Funny how the people who seem to follow and even defend NPR aren't in this thread to play hero and tell us how accurate NPR really is..

Where's Mikesez?!?

NPR does not publish falsehoods.  They always say "it is alleged.." before saying something dubious.
As with other media outlets, the problem is not so much what they say, but what they choose to emphasize and what they choose to ignore.
The federal money they get is small potatoes.  Most of their funding is private, from listeners and wealthy trusts. As much as I dislike the government funding, I'd find it more distasteful for an elected political partisan to go after them directly.

Didn’t you tell me once that MSM bias is not determined by what they choose to omit from their reporting since they are unable to report all the facts?

---

NPR does not publish falsehoods.  They always say "it is alleged.." before saying something dubious.
As with other media outlets, the problem is not so much what they say, but what they choose to emphasize and what they choose to ignore.
The federal money they get is small potatoes.  Most of their funding is private, from listeners and wealthy trusts. As much as I dislike the government funding, I'd find it more distasteful for an elected political partisan to go after them directly.

Didn’t you tell me once that MSM bias is not determined by what they choose to omit from their reporting since they are unable to report all the facts?

No, I would have said the fact that not all facts can be reported means that perception of bias is inevitable, whether intentional bias exists or not.

It is pretty reliable, whenever the trope of "can you believe MSM is not reporting this" is played, and gets traction, MSM will report it within the next day. What I am saying is that the fact that stuff gets omitted is not sufficient evidence of bias.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Here’s an example of bias by omission. Unfortunately, News Nation uses the AP for coverage and the AP is notoriously biased.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/trump-inve...-set-soon/


Now, here’s the full reason the 2nd juror was dismissed. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-j...ssed-trial

---

Here’s an example of bias by omission. Unfortunately, News Nation uses the AP for coverage and the AP is notoriously biased.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/trump-inve...-set-soon/


Now, here’s the full reason the 2nd juror was dismissed. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-j...ssed-trial

They're definitely trying to fill the jury panel with left wing activists..

A fair trial means the death of the democrat party.

---

Here’s an example of bias by omission. Unfortunately, News Nation uses the AP for coverage and the AP is notoriously biased.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/trump-inve...-set-soon/


Now, here’s the full reason the 2nd juror was dismissed. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-j...ssed-trial

They're definitely trying to fill the jury panel with left wing activists..

A fair trial means the death of the democrat party.

I agree with Megyn Kelly. Trump will absolutely be found guilty because of where the trial is being held.

---

They're definitely trying to fill the jury panel with left wing activists..

A fair trial means the death of the democrat party.

I agree with Megyn Kelly. Trump will absolutely be found guilty because of where the trial is being held.

100%..

Wouldn't even doubt if he serves jail time before his Inauguration..

---

All news agencies are biased. I mean, there was 1 popular news outlet that was fined $787 million dollars for reporting fake news, to the extent internal communications (e.g. emails) supported the fact that they knew their reporting to be false.

---

All news agencies are biased.  I mean, there was 1 popular news outlet that was fined $787 million dollars for reporting fake news, to the extent internal communications (e.g. emails) supported the fact that they knew their reporting to be false.

Private companies can be as biased as they want. Unless they hurt someone.. like that kid a "popular news outlet" slandered by omitting the actual circumstances of an old native American screaming in his face. 

When your name is National Public and you get money from the government then it shouldn't be biased. But journalism is dead.

---

The location as well as the prospective jury pool should have been cause to move the trial somewhere else.  There is almost no way that President Trump gets an impartial and fair jury (along with the judge that should have recused himself).

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

You guys need to distinguish between bias and partisan. Bias is common and unpreventable. It's typically countered by offering alternative biases, which is the basis for cable news. If a news agency wants to be partisan, it has no business calling itself news. It's just propaganda. It's that simple. Americans need to discover principles again. Incoming Trump bump.

---

They're definitely trying to fill the jury panel with left wing activists..

A fair trial means the death of the democrat party.

I agree with Megyn Kelly. Trump will absolutely be found guilty because of where the trial is being held.

Absolutely and Paula Jones says Hi!

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

You guys need to distinguish between bias and partisan. Bias is common and unpreventable. It's typically countered by offering alternative biases, which is the basis for cable news. If a news agency wants to be partisan, it has no business calling itself news. It's just propaganda. It's that simple. Americans need to discover principles again. Incoming Trump bump.

The idea that you can get balance by simply offering a single alternative perspective is no longer credible.  For two reasons.  One, an alternative perspective may not be based in fact.  News should be introducing new opinions yes, but news should never introduce falsehood regardless of who believes the falsehood.  Two, there is more than one alternative perspective.  We used to have an illusion that you could cleanly break disagreements into a left position and a right position, but we are long past that now.  Obviously there is a libertarian perspective and a progressive perspective to go along with it, but there are more besides.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Dude there is truth (facts) and there is fiction (lies). Sadly these are twisted by the opinion of the news outlet but that doesn't make the first sentence null and void. Opinions don't belong in the news and that's why we don't have true journalism anymore.

The gym has a row of TVs in front of the row machines set on different channels and I can watch the same exact story unfolding on CNN and Fox News but you almost can't tell they are the same story because of the narrative each channel is pushing.

---

You guys need to distinguish between bias and partisan. Bias is common and unpreventable. It's typically countered by offering alternative biases, which is the basis for cable news. If a news agency wants to be partisan, it has no business calling itself news. It's just propaganda. It's that simple. Americans need to discover principles again. Incoming Trump bump.

The idea that you can get balance by simply offering a single alternative perspective is no longer credible.  For two reasons.  One, an alternative perspective may not be based in fact.  News should be introducing new opinions yes, but news should never introduce falsehood regardless of who believes the falsehood.  Two, there is more than one alternative perspective.  We used to have an illusion that you could cleanly break disagreements into a left position and a right position, but we are long past that now.  Obviously there is a libertarian perspective and a progressive perspective to go along with it, but there are more besides.

This is such a [BLEEP] red herring that's been circulating among the left. It's turd burgers only fit for morons to digest. Show me your unmitigated facts, and 9 times out of 10, I can point out the manipulation. 

When we are having political discussions, we are having moral discussions. We are talking about the way we want to shape our future. The left trots out their opinions, treats them like facts, and disperses them across their massive platform, then moves to oppose anyone who says otherwise. Furthermore, the left dominates the Overton window, and intentionally pushes the national attitude left, and once it gets far enough left, yesterday's normal is treated like heresy. Stop being a tool.

---

The idea that you can get balance by simply offering a single alternative perspective is no longer credible.  For two reasons.  One, an alternative perspective may not be based in fact.  News should be introducing new opinions yes, but news should never introduce falsehood regardless of who believes the falsehood.  Two, there is more than one alternative perspective.  We used to have an illusion that you could cleanly break disagreements into a left position and a right position, but we are long past that now.  Obviously there is a libertarian perspective and a progressive perspective to go along with it, but there are more besides.

This is such a [BLEEP] red herring that's been circulating among the left. It's turd burgers only fit for morons to digest. Show me your unmitigated facts, and 9 times out of 10, I can point out the manipulation. 

When we are having political discussions, we are having moral discussions. We are talking about the way we want to shape our future. The left trots out their opinions, treats them like facts, and disperses them across their massive platform, then moves to oppose anyone who says otherwise. Furthermore, the left dominates the Overton window, and intentionally pushes the national attitude left, and once it gets far enough left, yesterday's normal is treated like heresy. Stop being a tool.

I'm just telling you why you've seen the "here's an alternative perspective" segment go away.
It's gone away on MSNBC and on Fox News.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Is gone away because journalism doesn't care about the pursuit of reason or truth. They care more about money and partisanship.

---

Is gone away because journalism doesn't care about the pursuit of reason or truth. They care more about money and partisanship.

Does a prosecutor present an alternative viewpoint in the courtroom?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Stop the sophistry and get to your point.

---

Stop the sophistry and get to your point.

Just because a person refuses to present an alternative view doesn't mean they're not interested in truth.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Stop the sophistry and get to your point.

Just because a person refuses to present an alternative view doesn't mean they're not interested in truth.

Anyone not interested in alternative viewpoints is not interested in the truth.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.