NPR

[brenthutch 444]

Is it still off limits to discuss NPR?

[gowlerk 2,272]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Is it still off limits to discuss NPR?

So, now you are going to attack the best news source in the USA? I'm listening to All Things Considered on Minnesota Public Radio right now as I type.

[brenthutch 444]

I am waiting for a ruling from the moderators before engaging.

[billvon 3,107]

It was never off limits to discuss NPR.

[wmw999 2,584]

32 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Is it still off limits to discuss NPR?

That’s like asking if someone has quit beating their wife. But it sure drives the “woe is me” snowflake narrative. 

One doesn’t need a narrative if the argument is flexible and sound. One can address facts, and include new ones as they’re added, without simply consigning them to “they don’t matter.”

Wendy P. 

[brenthutch 444]

Thank you.

NPR rant to follow.

I started listening to NPR when I was in college.  I had my first "driveway moment" listening to a story about high school athletics.  I noticed a subtle change after the election of GWB, all of a sudden the reporting took on a darker edge that I couldn't attribute to anything at the time.  After the election of Obama, it was back to its old intellectual, light hearted self.  Now it is dark again and seems nearly every story is about LGTBQA issues and climate change, with a side of hip-hop, (which is ironic since, if NPR were a State it would be Vermont). 

[gowlerk 2,272]

Just now, brenthutch said:

Thank you.

NPR rant to follow.

I started listening to NPR when I was in college.  I had my first "driveway moment" listening to a story about high school athletics.  I noticed a subtle change after the election of GWB, all of a sudden the reporting took on a darker edge that I couldn't attribute to anything at the time.  After the election of Obama, it was back to its old intellectual, light hearted self.  Now it is dark again and seems nearly every story is about LGTBQA issues and climate change, with a side of hip-hop, (which is ironic since, if NPR were a State it would be Vermont). 

Those are all anecdotal and indicate your personal biases. In my personal bias I see them as spending far too much time trying to "balance" by including points of view that I don't think very much of. We may or may not both have good reason for our feelings. But I will give you that it is an awkward combination centrist/leftish points of view.

[billvon 3,107]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 Now it is dark again and seems nearly every story is about LGTBQA issues and climate change, with a side of hip-hop, (which is ironic since, if NPR were a State it would be Vermont). 

Well, it is kind of a dark time in the nation.  Makes sense that news organizations would echo that.

[wmw999 2,584]

I was listening to the side of hip hop this afternoon; a story about a hip hop musical about Alan Greenspan. Greenspan himself loved it. My brother moved to the US in 2017; he said that at least in Connecticut it’s gotten more strident, and not in a good way.

Fox News, of course, is never strident. 

Wendy P. 

[brenthutch 444]

46 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I was listening to the side of hip hop this afternoon; a story about a hip hop musical about Alan Greenspan. Greenspan himself loved it. My brother moved to the US in 2017; he said that at least in Connecticut it’s gotten more strident, and not in a good way.

Fox News, of course, is never strident. 

Wendy P. 

I don't listen/watch Fox News.

I was listening to an interview with the liberal/progressive/Democrat author of the book "Republican like me"  the author was conveying his experiences with "Red America" and how it was not the cartoonish caricature often portrayed in the press.  He remarked that "Red America" was thoughtful, kind and often surprisingly intellectual.  The interviewer kept interrupting and earnestly insisted that the author had to be missing something.  She wasn't being smug or pompous, she was genuinely confused.  Such is the state of NPR, sadly.

[gowlerk 2,272]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

I don't listen/watch Fox News.

I was listening to an interview with the liberal/progressive/Democrat author of the book "Republican like me"  the author was conveying his experiences with "Red America" and how it was not the cartoonish caricature often portrayed in the press.  He remarked that "Red America" was thoughtful, kind and often surprisingly intellectual.  The interviewer kept interrupting and earnestly insisted that the author had to be missing something.  She wasn't being smug or pompous, she was genuinely confused.  Such is the state of NPR, sadly.

I don't see that interview listed on any of the big nation program lineups for today. Maybe on a local station though. Perhaps this interview from today is more to your liking. It's certainly timely.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/01/708127456/love-your-enemies-and-maaaybe-you-ll-get-them-to-agree-with-you

 

[brenthutch 444]

In this controversial National Bestseller, the former CEO of NPR sets out for conservative America wondering why these people are so wrong about everything. It turns out, they aren’t.

Ken Stern watched the increasing polarization of our country with growing concern. As a longtime partisan Democrat himself, he felt forced to acknowledge that his own views were too parochial, too absent of any exposure to the “other side.” In fact, his urban neighborhood is so liberal, he couldn’t find a single Republican--even by asking around. 

