101–110 of 305 posts
Do we really hold editorials to the same standard as the rest of the news? These are opinion pieces, you should expect bias, no?
https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-tru...
Do we really hold editorials to the same standard as the rest of the news? These are opinion pieces, you should expect bias, no?
I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust. https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-tru...
Do we really hold editorials to the same standard as the rest of the news? These are opinion pieces, you should expect bias, no?
Let's say an editorial piece says "AWS is the best cloud service" but fails to disclose that its owner also owns AWS, that would be a breach of journalistic ethics. Similar case here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great, and that's followed by > Even now, the newspaper's reporters do so as a matter of routine. So, we know they "resolutely revealed" this in the past (but that is of course not the same word as "unfailingly" or even "always"), and we know that they continue to do so even to this day "as a matter of routine". But neither of those tells us anything about the current frequency compared to the past frequency. Likewis…
> Great, and that's followed by > Even now, the newspaper's reporters do so as a matter of routine. What's the issue with the follow up? The headline says "WaPo no longer does B". I quoted the bit that says "in the past, WaPo used to resolutely do A and B" to answer your question about whether we should expect B at all, and your riposte is "the NPR article continues to say WaPo still does A". The NPR article is about…
"Bernie Sanders has reduced is fighting for civil rights in worrying ways"
And in a second breath tell you that:
"Bernie Sanders has resolutely fought for civil rights in the past and even now does so as a matter of routine"
You would probably find those statements at odds with one another. You quite reasonably might want me to quantify what is different currently from recent and also prior past behavior. You might also reasonably want me to quantify his behavior in "fighting for civil rights" against his contemporaries, both past and current. What I would not expect is for you to take and hold those two statements at face value, finding that a satisfactory report on the state of things.
It's certainly possible that there is no contradiction. It might be true that he was resolute in the past, and routinely did do to date, but in the past month has missed 50 votes on civil rights legislation. But even then you'd probably want to know how many votes he misses as a regular course. You might want to know how many votes he did enter during that same time period. You might want to know whether or not he was sick or otherwise absent for health reasons.
And that's my issue at the moment. The article says "3 times in the last 2 weeks an event happened". It also tells you that the WP "resolutely" (but again notably not "always") does not allow the specific event to happen. It also tells you that the WP "routinely" (but again not "always" and without any relative comparison to "resolutely") does not allow the specific event to happen even to this very day. So why are we supposed to be worried that it happened 3 times in this last 2 weeks? By their own words, it must have happened at other times in the past, or they would have used words like "always" and "unfailingly" to describe both past and current behavior. So what makes these particular 3 times worrying? Have they never failed to do so 3 times in 2 weeks ever in their history? What about 2 times? They don't say, we have no numbers and without numbers or any sort of relative comparison we have no way to gauge whether the current behavior is or is not worrisome.
I 100% agree, but need to add that npr also has financial ties to very powerful oligarchs that need to be disclosed. For example, here is what I get when researching the largest donors to npr: "NPR's largest single donor was the estate of Joan B. Kroc, who left a bequest of over $200 million in 2003. Other major donors include foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, and the Robert Wood…
Having said that, I would expect NPR to disclose, if editorializing a piece on Ms Kroc, the donation that Ms Kroc made to NPR (and they likely do that already).
I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust. https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-tru...
What does this have to do with the article?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, Poynter. https://www.poynter.org/
"Your browser is out of date. Update your browser to view this site properly." it always makes me sad when i see this. you are not reaching your target audience. fyi this seems to be a cloudflare thing. i see it everywhere. The World Wide Web seems to be going down a dark path. perhaps i do need to update my browser, but why should that matter for just reading a news site. it's like someone wants you to not have acce…
the sheer volume of browser exploits - including in-the-wild exploited zero-click zero days - is frankly insane. intentionally leaving yourself unprotected is a bad choice that should be shoved back in your face, often.
> i see it everywhere.
i see it nowhere. update your software! and don't use chrome.
My initial reaction to the White House ballroom was “the next president should tear it down and put it back the way it was, just on principle.” I was surprised by that editorial and thought it made a good (or at least arguable) point that it’s needed and the next president will be glad to have it, instead of doing large official gatherings in tents. I’m more neutral on it now. I don’t really know what facilities the…
The issue is not whether or not the White House needs a new room, it's that the private funding model is an incredibly obvious avenue for bribery. Every single "donor" has immediate business with the federal government, and they've seen how easily Trump will sell pardons or diplomatic favors or merger approvals to anyone who pays him enough. There is no other plausible explanation for the list of funders. If this wer…