17
top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] psvrh@lemmy.ca 42 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

So let me get this straight, NPR lost America's trust?

America was radicalized by a Australian billionaire and his oil-industry buddies feeding straight up lies to a captive audience, and this is NPR's fault?

Dude, one media company had to pay almost a billion dollars in damages for their election fraud narrative, and that company wasn't NPR.

And yet somehow, this is NPR's fault?

This is some grade-A fascist apologist bullshit, up there with the New York Times whitewashing fascism in Ohio diners and commenting on how nicely Neo Nazis are dressing these days.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 28 points 7 months ago

That’s bullshit, though.

NPR is very factual with a left-center bias.

They get dinged for supporting Israel and because member stations curate their own content. Texas public radio is very different from Houston public radio which is different from Minnesota public radio and LAist serving southern cali.

Secondly, most conservatives left NPR in general because of their largely factual reporting. Further, at least MPR, they don’t shy away from reporting on republicans or admitting the rare good things they’ve done.

Conservatives responded in one of a few ways:

  • becoming less conservative (my dad for example is now an independent.)
  • not listening to NPR and instead going to fox or OAN or Epoch….
  • listening to those others mentioned and then making angry, terroristic phone calls.

It’s really not NPRs fault this happened- they told the truth as fairly and accurately as they could. And as to her accusation of favoring democrats for political interviews… do you really thing Trump or whoever is going to give an interview to somebody who says things like “but that’s not true.” To your face, when you just spouted some election-fraud lies? Or “do you have any proof?” When you double and triple down on the lie?

Nope. Because that guy looked like an idiot. (I forget who the interview was. Maybe it was one of trumps lawyers or some random pubie.)

[-] riskable@programming.dev 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Being very factual is what makes it liberal news. It's so slanted, in fact I don't think a single liberal would deny that this is exactly why they tune in! The savages are literally just listening to what they want to hear!

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 6 points 7 months ago

The universe has a well known liberal bias - it shouldn't be allowed to influence our fair and balanced media coverage.

[-] ApostleO@startrek.website 19 points 7 months ago

Persistent rumors that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia over the election became the catnip that drove reporting. [...]

But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion [...]

Aaaaand I stopped reading.

The Mueller Report absolutely found credible evidence of collusion, despite heavy-handled interference by Trump, Barr, and the rest of the GOP. It unfortunately failed to result in any prosecution (in no small part due to Barr), and failed to pressure Republicans to vote to remove Trump when he was impeached.

[-] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Literally every source says there was insufficient evidence to prove collusion, from the Mueller report specifically.

[-] ApostleO@startrek.website 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Insufficient evidence to prove a crime? Maybe. I disagree, but I'm neither a lawyer nor a judge.

But "collusion" itself isn't a crime, and the evidence clearly showed evidence of collusion between the GOP and Russia.

The number of connections between the GOP and Russia, financially and ideologically, and Russia's proven interference in 2016 and since (not to mention the GOP visit to Moscow on July 4th) are evidence enough to show there is "collusion".

The problem is our laws on campaign finance and foreign political influence are Swiss cheese.

And then they turn around and act like, "Well, he didn't get convicted of a crime, so clearly it was all a hoax."

No. It wasn't a hoax. There was evidence. Just not enough to do anythong about it, apparently. (And I still argue only because of the amount of interference run on the investigation.)

EDIT: And just in case you want to come back and obtusely repeat your argument, here's the report in full. After 181 pages of evidence, here's the conclusion.

IV. CONCLUSION Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Its in black and white: they had already determined that they would not make a "prosecutorial judgment" (recommendation to charge Trump with a crime), since Barr said that should be left to the Impeachment process. But despite that, the report makes clear, in no unclear terms...

"It also does not exonerate him."

[-] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Obstruction of justice is a different accusation than collusion with Russians. The report states that there is insufficient evidence to prove collusion, but there may be a case to prove obstruction of justice if they decided to pursue it. But they aren't going to. Which means absolutely nothing, at the end of the day. You can't work with it, can't assume anything or draw any conclusions. It's not even a hypothesis let alone one that can be proven or not proven.

[-] ApostleO@startrek.website 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Hmm, I see, I see... But, pray tell...

WHAT JUSTICE WAS HE OBSTRUCTING?!

The GOP logic seems to go like this.

  1. Get accused of crime.
  2. Illegally block investigation into the original crime.
  3. Because of your obstruction, insufficient evidence of your original crime is found to force prosecution.
  4. Now that you blocked the original charges, you can claim it was all bogus. You can't "obstruct justice" if there was no crime in the first place, right?!

