|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 10, 2024 13:42:58 GMT -5
But as a news organization shouldn’t some what they put out be truthful, even if their audience doesn’t like it? (And maybe they actually do that and I’m unaware 🤷🏾♂️) I’m sure NPR has more than enough features that their audience is into. I don't typically listen to NPR as a news source. The only show I am really familiar with is the interview podcast Fresh Air with Terry Gross and occasionally Tiny Desk Concerts (and the old car repair show and Wait, Wait don't Tell Me). But I think a discussion about truthfulness, bias and POV is a little more complex than what you're suggesting so far. Click and Clack, the Tappit Brothers. Such a great show. |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanvbdad on Apr 10, 2024 13:46:11 GMT -5
What part of that was incorrect? If 40% went to Candidate A it doesn't have to be reported that Candidate A didn't receive a majority of the votes. How is that an “ignorance of percentages” as you put it? Regardless, when it comes to an election, if you want to report the whole story, mentioning that the majority of candidates didn’t want the eventual winner is something should be reported. Kinda like doing a story on how the person very few wanted as a presidential candidate is now one slip down the stairs of AF1 from being President. Your willingness to ignore the whole of a story because you don’t like parts of it is telling. Tell the whole story (bias free) and let people decide. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 10, 2024 13:46:20 GMT -5
I don't typically listen to NPR as a news source. The only show I am really familiar with is the interview podcast Fresh Air with Terry Gross and occasionally Tiny Desk Concerts (and the old car repair show and Wait, Wait don't Tell Me). But I think a discussion about truthfulness, bias and POV is a little more complex than what you're suggesting so far. Click and Clack, the Tappit Brothers. Such a great show. Yes, I couldn't remember the name(s). They were just natural entertainers. |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanvbdad on Apr 10, 2024 13:49:23 GMT -5
But as a news organization shouldn’t some what they put out be truthful, even if their audience doesn’t like it? (And maybe they actually do that and I’m unaware 🤷🏾♂️) I’m sure NPR has more than enough features that their audience is into. From listening to both, NPR is far more truthful than Fox. In my experience, NPR is pretty straightforward and fair, but they tend to have FM stations in large, dense media markets, which tend to be more liberal, have more diversity and more immigrants and their stories skew towards that base. I think the young people drawn to work at NPR tend to come from those populations, and then the stories of interest for those populations predominate. FoxNews news historically has also been pretty fair, but it also caters to its base and selects which stories that they tell based on the interest of that base. The EIB (which I believe is now owned by IHeartRadio?) was on lots of AM radio stations that covered large rural areas with a very conservative and largely white listenership. My perception is that they skewed hard-right 2 to 3 decades before NPR became more unbalanced, and that it cultivated personality shows that ginned up hate and fear and told a very biased one-sided story very early on (talking about Rush Limbaugh in the 1980's). While FoxNews news was relatively traditional, its opinion shows began to mirror EIB pretty early on, and now are almost unwatchable, they are such complete partisan propaganda. TL;DR I think NPR has evolved to tell stories that are of interest to a more liberal viewer in dense FM markets, but are pretty fair in their presentation of those stories, while FoxNews news also skews the stories it will and won't report on while the FoxNews opinion shows have evolved to appeal to the EIB rural white audience and have become pure propaganda and many are largely unwatchable. Thanks for your take. |
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 10, 2024 13:53:47 GMT -5
If 40% went to Candidate A it doesn't have to be reported that Candidate A didn't receive a majority of the votes. How is that an “ignorance of percentages” as you put it? Regardless, when it comes to an election, if you want to report the whole story, mentioning that the majority of candidates didn’t want the eventual winner is something should be reported. Kinda like doing a story on how the person very few wanted as a presidential candidate is now one slip down the stairs of AF1 from being President. Your willingness to ignore the whole of a story because you don’t like parts of it is telling. Tell the whole story (bias free) and let people decide. To have to include details ad nauseam because dimwits such as yourself can't deduce that 40% is NOT a majority is not what NPR is about. It's no wonder you turn to Fox News. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 10, 2024 13:54:43 GMT -5
