> Is there no chance that instead of NPR all of a sudden being exposed as biased, it was your own biases that were exposed?
There is a fairly simple heuristic to determine if a media outlet has a partisan bias. Does their coverage disproportionately portray one party in a positive light and the other party in a negative light?
The US has two major political parties that are each supported by approximately the same number of people. It would be mighty shocking if it turned out that one of them was right about everything and the other was wrong about everything. So if that's the impression that a media outlet leaves you with, that is a biased media outlet.
This is different than their coverage of an individual story. For any given issue, one of the parties might legitimately be right and the other one wrong. But that's not going to be true for every issue in the same direction.
That statement is unintentionally factually accurate and clearly an attempt to make someone try to defend the despised enemy, which really proves my point. The Confederacy were obviously wrong on slavery but if they were right on something else then "Union media" would be the last place you'd find an objective account of it.
Republicans support a known liar, who lied and lies about almost everything. How could someone honest not portray them in a negative light? There is nothing redeemable about the whole Trump cult.
Politicians lying is so common it's a cliche. Trump does it in an unusual way, because they typically lie about what they're going to do and then you don't find out until after they're in office, whereas Trump will say inaccurate things you can contemporaneously validate.
He'll do things like call Kamala Harris the "border czar", which she never had as an official title, but she was actually tasked with handling some aspects of the migrant issue. So then it's not exactly accurate, but to write a story about it, now you're writing a story about immigration (which Trump wants) and explaining the issue by telling people that Harris really was tasked with doing something about it, with the implication that it's not solved. He's clearly doing it on purpose. It's one of the reasons the news media hates him so much. He's effectively manipulating them and they don't like it.
But then, for example, in the Trump interview with Elon Musk, Musk proposed a government efficiency commission and Trump was receptive to the idea. Which isn't a bad idea at all, but that was not the focus of any of the interview coverage I observed.
> He'll do things like call Kamala Harris the "border czar", which she never had as an official title
Trump's strategy (whether one exists or not) around this aside, heaps of people have been called the "X czar" by the media for decades. As you point out, it's a shorthand for someone in the presiding administration who is tasked with some singular objective. Rarely did their official title ever contain the word "czar".
The current media "fact check" circus around Harris never having been the border czar is yet another clearly identifiable example of a class of people who were so dismayed by Trump's presidency that they would go to any length, however distasteful, to prevent a second term.
People conflate bias with increased criticism of one side vs. the other. But those would only be equivalent if there was some law of the universe dictating that both sides of an issue were consistently equally deserving of criticism.
I think this would be a desire for bothsidesism, the principle that (say) flat Earth theory and spherical Earth theory are both valid view points and should be given equal amounts of coverage.
Maybe so, but that doesn't matter all that much. All journalism has a point of view and its impossible to be completely unbiased...the most suspicious kind of media consumers are those that cannot recognize the bias within the media they consume.
NPR is undoubtedly a "leans left" shop in the same way Fox is undoubtedly "leans right".
Of course, even if we were talking about the WSJ or Economist or something...that's still biased. Being dead center between the current interpretation of left or right is still a kind of bias.
> All journalism has a point of view and its impossible to be completely unbiased...
So the alternative is to not even try? To double-down or triple-down on bias and shamelessly continue to self-label as journalism? To whine & cry about "the threat to democracy" while neglecting their duties as The Fourth Estate?
I think not.
The problem is simple: stop lowering the bar. Stop calling things journalism that don't qualify. If your pet barks, would you call it a cat?
No, the alternative is to be more honest about it. The whole debate about "objectivity" is because the previous definition of objectivity produced consistent bias. And by that I mean consistent huge bias.
Objectivity meant that journalist had to identify two sides and report on both equally - even if the acts in question were not equal in any objective way. If I obviously lied and you obviously did not, articles did not reflected that at all. What was called objectivity enabled and facilitated bad actors. Consistently.
Second issue was that just a selection of topics and selection of who will be allowed to express things itself creates bias. And the rules about that consistently disadvantaged certain groups and advantaged other groups.
I understand there's a bias. But review that Leher list and you'll realize that 95% of what is passed off as journalism violates too many of those rules. That is, it doesn't qualify to be called journalism.
As threats to democracy go, there's nothing worse than a self-proclaimed journalist (read: a hack) fronting like they're fulfilling their duties as a member of The Fourth Estate. Frankly, most of them don't know the difference between cause and correlation (which is an essential / foundational concept in truth and being objective), let alone what The Fourth Estate is (and why it matters).
The problem is, the publishing industry doesn't even realize it's wrong. It's blind to its own blind spot.
First of all, funnily, Lehrer rules do not define journalism. Not even historically, origins of journalism is not that.
And some of them in fact do cause own bias - they presume how the result should look like. Lehrer rules will facilitate both side journalism where you blame both sides equally regardless of facts on the ground. As I said, it is biased toward bad actors. And against those who says the truth.
Note how they contain nothing about real fact checking. They are super easy to "be followed" while being manipulative. Stuff like "I am just reporting on what X said" whereas X said unfounded accusation that is just getting traction because you refuse to fact check it.
So we're going to nitpick Lehrer while giving current (mainstream) media a free pass? I'm sorry, I don't wish to participate in such a distraction. And the irony only highlights how broken the current situation is.
Not even close. Fox has admitted in court that their programming is not journalism. NPR definitely swings left, don't get me wrong, but Fox is completely unhinged. Their own lawyers argued no reasonable person would beleive them. They're just not comparable in any rational sense.
This is the problem with moral equivalence in judging media bias. One side can slide slightly left and still be almost completely factual (if slightly illogical), while the right can be neither factual nor logical - but we are made to pretend that the biases are equal here.
