Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

AP, Reuters, etc, are news gatherings orgs and are different from the NPRs huffpos, WSJs, etc.

NPR, huffpo, WSJ all have their biases and a narrative they want to present for their core audience, otherwise, why would they diverge on how they present the same topic and why do the topics they cover differ?

NPR is always the underdog. They also make good use of techniques to put things in whatever perspective they want. Softball questions to sympathizers, leading questions, etc. If you study propaganda, they use pretty much all the techniques. Obviously this is why they and Glenn beck and co sound the same.

You don't need a cabal, you need a head of news, producers and journalists who share the same interests. Just make it all line up organizationally.

View on HN

This is a complete over-simplification of the news media. White-washing everything as propaganda is juvenile. The Huffington Post (a private entity) is a news aggregation service that also produces some op-ed pieces. It editorializes news that other outlets have produced and provides its own opinionated analysis. This is not what NPR does. The WSJ produces both traditional news as well as provides opinion based editorials. Again, you are conflating traditional news media and with opinion based info-tainment.

I didn't say it was all propaganda but that they use techniques of propaganda to progress their point of view. You are oversimplifying in order to paint it as invalid point of view.

It's interesting to note fox news has more diversity of opinion than does NPR. On NPR all minorities are progressives, yet IRL I know minorities with all points of view, but listening to them you'd think they were all progressives. So, yes, they forward their narrative very adroitly.

This morning they had a piece about WalMart increasing base wages more than originally announced, and the presenter, as an aside mentioned, "I'm sure out of the goodness of their hearts". See how insidious it is? There was no reason for that, it didn't follow from what the reporter was saying. And it's this kind of technique they've mastered.

No one on NPR claims that all minorities are progressive. It's well reported, for example, that many Latinos lean conservative on many issues (anti abortion, opposed to opening relations with Cuba, etc).

It's not a misrepresentation to say that, e.g., blacks tend to vote Democratic. That's factual information, and it's not the same as claiming that all minorities are progressive. No one claims this. I don't even know what "narrative" NPR would be forwarding if they claimed this.

This frankly sounds a lot more like a Fox News tactic than NPR. "All minorities vote progressive!" sounds like a rallying cry to get conservatives riled up and active.

Listen to npr more critically, then. It's obvious. I prefer them over the alternatives, but they are far from impartial and free of agenda.

NPR does not make that untrue claim. What happens is they predominantly interview progressives when they interview majorities or minorities. In addition most of the staff and volunteers do not lean conservative or libertarian by any measure. As I said, I wager I'd see more political diversity at fox, and that's staggering, knowing about fox.

It's obvious that they are not a far right wing propaganda org, yes. And undoubtedly they lean to the left. Calling them progressive propaganda is disingenuous, though.

As for interviewing only progressive minority members, I'm not sure that's true. I feel like you're pushing this as a fact with no data to back it up. I mean, if they're interviewing someone from the black lives matter movement, it's probably going to be a progressive black person. But I also recall them interviewing Latinos in Florida opposed to lifting the Cuban embargoes.

It's interesting that you hold this view. I listen to NPR every day and it's pretty often that their conservative panelists "win" the discussion. Unlike Fox, whose liberal panelists are pretty laughable, NPR airs people who know their shit, regardless of political persuasion.

I dont find their conservative guests to be persuasive at all. They're mostly hacks. They are not consistent and don't have a well formed argument.

I'm an independent and their con guests are somewhat lacking in style and argument.

Just this week Diane Rehm had Republican Senator Trent Lott and Michael Gerson, a speech writer for GWB and policy adviser for the Heritage Foundation, on her show. Both of them were extremely sharp, knowledgeable and experienced debaters and it showed.

It might be a side effect of her location (DC) and clout, but she often has influential policy makers on her show, from both sides of the fence.

Do you actually ever listen to NPR? You think it sounds like Glenn Beck? Seriously?

You don't have to like or support NPR, but they are absolutely not just pandering and pushing propaganda like Glenn Beck.

No, Glenn beck is an exaggerator. My point was if there were no bias they'd sound the same, but they don't, indicating everyone presents their point if view.

Everyone has bias. But NPR does a pretty good job of presenting both sides. e.g. I listened to them give significant air time a couple of weeks ago to a far right wing conservative supporting Trump's plan to block Muslims from entering the country. I listened to them let this nutso woman talk over the "progressive" trying to point out that this is unconstitutional.

Here is the thing about propaganda. You do give your opponents time, but you let them make fools of themselves, you undermine their positions, you introduce doubt into what they say, etc.

If you're interested in the technique follow the Russia/ Ukraine blogs. The Russian blogs are populated by confederates. One takes a somewhat extreme view, ridiculous view --everyone will see thru it, then a second confederate comes in with the more plausible submarine view... But you can flip that. That's how you do it.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't? They're propagandists for not interviewing conseratives, but if they do interview conservatives, they're somehow still propagandists. If NPR were actively selecting crazy people to represent the conservatives, that might be a reasonable accusation, but I don't believe that to be true.

65% of likely GOP voters say that they support banning Muslims from entering the country. [1] It's not propagandizing to bring a conservative on to present a position that the majority of their base supports. The proposal is absurd and frightening, but the options are to not report on it all, to not bring a conservative on air to support it, or to bring a conservative on air to support it and let them sound crazy. There is no way to say that we should ban Muslims and not sound crazy to a moderate or liberal.

[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/292796480/Bloomberg-Politics-Purpl...

It's not a damned if you do damned if you don't.

It's bring guests of comparable quality and abilities to present their ideas and don't prime one side or the other as good or bad.

I don't feel like this is going to resolve with us agreeing on anything. You think NPR is pushing an agenda really hard, and I think that's coloring your perception of everything they do. You claim that Fox News has more diversity of opinion than NPR. It's difficult for me to accept that you actually believe this.

If you think all the conservatives NPR airs sound incompetent, maybe you should consider that it's the ideas they're espousing that you don't like, rather than the particular people presenting them. If some of the ideas sound stupid when challenged, maybe those ideas are actually stupid.

Fox also does the same thing with liberals. It's an easy tactic. You put people there who don't communicate well and no matter how worthy the idea, it will fall flat with presentation and lack of eloquence.

Now, I do hold npr to higher standard because they market themselves that way. Listen to their money drives and how they sell themselves as impartial, best unbiased news source. If you don't recall, its coming next week I believe. Listen closely to how they sell themselves as bearers of the truth and impartiality.

I find it so bizarre that you think NPR is the polar opposite of Fox. Fox is a right wing propaganda org. I don't feel like that is even remotely true of NPR.

NPR doesn't hit you over the head. They are more polished and subtle. Refined. Their audience tends to be more refined at one end.

And, to be clear, you're claiming I'm equating them, I'm not. I said they use similar tactics, which they do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com