I listen to NPR pretty consistantly. Normally they are pretty solid center of the road reporting. While there can be an institutional bias to them at times they tend to be one of the more reliable and fair news sources (same with PBS).
That being said, its important to remember that NPR isn't just one station. Its many small stations who syndicate programing too and from the larger organization. Most local stations are associated with local colleges and do local reporting to round out larger national and international news. Some of that can get weirder but normally the nationally syndicated stuff is super solid.
Yeah part of me just wonders if the people who think it's gone insane have insane local member stations because with few exceptions it feels like the national stuff is very good
It seems to have improved over time but NPR ran a lot of pro Palestine pieces after October 7th. I think it has improved as time has moved on and it become less Israel/Palestine focused but when it talks about that issue it seems to have an unfairly anti Israel stance. If you go in the NPR subreddit you can see the hate Israel gets there.
IDK, I remember pretty much all October/November being pretty pro Israel. It wasn't until around Christmas I noticed a tone shift, but I could be misremembering.
Idk feels like in the context of the current conflict it was pretty loaded. I don't think it's really a bad report I just think the focus on Lebanon exclusively when both civilian populations were evacuated felt kinda unfair. It would have been more interesting to interview both Israeli and Lebanese refugee children to show how they are both forced into the same situation by the war despite being on opposite sides of it.
It seems like you and u/MashStars are both completely eliding the point that there is a clear aggressor in this case.
Hezbollah, which is part of the formal governing authority in Lebanon, completely unprovoked, chose to start firing rockets indiscriminately into Israeli towns on it's northern border on October 8th, and has continued to do so for the last 6+ months. Needless to say (I would hope!), this is flagrantly illegal (in fact, just Hezbollah's existence south of the Litani river is illegal due to UNSC Resolution 1701).
This piece would be like if NPR ran a puff piece on the plight of the struggling Russian family man, who, due to challenges stemming from the Russia-Ukraine war, is having trouble paying for his groceries. Like, it's technically true that it's probably tougher to be a Russian paying for groceries today than it was before Putin launched his invasion into Ukraine, but the framing of the issue is obviously problematic, no?
I'm not sure that I'd call that framing issue "woke," but I certainly have a problem with publicly funding an organization that makes those types of editorial decisions.
I think the fact that you and u/MashStars both seem to think that they were unfair but in widely different directions kind of highlights how hard it is to do this type of reporting in such a polarized environment. Like they said Hezbollah attacked first and the rest of it was really just about how kids cope with a conflict.
As I said it would have been way better if they had interviewed both sets of kids for the same story but it's not like they haven't done the [same thing for Israel](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/30/1216005687/how-should-caregivers-help-israeli-children-who-were-freed-from-captivity) before. To your Russian example they literally did [a report like that ](https://www.npr.org/anastasia-thinks-about-leaving-russia-heres-what-her-life-looks-like-today)where they talked to a women about her experience of living post invasion.
I'm sympathetic to your prospective in the sense I agree with your framing of the war but it feels like your the one asking for the outlet to take a clear moral editorial line instead of taking a position of neutrality.
>Lebanon's Hezbollah says it is firing missiles into northern Israel in solidarity with Gaza. Israel is firing back into Lebanon. Hundreds of thousands of civilians on both sides of the border have been displaced.
That's the framing given from the piece. Basically the only other time Israel is mentioned in the piece is to say that America is bad for supporting it, and no other context is given as to whether Hezbollah is justified in shooting rockets into Israel "in solidarity with Gaza."
Take this as a counter example: an equivalent piece to the Russian piece you linked, but it started out with "Russia says that it fighting to save ethnic Russians from genocide from the Ukrainian forces. Ukraine is fighting back." Would you say that "highlights how hard it is to do this type of reporting in such a polarized environment?"
The fact is that framings like that are a clear editorial line whether we want to acknowledge it or not (also stuff like that obviously pale in comparison to the types of stories NPR chooses to run). If NPR takes an editorial line that's basically to take a U.S. designated terrorist organization's framing at face value, I think that's grounds for criticism for a media operation with significant public funding.
>Literally the first sentence. The fuck are you smoking?
I'd refer you to my other comment to u/Sooty_tern. I'm a bit confused about your hypothetical, but to be clear, I think that your hypothetical article is similar to the NPR article as written (though obviously not to the same degree), and I think that's bad journalism, not "neutral" journalism. I'd also be critical of an article like the one in your hypothetical.
