How NPR lost the public's trust

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-23-2024, 10:29 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I figure that this belongs in here. It seems that not only Uri Berliner, but also Larry Sanger cofounder of Wikipedia also has some very revealing comments, as they apply to Katherine Maher. Yikes, she seems rather dangerous to anyone who values and enjoys their 1st Amendment rights.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/wikipedia-co-founder-shocked-by-npr-chief-katherine-maher

(04-23-2024, 10:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Very interesting. Sounds like she is someone that may not need to be involved in media.

This is the natural progression of the "my truth" bullshit.  Certain truths may be "harmful" therefore let's pretend they don't exist or alter them.  I know it sound hyperbolic to some when I say that the far left is the greatest danger to our Constitutional rights at the moment, but I don't really understand how people can see case after case like this, and in regard to other rights, without being intensely concerned.

[Luvnit2]

(04-17-2024, 07:24 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: The integrity of the publicly funded organization with 87 registered democrats and zero registered republicans in editorial positions, and a Biden supporting CEO with a history of tweets that would have the likes of Kathy Griffin and Keith Olbermann clapping like a seal must not be questioned.

You are, under no circumstances, to give away the game. Throw him overboard!

Just look at the facts on NPR covering the Russian collusion case. Adam the liar Schiff was on 35 times attacking Trump with no resistance.

How many times was Jordan or any Republican on NPR?

It is obvious, they need all funding removed. Journalism at least needs to pretend they share both sides fairly. Even more so when their funded is funded by the US taxpayer comprised of democrats, Independents and republicans. 

One more example of how the far left is becoming state run media, much like in China or Russia. 

[Belsnickel]

(04-23-2024, 11:35 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is the natural progression of the "my truth" bullshit.  Certain truths may be "harmful" therefore let's pretend they don't exist or alter them.  I know it sound hyperbolic to some when I say that the far left is the greatest danger to our Constitutional rights at the moment, but I don't really understand how people can see case after case like this, and in regard to other rights, without being intensely concerned.

I think the reason that I don't see it in the same light is that I see some of the same behaviors out of the right, they are just more explicit about their desire to suppress viewpoints they don't agree with. Then you have the people like Elon Musk who are claim to be for free expression except for when it is critical of him. He's just self-absorbed.

[HarleyDog]

(04-23-2024, 11:35 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is the natural progression of the "my truth" bullshit.  Certain truths may be "harmful" therefore let's pretend they don't exist or alter them.  I know it sound hyperbolic to some when I say that the far left is the greatest danger to our Constitutional rights at the moment, but I don't really understand how people can see case after case like this, and in regard to other rights, without being intensely concerned.

Deflect, deny, ignore, and blame to change the narrative. IMO, The far left zealots have become political terrorists absorbed by hatred, and a desire to destroy everything good about our country. Much of the media has bought into their ideology and refuses to report both sides. They are complicit in wanting to control and deny people's right to know the truth and the whole story, but instead use 24/7 biased attacks with no defense. Luckily, some with a voice you wouldn't expect to come forward are coming forward. Bill Maher, John Fetterman, Tulsi Gabbard, etc. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-23-2024, 04:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think the reason that I don't see it in the same light is that I see some of the same behaviors out of the right, they are just more explicit about their desire to suppress viewpoints they don't agree with. Then you have the people like Elon Musk who are claim to be for free expression except for when it is critical of him. He's just self-absorbed.

That's interesting, and in a good way, as I see it the same way but it's exactly why I view the threat coming from the left to be more significant.  The left is far more subtle, and I honestly think the sentiment among them is far more pervasive.  I think the 1A is viewed unfavorably by a significant percentage of the left and I think the 2A would be utterly dismantled if the vast majority of the left had their way.

As fore Musk, I agree he is a hypocrite.  But I will give him a lot of credit for largely sticking to his guns on this issue.  Anyone following the issue with the Australian government can see he is standing on the side of freedom and is being anti-censorship.  Link for those not aware.

(04-23-2024, 04:48 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Deflect, deny, ignore, and blame to change the narrative. IMO, The far left zealots have become political terrorists absorbed by hatred, and a desire to destroy everything good about our country. Much of the media has bought into their ideology and refuses to report both sides. They are complicit in wanting to control and deny people's right to know the truth and the whole story, but instead use 24/7 biased attacks with no defense. Luckily, some with a voice you wouldn't expect to come forward are coming forward. Bill Maher, John Fetterman, Tulsi Gabbard, etc. 

Yes, and with complete duplicity all the while gaslighting about threats to democracy.  If you asked me forty to thirty years ago, hell, even 20 years ago, who was more intolerant of opposing viewpoints it would have hands down been the right.  Now it's the left in a massive landslide.

