Hacker News Reader

> But on controversial issues they tend to appear neutral (offering no opinion) while at the same time couching the questions and loading their questions.

I disagree with this as a general characterization. I do think it's true that NPR presents a neutral facade while most of the hosts and commentators harbor leftist views under the surface (or in their public life), but I think in general they make a pretty good effort to present both sides of an issue without demonizing one side, and I think this is especially noticeable during the discussion of controversial ideas. A big difference between NPR (i.e. radio on the left) and the rest (i.e. conservative talk radio) is that the standard for debate on NPR is "a veneer of respect"; this doesn't mean that debates don't get heated or at times end up lopsided, but you won't find NPR hosts openly lambasting conservatism as a mental disease, or referring to right-leaning callers as morons or unpatriotic or terrorist supporters or really anything along those lines. NPR is very far from perfect, but IMO they at least shoot for an ideal that keeps the dialog open for discussion.

> but they try to hide it, which, to me, is more perverse than the blatant left and blatant right, who at least aren't pretending to be objective.

I don't think they're trying to hide it, it's more that their journalistic ethos ostensibly respects the idea of neutral reporting, thus keeping partisanship at least within the range of plausible deniability, similar to how agents of the government give constant lip-service to the ideals of the constitution but regularly run around it in practice or in spirit when it suits their needs. It's true that many of the politically elite don't respect the constitution, but some really do and the rest have to at least pretend like they do whenever possible because that's the ideal that the people want to be true. Journalism is similar; pretending to be unbiased does produce reporting with less bias.

I agree on some of what you say. However, I disagree with the interpretation of the result. On the surface that veneer is tantalizing, but in actuality it's more damaging than blatant leftists and rightists. Do you recall the Movie "They live". It's like that. Insidious. Pretends to be nice and psychologically it's more sophisticated, but also more believable and people tend to give their pieces more credence with less critical questioning than say a Fox news or MSNBC, because they mask it well.

But as I said in other comments, they're the best available option (to me), but that does not mean they are a good option. so long as you keep your ears open for their biases, they're okay to listen to.

> they take a position, but they try to hide it

Of course they do. That's what the public actually wants when they say they want "intelligent reporting"—an opinion they agree with that they can pretend is unbiased fact-based reporting. (It's the same idea as sarcasm: it's a display of intelligence to be able to signal one thing to your friends and another to the general public.)

True fact-based reporting, on the other hand, gets blasted by both sides of a debate for "supporting the other guy"—because any statement that's not explicitly in favor of them, even a statement making an orthogonal point, is against their agenda.

> the strife in dome inner cities was cast as police vs population when in reality government is at greatest fault

Most problems come down to systems of incentives spiralling out of control when nobody is watching, that create principal-agent problems when agents do what the incentives tell them to do. My favorite piece of NPR is Planet Money, because economists tend to at least be attuned to the "incentives" framing for most subjects, even if all they get to talk about is monetary incentives. I'd love to see regular reporting done by economics-trained (and maybe game-theory-trained) journalists, though.

I heard a really outrageous example of that the other day. They were doing a piece on migrants from Africa traveling to Europe. The NPR reporter brought on a British professor of international studies for an interview. The professor says, "There is a perception that immigrants hurt wages. But lots of studies now show that is not true." This statement went completely undisputed, it was reported as fact. No person of an opposing viewpoint was interviewed. I have looked at some of those studies. Lots of fancy math - but math only reflects the assumptions you put in. One paper I read stated as one of its assumptions that economic growth would be proportional to the number of migrants, and then based on that assumption proved that immigration would not hurt wages! It is pure intellectual dishonesty to cite that result out of context as proof that migration will not hurt wages, since the assumptions on which the paper is based are completely unproven.

> The professor says, "There is a perception that immigrants hurt wages. But lots of studies now show that is not true." This statement went completely undisputed, it was reported as fact.

This seems almost universal. Do you know of a media outlet that doesn't do this?

I would genuinely like to know because this infuriates me. When organization/government/company X is caught up in controversy, if I wanted to hear what they have the say, I would read their press release. What I want to know when I consume news is: who is lying to me?

All too often there are two people who are claiming contradictory facts. Any news outlet that reliably and consistently tells me which one is the liar gets my eyes and ears.

Do you have any evidence that the result you found was the result this professor was citing?

It's not generally possible to gain an understanding of a field by "[looking] at some of those studies". This is why graduate students spend hours every week doing literature review. It's why news stations get an expert in the field to comment on a topic. Such experts can never be completely free of bias, but the idea that every expert should be coupled with someone with an opposing viewpoint (and if there's consensus in the field on the topic, who?) is ludicrous at best.