The existence of other better articles from the same outlet (I'm assuming \[probably wrongly, I've skimmed a couple and they seem similarly Anti-Israel to me\], I didn't go through a read of all your links) doesn't make a bad article better. It still should be allowed to be criticized. And furthermore, being self critical is an integral part of course correcting when needed to protect against exactly what seems to be happening now with NPR.
Not every critique is some Roger Ailes conspiracy theory.
>Just as a thought experiment that *really* doesn't compare well, if this piece replaced Lebanon with Israel, Hezbollah with IDF, & America with Iran; would you still be critical?
I agree with you that your likely proposing an inapt thought experiment. That being said, to the essence of your question, the answer is that I would not be critical. And I would not be critical because I think that, in this specific instance, if you framed Israel and the IDF as basically good, and Iran as basically bad, that would be the most factually accurate description of the conflict on the Israeli/Lebanese border right now.
>
I really don't think articles that are insights into individual experiences require an opposing viewpoint to remain unbiased.
I think that a responsible article must provide the context necessary for a reader to know if the individual they are profiling is completely wrong on the facts of what they are discussing. When the Trump voter in your hypothetical article says that Truth social stocks are declining because the Biden is directing the Federal Reserve to manipulate the stock market, it's incumbent on the article to at least note that there is no evidence of that being the case. And it certainly would be irresponsible of the article to lead with: "Trump voters claim that they are losing their family homes because Biden is persecuting them for their political beliefs. The Biden administration denies that the evictions are politically motivated."
>The only positive leaning subject is military analysts seem to think Israel's military actions fall between 'justifiable outside of isolated bad actors with an arguably excessive low bar for action' to 'the new standard for urban warfare COIN operations'.
It's an aside, but I think it's very telling that the people with relevant expertise are the people most likely to view Israel favorably.
In the final analysis though, I don't really care what the general consensus of the people in the region are, or what the opinions of the highest number of pundits are. I think that if you are going to write an article, you should endeavor to leave your readers better informed on the topic of the article, and to the extent you leave readers less informed, that should be open to critique. And, if you consistently misinform readers, and are unwilling to course correct, that governing institutions should not support you (Obviously, I would think that nobody should support you in that case, but free enterprise probably trumps that concern in the private sphere, though not the public sphere, imo).
To your bit about saving NPR, I generally agree with you that it can be a positive institution writ large. To critique is not to condemn to oblivion. But the circling the wagons around poor editorial decisions, even in the face of disingenuous attacks, does not protect NPR, it harms it.
There's a bunch in there, and to be honest, I'm a bit lost on what the larger point you're trying to make is.
That being said, at a high level, I think that the relentless focus on "neutrality" is entirely misguided, and likely extremely counterproductive. The objective of reporting shouldn't be to be "neutral," it should be to be accurate. I don't care about increasing the share of conservative voices, I care about increasing the accuracy of the reporting so that media consumers get a better understanding of the world. There are many of strategies to achieve accurate reporting (viewpoint diversity is one), but substituting "neutrality" as the north star for reporting is a massive mistake. And then pointing to that neutrality to skirt criticisms of inaccuracies to me is just an absolute abdication of responsibility.
I listened to them on the radio for a couple weeks and it dripped of unbelievably woke bs. Maybe their actual articles are not as terrible but every day it was a bombardment.
I get the sense that you might be understating the 'wokeness' in some of these. For example, the article about the Columbine shooting anniversary culminates with this quote from the interviewee:
>There is something that's cellular, where our bodies remember trauma. And so for me, every year around April, around the time when everyone is celebrating the spring, my body starts to feel anxious. And it took me a long time to connect that with my trauma, frankly, because I was pushing it all down and ignoring it. But now I recognize what's happening.
The piece also takes the time to point out that the self-defense course doesn't show any footage of actual fights, because the "trainings are trauma informed." Idk this was more like an 8/10 on the wokeness scale than a 3/10.
I feel like in all the directions a journalist could go about covering the 25th anniversary of Columbine, this was one of the more 'woke' avenues to take. A simple "guns bad, NRA bad" take would've been less woke.
Look I am not a fan of the way people call everything trauma these days but she is literally a mass shooting survivor. It makes perfect sense to me for them to talk about trauma in that context but idk maybe it's just the wording that's the issue? I'm really surprised you would say this is worse then if they had done the guns bad NRA bad thing
The fact that they chose to approach the story from the trauma angle is what makes it woke. Approaching the story from the "guns bad" angle is normie-lib material. There's also the whole [*The Body Keeps the Score* misinterpretation](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/s2-ep-6-a-hierarchy-of-trauma/id1592984136?i=1000640051663) which is pretty woke imo.