From listening to both, NPR is far more truthful than Fox. In my experience, NPR is pretty straightforward and fair, but they tend to have FM stations in large, dense media markets, which tend to be more liberal, have more diversity and more immigrants and their stories skew towards that base. I think the young people drawn to work at NPR tend to come from those populations, and then the stories of interest for those populations predominate. FoxNews news historically has also been pretty fair, but it also caters to its base and selects which stories that they tell based on the interest of that base. The EIB (which I believe is now owned by IHeartRadio?) was on lots of AM radio stations that covered large rural areas with a very conservative and largely white listenership. My perception is that they skewed hard-right 2 to 3 decades before NPR became more unbalanced, and that it cultivated personality shows that ginned up hate and fear and told a very biased one-sided story very early on (talking about Rush Limbaugh in the 1980's). While FoxNews news was relatively traditional, its opinion shows began to mirror EIB pretty early on, and now are almost unwatchable, they are such complete partisan propaganda. TL;DR I think NPR has evolved to tell stories that are of interest to a more liberal viewer in dense FM markets, but are pretty fair in their presentation of those stories, while FoxNews news also skews the stories it will and won't report on while the FoxNews opinion shows have evolved to appeal to the EIB rural white audience and have become pure propaganda and many are largely unwatchable. Thanks for your take. For me, I have never really thought of NPR news as necessarily untruthful, but NPR does seem to skew towards sappy, personal interest stories or perspectives, and I don't do sappy. |
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 10, 2024 13:54:44 GMT -5
Click and Clack, the Tappit Brothers. Such a great show. Yes, I couldn't remember the name(s). They were just natural entertainers. The one brother has passed away. So very sad. |
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 10, 2024 13:58:47 GMT -5
Click and Clack, the Tappit Brothers. Such a great show. Yes, I couldn't remember the name(s). They were just natural entertainers. It was actually Car Talk and I spelled tappet wrong, sorry. Below is a letter they received and then read on air. It was such a funny bit. They barely got through it because of their laughing fits Dear Click and Clack, I am writing to offer profound thanks to you for resolving an important philosophical question that has been heatedly debated for the last twenty years. The rumination began on a construction site one summer in the early 1970's, as my friend Jamie and I were working our way through college. The question we raised and have agonized over, lo these many years, is one that I've never read about in any philosophical treatise, and yet I have found it has applied to countless situations and conversations overheard in bars, repair shops, sporting events, political debates, etc. etc. etc. Posit the question: Do two people who don't know what they are talking about know more or less than one person who doesn't know what he's talking about? (Pardon the un-PC masculine pronoun, but I have found this to be, most predominately, a male phenomenon.) In your recent conversations regarding electric brakes on a cattle carrier, I believe you definitely answered this query and have put our debate to rest. Amazingly enough, you proved that even in a case where one person might know nothing about a subject, it is possible for two people to know even less! One person will only go so far out on a limb in his construction of deeply hypothetical structures, and will often end with a shrug or a raising of hands to indicate the dismissability of his particular take on a subject. With two people, the intricacies, the gives and takes, the wherefores and why-nots, can become a veritable pas-de-deux of breathtaking speculation, interwoven in such a way that apologies or gestures of doubt are rendered unnecessary. I had always suspected this was the case, but no argument I could have built from my years of observation would have so satisfyingly closed the door on the subject as your performance on the cattle carrier call. To begin your comments by saying, "We'll answer your question if you tell us how electric brakes work" and "We've never heard of electric brakes" and then indulge in lengthy theoretical hypostulations on the whys and wherefores of the caller's problem allowed me to observe that you were finally putting this gnarly question to rest. I am forever indebted to you for the great service you have performed! I'm truly impressed that it took so many years of listening to your show to finally have this matter resolved. Sincerely, Andy R. P.S. If you say hello to Jamie in Ojai, California, you'll save me a long distance phone call. P.P.S. If you read this on the air, can you at least send me one of your cheap audio cassettes, so one day my grandchildren will know I accomplished something in my lifetime. |
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Apr 10, 2024 13:59:59 GMT -5
I don't typically listen to NPR as a news source. The only show I am really familiar with is the interview podcast Fresh Air with Terry Gross and occasionally Tiny Desk Concerts (and the old car repair show and Wait, Wait don't Tell Me). But I think a discussion about truthfulness, bias and POV is a little more complex than what you're suggesting so far. Click and Clack, the Tappit Brothers. Such a great show. I miss that show. I believe they had to stop when one of the brothers started having issues (alzheimers?) They started off with a car repair shop that rented space and tools to do it yourselfers, which I thought was a pretty neat idea, especially in a city with weather where its not always easy to find space to work on your own car, even if you have some tools. |
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Apr 10, 2024 14:01:47 GMT -5
For me, I have never really thought of NPR news as necessarily untruthful, but NPR does seem to skew towards sappy, personal interest stories or perspectives, and I don't do sappy. Yeah, they do tend towards an NBC Olympics approach of presenting stories rather than information, which can be annoying at times. |
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 10, 2024 14:02:24 GMT -5
Click and Clack, the Tappit Brothers. Such a great show. I miss that show. I believe they had to stop when one of the brothers started having issues (alzheimers?) They started off with a car repair shop that rented space and tools to do it yourselfers, which I thought was a pretty neat idea, especially in a city with weather where its not always easy to find space to work on your own car, even if you have some tools. Ya, you are right about the one brother. I still remember a phone call from a woman who wanted to know how she could destroy her car so her husband couldn't fix it and she could buy a new one. They couldn't bring themselves to give her advice. |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanvbdad on Apr 10, 2024 14:05:31 GMT -5
How is that an “ignorance of percentages” as you put it? Regardless, when it comes to an election, if you want to report the whole story, mentioning that the majority of candidates didn’t want the eventual winner is something should be reported. Kinda like doing a story on how the person very few wanted as a presidential candidate is now one slip down the stairs of AF1 from being President. Your willingness to ignore the whole of a story because you don’t like parts of it is telling. Tell the whole story (bias free) and let people decide. To have to include details ad nauseam because dimwits such as yourself can't deduce that 40% is NOT a majority is not what NPR is about. It's no wonder you turn to Fox News. And the insults follow when your argument turns to crap. According to you, telling the whole story is not what NPR is about. That’s a shame, but fortunately other people who are also familiar with NPR (and whose opinions I regard as far more valid) cast a different light on NPR. I’ll continue to go with their take. Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 10, 2024 14:07:39 GMT -5
To have to include details ad nauseam because dimwits such as yourself can't deduce that 40% is NOT a majority is not what NPR is about. It's no wonder you turn to Fox News. And the insults follow when your argument turns to crap. According to you, telling the whole story is not what NPR is about. That’s a shame, but fortunately other people who are also familiar with NPR (and whose opinions I regard as far more valid) cast a different light on NPR. I’ll continue to go with their take. Cheers I'm not the one who can't understand that 40% of something does not constitute a majority. That was your example. If you don't want to be called out on it don't make stupid analogies. |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanvbdad on Apr 10, 2024 14:15:54 GMT -5
And the insults follow when your argument turns to crap. According to you, telling the whole story is not what NPR is about. That’s a shame, but fortunately other people who are also familiar with NPR (and whose opinions I regard as far more valid) cast a different light on NPR. I’ll continue to go with their take. Cheers I'm not the one who can't understand that 40% of something does not constitute a majority. That was your example. If you don't want to be called out on it don't make stupid analogies. But you’re the one who wouldn’t report such a fact when it should be duly noted. Not my fault you don’t understand how real life works sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 10, 2024 14:17:27 GMT -5
I'm not the one who can't understand that 40% of something does not constitute a majority. That was your example. If you don't want to be called out on it don't make stupid analogies. But you’re the one who wouldn’t report such a fact when it should be duly noted. Not my fault you don’t understand how real life works sometimes. Report what fact? That 40% isn't a majority? Does that really need to be reported? Just stop while you're behind. You lost. |
|