So for one year, he crossed the aisle to spend time listening, talking, and praying with Republicans of all stripes. With his mind open and his dial tuned to the right, he went to evangelical churches, shot a hog in Texas, stood in pit row at a NASCAR race, hung out at Tea Party meetings and sat in on Steve Bannon’s radio show. He also read up on conservative wonkery and consulted with the smartest people the right has to offer. 

What happens when a liberal sets out to look at issues from a conservative perspective? Some of his dearly cherished assumptions about the right slipped away. Republican Like Me reveals what lead him to change his mind, and his view of an increasingly polarized America.

 

Can somebody please explain why this book is controversial?

Edited April 2, 2019 by brenthutch

[gowlerk 2,272]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Can somebody please explain why this book is controversial?

Can you link to the story for more context?

 

Edit to add,

           When I search for the headline I see it quoted word for word in many places. I assume it is called "controversial" because that is the term the publisher is using to help sell the book.

Edited April 2, 2019 by gowlerk

[brenthutch 444]

Google it for yourself, and choose the source with which you are comfortable.  If I were to provide a link, I would be accused of bias.

[gowlerk 2,272]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Google it for yourself, and choose the source with which you are comfortable.  If I were to provide a link, I would be accused of bias.

I did. That's how I found out that what you posted is not even a review. It's the book jacket blurb from the publisher. So, to answer your question, for the second time, the book is not really controversial at all. That's just a word used to try to sell it.

Edited April 2, 2019 by gowlerk

[brenthutch 444]

let's set aside the word "controversial,"  since it is creating some confusion. 

[yoink 321]

15 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

let's set aside the word "controversial,"  since it is creating some confusion. 

But YOUR question was if someone could explain why the book is ‘controversial’?

What, exactly, are you looking for?

[gowlerk 2,272]

59 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

let's set aside the word "controversial,"  since it is creating some confusion. 

You would seem to be the only one who is confused.

 

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Can somebody please explain why this book is controversial?

For the third time, I'll try to end your confusion. The book is not controversial. Next question please.

[brenthutch 444]

"controversial" is how the NPR interviewer characterizes the book.  Of course she may have just used the publisher's liner notes.

Edited April 2, 2019 by brenthutch

[gowlerk 2,272]

23 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

"controversial" is how the NPR interviewer characterizes the book.  

You have not provided any link to anything published or said by NPR. The only use of the word "controversial" is in the jacket blurb you quoted. The only connection to NPR that you have demonstrated is that the author of the book is an ex CEO of NPR.

[brenthutch 444]

I officially and humbly withdraw "controversial"

Gowlerk, it is nice that you have come around and admit that NPR leans left.

[jakee 1,594]

9 hours ago, gowlerk said:

For the third time, I'll try to end your confusion. The book is not controversial. Next question please.

Ok, what is your next question? 

 

So far “why is it controversial” is the only question you’ve asked about it. Now you don’t want to talk about that, what do you want to talk about?

[gowlerk 2,272]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Gowlerk, it is nice that you have come around and admit that NPR leans left.

Yes, most but not all of the on air people seem to be if not left very skeptical of right wing positions. You can often feel it in questions when they interview people from the right, as if they are holding their tongues. They make a serious and consistent effort to look at issues from many angles, not just two points of view. But there is a tendency in open minded people in general to be skeptical of extreme positions, and many of the current positions on the American right are getting more and more extreme.

Climate change is a good example. It's very hard to keep a civil tongue at times when faced with someone who will deny basic facts. It is valid to argue that we should just keep on burning fuel and look at ways to cope with the fallout from it. That is one option and given the realities of economics and the huge supply of fossil fuels there is an argument to be made for that. But if your starting position is simply that all is well then you are simply being deliberately obtuse (assuming you are not simply a fool)  and that makes for a very difficult interview.

[DJL 235]

16 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Thank you.

NPR rant to follow.

I started listening to NPR when I was in college.  I had my first "driveway moment" listening to a story about high school athletics.  I noticed a subtle change after the election of GWB, all of a sudden the reporting took on a darker edge that I couldn't attribute to anything at the time.  After the election of Obama, it was back to its old intellectual, light hearted self.  Now it is dark again and seems nearly every story is about LGTBQA issues and climate change, with a side of hip-hop, (which is ironic since, if NPR were a State it would be Vermont). 

I listen to it because it's the only real talk radio.  I don't like typical DJ's and most other talk radio is far right gibberish.  I just roll my eyes every once in a while or change the channel when they either spend too much time talking about Trump of do one of their stupid "How Will Global Warming Affect Chardonnay" stories that is so cliched to the interests of wealthy textbook liberals.

[brenthutch 444]

Just got done listening to the Alleghenie Front on my local NPR station, during a segment they call "Trump on Earth", they were discussing how a judge shut down "the administration's" decision to approve a Wyoming oil and gas lease by claiming insufficient consideration was given to climate change.  One small problem, it was Obama's administration NOT Trump's.  At what point does an omission become a lie.

(please let's not go down the "what about" rabbit hole)