So, obstruction of justice is legal now, so long as you succeed. Got it. Thanks.

Also, fuck off. I'm not reading another reply. You are unwilling to discuss this topic in good faith, or you lack the brain cells to do so.

[-] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago
[-] magnusrufus@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago
[-] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago
[-] magnusrufus@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago
[-] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

So what did it conclude about trump colluding with Russians? And what actions have come from that conclusion?

[-] magnusrufus@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Why are you asking these questions now after asserting falsehoods before and refusing to read the report?

[-] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Just curious what exactly you got from it, and how you reconcile that against what all of the news reported and concluded. Mueller report states that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities". What does that mean to you?

[-] magnusrufus@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Read the report and listen to what Mueller said he thought were the appropriate boundaries of his job. He refused to make judgments and focused on putting facts and evidence in the report. Fox and Republicans twisted that into the narrative that you are repeating. Mueller didn't find collusion because he refused to take that role, supposedly believing that the elected representatives were the ones that would take an honest look at the report and make that judgement. But you are asking those questions because you want to deflect away from you making claims about without having read it. All news didn't reach the same conclusion. All right-wing propaganda did though.

[-] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

PBS, NPR, American Bar Association, etc are not what I would call right wing propaganda, but I guess it's relative. If I understand correctly though, your stance is that Mueller was simply getting the information out there for others to act on if they chose to. In that case, why have they not acted? My impression from legal summaries, including from the American bar association, is that they are not pursuing it because the Mueller report couldn't find enough evidence to build a case. I trust their assessment and summary of the report more than what I can get out of reading it myself in it's entirety.

So what really happened? Nobody knows for sure and there is not enough evidence to do anything about it. It's a non-topic.

How long until he gets jail time? How many continuous years of lawsuits and investigations before they get him? Is the system really that broken that he keeps getting away with it or are the charges simply weak to begin with? Tbh I don't really know, but I have serious Trump fatigue.

[-] magnusrufus@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

I think that an honest assessment of Trump's handling by the legal system shows that there is plenty to go after him for and that he has been given far too much leeway. The system is broken in the sense that it relies on being populated by good faith actors instead of loyalists to a demagogue.

I think that the motivation and the handling was different but I wonder if you feel that the decades a legal pursuit of the Clinton's similarly shows that it was unfounded?

I think they didn't take action against Trump because of a combination of cowardice, party loyalty, and overt obstruction from prominent Republican leadership.

[-] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I think it's the same as for the Clintons or Biden. There are probably shady things that they did, but we will never actually know or be able to prove anything. Their enemies certainly tried hard enough without success. Going after them was a political move for them as much as it is/was for Trump, and if you can't prove anything over years of investigation and legal actions then you need to let it go, even if you believe that they are probably guilty.

Just to reiterate, I personally think Trump easily could have colluded with Russians in their interference. I believe that he would do it if he knew he could get away with it, and maybe he did. but apparently nothing can be proven ("insufficient evidence" and all that) so we need to drop it and move on, effectively assuming innocence.

[-] magnusrufus@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I disagree with the need to drop it and move on part. Conservatives thrive on that. They lie and deny until fatigue sets in and then are never held accountable. Then when we've all moved on they either rewrite history as needed or just act like nothing ever happened. Not dropping it makes their pattern of lies more obvious.

[-] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

But that just turns the legal system into a weapon for driving public sentiment, another political tool instead of a means to bring justice to criminals. If it never leads to a conviction, at some point you should wonder why. Also you are giving too much credit/blame to conservatives. That might be true if they were always in power, but the they aren't, and haven't been. So why do the Democrats keep letting them get away with it?

[-] magnusrufus@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Dropping it and moving on is letting them get away with it. Democrats try but the balance between Democrats and Republicans had been too close with a few notable Democrats reliably acting in lockstep with Republicans at critical moments. It is not giving too much blame or credit to conservatives. If you've been paying attention at all during the last 40 years it's what they've been doing.

[-] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

That's a little too vague and conspiratorial for my liking, and it's hard for me to give it too much credibility.

[-] magnusrufus@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

That's fine but your take is a little too much head in the sand for me. Ignoring their decades long pattern of behavior and insisting on moving on from the things that expose them or attempt to hold them accountable is exactly what they want.

[-] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

If you mean all politicians, then I agree with you. It's a little naive to think that good and evil is separated along party lines.

