Hacker News Reader

Comment by mtbcoder | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com