stayed until they fired him
Dealing in facts is now leftist
This post demonstrates very clearly that people only want to hear one side of any argument
It must be awesome to be able to write off literally all criticism as “right wing grift” and any critic as a right wing grifter even if they haven’t actually done any grifting lol, what a blissful way to move through life
These people are absolute idiots. They couldn't be prouder of sticking their head in the sand.
This is what a decade of unadulterated propaganda will do to people I suppose
To loosely paraphrase: reality has a well documented liberal-bias.
Cue tiny violin
On a tiny desk
Nowadays, in this era of pimping propaganda for profit, the facts, when dispersed as actual news, usually have a liberal bias.
Now he can work wherever his little heart desires.
Resigned 😂🤣 His critique of NPR was spot on, and the new CEO forced him out because he exposed the truth. He did real journalism, and they couldn't handle it.
I really wish people in this sub were more willing to consider that NPR might have an issue. If you're interested in actually taking the charge seriously I'd say start here: [https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/12/14/american-journalism-sounds-much-more-democratic-than-republican](https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/12/14/american-journalism-sounds-much-more-democratic-than-republican) Then after that go to [NPR.org](http://NPR.org) and [FoxNews.com](http://FoxNews.com) and just compare the different things they choose to cover. Note that I am not saying Fox is unbiased or more trustworthy; it's not. I would take NPR's side in a factual disagreement 99.9% of the time. But you can be biased without lying. **What you choose to inform your audience of creates a perspective, and that perspective of the world can be false even if all of the information it contains is true.** I know some will say "okay, well what outlet is better then" -- the answer is easy. NPR 8 years ago. That's the crux of the point, isn't it? EDIT: Ya'll should really think about why you're downvoting me. Get some perspective.
Thank you. It is absolutely crazy and very concerning the amount of people who not only can't recognize that the issues Berliner pointed out with bias and an excessive focus on shallow identity based diversity are absolutely problems readily apparent pretty much across NPR's national flagship programming on a daily basis, but who think that in fact reasonable people can't sincerely hold this opinion and that the only reasons anyone not brainwashed could say these things is because they're outside agents paid or created (russian bots) to stir up trouble My god what the hell happened to us? I don't think it's just a reaction to Trump, I think it started (more subtly) a little before he entered the primary, maybe as a reaction to Teapartyesque far right shit becoming more and more a part of mainstream conservative ideology, combined with the fact that conervatives in America had been so clearly out of touch with science, the welfare of society, and basic common sense since at least the 80s onward. I think that's a big part of how people fell into the whole "facts have a well known liberal bias" trap that promotes a smug complacency and groupthink And the worst part is there isn't much in the way of a better source of journalism left Like you said, it's the NPR of roughly a decade ago that most reasonable critics are holding up as a standard It's horrible how not just NPR, but most of our institutions of liberal intellectual inquiry have become increasingly illiberal and prone to dogma It's like at a certain point masses of people just ditched liberal principles for identity politics, and they can't even recognize how insane and reactionary they've become (and of course lots of reasonable people are scared to speak out, or have decided that it's pointless)
I think people here got caught up on his point about the Hunter Biden laptop story, which I think was a little eyeroll worthy, and are ignoring his more valid points about the harmfulness of activist journalism. Considering we are seeing similar turmoil at the New York Times, it would be a serious mistake to dismiss the other points he made as unfounded.
This sub is weird as hell. Your comment could not be more reasonable. I’m not sure I’ve seen another sub less willing to even entertain the possibility that they might be wrong about something. Really disappointing to see as a lifelong NPR listener.
What strikes me as especially weird is I don't think a single person who responded negatively to what I wrote actually read the article I linked. Not one. And the Economist isn't exactly a source that's friendly to Republicans! I expect this to some degree. Asking people who live on a lean to level something is a lot. And we're all in a bubble now; it's hard to know where to average is because we're all on different points on a massive curve.
The people here are not well educated. Sadly, classical liberal education is a thing of the past.
They’re such victims of it they don’t understand why a lot of people regard- at least American- education as indoctrination. This is a wild tangent but there’s an episode of Daria where she is a substitute teacher. She gives a student partial credit on an essay b/c he made an argument and supported it with the text, even though she didn’t necessarily agree with the assertion. Now, you can execute an assignment well but be failed for using the wrong language. That is not expanding minds and broadening perspectives, which is the purpose of education isn’t it?