Such experts can never be completely free of bias, but the idea that every expert should be coupled with someone with an opposing viewpoint (and if there's consensus in the field on the topic, who?) is ludicrous at best.

I actually think reaching some goal of being "bias free" is neither possible nor desirable. I would have had a less of an issue with that NPR segment if they had only presented one side - but it was the side that I thought had the most accurate view.

My problem with citing "studies" was not just that I had read that one lousy study. My problem is that virtually all these studies are inconclusive at best, since you cannot do controlled experiments, you cannot generalize a study of one immigrant group in one situation to other groups, etc. So citing "studies say" as some kind of world of God is ridiculous.

Exactly. Like when they find it almost painful to call out Isis/isil as bad. They do but it pains them to take a side when it's obvious there is a side. But then if someone they have an obvious stance against, they have no issue calling them out, say Russia vs Ukraine. I guess they feel safe calling out Putin. There are fewer "allegeds" qualifiers.

On the other hand, what other broadcast news outlets are dedicating any time (much less 7 or 8 minutes as many interviews on NPR can run) to a discussion about the implications of African migrants traveling to Europe?

In my experience, many of the discussions on NPR involve more than one voice in the conversation and the host allows those guests to say their piece, intervening when necessary (in the case of dodging a question, for example) but not getting in the way of what the individual has to say. Still picking apart the details of an argument but not harping on a single quote or factoid. It's part expediency but also part of what makes NPR enjoyable to listen, more time given to make a case, less time spent arguing or trying to suss out some marginal point of a larger conversation.

> For example, the strife in some inner cities was cast as police vs population

That is, in fact, who the strife was between.

> when in reality government is at greatest fault.

The police are the government. And, in the case of Baltimore, where the triggering event was murder by police as part of an extended pattern of physical abuse by police, its pretty clear that they were the proximately responsible part of government.

To the extent that there are a myriad of other factors, including other government policies, which could be argued on to have contributed less proximately, they were widely discussed by the media

I think that's obtuse. By that measure the police are part of the community and the community is part of government. Obviously you understand that the government uses the (blunt force of and in the shape of the) police to keep the peace because the community asks for help combating rampant crime.

The government takes an easy shortcut and instead of trying to solve the source of social, economic and cultural problems sends in the police as the only expression of government and thus the police are in the unenviable position take the full brunt of the backlash against an inattentive and perhaps negligent government.

That's a lazy cheap and untenable form of governance. It's like understaffing an IT department and the when the breaches happen blaming the IT security staff, a la Sony.

It's not bad policing so much as bad governance. the police are the main symbol of this "government" in the community, so they take the fall.

> the blatant left and blatant right, who at least aren't pretending to be objective

You mean like when they adopt taglines like "Fair and Balanced"?

Yes. Like in the ussr, everyone knew Pravda was a farce. Few people bought it wholesale. They knew what it was. There was no thinking it was truthful. Same for fox.

It's the entities who try to pass as unbiased that you have to be careful about. Fox and cnbc one knows where they're coming from. Just like Pravda.

So Fox and Pravda are better because they're worse? Do I have that right?

Yes because they are upfront about it. You know what you ate getting --which is blatant propaganda. Everyone knows this. With NPR they have people believe they are unbiased and have no ideological framework. It's way more subversive, because for most inane things they appear unbiased so when they want you to buy into something you are predisposed to believe their delivery.

Take a good liar. Do they lie at every occasion? No, for the most part all they say is plausible and they use that believability to their advantage. Note I am not comparing NPR to liars, I'm comparing the phenomenon.

I think your description is an accurate portrayal of one particular host on NPR who runs a discussion/talk show (Ashbrook), but it's unfair to cast that brush across all their shows; certainly NPR News does not do what you describe.

Off the top of my head, a news item about water conservation. One guy, perh some official, stated, paraphrasing here, that it was ridiculous given the drought, that we had not started curtailing the offering of free water at restaurants earlier, making the audience believe that this step was a cornerstone of conserving water. It's not credible, but the host agreed and didn't question the reasoning.

Ok sure, I grant you it's an "awareness" device, but a mechanism for conserving water it's not.

Also, they trot out the trope about almonds using vast amounts of water... Yes, they do, but do does everything else. Did they get into the vast amounts of water or takes to produce a liter of wine? No, of course not.

These both seem like incredibly niche objections. They're not somehow in bed with the anti-almond, anti-ice water lobby. I'm not saying they don't run a lousy report now and then -- that obviously happens.

Oh this kind of occurrence happens every morning. I still listen to them because they are marginally better than other news and much better than jocular morning shows.

NPR: quietly polite apologists for the status quo.