As for Maher, I view his journey as very similar to my own.  He's coming around to almost the exact same viewpoints as me on many issues, it just took longer as he was definitely further to the left than I was.  Fetterman has been a huge shock.  I don't know if it's entirely the Israel issue either, but he's really split with the party in some major ways.

[Belsnickel]

(04-23-2024, 06:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fetterman has been a huge shock.  I don't know if it's entirely the Israel issue either, but he's really split with the party in some major ways.

Not if you look at the votes. He is in line with the majority of Democratic politicians on things. Honestly, Fetterman is definitely one of my favorites which is no surprise. He has his principles and doesn't care about party principles. We would probably disagree on a few things but would agree on far more.

What frustrates me about some of his comments, and it is really what frustrates me about the conversation as a whole, is that there seems to be little room being given by some to criticize Netanyahu and his handling of this. When more than half of the reported casualties in Gaza appear to be non-combatants and, if the most recent reports are true, there are mass graves with Palestinians murdered with their hands tied, those are not acceptable. I don't care who it is. There are no excuses. But that is seen by so many as somehow anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic. All it is really is being against the killing of innocent people.

But so many seem to be unable to talk about this with any sort of nuance. This is why I mostly avoid the Israel/Hamas thread.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-23-2024, 06:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not if you look at the votes. He is in line with the majority of Democratic politicians on things. Honestly, Fetterman is definitely one of my favorites which is no surprise. He has his principles and doesn't care about party principles. We would probably disagree on a few things but would agree on far more.

Yes, I was aware of his voting record being very much inline with the Dems.  I recently read an article on him, I honestly don't remember from where, and that was a key point.  I don't think that nullifies my point though.  If you vote party line 95% of the time, but the 5% you don't are huge issues that's a rather more significant number than 5% would lead you to believe.  Of the top of my head his going after Bob Menendez in a major way would be another example other than Israel.

Quote:What frustrates me about some of his comments, and it is really what frustrates me about the conversation as a whole, is that there seems to be little room being given by some to criticize Netanyahu and his handling of this. When more than half of the reported casualties in Gaza appear to be non-combatants and, if the most recent reports are true, there are mass graves with Palestinians murdered with their hands tied, those are not acceptable. I don't care who it is. There are no excuses. But that is seen by so many as somehow anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic. All it is really is being against the killing of innocent people.

I know some will snicker here, but I agree.  I think the problem is that a very large percentage of the people who voice criticism of Netanyahu also couple their points with very slanted views of Hamas and their "plight."  One need look no further than this very board, in which a thread, started by you, on the conflict has literally zero posts about the actions of Hamas from left leaning posters, they are all about Israel and the claims of their actions (withb the exception of one, very recent, both sides do it post of an article by someone else).  One can only hear, "yeah, Hamas is bad too" so many times without any posts about them before the claim starts to lose any legitimacy.

In truth Netanyahu is to Israel what Dick Cheney is to us and Putin is to Russia.  He's an amoral man who is willing to do pretty much anything he can get away with the achieve his goals.  The problem is that his direct opposition in Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are infinitely worse.  It's like our being on the same side as Stalin, possibly (probably?) a more odious man than Hitler.  It's far from ideal, but the alternative is worse.

Quote:But so many seem to be unable to talk about this with any sort of nuance. This is why I mostly avoid the Israel/Hamas thread.

Understandable.  I think the occasional rational point from you, and others like you, would help steer the conversation in more productive directions though.  But, again, I get what you're saying.

[Dill]

(04-23-2024, 07:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What frustrates me about some of his comments, and it is really what frustrates me about the conversation as a whole, is that there seems to be little room being given by some to criticize Netanyahu and his handling of this. When more than half of the reported casualties in Gaza appear to be non-combatants and, if the most recent reports are true, there are mass graves with Palestinians murdered with their hands tied, those are not acceptable. I don't care who it is. There are no excuses. But that is seen by so many as somehow anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic. All it is really is being against the killing of innocent people.

I know some will snicker here, but I agree.  I think the problem is that a very large percentage of the people who voice criticism of Netanyahu also couple their points with very slanted views of Hamas and their "plight."  One need look no further than this very board, in which a thread, started by you, on the conflict has literally zero posts about the actions of Hamas from left leaning posters, they are all about Israel and the claims of their actions (withb the exception of one, very recent, both sides do it post of an article by someone else).  One can only hear, "yeah, Hamas is bad too" so many times without any posts about them before the claim starts to lose any legitimacy.

