NPR and saying the quiet part out loud

[jakee 1,257]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

I’m not going to waste my time, last time I gave you evidence you came back with 

“Ok so NPR’s literature department is biased but…”

Exactly - the entirety of your evidence for your adamant claim that NPR covered up the laptop story by calling it a Russia hoax was a book review, which did not mention Russia, which they corrected within 24h of publication to remove any reference to misinformation. What the heck do you think that proves?

Now there is another claim, which as far as I can tell you have completely made up, that you refuse to provide a single source for despite claiming that sources for it are everywhere. If you are right you could have proved it in less time than it took you to write your rambling PA. The fact that you did that instead strongly suggests that you are not correct and cannot find any sources.

Since you're doing all of that to avoid answering the question of whether you think NPR gave sufficient coverage to nepotism, corruption and influence peddling that really occured in the White House - that involving the Trump/Kushner family - shows how deep your own Trump Derangement Syndrome goes.

[brenthutch 384]

From the Telegraph April 10
“Mr Berliner, who has spent 25 years at NPR, attributes its shift in coverage to Donald Trump’s election in 2016 – noting that he voted against the former president twice but attempted to cover him fairly.”

More proof for you to to ignore 

 

 

Edited April 14 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 384]

5 hours ago, jakee said:

Now there is another claim, which as far as I can tell you have completely made up, 

Jakee did you miss this?

From the Telegraph April 10
“Mr Berliner, who has spent 25 years at NPR, attributes its shift in coverage to Donald Trump’s election in 2016 – noting that he voted against the former president twice but attempted to cover him fairly.”

More proof for you to to ignore 

[jakee 1,257]

31 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Jakee did you miss this?

How could I miss it when that's the first time you've posted it? That's fine, it's all you had to show. Instead you made claims about every single NPR editor being a Democrat that you refused to back up.

Anyway, back to the bias of NPR and how much they covered the actual corruption, nepotism and influence peddling that went on in the White House... under Trump.

[brenthutch 384]

37 minutes ago, jakee said:

How could I miss it when that's the first time you've posted it? That's fine, it's all you had to show. Instead you made claims about every single NPR editor being a Democrat that you refused to back up.

Anyway, back to the bias of NPR and how much they covered the actual corruption, nepotism and influence peddling that went on in the White House... under Trump.

“Berliner said that among editorial staff at NPR’s Washington, DC, headquarters, he counted 87 registered Democrats and no Republicans.

He wrote that he presented these findings to his colleagues at a May 2021 all-hands editorial staff meeting.

“When I suggested we had a diversity problem with a score of 87 Democrats and zero Republicans, the response wasn’t hostile,” Berliner wrote.”

From the New York Post April 10

[kleggo 138]

not going to read this entire thread.

Will just say that I was a "dedicated" NPR listener / member for many years.

Not so much any more.

It's not so much their politics and mine have diverged, it's more what I call the all black, all gay, all day programming (yes, that's hyperbole, but makes my point).

It's rare for me to hear an interesting piece on NPR anymore that isn't pure breaking news.

i'm a 65 year old trump despising WASP and I obviously am not their target audience.

so be it, I've found many interesting podcasts.

 

Craig

 

[brenthutch 384]

In a staff meeting their CEO said that DEI was their “North Star” and that the would now be agents for change. They also said they would no longer cover both sides of the climate issue. Unfortunately NPR has gone full woke.

[jakee 1,257]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

“Berliner said that among editorial staff at NPR’s Washington, DC, headquarters, he counted 87 registered Democrats and no Republicans.

How many editorial staff are there?

[billvon 2,405]

8 minutes ago, jakee said:

How many editorial staff are there?

About 120.  But he was very careful about who he asked.

[wmw999 2,126]

35 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

They also said they would no longer cover both sides of the climate issue.

You mean the side that a diminishing minority of scientists go to? 
Forbes (that liberal rag) source: 80-90% accept anthropogenic climate change, and that was a number of years ago.

How many doctors does it take saying something is good for you to accept that it might be — especially if you see it as something good?

Wendy P. 

[brenthutch 384]

30 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

You mean the side that a diminishing minority of scientists go to? 
Forbes (that liberal rag) source: 80-90% accept anthropogenic climate change, and that was a number of years ago.

Wendy P. 

That number has declined as the signal for anthropological climate change has failed to materialize, the growing number of skeptics even includes a recent Nobel prize winner.

Check out my Climate Change the Movie post, lots of scientists, lots of data.

BTW science is not done by consensus. If it were the Earth would still be at the center of the universe and white people would still be considered superior.

[brenthutch 384]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

About 120.  But he was very careful about who he asked.

Do you have anything to support that claim or are you just spouting off nonsense?  I’ll do my best Jakee….”LIAR!!! PROVE IT!!! I WANT TO SEE PROOF!!!

