• El Barto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    7 months ago

    Is the slant created by NPR or by the political climate, though?

    Let’s use an extreme:

    If a person says that all strawberries are red, then another person says “hey, this guy said that strawberries give cancer!” and NPR says “What the first person said was that all strawberries were red,” then all good. Then 1,000 people claim that no, what was said was that strawberries cause cancer. And NPR insists on indicating that no, it’s just a statement about strawberries being red - will you say that the “red strawberry” slant was caused by NPR?

    • Zak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      7 months ago

      Have you read Berliner’s article yet? He gives three examples:

      • NPR talked a lot about investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign while investigations were ongoing, but was “sparse” in its coverage of the Mueller report’s finding that there was no credible evidence of such collusion.
      • Hunter Biden’s laptop, containing evidence of influence peddling was deemed non-newsworthy; Berliner believes it was newsworthy.
      • NPR dismissed the SARS-CoV-2 lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory and failed to report on it seriously. While it is not the leading hypothesis, there’s credible evidence for it, and at some points in the past the evidence looked fairly compelling.

      These examples are very different from ignoring someone who claims without evidence that strawberries cause cancer, that the 2020 election was rigged, or that wildfires in California were started by Israeli space lasers.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        7 months ago

        Lol. As soon as you mention the “laptop”, you lose all credibility.

        What about Al Capone’s vault!? Why aren’t we focusing on that?!?

      • JaymesRS@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I’ve read it and all of the examples are misleading at best. These are all thoroughly flawed and it’s been covered by many others.

        Mueller didn’t say there was no collusion, it said that they found some coordination, collusion itself isn’t a legal term and the DOJ can’t prosecute a sitting president.

        The Hunter Biden laptop is a different beast than the contents there of. Even if you prove the device is his and some of the data is his, because of the poor forensic practices in handling it you have to prove that any incriminating data is also his and that’s not been done yet.

        You don’t have to give time to every theory, especially ones that are still waiting on actual validation. Just because his political pet theory wasn’t covered with the same vigor when it’s considered less likely by general consensus of experts, doesn’t mean it was suppressed.

      • taiyang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        7 months ago

        Odd, I listen to NPR regularly and they definitely mentioned all three of those. But, not extensively because each ended up being a bit of a nothing burger.

        I specifically recall talking about the lab leak when that got mentioned, since I thought the prospect was interesting. It eventually got dismissed and NPRs stance, iirc, was that there wasn’t enough evidence to really say any particular explanation was definitely true. They mostly moved on since everyone else moved on in that story.

      • El Barto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Yes, I’ve read it, and I was scratching my head because I’ve definitely heard NPR cover those in a reasonable manner.