Where are those posts with the "slanted views of Hamas"?  Can you quote them or at least give the post #s?
I'm wondering if such posts will turn out to be "coupled" with nothing but critique of Israeli policy.

And how can one say "Yeah, Hamas is bad too" without posting about them? One would have to say so in a post.

The "balance" between Israel and Hamas posts in our forum depends in great part on the "agenda setting" of US media, and what they
think US citizens need to know about the conflict, as well as what forum members think is important.

Israel, unlike Hamas, receives a deal of US aid and is supposed to be a close ally. Their leaders visit us. So there is really a lot of news to be shared about that--much of which they themselves provide for us--if news is really what one is interested in, and a lot to consider from the policy side, if one is interested in policy. US voters have some influence over their president who has some influence over Israel. What is happening in Gaza, and in Israel, tends therefore to be of great interest. Americans disagree about what Israel is doing. So a lot to talk about there.

Biden isn't conferring with Hamas leaders. We aren't voting on aid to them. They aren't on Fox or CNN. We don't have any editorials from Gazan newspapers about what Hamas leadership should or should not be doing, as we do for Israel. So we get little news of them, much of that inadequately vetted and filtered through the IDF.  Mostly same old same old. (E.g., I've asked for info on Hamas stealing aid trucks, but haven't gotten any response yet). Just not much there. Further, despite accusations otherwise, the forum isn't divided about Hamas; no one is defending, mitigating, or "excusing" Hamas' policies/actions.  So not much there to discuss, at least for the people interested in news and policy. 

So the result is a forum imbalance, with many fresh posts about what Israel is doing, and an occasional post still repetitively asserting what "dogs" Hamas are, which just seems unenlightening, especially when coupled with denunciation of those who don't participate.

[Dill]

(04-23-2024, 06:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: HarleyDog Wrote:[url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-How-NPR-lost-the-public-s-trust?pid=1474626#pid1474626][/url]Deflect, deny, ignore, and blame to change the narrative. IMO, The far left zealots have become political terrorists absorbed by hatred, and a desire to destroy everything good about our country. Much of the media has bought into their ideology and refuses to report both sides. They are complicit in wanting to control and deny people's right to know the truth and the whole story, but instead use 24/7 biased attacks with no defense. Luckily, some with a voice you wouldn't expect to come forward are coming forward. Bill Maher, John Fetterman, Tulsi Gabbard, etc. 

Yes, and with complete duplicity all the while gaslighting about threats to democracy.  If you asked me forty to thirty years ago, hell, even 20 years ago, who was more intolerant of opposing viewpoints it would have hands down been the right.  Now it's the left in a massive landslide.

And yet, our right wing press has helped convince millions that the election was stolen, and that
those trying to hold accountable the guy who actually tired to steal it are "weaponizing" government.

With the result that the guy who tried to say in office through undemocratic means is not only running for office'
again but has a good chance of winning it again. 

Yesterday morning Brian Kilmeade was outraged that Trump, who doxxed the judge's daughter, is the only one in his NY trial
subject to a gag order. Millions can watch Trump blow through gag orders without seeing any threat to the integrity of judicial process.

That's why I have to wonder what you are calling "gaslighting" and how you are measuring "threats to democracy." 

I don't recall which side you have come down on regarding Trump's claim the election was rigged. 

But if you think it wasn't rigged, then how can "the left" pose a greater threat to democracy than reelection of the guy who
plotted to remain in office illegally, and plans to use government office for payback, while an extensive media conglomeration
has his back, working 24/7 to confirm his anti-democratic take on democratic process?  

[Dill]

(04-23-2024, 11:35 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is the natural progression of the "my truth" bullshit.  Certain truths may be "harmful" therefore let's pretend they don't exist or alter them.  I know it sound hyperbolic to some when I say that the far left is the greatest danger to our Constitutional rights at the moment, but I don't really understand how people can see case after case like this, and in regard to other rights, without being intensely concerned.

What is "my truth bullshit," in your view, and what's the alternative, in terms of editorial policy?  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-23-2024, 10:53 PM)Dill Wrote: Where are those posts with the "slanted views of Hamas"?  Can you quote them or at least give the post #s?
I'm wondering if such posts will turn out to be "coupled" with nothing but critique of Israeli policy.

And how can one say "Yeah, Hamas is bad too" without posting about them? One would have to say so in a post.

The "balance" between Israel and Hamas posts in our forum depends in great part on the "agenda setting" of US media, and what they
think US citizens need to know about the conflict, as well as what forum members think is important.