[lippy 773]

22 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

That number has declined as the signal for anthropological climate change has failed to materialize, the growing number of skeptics even includes a recent Nobel prize winner.

Check out my Climate Change the Movie post, lots of scientists, lots of data.

BTW science is not done by consensus. If it were the Earth would still be at the center of the universe and white people would still be considered superior.

It's the consensus amongst climate scientists, not Internet trolls.  Therein lies the material difference

[brenthutch 384]

28 minutes ago, lippy said:

It's the consensus amongst climate scientists, not Internet trolls.  Therein lies the material difference

What part of “science is not done by consensus” eluded you? Paraphrasing Einstein, No a number of climate scientists can ever prove me right; a single one can prove me wrong. If you were a student of history you would know that science is more often wrong than it is right. Questioning science IS LITERALLY HOW SCIENCE IS DONE. 

Edited April 15 by brenthutch

[billvon 2,405]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

That number has declined as the signal for anthropological climate change has failed to materialize

There's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 1998!

Quote

BTW science is not done by consensus. If it were the Earth would still be at the center of the universe and white people would still be considered superior.

And indeed today, right wing nuts think the Earth is flat.  They maintain this belief by creating news bubbles with other like-minded folks that always reinforce that belief.  Such people also often believe that COVID was a hoax, or that masks don't work, or that the vaccine causes COVID-19 and also injects secret 5G Bill Gates trackers into people's blood.  They believe Anthony Fauci is employed by China or Pfizer. They believe that the climate isn't changing.  They believe that Hilary Clinton runs a secret child sex ring under a pizza place in Washington DC.  They believe that Trump really won in 2020.

And yes, many of those same people believe white people are superior.

How can they believe this?  By carefully curating their news feeds so that they do not see any conflicting information, much the same way you do.

How do scientists avoid this?  They are more judicious in who they believe.  They believe people who can test their hypotheses in the real world and discover that they are valid.  They believe other experts in the field who have demonstrated their competence over time.  They meet with other people who actually work in the field, and that's a very fine filter for nutcases.  From such meetings and collaborations, a consensus emerges.  THAT consensus is quite valuable, and generally heeded by other scientists.

 And of course they ignore news from Breitbart, FOX News, Zerohedge and ihateliberals.com.  Even if their drunk MAGA uncle insists they read it.

I have some advantages over other people here, since my wife is a doctor who was the COVID coordinator for our school, and I have good friends who are research scientists working on vaccines, painkillers, cancer cures and climate change.  But anyone can get similarly valid information by choosing sources well.  Nature is better than Breitbart.  PNAS is better than FOX News archives.  Etc.

Or just live in that bubble and believe whatever you like.  Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

[jakee 1,257]

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Do you have anything to support that claim or are you just spouting off nonsense? 

Do you have anything to support your claim that there are 87? Is everyone lives in DC either a registered Democrat or a registered Republican?

[brenthutch 384]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

Do you have anything to support your claim that there are 87? Is everyone lives in DC either a registered Democrat or a registered Republican?

It’s not my claim.

[jakee 1,257]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

It’s not my claim.

The claim from your source is that there are 87 registered democrats on the editorial staff. Your claim is that this is all of the editorial staff. How do you know? 

[brenthutch 384]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

The claim from your source is that there are 87 registered democrats on the editorial staff. Your claim is that this is all of the editorial staff. How do you know? 

Why do you ask?

[jakee 1,257]

26 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Why do you ask?

Why did you make the claim when you don't want to answer?

[brenthutch 384]

3 minutes ago, jakee said:

Why did you make the claim when you don't want to answer?

Who said I didn’t want to answer?

[jakee 1,257]

22 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Who said I didn’t want to answer?

Then answer. Where did you read that every member of editorial staff was a registered Democrat? Is everyone in DC either a registered Democrat or a registered Republican?

[brenthutch 384]

25 minutes ago, jakee said:

Then answer. Where did you read that every member of editorial staff was a registered Democrat? Is everyone in DC either a registered Democrat or a registered Republican?

I have already posted that in this thread go back and look.

No there are independent voters as well, why do you ask?

[jakee 1,257]

16 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I have already posted that in this thread go back and look.

No you haven't, you're just lying again.

17 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No there are independent voters as well, why do you ask?

It's pretty obvious, if you think about it for a moment.  

Given that independents exist, why do you think the total number of people involved must be the number of Democrats plus the number of Republicans?

[SkyDekker 1,129]

On 4/12/2024 at 4:52 PM, brenthutch said:

“I’m Sarah Lawrence–educated, was raised by a lesbian peace activist mother, I drive a Subaru, and Spotify says my listening habits are most similar to people in Berkeley.”

Yep, sounds like a far right MAGA extremist. No credibility.

I guess you are the MAGA far right extremist