Looking at the political climate of the past 10 -15 years, I have a hard time believing it was NPR that really changed, or maybe - that NPR led the change. The fact that this article is in the free press of all places I think exemplifies that, sure NPR probably did change, but I assert there was zero chance of NPR holding a diverse audience in the age of Trump. And watching the free press now takeover legacy media exacerbates that.
I don’t disagree there’s a problem here, and I don’t disagree it is something that rhymes with what the author is suggesting, but I also think the nature of right wing media is that it has become more reactionary. Is this person suggesting that Fox News, or breitbart, or daily wire is where all those moderate journalists have gone?
I suppose he would say they’ve gone to free press (which would be a very narrow exodus) and this actually might be an interesting observation. What was it that cause the rift between someone like Bari Weiss and traditional media, then again, it’s hard to look at Bari Weiss’ rise to power as coming from a value of objectivity.
As if NPR, or anyone in their place, had any alternative to telling their listeners how to think! As if any of their "conservative" counterparts hesitate, for a split second, to tell their listeners how to think. You work with the audience you have, not the audience you wish you had. To a newborn, everything is propaganda.
Journalists are always acting as though only liberals have agency. "If we just talk about things differently, everything will be great." But if someone is hitting you over the head, not every element of the relationship is in your control.
From its first day of operation there have been people wanting to tear NPR down precisely because they do not control its content. The choice they have offered is "be controlled by us or we will destroy you." These aren't listeners saying this, but people who do control other media the listeners listen to. People who control ever more media with each passing year, in fact. At this rate, they control more every week.
The people seeking to control NPR don't want to argue about particular articles. They want to argue about NPR itself, and no newsroom wants themselves to be the story. It's a hard beat to cover. No matter how hard you strive to be honest, thorough, disinterested, and engaging, you are in fact one of the parties, so anything you say is suspect and easily characterized as biased.
Both-sides'ing stuff is a way to resist control, but there has been a backlash against that, because it is a compromise with the truth. It's lying by implication while not lying by outright assertion. It's lying in the interest of the people shaking you down.
5 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 21.3 ms ] threadI don’t disagree there’s a problem here, and I don’t disagree it is something that rhymes with what the author is suggesting, but I also think the nature of right wing media is that it has become more reactionary. Is this person suggesting that Fox News, or breitbart, or daily wire is where all those moderate journalists have gone?
I suppose he would say they’ve gone to free press (which would be a very narrow exodus) and this actually might be an interesting observation. What was it that cause the rift between someone like Bari Weiss and traditional media, then again, it’s hard to look at Bari Weiss’ rise to power as coming from a value of objectivity.
From its first day of operation there have been people wanting to tear NPR down precisely because they do not control its content. The choice they have offered is "be controlled by us or we will destroy you." These aren't listeners saying this, but people who do control other media the listeners listen to. People who control ever more media with each passing year, in fact. At this rate, they control more every week.
The people seeking to control NPR don't want to argue about particular articles. They want to argue about NPR itself, and no newsroom wants themselves to be the story. It's a hard beat to cover. No matter how hard you strive to be honest, thorough, disinterested, and engaging, you are in fact one of the parties, so anything you say is suspect and easily characterized as biased.
Both-sides'ing stuff is a way to resist control, but there has been a backlash against that, because it is a compromise with the truth. It's lying by implication while not lying by outright assertion. It's lying in the interest of the people shaking you down.