Israel, unlike Hamas, receives a deal of US aid and is supposed to be a close ally. Their leaders visit us. So there is really a lot of news to be shared about that--much of which they themselves provide for us--if news is really what one is interested in, and a lot to consider from the policy side, if one is interested in policy. US voters have some influence over their president who has some influence over Israel. What is happening in Gaza, and in Israel, tends therefore to be of great interest. Americans disagree about what Israel is doing. So a lot to talk about there.

Biden isn't conferring with Hamas leaders. We aren't voting on aid to them. They aren't on Fox or CNN. We don't have any editorials from Gazan newspapers about what Hamas leadership should or should not be doing, as we do for Israel. So we get little news of them, much of that inadequately vetted and filtered through the IDF.  Mostly same old same old. (E.g., I've asked for info on Hamas stealing aid trucks, but haven't gotten any response yet). Just not much there. Further, despite accusations otherwise, the forum isn't divided about Hamas; no one is defending, mitigating, or "excusing" Hamas' policies/actions.  So not much there to discuss, at least for the people interested in news and policy. 

So the result is a forum imbalance, with many fresh posts about what Israel is doing, and an occasional post still repetitively asserting what "dogs" Hamas are, which just seems unenlightening, especially when coupled with denunciation of those who don't participate.

Fascinating.  How does this jive with your deliberate hijacking of the Israeli hostages thread?  You even acknowledged you were doing it deliberately and continued to do it.  A need for balance as there was too much sympathy and concern for the hostages?

[Dill]

(04-24-2024, 01:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fascinating.  How does this jive with your deliberate hijacking of the Israeli hostages thread?  You even acknowledged you were doing it deliberately and continued to do it.  A need for balance as there was too much sympathy and concern for the hostages?

Where did I deliberately acknowledge I was highjacking a thread?

I went back and read our final exchanges there, where I made some pretty good points about how to keep discussion open,

e.g., by not creating rules like "no-criticism-of-the-IDF-but-let-your-imagination-fly-with-Hamas" (#s 112, 117).

I also explained why I rejected your hard right filter of allowable discussion, which excludes the larger context of the conflict (#105).

All that "jives" with this thread in that contesting censorship is pertinent to any free speech discussion.

No friend of free speech wants to dodge arguments and subvert dialogue with defamation and accusation.

So I just asked you "What is "my truth bullshit," in your view, and what's the alternative, in terms of editorial policy?"

Surely even you cannot call that question "highjacking," since it addresses your own accusation. And it's about THIS thread.
 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-24-2024, 01:51 PM)Dill Wrote: Where did I deliberately acknowledge I was highjacking a thread?

In my thread about the Israeli hostages.  You, predictably, tried to turn it into a referendum on the IDF, to which I responded thusly.

(12-19-2023, 02:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I see a lot of posts on this issue from you and Dill.  I don't recall seeing many (any?) of them on the atrocities committed, and continuing to be committed, by Hamas. Especially gauche of you to be posting this in a thread about the murder and rape of the hostages.  Maybe start you own "The IDF is as bad as Hamas" thread?

Here is your response.

(12-19-2023, 05:40 PM)Dill Wrote: No. I like this thread just fine.  Glad to see Dino isn't cowed by repetitive, baseless accusation either.

And it is not "gauche" to introduce IDF shooting of hostages into a thread about the murder and rape of hostages--unless there is some unstated
rule that Israel cannot be criticized and only Hamas can be a danger to hostages--not Israeli bombing or intentional targeting of civilians.

Might as well try to restrict discussion to GERMAN hostages, since that is in the thread title. 

Underlined and bolded for you in case you need the assistance.  As blatant an admission of deliberate hijacking as you'll see.

Quote:I went back and read our final exchanges there, where I made some pretty good points about how to keep discussion open,

e.g., by not creating rules like "no-criticism-of-the-IDF-but-let-your-imagination-fly-with-Hamas" (#s 112, 117).

I also explained why I rejected your hard right filter of allowable discussion, which excludes the larger context of the conflict (#105).

All that "jives" with this thread in that contesting censorship is pertinent to any free speech discussion.

No friend of free speech wants to dodge arguments and subvert dialogue with defamation and accusation.

Free speech has nothing to do with "dodging arguments."  Sometime I have the energy for dealing with your pompous blowhard posts.  Sometimes I do not.

Quote:So I just asked you "What is "my truth bullshit," in your view, and what's the alternative, in terms of editorial policy?"

And I'm choosing not to answer you because, A. I wasn't talking to you, and B. you'd never actually respond to the point made and we'd be back in your vortex of BS.  When someone who's actually pleasant to have a discussion with asks the question I'm very likely to answer.  Yes, I know you'll take this as a victory.  Have it, lord knows you need one.

