Comment by radomysisky
6 years ago
NPR isn't explicitly biased, but it does lean left. A recent example:
> Even In A Pandemic, WHO Believes That Public Protests Are Important
> June 8, 2020 5:40 PM ET
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/08/8724198...
14 minutes later
> Trump To Restart Political Rallies This Month Despite Coronavirus Pandemic
> June 8, 2020 5:54 PM ET
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...
"Unbiased" or "factual" does not mean "we take both sides' opinions and put them next to each other without comment" - that's what the BBC does and it gives extremist, dangerous viewpoints far more legitimacy than they're worth. The fact that coronavirus got caught up in a bunch of political nonsense does not change that.
"Unbiased" != "Factual".
"Extremist" and "dangerous" according to whom?
That's precisely what unbiased and factual means. You're actually arguing that the media should be opinionated, which is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint, but please don't try to destroy the meaning of words to make disputing your preference impossible.
Edit: I should clarify that I meant "unbiased and factual" together. Of course it's entirely possible to be both biased and factual, by choosing which facts to include.
It's not. You can reproduce information in an unbiased manner, but being factual involves fact-checking, which rarely yields a neutral result.
6 replies →
I don't think that's fair. The first article explains the WHO position, it does not endorse it.
Compare the language in the first paragraph, describing the severity of the pandemic.
In the context of left-wing political activity, just:
> In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic
In the context of right-wing political activity, a far more frightening description:
> despite the deadly coronavirus pandemic, which continues to wreak havoc on the lives and livelihoods of households across the country.
If NPR didn't lean left, the second article could have started with a tone similar to the first: in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the Trump campaign will address another pressing issue, restarting the American economy. The rally has prompted fears that the close contact of thousands of attendees could lead to a spike in case counts.
A campaign rally is not the same thing as a grassroots political protest by far. It's an organised event that an organiser explicitly invites people to, which primarily serves party politics rather than any particular political issue.
11 replies →
It's not really inconsistent to believe fighting against racial injustice is more important than the reelection of a specific president?
Making any kind of judgment about what’s “important” or “worthy” is exactly what OP was saying - that media suffer from bias and rarely confine themselves to neutral reporting of facts.
> neutral reporting of facts.
I don't know how this fiction has to be represented in every discussion. I don't want neutral unbiased reporting if it requires giving equal time to people who think that neutral unbiased reporting is real. The selection of what's important to report is literal biasing.
1 reply →