You will say what we want, when we want, and only if we want. sieg heil

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 year ago (10 children)

I have listened to dozens of stories on climate change, pollution, etc. over the years. I mean look up "NPR fossil fuels" and you'll see pages upon pages of critical, factual reporting. I'm not sure they're beholden to the fossil fuel industry - have any more info?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Sure they cover climate change, just like other commercial outlets -- but the coverage is extremely milquetoast ("stressed about climate change? Write a letter to the Earth!"). That is what their sponsorship dollars are buying.

    And in matters of foreign policy especially, public broadcasting has been extremely supportive of military mis-adventures in oil-rich countries. NPR lost a lot of support among totebaggers over their Iraq war coverage.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    It’s not the understood perspective. Its the descriptions. Their subtext is always “it’s fine, let them [insert horror action here]”

    So they’ll say “Critics say climate nearing point-of-no-return”.

    I actually remember the first time I ever heard the news refer to “an environmentalist”. Like - . . . We all live in the environment, so why single out people for . . why are they singling them out?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    NPR is highly critical of [insert atrocity here]. I doubt you can find an example where they're not.

    That's just how headlines work. "Experts say X," "Politician says Y" -- that's inoffensive.

    Environmentalist is a well-understood term with meaning. There are people who are not environmentalists. Yeah it is ridiculous that anyone isn't

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Everyone was an environmentalist until they coined the term.

    They could have coined something to mean anti-environment before that but they didn’t. I wonder why.

    (Not that NPR coined it. That’s too bold for them)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I mean, I agree that it's stupid to not be an environmentalist, but it sounds like you're criticizing NPR for correctly using the english language and adhering to journalistic practices

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    The way they do those things is, to the point, centrist at best.

    Not once did they run a report about “enhanced interrogation” using the actual word for what it is. Not once.

    So, I left.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Eh? https://www.npr.org/2023/03/21/1164916991/looking-back-on-shocking-revelations-u-s-forces-tortured-iraqis-at-abu-ghraib

    Im not old enough to remember any reporting at the time, but I have found NPR to be one of the best mainstream sources of news. These critiques are valid, but feel the typical leftist purity test

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Oh in 2023? Well that’s useful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Nice find!

    Of course NPR did not ban the word “torture”—but it did, according to ombud Alicia Shepard (6/21/09) a few months earlier, decide “to not use the term ‘torture’ to describe techniques such as waterboarding but instead [use] ‘harsh interrogation tactics,'” because “the role of a news organization is not to choose sides in this or any debate.”

    Yep. Thats it. Don’t pick a side between the fascist rapist and the progressive. No no no!

  • source
  • parent