People can agree with each other politically without consulting with each other.

and yet the Twitter Files show they do, in fact, consult.

Happen to have a link to relevant parts about NPR from them?

How is "I'd not seen that part, details please" a delaying tactic? You'd really help your argument if you, you know, supported it instead of trying to divert with questions. Sorry that I don't take "The twitter files prove that the government controls NPR" at face value.

> How is "I'd not seen that part, details please" a delaying tactic?

because there are things that everyone who follows the news knows, and pretending ignorance and demanding a citation is just "go do some homework."

Twitter files did nothing of the sort. They showed some parties could spin a loose narrative that suggests such a thing without proof.

And then lets run the same statistics for administrations from the other side. After all, state-controlled media would have to follow switching government lines on this, so it'll show Republicans loving NPR and Democrats hating it during the previous administration, correct?

So you're agreeing on their political affiliation? Let's just get that out of the way first.

I'm not making a claim on political affiliation (and don't have a detailed opinion on it, being not from the US I don't read NPR stuff very much and have never heard any of their radio programmes). It's not necessary for my argument. (People desperately trying to turn everything they dislike into government-led propaganda is sadly an international pattern)

>I don't read NPR stuff very much and have never heard any of their radio programmes).

Then you should do so. Especially Fresh Air, Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me!, Car Talk (although, sadly that's just an archive -- no new shows), Story Corps[0] and a whole bunch of others that have exactly zero to do with anything political.

I wanted to add Forum as well, but since it's from KQED[1] I'm sure some folks around here will call it the propaganda arm of the People's Republic of California. <eye-roll>.

And Marketplace, On Point, RadioLab, Science Friday and a bunch of others from WBUR[2]. And WNYC[3] and WAMU[4] also have a number of shows that never even mention the dysfunction in the US political system.

That said, there are many NPR (and member station) shows that actually report the news of the day and cover political topics -- regardless of party or point of view.

Okay, it's definitely not Breitbart, Zerohedge or Alex Jones, but it's certainly not a communist organization. Rather, it's center-right, just like most of the US.

Regardless, there's lots of interesting and fun stuff, especially Fresh Air. I remember being heartbroken fifteen years ago or so to find out that Terry Gross[5] was not only past childbearing age, but gay as well. Because she's so amazing, I often fantasized about having kids with her. Seriously.

[0] https://prod-www-origin.npr.org/programs/

[1] https://www.kqed.org/

[2] https://www.wbur.org/radio

[3] https://www.wnyc.org/shows

[4] https://wamu.org/shows/

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Gross

Since you mentioned Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me:

A very recent episode featured a comedic rant about Gov. DeSantis. It called the Parental Rights Bill "Don't Say Gay" and joked about how he was attacking the Disney characters. Naturally all good NPR listeners would laugh about that.

Fresh Air: How many guests has she had on who might also appear on FoxNews? Versus MSNBC, CNN, NYT, or WaPo.

I'll tell you why they do that: if they presented a non-querulous story about the Hunter Biden laptop, their contributors would angrily demand to know why they're presenting "Fox News talking points."

>A very recent episode featured a comedic rant about Gov. DeSantis. It called the Parental Rights Bill "Don't Say Gay" and joked about how he was attacking the Disney characters. Naturally all good NPR listeners would laugh about that.

Yup. And I bet it was hilarious! They send up everyone. No particular political affiliation required. It's a comedy "game" show.

And when they skewered Obama and Clinton and Kerry and Biden and Harris and Pritzker (WWDTM is based in Chicago) and countless other people you disagree with as well as many, many you do agree with including Ron deSantis[0].

>Fresh Air: How many guests has she had on who might also appear on FoxNews? Versus MSNBC, CNN, NYT, or WaPo.

Well, since Fresh Air is almost all interviews with novelists, musicians, actors and other interesting cultural stuff, I suppose that most of the folks who Watch Fox News, if they like fiction, music, movies and theater would love to hear interviews with those folks.

And those who are interviewed on Fresh Air are usually flogging their new book/album/movie/art installation/whatever, so I'd imagine most of them would appear on any media outlet that would have them.

