• TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)A
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    3 months ago

    I think the issue here is that you no longer can have “balanced” political discussion when one side cannot help but regurgitate conspiracy theories, disinformation, and just 100% proven false statements in bad faith. The minute you platform these people any meaningful “debate” evaporates and you’re left with discussion not based on anything in reality. And trying to only works to drag the Overton Window to the right.

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is one of the reasons I stopped listening to NPR in the first place. During the Trump administration they kept letting Trump’s mouthpieces say whatever they wanted for like 15 min, and then give like 3 min to the opposition to explain how everything they said was a bold face lie. There just wasn’t any push back from the actual journalist.

      That and they canceled Ask Me Another, which is pretty much the only thing I would ever give them money for.

      • WamGams@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        The standard NPR segment is 4 minutes. A feature is 8 minutes and maybe once a day they go over.

        It may have felt like that, but I assure you that it wasn’t that bad.

      • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        IDK, I feel a lot of their programming, especially recently, has been pretty stern that there’s conspiracy theories with no basis in reality. I recall them having pushed back on lies by conservative interviewees as well.

        • Blackbeard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          They finally changed (or learned) after January 6th. I distinctly remember yelling at my radio that they were allowing Trump’s lackeys to repeatedly spew lies, and for the sake of “balance” those lies went essentially unchecked, and they’d hand the interview off to a Democrat who was baited with a leading question about “what you think about the claim that Democrats are running a child prostitution ring in the basement of a pizza restaurant”, or something else equally ludicrous. The first time they stopped presenting those lies with “you decide” ambivalence was the Big Lie, which is the first time they started fact-checking in real time.

          So yeah, recently they’ve started figuring out how to push back against obvious bullshit, but during the Trump presidency their coverage was absolutely horrendous, and they were played like a fiddle by Republicans who knew damn well NPR journalists had to take every salacious claim they made at face value, which essentially rewarded them for being as insane as possible and consistently working the Overton window in their favor.

          A side note here is that there’s a VERY strong difference between American and British journalism, in that Americans put a premium on decorum, and Brits put a premium on counterpoints. Sometimes they can be so direct and probing that it comes off as quite rude, and we can be so polite and courteous that we lay out the red carpet for liars. NPR has traditionally specialized in the “politely ask more questions and eventually you will get to truth” style of journalism, and they’re only now starting to lean into a slightly more confrontational style of “no, that’s wrong” argumentation. They’re not particularly good at it, mind you, but they’re kinda getting there.

          • Eldritch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Oh hell yes I can’t name names at the moment. But I remember seeing a number of different clips of American right wingers going on BBC proper to be interviewed by some right-wing lunatic in the uk. Thinking that it’s going to be some sort of Cakewalk and they’re just there to look good. And then just get totally shredded. It makes me a little sick inside to cheer for the British lunatic. But you got to take small wins where you can get them. I wish all media had a fraction of the spine they do over there. It’s still far from perfect. But it’s so much better.

          • MDKAOD@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            The challenge is that in this current Trumpworld political climate is that news organizations that push back or argue in the slightest would never get additional interviews. Similar to how game publishers stop sending review copies to publications who haven’t reviewed their previous works in a positive light.

            We appear to be in an era of “no news except positive news or else” rather than “all press is good press”

            • mriguy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              But what is the value of having those interviews? Platforming somebody who is just going to tell flat out lies, and not calling them out, doesn’t inform the viewer of anything other than that watching that news outlet is a waste of time.

              • MDKAOD@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                I agree. It’s the current state of our society. Nobody likes to be challenged or have their feels hurt, which leads to avoidance of the challenge. It’s a catch-22. There’s little value in a non challenging interview. There’s no value in an interview that doesn’t occur at all.

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            . . . those lies went essentially unchecked, and they’d hand the interview off to a Democrat who was baited with a leading question about “what you think about the claim that Democrats are running a child prostitution ring in the basement of a pizza restaurant”, or something else equally ludicrous.

            I wish that was a recent tendency, but they were doing that in the late eighties. Not . . with the pizzagate-level stuff, the right hadn’t melted to that level of grotesque obscenity yet. But they’d use a GOP talking point to frame the story. Still do, actually, but for a long time they were essentially the only slightly liberal media around.

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          That could be true nowadays, I haven’t listened to them since the Trump administration. I don’t really think it makes up for it though. If the journalist only has the spine to stand up to the GOP with a Dem in the Whitehouse, then I don’t think they should be on air.

          • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            are you seriously implying that NPR is scared of which party is in the white house? I feel that a rather extreme accusation that warrants a lot of proof. I would more easily believe that things you saw were more of a result in a change in American politics, that the media was slow to react to. This is the first president and party that is believing and spouting conspiracy theories and outright lies, with a huge percent of their voters believing them. Our government has been struggling dealing with this unexpected twist, so it only makes sense for journalists, or anybody involved in politics, to now know how to deal with this new setting and take time to adjust their plan of action.

            • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              are you seriously implying that NPR is scared of which party is in the white house?

              I think media personalities have to follow the guidance of editors and producers, and I think those editors and producers can be influenced by things like donors and funding. I’m not sure if I would characterize that as being scared.

              I feel that a rather extreme accusation that warrants a lot of proof.

              Lol, I’m not making a court case. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, mine is that npr is mainly patronized by center right WASP.

              I would more easily believe that things you saw were more of a result in a change in American politics, that the media was slow to react to. This is the first president and party that is believing and spouting conspiracy theories and outright lies, with a huge percent of their voters believing them.

              Not old enough to remember the Bush years?

              Our government has been struggling dealing with this unexpected twist, so it only makes sense for journalists, or anybody involved in politics, to now know how to deal with this new setting and take time to adjust their plan of action

              It may feel that way, but I’ve been through this rigamarole more than once. Similar excuses were made for the media complicity to the invasion of iraq…we just haven’t ever had the wool pulled over our eyes like this before! Selectively forgetting the bay of pigs and the Gulf of tonkin.

      • mriguy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        They’ve been doing that at least since the GWB years, which is why I stopped listening to them then.