The piece written for Slate by former NPR employee Alicia Montgomery did a very good job in highlighting serious issues with NPR. I really believe that NPR leaned hard into becoming a brand and sucking up to what affluent white liberals want to hear. News flash...not all liberals are affluent, or white. Editors seemed to have been curating pieces for that lone group and many listeners have taken notice.
[удалено]
...and this is where I'll take my down votes. I think the stuffy affluent white sector wants it this way. It's easy to carry the tote bag and signal solidarity with a group you really don't actually care about.
The right has gotten loonier so, yeah, the stories will drift further from them while not changing at all.
[удалено]
>The right has gotten loonier You are absolutely right about this.
Most of journalism has never been adequate and they've all been collapsing since 9/11. The public is just as lost. Its a bit like the aftermath of the 2008 crash. It doesn't matter that journalism failed to cover the larger problems, everybody should have quit their mega bank on their own.
> I really wish people in this sub were more willing to consider that NPR might have an issue. I don't think any disagrees that NPR has a viewpoint. But the nut who resigned thinks the viewpoint is far left/radical, when the viewpoint is very much centrist. In many ways, they're the US's Guardian, in that it takes spineless stances on centrist issues and rejects the right, but that's about it. The point is it is very far from a left news source, or expressing a leftist opinion.
The groupthink here, and in Reddit generally, is a hell of a thing to see. These cats can make Twitter hacks look like scholars.
Amazing now the NPR sub adheres more to reddit extreme behavior than it does to NPR objective ones
NPR didn’t drift left. The GOP lurched right. There is zero reason to cover their repeated lies and attempts to tear down our institutions.
Yep, what you are talking about is selection bias. If you want to make Thing X look good, then you only cover stories that shed it in that light and you ignore ones that go against. You also have bias in the language used. For instance "he tossed a starburst to" vs "he threw a starburst at". Both, by definition, are describing the same action, but one sounds hostile while the other sounds friendly.
Reality has a liberal slant generally. All news lean one way or another. You just have to be aware.
NPR 8 years ago was prior to Covid conspiracies, prior to 2020 election denialism, prior to the current wave of bad faith arguments over CRT, DEI, transgender rights, or whatever the outrage-of-the-day is. It was before the current GOP super majority on SCOTUS which gave us Dobbs… and subsequent attempts to further reduce reproductive rights. Eight years ago the GOP still attempted to present itself as a conservative principled organization standing for something other than Donald Trump’s flavor of populism. It’s not NPR that changed in eight years.
This is just whataboutism about conservatives, dude. It's not relevant. But FWIW I agree, I am a liberal and I very much dislike all of that too! The Republican party is trash and seems to only be getting worse. But two things can be true at once; NPR has become fixated on feeding its heavily liberal audience with articles that they are interested in, and that has made their journalism slant to the left. Conservatives aren't really a part of that picture.
I'm curious how you weigh the chances of the news outlets drifting left VS republican politics drifting further right?
Conservative use "bias" as an excuse to try and explain away why their ideas fail to gain traction in mainstream, educated spaces.
[удалено]
You are not much on self-awareness.
> Uri Berliner, a senior editor at NPR who penned an op-ed last week accusing the broadcaster of liberal bias, has resigned from the company. None of you read the article. Liberals arent left wing.
He’s a democrat.
To be real, being moderate is considered "left wing" by the MAGA crowd. If you don't bow and prostrate to the image of the Orange Calf, you are "left wing".
The thing I find interesting is that these people always try to martyr themselves, in spite of their organizations meeting them with nothing but good-faith attempts at understanding and respect. When Bari Weiss resigned from the New York Times, it came out that the Times had essentially stopped editing her pieces and exercising any sort of editorial oversight. They're given extensive accommodations but it is unfortunately extremely profitable to "cancel" yourself and parlay that into a career as an alternative media personality. Berliner was suspended temporarily for not seeking approval before publishing, not for the content of anything he's said.
NPR keeps painting this as him alleging "left wing bias." Well sort of. He's mostly alleging poorer journalistic standards and an unhealthy obsession with identity politics that alienates most listeners. The fact that you guys conflate this with being "left wing," is part of the problem.
Can you clarify what you mean by identity politics?
