Here’s Fox reporting on NPR’s bias: https://www.foxnews.com/media/npr-head-asks-critics-show-me-...

As you can see, it’s mostly gotcha quotes and unfair glosses. For example:

> NPR also called America’s interstate highways racist. I did not know our highways were racist. I thought they were concrete, but not according to NPR.

Of course, it’s a historical fact that many minority neighborhoods were bulldozed to make room for interstate highway development, among them Cincinnati, OH and St. Louis, MO.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-freeways-flattened-black...

But of course this history that actually happened is interpreted as Reuters’ liberal bias. There’s no winning this.

Have you read Robert Caro's The Power Broker? It's a biography of Robert Moses.

Robert Moses did not build the USA highway system.

Robert Moses was racist.

What was done to some communities was messed up.

The highway system isn't racist.

What point are you trying to make? I don't see how you're connecting these things. The highway where I live is certainly designed with racist intent.

Are you confusing freeways and highways?

Robert Caro details Moses' role wrt highways & suburbia in NYC, nationally, and even internationally.

IMHO, having never Moses, I'd wager he was classist. (Moses allegedly also hated poor and immigrant Jews.) As you know in the USA economy & society, classist ~= racist.

"Babies are not babies until they are born. They’re fetuses." from https://wamu.org/story/19/05/15/guidance-reminder-on-abortio...

I'm not against abortion. In fact, I actually see the legal necessity of it in an overpopulating world. But NPR's bias on the front does not align with my own bias or, I think, with most people.

Everyone has bias and that's perfectly human. The problem is when we don't own up to it. NPR tries to cover theirs with circuitous language and lies-by-omission, https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2019/05/29/7280694.... That double-talk served well in insulating them from criticism, but it ended up costing them the public trust.

> Babies are not babies until they are born. They’re fetuses.

This is a factual statement with accurate medical terminology.

We don’t call them meteorites until they hit the earth, either.

It's verbal sleight of hand in the cultural tug-of-war to emphasize or de-emphasize the future human. The point is that massaged language blunts or sharpens its impact, and an org's political choices therein reflect the bias.

Meteorites don't have that baggage.

It's a style guide; not "verbal sleight-of-hand." It codifies what terms should be used by their reporters, and refers to the AP style guide.

so you're saying if they said babies in their style guide it wouldn't have any impact on perception?

The baggage isn't calling fetuses what they are. The baggage and bias comes in when you lie about what a fetus is, depicting it as a human baby, which it is not. The right does that specifically to emotionally manipulate people and feed a narrative of baby killing.

Who here is doing the verbal slight of hand? The people using factual terms, or the people lying? This should be an easy one to answer.

I hate to have to inform you of this, but "babies" is not a medical term.

He didn't say it was.

Yes he did bro

In medical jargon, sure. In common usage, including among medical professionals, it's extremely common to just say "baby" in many contexts, especially when the baby is wanted and expected to be viable and brought to term. Nobody but a few weirdos or people trying to make some kind of a joke are gonna say to their partner "oh, did they give you any pictures of our fetus from the ultrasound? Oh look at our fetus' tiny little hands!"

(I'm pro-choice but think the "acksually they're fetuses" angle is fucking gross, both on an intellectually-honest debate level because it's semantic bullshit, and because it absolutely reads as a move toward dehumanization, and I hate to provide reasons for those kinds of accusations from pro-lifers to ring true)

You're responding to someone who thinks pointing to a dictionary automatically wins an argument.

> "acksually they're fetuses"

I highly doubt anyone in your actual life has said this to you, or distilled the entire argument down to this point.

> because it's semantic bullshit

Obviously, semantics isn't "bullshit" because there's been a massive decades long debate over semantics, including millions and millions spent by the right to define the semantics.

I can concede that some people hear this debate and think they're under attack in a "culture war", which I'm really not sure what the solution to that is because semantics is important.

As linked elsewhere in this thread, see Uri Berliner on the subject https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-tru...

> Can you cite specific examples of this "bias?"

Read https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-tru... by NPR veteran that shows how NPR developed a left wing bias over time. Also at https://archive.is/H7QNM

https://washingtonstand.com/news/npr-has-zero-republicans-87...

NPR Has Zero Republicans, 87 Democrats on Editorial Staff

If you are going to reference Uri's interview, you should also reference the response from his former colleagues:

https://steveinskeep.substack.com/p/how-my-npr-colleague-fai...

"NPR Has Zero Republicans, 87 Democrats on Editorial Staff"

How many "Republicans" applied?

I guess they expect NPR to have diversity hires to meet republican quotas now?

Of-course, I am sure a government funded 100%-republican news and broadcasting agency with news pieces spouting right-wing talking points trotted out with regularity would be fully accepted as an excellent use of taxpayer money in the public interest by democratic politicians.

Undoubtedly that's the reason for the under-representation of women as Fortune 500 CEO's. They're just not applying.

Would applying be a personal and professional liability for women, the way doing so at NPR could very well be for a "Republican?"

How many "Republicans" apply for jobs in gay bars?

Nice false-equivalency attempt.

You're not making an actual argument.

You understand there are many gay republicans right?

The difference is that being a republican is an ideology you choose. Republicans can stop being republicans at any time - but they don't, they continue, because they enjoy being republican.

What I mean is, republicans choose to be ideologically opposed to journalism and ideologically opposed to education. Why would they become journalists? They hate journalism, by choice.

Why would anyone care about A's criticism of competitor B?

--

FWIW:

"The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC."

eyeroll. Might want to look at the original article by the NPR veteran himself which was the first one posted, but has a paywall. The Washington Stand only elaborated it. Argue based on the facts and merits of the article.

I read Uri's piece ages ago. n=1

I also read the rebuttal from his former colleaques. n=15 (?)

It's just another entertainment industry food foght.

How about using terms like "pregnant people"? Or the fact that on my local NPR station I can count down from 60 and something like 80% of the time, before I reach 0, they've talked about race or ethnicity at least once.

That's my complaint. Decades ago I enjoyed NPR when I drove to work. It was always left leaning, but at least the programs discussed topics I found interesting or cared about for one reason or another.

These days the only thing they talk about are racial and sexual minorities. I can't express how little this kind of factionalism interests me. I'm not arguing that kind of content shouldn't be produced, but I don't want to pay for it.

> How about using terms like "pregnant people"?

You mean like countless medical journals do?

Look, I hate to say it, but if this is the type of stuff you're complaining about, then you have a weird persecution fetish. This is simply not a real problem. It is made up. It is culture war bullshit. You sound like a cry baby.

> before I reach 0, they've talked about race or ethnicity at least once.

Yeah because race and ethnicity have A LOT to do with crime. Again, you can cover your ears and go "lalala not listening!", but after a certain point we have to call the delusional, delusional, and move on with our lives.

It's not like race wasn't a thing in the past. It's just that nobody talked about it because they were racist. That's how that works. Now, we're not so racist, so when race is a factor in things we don't just fucking ignore it.

That’s not why they talk about race and you know it. And the pregnant people thing is just a dogwhistle. It’s not my fault most of American science has been captured by the far left.

Adam Carolla was interviewed by NPR and tried to Gotcha him by saying he said racist comments against Asians, but the comments were from an Asian comedian. NPR canned the interview and never aired it, despite telling him they would air it.

You know Asians can be racist against Asians right?