As a general principle, and I know it's not a very wise thing to say, left-leaning sources are on a different dimension of factuality than right-leaning ones.
I think that also depends on the story. You saw far different reporting on Covid from the two sources. Some of the stuff coming out of the right was crazy but some ended up being the truth and the left leaning sources clearly had their marching orders dialed in and even cast things that were eventually proven true to be “lies” at the time.
Crazy that ended up true? And what “lies”? In the country where I was back then (Hungary), it was quite different, but that’s also because abuse there was and there is still no opposition. COVID was just simply mishandled, and full of corruption, just as usual.
Yeah NPR and Fox are the same degree of biased. It's just harder for people to tell that NPR is biased because its bias is aligned better with the liberal regimes of most western countries. If the regime in your country was right leaning, you'd see most media display that bias and NPR would be your go-to example of something unhinged and biased.
Most left leaning people can't even tell when they're watching something biased towards their beliefs because to them it's just like a fish swimming in water.
Perhaps not everyone will accept the judgment of Media Bias Fact Check, but I find their ratings mostly fair and based more on verifiably failed fact checks and the like than editorial opinion.
They rate NPR as having a left-center bias and high factual reporting. The bias is based on story selection rather than the reporting itself containing substantial bias.
They rate Fox News as having a right bias and mixed factual reporting. The bias based is on editorial positions and they note that news reports are generally accurate, but commentary often isn't.
If that seems unfair, consider that they rate MSNBC comparably to Fox with left bias and mixed factual reporting, though they do give it a slightly higher overall credibility rating.
> NPR is undoubtedly a "leans left" shop in the same way Fox is undoubtedly "leans right".
Oh c'mon, it's ridiculous that I need to call out a false equivalence like that.
Fox News isn't even news; they've admitted in court that they're an entertainment program. NPR is... not even remotely that. Certainly NPR has a bias, but they at least do their best to tell the truth. Fox News makes a business out of lying for outrage engagement.
> Fox News isn't even news; they've admitted in court that they're an entertainment program.
The admission they made was about one show, the one that Tucker Carlson ran before his departure from Fox[0]. Taking that and eliding it to the rest of Fox News sounds either lazy or dishonest.
An NPR host said in 1995 that if millions of people who believed in the religious concept of "rapture" actually did evaporate from this earth, the world would be a better place. After public outrage, they issued an apology but continued their relationship with the host. Does that make them tacitly support such bigotry? Nobody sued NPR over this (perhaps if this happened today and not 30 years ago, somebody would have), but what would their defense have been? That people shouldn't take things said by a show host so literally?
I used to listen and donate to NPR, but no longer do, because I don't share your confidence that they do in fact "do their best to tell the truth". I might actually feel better about it if, like Fox, they came out and admitted that they are, at least in the year 2024, in many ways a nakedly partisan organization, instead of the taxpayer-funded neutral bringer of facts that they pretend to be.
I wouldn't say NPR "leans left", rather that they "lean establishment". NPR has no sympathy at all for socialists, third party candidates, most protest movements, etc. Republicans just have too much political diversity and churn in their base in the last few decades to be anywhere near as uniform and cohesive a bloc and so the establishment usually appears at least superficially Democrat-biased.
Note: Local NPR programs are a lot better than national programs, IMO. There are two available NPR stations in my area, and they're really not similar at all except for a small overlap in programming.
Not really. I think the change from Diane Rehm to JJ Johnson and now the new “1A” host is precisely emblematic of the decline of NPR/APM (I do not care about the difference) in that era.
Agreed. I was a longtime listener since I had fond memories of my dad listening in the car growing up, but it’s borderline unlistenable now. Emblematic of the drastic change this generation in the aims of journalism, where everything in public life has become politicized, and the goal is no longer to inform and engage listeners, but to persuade and influence.
Yup. I used to listen to it while working summer jobs, something new every day to pass the time (not just politics either, Diane was almost a variety show in a sense, sometimes it’d be literature or authors or whatever too) and her retiring/her slot switching to 1A was really the catalyst for me to stop listening to npr altogether. I lasted a few months and realized it wasn’t going to get better and this was just the angle they wanted now.
I adore Terri Gross tho, I should put fresh air on my podcast app.
My problem with NPR is that is the spirit of remaining unbiased, they allow both sides of the political spectrum to say their piece with little to no push back. Whichever side spews the best lines of BS wins regardless of the actual facts on the ground.
This is...kind of an insane take on what NPR does and does not cover?
First, the insinuation that they make an effort to remain unbiased is kinda wild. As an NPR listener and donator, that isn't at all the impression I get. They seem to overwhelmingly cater their coverage and their slant towards people a lot like me. That's why I listen and why I pay and what paying customers actually expect (whether they are consciously aware of how they are supporting and consuming their own preferred bias in media is maybe 50/50 but whatever).
Can’t speak for all of NPR but what I listen to regularly pushes back on claims from both sides. My local affiliate had an especially critical interview with the state governor and the interviewer and governor agreed that they should do these hour long interviews more often.
NPR has been pushing back harder, and will label untruths as "lies" where earlier (circa 2015/16) it was very reluctant to do so. Many news organisations in the US tried very hard through the 2016 campaign cycle to normalise what was a very-far-from-normal. I've recently been going through some Brookings Institution podcasts from ~2012--2016, and the degree to which the hard-right shift was normalised at the time is telling.
NPR in particular avoided the word "lie" as late as 2017, see:
At some point, you the audience member has to be able to whittle down two sides of an argument and determine who "wins", rather than having some broadcaster decide for you.
