this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
117 points (93.3% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2837 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 22 points 7 months ago (3 children)

This is one of the reasons I stopped listening to NPR in the first place. During the Trump administration they kept letting Trump's mouthpieces say whatever they wanted for like 15 min, and then give like 3 min to the opposition to explain how everything they said was a bold face lie. There just wasn't any push back from the actual journalist.

That and they canceled Ask Me Another, which is pretty much the only thing I would ever give them money for.

[–] WamGams@lemmy.ca 8 points 7 months ago

The standard NPR segment is 4 minutes. A feature is 8 minutes and maybe once a day they go over.

It may have felt like that, but I assure you that it wasn't that bad.

[–] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

IDK, I feel a lot of their programming, especially recently, has been pretty stern that there's conspiracy theories with no basis in reality. I recall them having pushed back on lies by conservative interviewees as well.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)
[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Oh hell yes I can't name names at the moment. But I remember seeing a number of different clips of American right wingers going on BBC proper to be interviewed by some right-wing lunatic in the uk. Thinking that it's going to be some sort of Cakewalk and they're just there to look good. And then just get totally shredded. It makes me a little sick inside to cheer for the British lunatic. But you got to take small wins where you can get them. I wish all media had a fraction of the spine they do over there. It's still far from perfect. But it's so much better.

[–] JaymesRS 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)
[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Yes that was at least one of them. Shut right down in a hurry. LOL

[–] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I didn't realize Shapiro was so vocally "against" Trump.

I wonder what he says about him now. I don't really want to go down that YouTube rabbit hole and f up my feeds, but did he get more against Trump after Jan 6th?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

Agreed, when an American first encounters it, it’s kind of shocking.

[–] MDKAOD@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The challenge is that in this current Trumpworld political climate is that news organizations that push back or argue in the slightest would never get additional interviews. Similar to how game publishers stop sending review copies to publications who haven't reviewed their previous works in a positive light.

We appear to be in an era of "no news except positive news or else" rather than "all press is good press"

[–] mriguy@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

But what is the value of having those interviews? Platforming somebody who is just going to tell flat out lies, and not calling them out, doesn’t inform the viewer of anything other than that watching that news outlet is a waste of time.

[–] MDKAOD@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

I agree. It's the current state of our society. Nobody likes to be challenged or have their feels hurt, which leads to avoidance of the challenge. It's a catch-22. There's little value in a non challenging interview. There's no value in an interview that doesn't occur at all.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

. . . those lies went essentially unchecked, and they'd hand the interview off to a Democrat who was baited with a leading question about "what you think about the claim that Democrats are running a child prostitution ring in the basement of a pizza restaurant", or something else equally ludicrous.

I wish that was a recent tendency, but they were doing that in the late eighties. Not . . with the pizzagate-level stuff, the right hadn’t melted to that level of grotesque obscenity yet. But they’d use a GOP talking point to frame the story. Still do, actually, but for a long time they were essentially the only slightly liberal media around.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That could be true nowadays, I haven't listened to them since the Trump administration. I don't really think it makes up for it though. If the journalist only has the spine to stand up to the GOP with a Dem in the Whitehouse, then I don't think they should be on air.

[–] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

are you seriously implying that NPR is scared of which party is in the white house? I feel that a rather extreme accusation that warrants a lot of proof. I would more easily believe that things you saw were more of a result in a change in American politics, that the media was slow to react to. This is the first president and party that is believing and spouting conspiracy theories and outright lies, with a huge percent of their voters believing them. Our government has been struggling dealing with this unexpected twist, so it only makes sense for journalists, or anybody involved in politics, to now know how to deal with this new setting and take time to adjust their plan of action.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 0 points 7 months ago

are you seriously implying that NPR is scared of which party is in the white house?

I think media personalities have to follow the guidance of editors and producers, and I think those editors and producers can be influenced by things like donors and funding. I'm not sure if I would characterize that as being scared.

I feel that a rather extreme accusation that warrants a lot of proof.

Lol, I'm not making a court case. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, mine is that npr is mainly patronized by center right WASP.

I would more easily believe that things you saw were more of a result in a change in American politics, that the media was slow to react to. This is the first president and party that is believing and spouting conspiracy theories and outright lies, with a huge percent of their voters believing them.

Not old enough to remember the Bush years?

Our government has been struggling dealing with this unexpected twist, so it only makes sense for journalists, or anybody involved in politics, to now know how to deal with this new setting and take time to adjust their plan of action

It may feel that way, but I've been through this rigamarole more than once. Similar excuses were made for the media complicity to the invasion of iraq......we just haven't ever had the wool pulled over our eyes like this before! Selectively forgetting the bay of pigs and the Gulf of tonkin.

[–] mriguy@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They’ve been doing that at least since the GWB years, which is why I stopped listening to them then.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Yeah.... tbf pretty much every news outlet post 9/11 went completely insane.