[-] magnusrufus@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I wouldn't classify Democrats as good. They are a mixed bag. Republicans though I feel comfortable classifying as evil. Because of their policy of loyalty to the party above all else and the unity with which they vote even the "not so bad" ones are complicit and aid the worst of them. The parties are not the same. Republicans are objectively worse. They have been for decades.

[-] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Republicans are more unified because their base is more homogeneous compared to Democrats. Republicans basically make up the single biggest demographic in the country, and Democrats are everyone else. Imagine if half of the country were LGBT? They would be able to have their own political party, and would be able to focus on issues specific to their demographic with little concern for other demographics. Democrats biggest challenge is in somehow catering to such a wide variety of interests that don't necessarily align. They have to become more tolerant and accepting of different interests, but there is also a tendency to focus on the one thing they all have in common, which is their political enemy. In that way, Republicans are the only acceptable "bad guys", and everyone on their team is "good". It's tribalism. Republicans do it as well in a slightly different way, more outwardly focused. It's part of human nature and the only way to fight it is to be aware. Of course politicians eagerly embrace and use this dark aspect of humanity as much as they can get away with.

[-] magnusrufus@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

No that's not the case. Republicans are the bad guys on account of what they do. Democrats cast other Democrats as bad guys plenty so your assessment doesn't match reality. Additionally Democrats regularly compromise and work with Republicans while the reverse hardly ever happens so it's not that Republicans are just the default political enemy, it is based on the specific issues. It just so happens that most things republicans want span from dumb to evil. Republican unity is not a demographic thing, at least not in the framing that you are talking. It's a philosophy of blind loyalty.

[-] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I guess I don't know what to say then, besides that I strongly disagree. I find it strange that it's so easy for people to dismiss others as "bad" people and don't feel any obligation to try to understand them. For me, the world isn't so black and white as that.

[-] magnusrufus@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

That's ok. Take some comfort in that my take has developed over a long period of time and that I originally counted myself as a centrist/moderate Republican. Also don't mistake my view as not allowing for many shades of gray. My honest assessment of the modern Republican party is that they had flown past every gradient in a race to be as extreme and partisan as possible. McCain was the last decent Republican and even he compromised his integrity for the sake of the party. Also I have tried to understand republicans but they have always failed to coherently reconcile what they claim to believe in with what they do politically.

[-] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I find NPR a little annoying for its nonchalant and cutesy way of presenting horrifying news stories. It’s like “Donald Trump tries to commit a coup” and Tamara Keith is like “on today’s show Domenico and I talk about what Trump’s strategy is here for his 2024 run and how this will impact house republicans.”

Or, the US economy is in shambles and Planet Money is like “today we’ll talk about that time the Dutch economy was in shambles in 1770 and what a tulip salesman did to save it. Maybe there will be something we can learn about today’s problems, ahyuck.”

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

What’s your home station, if I may ask?

[-] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I just listen to the podcasts

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 15 points 7 months ago

Notable is NPR's rebuttal to this essay: NPR responds after editor says it has 'lost America's trust'

In particular, this portion stands out:

"As a person of color who has often worked in newsrooms with little to no people who look like me, the efforts NPR has made to diversify its workforce and its sources are unique and appropriate given the news industry's long-standing lack of diversity," Alfonso says. "These efforts should be celebrated and not denigrated as Uri has done."

After this story was first published, Berliner contested Alfonso's characterization, saying his criticism of NPR is about the lack of diversity of viewpoints, not its diversity itself.

"I never criticized NPR's priority of achieving a more diverse workforce in terms of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation. I have not 'denigrated' NPR's newsroom diversity goals," Berliner said. "That's wrong."

Nah, he just talked about how "Race and identity became paramount in nearly every aspect of the workplace" and how a bunch of employee groups based on identity started up, and then directly linked that to the "absence of viewpoint diversity." Totally different. 🙄

I'm really tired of this weasel wordplay that constantly happens, where someone talks about X and then uses that to lead into a point about how this bad thing happened, and when called out, backs off and says "I never blamed X on this bad thing happening." Fuck off with that shit, we all know what you said and we can fucking read, you just don't want to admit it because you know that saying it makes you look racist as all hell.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yea, I bet it really was hard to be a conservative at NPR. Unfortunately, between DEI, Hunter's Laptop, Lab-gate, etc, it's pretty easy to see that this fellow has simply taken modern conservative talking points all at face-value. That is not necessarily a good idea.

edit: Side question: Has anyone else ever noticed a correlation between font size and journalistic integrity, or is it just me?

[-] Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I can't get past the 6th or 7th paragraph. It resets the page.

this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
17 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2112 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS