Nostr Web Client

I figure you just don't offer an opinion.

"The time is currently 07:07am, President Trump claims that the moon has been colonized by xyglorgs. Today's forcast is mostly sunny with a 30% chance of rain."

If interviewing biased guests, interview guests from both sides. Just today I heard a round table discussion on how trump is bad/wrong about his view of the Signal issue. That's trying to steer political thought against the current admin.

As for funding...

In 2008 it was about 16%

https://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/dont_forget_the_facts_about_np.php

I didn't see anything recent, but it looks like they get around 7-16 percent, pending on the year.

you may be right about direct funding i have seen that number.

Just found this:

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/

Aparently in 2020 up to 24% as that number comes from

"10% from foundation donations; 10% from university licensing and donations; and 4% from federal, state, and local governments via member stations."

or as low as 4 percent.

Remember, direct government funding doesn't include NPM funding which sends money to PBS and NPR. Nor any federal funding that passes through other organizations, but NPM is the big one.

I haven't read tge defunding bill, but if it is only direct funding, they will be fine.

Globe99 9mo ago

"The time is currently 07:07am, President Trump claims that the moon has been colonized by xyglorgs. Today's forcast is mostly sunny with a 30% chance of rain."

Really? So you don't think that journalism has any role in fact-finding? What, it's just supposed to repeat whatever someone says without even attempting to verify it?

So the next part -- "Today's forecast" -- they could just say "well the National Weather Service says it's going to be mostly sunny, but the crazy person outside of my apartment says that today is the day Blue Hellfire will Reign from the Skies.... Reporting both sides, NPR"

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Logen Kain 9mo ago

Framing things one sided and always choosing people who will support that side is hardly journalism.

But mostly, just report on interesting things (subjective to NPR and trending things) and attribute things to their sources. Don't make claims without proof.

If they want to report on crazy weather guy, they can. When they give weather, name the source. Which radio usually does anyway.

and when they say, "blah blah, without evidence, blah" it is not a fact check, but an opinion statement, claimed as fact.

Opinions are not a form of fact checking, and that's the bias I argue against.

By all means, "Trump ordered the assassination of Hillary Clinton" They report that and it's balanced. But add "without cause" and it is no longer balanced.

I want the public to hear raw news that they interpret rather than be told what to think.

Sure, bring on guests from multiple political backgrounds to say their piece, but the host has to remain neutral.

Think of it like police reporting.

Describe what happened. Don't guess, don't add extra information, don't try to infer intent.

Or, don't take government money and do what you want.

Most advertisers won't support people who speak against them, why would the government be any different?

Globe99 9mo ago

I will admit I do personally find the "claimed without evidence" line to be somewhat pedantic at times, even though in most instances it's warranted IMO.

But I think the idea of journalism just being a "police blotter"-like RSS feed falls short of what most people expect and demand from their journalistic instiutions, which is to find facts and holds people in power (especially those in government) accountable for claims that are made when those claims contradict known facts of reality.

So let's say "Trump claimed there are Mexican rapists on the moon" is a fact. However NPR knows another fact that there are NOT, indeed, rapists on the moon. Or, if we want to be really unbiased, "there is no evidence for Mexican rapists on the moon."

Which fact(s) should be reported to NPR's audience?

Logen Kain 9mo ago

I would frame it as an assertion or claim.

"Trump claims x" is fine.

"We find it hard to believe, but Trump claims x" I can even get behind.

But, "Trump falsely claims x" is a problem.

The first two make no factually framed claims, but the third does.

Even, "Trump truthfully claims x" is a problem if they don't have some sort of evidence to back it up.

We can't so much prove something is false, we can only prove things as true.

Btw, I'm enjoying these absurd situations, they're fun and illustrate points well. ^-^