>if they presented a non-querulous story about the Hunter Biden laptop,

You've clearly never listened to Fresh Air, because the wouldn't do a Hunter Biden laptop story, or a Jared Kushner (yes, I love the UAE's money more than I love Ivanka, and I love Ivanka a lot!) story either.

Because it's not a political show, it's a show about culture (music, fiction, movies, etc.) and the creative people who generate it.

As I pointed out, not everything is about a bunch of gasbags bloviating about how terrible the other guy is. That shit is really tired. And has been for quite some time.

Are you an American? If so, you're my fellow citizen and potential collaborator in helping to solve the myriad issues we have here. Not my adversary or my enemy. But a fellow human and potential friend -- even if (and I have no idea one way another) we don't share the same political beliefs.

the truth is that just about all Americans agree on many, many more things than they disagree.

I find it reductive and insulting to have to justify liking non-political stuff to folks who insist that everything they don't like (and that goes for all those afflicted with Hunter Thompson's disease[1], not any particular viewpoint, whether I agree with their policy ideas or not):

   But we will be doing what he wants us to do, I think, if we consider his 
   exterior a sort of Dorian Gray facade. Inwardly, he is being eaten alive by 
   tinhorn politicians.

   The disease is fatal. There is no known cure. The most we can do for the poor 
   devil, it seems to me, is to name his disease in his honor. From this moment 
   on, let all those who feel that Americans can be as easily led to beauty as 
   to ugliness, to truth as to public relations, to joy as to bitterness, be 
   said to be suffering from Hunter Thompson’s disease. 

It's divisive, unpleasant and really, really tired. Please stop.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Man

[1] https://www.hjkeen.net/halqn/wamptrs2.htm#poldseas

>Well, since Fresh Air is almost all interviews with novelists, musicians, actors and other interesting cultural stuff, I suppose that most of the folks who Watch Fox News, if they like fiction, music, movies and theater would love to hear interviews with those folks.

> And those who are interviewed on Fresh Air are usually flogging their new book/album/movie/art installation/whatever, so I'd imagine most of them would appear on any media outlet that would have them.

So I guess your answer is "none" then?

> You've clearly never listened to Fresh Air, because the wouldn't do a Hunter Biden laptop story, or a Jared Kushner (yes, I love the UAE's money more than I love Ivanka, and I love Ivanka a lot!) story either.

"They" is NPR here, not Fresh Air (which I do listen to). NPR News or All Things Considered is "they." Show me where that laptop story was covered anywhere on NPR or PBS.

I hosted a guy at Google, Hugh Sinclair, who talks about the reality of microfinance, having spend 10 years in the field doing it. He was turned down for Fresh Air.

> As I pointed out, not everything is about a bunch of gasbags bloviating about how terrible the other guy is. That shit is really tired. And has been for quite some time.

Everything on NPR is, unfortunately, unless it's about the arts. And even there, it's heavily over-weighted to "arts by under-represented people."

> when they skewered Obama and Clinton and Kerry and Biden and Harris and Pritzker

when was that, exactly?

> most of the folks who Watch Fox News

Oh, the condescension there.

> it's divisive, unpleasant and really, really tired. Please stop.

Fortunately, if you only listen to NPR, you'll never have to hear it.

>"They" is NPR here, not Fresh Air (which I do listen to). NPR News or All Things Considered is "they." Show me where that laptop story was covered anywhere on NPR or PBS.

Okay. now you're moving the goalposts. All Things Considered is not Fresh Air.

As such, I'm done. Fuck off jerk

Yikes - I didn't see this earlier but this is the kind of thing we ban accounts for, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. Please don't do this again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The point is it is irrelevant for this discussion.

You avoided the question.

I'm not even the person you asked. What exactly is your goal? Get a random person on the internet to disagree with you about something that's not even on topic for the discussion at hand?

@detaro and @d23 46 are "random persons on the Internet"?

Call it "irrelevant" - always a good tactic.

