Just a hypothesis, but considering NPR’s general audience, maybe they don’t necessarily need to offer much rebuttal.
I mean, I guess it depends on what you think the purpose of journalism is? I think just allowing people to tell boldface lies to the general public without retort is falling short of the mark.
Maybe, via the interview Q’s, it’s more a case of attempting to give the right-wingers as much rope as they need to… you know?
I don’t really know why anyone would assume anyone else is going to hold them accountable if journalist won’t?
My point is that context is everything. For example, if you already know that most of your audience is already highly skeptical of right-wing views and talking points, then: 1) it might just behoove the program to feature the more extremist interviewees, and 2) it might actually be a waste of time, energy and resources to rebut what the audience likely already considers obvious rubbish. That’s over-generalising of course, but still…
Also, NPR doesn’t necessarily represent the totality of pure, journalistic purpose, and they’re not there to live up to any specific outside standards. It’s fine for you to critique them, but to my mind, if they’re accomplishing their mission then that’s the most important thing.
it might just behoove the program to feature the more extremist interviewees, and 2) it might actually be a waste of time, energy and resources to rebut what the audience likely already considers obvious rubbish.
That might be fine for a talk show, but the point of journalism is to expose lies with the actual truth. If someone lies they should strip down how they lied, why they lied, and why it’s important to keep them accountable.
NPR doesn’t necessarily represent the totality of pure, journalistic purpose, and they’re not there to live up to any specific outside standards.
Anyone claiming to be a journalist should be held to the basic journalistic ethics and standards they were taught in school.
accomplishing their mission then that’s the most important thing.
Lol, your rebuttal was that journalists shouldn’t be held to any sort of standard. My whole point was predicated on the belief that journalism should be held to a high standard. Why would your appeal shift my position? It was basically the equivalent of a “not uhh”.
I mean, I guess it depends on what you think the purpose of journalism is? I think just allowing people to tell boldface lies to the general public without retort is falling short of the mark.
I don’t really know why anyone would assume anyone else is going to hold them accountable if journalist won’t?
My point is that context is everything. For example, if you already know that most of your audience is already highly skeptical of right-wing views and talking points, then: 1) it might just behoove the program to feature the more extremist interviewees, and 2) it might actually be a waste of time, energy and resources to rebut what the audience likely already considers obvious rubbish. That’s over-generalising of course, but still…
Also, NPR doesn’t necessarily represent the totality of pure, journalistic purpose, and they’re not there to live up to any specific outside standards. It’s fine for you to critique them, but to my mind, if they’re accomplishing their mission then that’s the most important thing.
That might be fine for a talk show, but the point of journalism is to expose lies with the actual truth. If someone lies they should strip down how they lied, why they lied, and why it’s important to keep them accountable.
Anyone claiming to be a journalist should be held to the basic journalistic ethics and standards they were taught in school.
Selling tote bags?
Well, there’s a nice example of a brick wall. Alrighty, then.
Lol, your rebuttal was that journalists shouldn’t be held to any sort of standard. My whole point was predicated on the belief that journalism should be held to a high standard. Why would your appeal shift my position? It was basically the equivalent of a “not uhh”.