jakee

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.

Careful now. Sounds like you’re just trying to tear the guy down without committing to any opinion of your own. That would be bad, wouldn’t it?

This is the party of DeSantis - a man who introduced a tax incentive to persuade people to buy gas stoves… because they are more dangerous than the alternative.

Because it’s so perfect for you. When you’re so desperate to criticise that you have to claim to own words in order to do so you have to admit there’s something wrong, don’t you? How often do you think anyone is confused about where I stand on an issue? Whereas have you made a single on topic post in this thread? Do you have any point to make or are you just indulging your desire to rip into people? If only you meant it.

Who claimed it? Give one example of it being reported. I don’t know what the guys voting record is, he didn’t say. You claim to know what it is, and so far have only offered as evidence something he didn’t say. So you do need to provide some evidence that what you’re saying is actually true. But again, good work on distracting from the issues you said you wanted to talk about. How much coverage did NPR give to Jared and Ivanka’s corruption and influence peddling inside the White House? Anywhere near the amount the rest of the media ecosystem have to Hunter?

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of context would say it means his background - because that's all he mentioned. I'm not sure why you think he would suddenly start talking in code to describe his voting habits. Who says all editors at NPR are Democrats?

A similar thing is happening here, after privatisation. Royal Mail was privatised, with the company getting all the regulatory advantages and privileges that the state owned entity had - and in return having the mandatory responsibility for maintaining next day, every day letter deliveries anywhere in the country. What they did instead was split off the profitable services like parcel deliveries and data sales from the letter service, fail to invest in it and allow standards to fall below the mandatory levels, then complain it'd be far too expensive for them to be expected to rebuild an unprofitable service so can't they just scrap the one thing that was the whole point of Royal Mail being a public service in the first place and just keep the profitable stuff that any other private delivery company can do?

Then why can't you let go? What is it about you that means you just have to keep picking?

Where is he a self described liberal progressive and democrat? After the events of this thread so far you'll understand why I'm not going to just take your word for it.

Baaaahahahaha! We had one disgareement and in response you've been stalking my posts for years now only making personal comments without ever addressing a topic... and you want to talk about letting go? Gonna make a wild guess and say you don't own any mirrors!

Your school's politics are not your politics. Your parents' politics are not your politics. A car is rarely a political choice and people who go to Berkely listen to all kinds of music. More importantly though, the whole point of the article that he does not share NPR's opinions. So, do you know what his politics are? Do you know who he voted for? Or are you just making whatever assumption supports your point? Now seriously, if you want to talk about bias, do you actually know how their coverage of the Trump family's influence peddling from inside the White House compared to their coverage of Hunter's solo efforts?

Yeah, it’s really telling that he explains the politics of the people and places he came from, but he doesn’t say they are his politics. Who did he vote for? Who does he support in the upcoming election? You have no idea.

In other words, the supposed bias of NPR is your point, you’re just trying to dodge legitimate questions you know you can’t answer.

If you don't care about NPR bias, why are you talking about it? If mentioning Trump's wilful and open enabling of influence peddling by his family is 'derangement', then how utterly insane is the guy you quoted if he cares about anything Hunter Biden did? Why are you sharing the point of view of someone you think is crazier than a cuckoo clock?

A book review that they corrected within a day (and doesn’t even mention Russia but whatever). Ok so NPR’s literature department is biased but is subject to fair and balanced oversight. Is that the point you were trying to make? But again, what about their coverage of Jared, Ivanka and Trump giving them access to all the strings of US government power and influence while allowing them to exempt themselves from all ethics requirements? Did they do that story justice or did they display the same pro Trump bias as every other news organisation?

Yes it was your bad to claim they covered the Hunter story by proclaiming it a Russian hoax, and then continue lying about it in such a transparent manner long after it was clear that you could not support the claim. Now can you address how much they covered the real nepotism and influence peddling White House scandal of Trump, Jared and Ivanka?

It is also an outright and obvious lie to claim that was what you meant. It’s amazing that after so many years in this site you still don’t appear to realise your previous posts remain visible for people to read.

When you tell an outright lie, you’re lying. You explicitly and deliberately made the point that they did not ignore the story. This may be a surprise to you, but you cannot back that statement up by providing evidence that they did ignore the story, no matter how much of that evidence you have. And of course, the reason you said they did not ignore it was because you were deflecting from the Jared Kushner equivalence. How much time did NPR spend covering the nepotism and corruption in the Trump White House? In any fair and balanced world that should have been front page news every single day since Trump deliberately installed his own family members into positions of power in the Administration where they would be able to talk to foreign decision makers about their international businesses with the whole weight of the US government behind them. It certainly should have been on every channel every hour of every day after Jared received BILLIONS from the Saudi crown despite their own advisors saying there was no good business sense for it. Now unless you can show that constant coverage from NPR you’ll just have to deal with the fact that when it comes to nepotism and influence peddling they, like the rest of the US and global media, have been enormously biased in favour of the Trump clan.

I read it. You’re lying.

Indeed, and as well as the deliberately sinister aspects there are also a lot of unintended consequences. As an example, advertising analytics are apparently very good at figuring out when women are pregnant. Not only can they just grab the keywords from social media announcements, but they can see when people stopped buying pregnancy tests and started buying pre-natal vitamins and searching for cribs and baby clothes. Problem is there are far fewer signs when someone miscarries. So vulnerable women and couples in one of the worst times of their lives will continue being bombarded by adverts for baby stuff on every website they visit every time they’re online potentially for months after they’ve lost their baby. And you would think that at least one of the billions upon billions of dollars that the likes of Google and Facebook make could go on a sufficiently well staffed team of people who can be contacted manually switch the algorithm off for people who are being actively harmed by it, but I don’t think that’s in the best interests of big business.

.

You sure about that? I really doubt it.

Another knock on effect from the mainstream right’s embrace of Trumpism. You can’t report honestly on Trump without the coverage sounding like a hatchet job, so when the majority of right wingers choose to throw away their principles and support him anyway they’re not going to want to work for an organisation that makes them feel bad about that. Now, given how much your guy moans about lack of Hunter coverage (whose misdeeds he conflates with Joe, which is a pretty big red flag) I’d be interested to know how much time NPR spent covering Jared’s far more successful influence peddling from inside the White House vs Hunter’s solo efforts. Would anyone here really be surprised if the bias was actually in the other direction?

Yes, the whole ‘let’s just do what dictators do’ suggestion is rather amusing.

Hence it’s only your fellow righties who’d let her anywhere near the government.