Quote:Surely even you cannot call that question "highjacking," since it addresses your own accusation. And it's about THIS thread.
 

No, I wouldn't.  But, alas, I'm not having that discussion with you.  I'd literally rather bite onto a wood file and have someone rip it out of my mouth than have that discussion with you.  

Kisses.

[Dill]

(04-24-2024, 02:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In my thread about the Israeli hostages.  You, predictably, tried to turn it into a referendum on the IDF, to which I responded thusly.
Here is your response.

No. I like this thread just fine.  Glad to see Dino isn't cowed by repetitive, baseless accusation either.
And it is not "gauche" to introduce IDF shooting of hostages into a thread about the murder and rape of hostages--unless there is some unstated
rule that Israel cannot be criticized and only Hamas can be a danger to hostages--not Israeli bombing or intentional targeting of civilians.
Might as well try to restrict discussion to GERMAN hostages, since that is in the thread title.

Underlined and bolded for you in case you need the assistance.  As blatant an admission of deliberate hijacking as you'll see.

No. This is just evidence of a refusal to be ordered about, not an "admission" of any sort.
"I'm hijacking this thread" would be a "blatant admission."

Notice I was glad Dino wasn't cowed by baseless accusation either. 
That's in reference to your "highjacking" assertion.  

And free speech does have something to do with dodging arguments, if the
goal of censorship is to prevent other views from being heard,
the goal of your on the German hostage thread, and others as well. 

The guy who regularly calls me a "liar" and "terrorist supporter" and
demands I answer his questions won't respond to mine because I am "unpleasant"?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-24-2024, 06:43 PM)Dill Wrote: No. This is just evidence of a refusal to be ordered about, not an "admission" of any sort.
"I'm hijacking this thread" would be a "blatant admission."

Notice I was glad Dino wasn't cowed by baseless accusation either. 
That's in reference to your "highjacking" assertion.  

And free speech does have something to do with dodging arguments, if the
goal of censorship is to prevent other views from being heard,
the goal of your on the German hostage thread, and others as well. 

The guy who regularly calls me a "liar" and "terrorist supporter" and
demands I answer his questions won't respond to mine because I am "unpleasant"?

Spin away my dear man, spin away.  I'm not answering your question because I don't want to.  It would produce nothing of substance and would waste my time.  My comment was not directed towards you, thus I owe you no answer.  Sorry kiddo, you're gonna have to wait for some other topic about which I don't mind wasting my time on you.

But I tell you what, you get the other half of your brain to answer my questions about Hamas and Israel and I'll answer yours here, deal?  For some reason you didn't give him the full court press about not caring about freedom of speech when he deliberately ignored my direct questions, so maybe there's an element of hypocrisy here.  I doubt that though, you don't strike me as the type.

[Dill]

(04-24-2024, 07:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Spin away my dear man, spin away.  I'm not answering your question because I don't want to.  It would produce nothing of substance and would waste my time.  My comment was not directed towards you, thus I owe you no answer.  Sorry kiddo, you're gonna have to wait for some other topic about which I don't mind wasting my time on you.

But I tell you what, you get the other half of your brain to answer my questions about Hamas and Israel and I'll answer yours here, deal?  For some reason you didn't give him the full court press about not caring about freedom of speech when he deliberately ignored my direct questions, so maybe there's an element of hypocrisy here.  I doubt that though, you don't strike me as the type.

Your answers might not be substantive. People who can support their claims are generally happy to.

So Dino didn't answer your question? That false either/or--terrorist or freedom fighter?

Maybe he doesn't want to. But you are dodging my questions while demanding he answer yours?

All while implying an "element of hypocrisy" somewhere, and claiming others "spin away"?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-24-2024, 07:36 PM)Dill Wrote: So Dino didn't answer your question? 

Maybe he doesn't want to. 

All while implying an "element of hypocrisy" somewhere, and claiming others "spin away"?

You literally can't make this stuff up, folx. 

[Dill]

(04-24-2024, 08:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You literally can't make this stuff up, folx. 

I hear you.  Yet it's not suprising-- you
complaining that Dino won't answer a question while dodging mine.
While pretending another conclusion is obvious.


But justifying the dodgery has gotten us far from the substance of your
thread, as I understand "substance," which means it has to involve more than
repetitively denouncing people, which you've turned into a kind of sharing exercise.

So back to this statement. 

This is the natural progression of the "my truth" bullshit.  
Certain truths may be "harmful" therefore let's pretend they don't exist or alter them.

Sounds very much like you are verbally committing yourself to basic principles of modern scientific/social inquiry,
because that sounds really good, but dodging them in practice.

So how does the bolded relate to editorial practice at the NPR?