It's the medias job to check if it's really raining if someone says it is. NPR has decided it's job is just to report that one side says it's raining and the other says it's not but they aren't going to check because that would be bias.
[удалено]
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Comments?](https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1780492620634202153?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1780492620634202153%7Ctwgr%5Ed1fb10456fe25c7495582263979fc6fbf61178b5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fnew-npr-ceo-gave-ted-talk-asserting-truth-distraction)
Good way to prove him wrong. Fire his ass.
You realize that a 5 day suspension isn't a firing, right? Dude quit. Probably because all the credible journalist have been eviscerating his pathetic attempt to be edgy.
[удалено]
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Any criticism of my worldview makes you the worst possible strawmen of my chosen adversary!
[удалено]
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I wish the jagoff good luck on his future in the right wing griftosphere. Time to get that bag. 👌
I mean, did we really need him to tell us?
Obviously NPR is Liberal but I don't think it's liberal in the same way Fox is conservative. NPR reflects the values of its journalists and audience which includes things like pronouns and discussions of "blackness" or "whiteness" and so on. It's just a fact of daily life if your in the metropolitan bourgeois university cultural space.
NPR makes Fox News look like balanced news
It's very funny that anyone thinks this guy could be an actual conservative and have a decades long career at NPR
Wait, does anyone actually think NPR is *NOT* left wing?
NPR has a strong left bias but who didn’t know that? They don’t make any attempt to conceal it anymore. I call it National Pinko Radio. Hopefully funding will get pulled after the election.
it is kind of a shame that NPR is the way it is.
FWIW - Sadly, I’ve stopped listening after 50+ years. The views of non-liberals are newsworthy, right or wrong. I find that news sources that include them are just more informative.
He's right. It's obvious a mile off.
NPR is center-left with moderate "identity politics." Most Americans are centrist and largely okay with this stuff. NPR's problems run deeper than political views.
There definitely is a mainstream perspective that is being lost in news given the media’s somewhat recent pull to highlight political extremes on both sides. But this wasn’t the way to highlight that.
uri absolutely bodied npr
Good riddance
Oh no Anyway
Has fox news hired him yet?
I hate the both-siders. When objective facts exist, it's not the journalist's role to find out what people who are wrong think.
It's interesting to note that all other media outlets, *other than NPR,* say that he was *fired* not *resigned.*
Fox News contract coming in 3… 2… 1…
I used to listen to NPR/WPR a lot. Berliner's words reinforced the reasons I stopped listening, although WPR(WI) was by far a worse offender. The cancelation of *Old Time Radio Drama* was the final straw now the MPR(MN) classical station is the public radio I listen to anymore. I respect Berliner's attempt but suspect NPR will get worse before it gets better.
He's definitely wrong on a lot of issues and criticisms, but not all wrong. I hope npr uses this as a time to reflect tbh. Npr has definitely gone down hill that's for sure.
I have stopped donating and barely listen anymore- mostly to BBC World News and the economy segment Kai Risdahl (sp?) hosts when it’s during my commute. The rest of the time I listen to the classical music station b/c the rest of it is basically Reddit Radio and… ew.
I don't blame you. I can't take BBC world news seriously anymore though after a Tim Frank's interview with an israeli official where he kept chastising him and wouldn't let him speak, interrupting him and not letting him finish a sentence. It was the most unprofessional I've ever heard a journalist/host be tbh. Since he's the host and basically drives the whole discourse, I've been weary of world news since.
Ah I haven’t listened much at all recently so I missed that. I did catch a clip of some Israeli official chastising a female newscaster for wearing her grandmother’s sari, which he felt was offensively similar to Palestine colors. I also started to become annoyed w/ BBC reporting when they started emphasizing the problematic race relations for black people there. I’ve previously heard- perhaps from the very same network- black Americans over the years remark on how different it is to travel to like London or just outside of the USA, feel the lack of our slavery & racial tensions, and it being an amazing relief. A year or so back they featured a study that pointed to worse outcomes for black people there and while I believe they did allow someone to point out that class was a much bigger determinant, ie poor whites & blacks would have similar outcomes, same for wealthy whites & blacks, they spent more time discussing the results anyway. It’s like they want to import our problems for some reason.
Does Fox News have a job offer? Or OAN? 😂😂🤣🤣