To get that out of the way, you can follow the smart process proposed by the person you answer to: If indeed the organization is biased because government funded, it means that they will never publish stories that the government is not happy with. So, under Biden, they will not publish stories that Democrats don't like, and under Trump, they will not publish stories that Republicans don't like.

If it is not the case, then they are not biased because government funded. They may be politically biased for other reason, but it does not matter if they are government funded or not, and it is stupid to give them a label "government funded" to warn about bias if "government funded" has nothing to do with this bias. Especially because it means that non-government-funded organization can be as biased but not have any label.

Your arguments seem to hinge on some hypothetical world where Republicans are in charge AND the executive agencies are all on board with their agenda. Then, to be "government funded" NPR would have to hew to the Republican line. Q.E.D.

Maybe the first part of that will happen someday. It hasn't yet. In fact, large parts of the civil service are permanently one party and do not change when the other party takes charge (as, indeed, the Civil Service reforms of the 19th Century set out to insure). Only about 4,000 jobs are politically appointed, according to Wikipedia.

So, no, you haven't gotten that out of the way.

If the executive agencies are imposing their agenda rather than the "government agenda", then, they are not biased for being "government funded", they are being biased for being "funded". If the government has no power, they could be "government funded", or "privately funded", or whatever, they are not manipulated by the government, they are manipulated by a lobby.

What you are saying is that there is a group of interest that are independent of the government, and that has an influence because they are giving money. Why should we had a label when this group of interest is "the executive agencies", but not when it is "the investors of Wall Street", the "mass media conservative groups", the "christian lobby", ...?

(I don't pretend it's the case. I think people who really believe that the evil executive agencies impose their agenda are idiot who are not able to mentally comprehend that maybe NPR news are biased because their redaction is politically biased, with or without the existence of executive agencies)

(also, the reasoning on 4'000 jobs politically appointed is very weak: while there are way more than 4'000 jobs in the executive agencies, the very very very majority of these jobs have ZERO decision power, and the position of power in these agencies are the one politically appointed. If these executive agencies are sending memos to bias the media, or even renegotiating the contracts or the refunding based on what the media have published, it is with the support of the politically appointed board of directors)

Key metric: the more words & fine distinctions you have to use, the weaker your case. Your knowledge of how executive agencies work comes from what?

>Key metric: the more words & fine distinctions you have to use, the weaker your case. Your knowledge of how executive agencies work comes from what?

That's not really true. While "brevity" may be "the soul of wit[0]," making a point may require elucidation, since details actually matter.

And short declaratives (like the one I'm replying to) elide most, if not all, nuance.

If you reduce everything to a soundbite (or a tweet, for that matter), you miss out on the nuance and complexity of most things.

Just sayin'.

[0] https://literarydevices.net/brevity-is-the-soul-of-wit/

You’ve supported my point: there’s no consistent forced state narrative. Bias for or against a political party is orthogonal to whether the state itself is executing editorial control.

No, I'm certainly not supporting your point.

The Twitter Files show government agencies directly pressuring Twitter to cover or suppress stories. They did this despite a Republican president being in power.

So yes, that is "the state itself [is] executing editorial control." You are just spinning words if you say, "ok, yeah, they do it, but it's not consistent."

Here you go: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/25/1059262052/a-u-s-weapons-sale...

Criticism of the DNC specifically (and Biden): https://www.npr.org/2022/12/08/1141499760/concerns-arise-ove...

That's really the best you can do? One story that amplifies NPR's dislike of Saudi Arabia ("Yemen" is hardly the centerpiece of Biden foreign policy), and another claiming there's dislike of the Democratic primary calendar?

They’re clearly not afraid to be critical of the party or administration.

“Centerpiece of foreign policy” is not a well defined term, but we can try to evaluate their coverage anyway- https://www.google.com/search?q=biden+centerpiece+of+foreign...

Out of the first 9 articles, 4 have would I would call a critical slant. And Bob’s your uncle.

> They’re clearly not afraid to be critical

Really? That's clear to you? How much coverage did they give to the Hunter Biden laptop? How about the Twitter Files? How about Biden's senility?

Yemen is a very poor & muddled example. You have Iran & Saudi mixed up there.