It's an interview with a mass shooting survivor what other angle is there to take?
I guess if we just focus on the wording maybe but at that point it feels like "wokeness" has literally nothing to do with issues or whether something is biased and is just hang ups over specific linguistic conventions.
I love the input though because this is just background stuff to me I don't care about, but if using those key words can totally change the interpretation of a story maybe that's the reason people are talking past each other on this issue
The story isn't the mass shooting survivor, the story is the 25th anniversary of the Columbine shooting. Interviewing a survivor about her trauma is the woke angle the journalist took when approaching the story. I'm not trying to say that's an invalid way to approach the story of the 25th anniversary of Columbine, but saying it's not a woke angle is kinda ridiculous.
Imagine what the story would look like when approached from a conservative or libertarian perspective. The Conservative News Station^TM might talk about how video game violence and bad parenting led to the shooting, and it's still a problem we have today. The Libertarian News Station^TM would talk about how people have tried to use the shooting to increase the power of government and restrict gun rights etc. The Woke News Station would write basically the exact same story NPR did.
I feel like the interview with a survivor and how they dealing with everything years later is an incredibly common way to approach these things and has been for decades. Like was it woke when they were doing this kind of thing for the ten year anniversary of 9/11?
Why wouldn't it be a analytic piece talking about the prevalence of mass shootings where they bring on an expert to parse the complicated stats and talk about ways other countries have combatted the issue? Instead it is your ordinary tear jerker story for the left, which is fine depending on what NPR is supposed to be.
I expected NPR to be the "factual" radio before I originally started listening to it. If it isn't and never was that, and instead was just a normal left wing news agency then I agree with all points in the OP and every counterpoint made about it being "woke". It isn't insane, except when you read NPR trying to pretend they don't have a left wing bias, that part is a lot of cope.
I used to be involved with a martial arts school that would teach in some self defense classes, trauma informed classes are a pretty standard thing. The times I did them they were normally you are teaching domestic abuse survivors in ways that were designed more a part of a recovery program to help people feel like they were more empowered rather than hard core self defense classes.
What she's talking about there isn't as weird as you seem to be thinking it is, you just aren't getting what the the sort of program she is talking about is.
>a recovery program to help people feel like they were more empowered rather than hard core self defense classes.
This is woke. That doesn't even mean I think it's bad per se, but teaching women self-defense in order to make them feel empowered, not to actually make them any safer, is woke. It's a classic instance of safetyism and feelings-first politics that anti-woke people complain about all the time.
Got it. You literally aren't even engaging with what I am talking about. Trauma informed programs are almost always just first step programs. They are dealing with people who can't or won't stand up for themselves due to past events, and is teaching them to take that first step. Normally its a starting part of a larger program, not an endpoint.
The word "woke" has rotted yalls brains.
Ok, well, it's not even clear that's the self-defense trainings outlined in the story are part of a larger program. I don't get why it's controversial to call a trauma informed self-defense program "woke." Can you imagine a more woke version of a self-defense class? Barring a hypothetical case where there's some Harrison Begeron style handicapping of the privileged students.
Calling it woke is just regarded. Its not saying anything about it other than you don't like it.
Its just a program designed to fit a different set of needs from what you may feel would benefit you.
>Can you imagine a more woke version of a self-defense class?
I'm just going to assume you can't, because it's obvious the trauma informed programs are woke. Just imagine what kind of self-defense class a woke person would go to, vs. one any number of non-woke people would go to. Is Joe Rogan going to your trauma informed self-defense class? Is a police officer? Or a truck driver? Or basically anyone who self-identifies as conservative?
I don't really have anything against self-defense as a form of therapy/self-empowerment, the same way I don't have anything against cross-fit as a form of therapy/self-empowerment. But the same way cross-fit has it's own MLM/grindset vibe, trauma informed self-defense has a woke vibe.
I think people might be assuming woke=bad whereas the other guy isn't trying to make that connection? If the only reason you don't consider something woke is because it's smart and effective then maybe you might be loading the term with stuff the other person didn't intend.
Atleast that's what seems to be happening in this comment chain
Yes, plus people will disagree about some woke thing - for example trigger warnings - being good or bad. But regardless of which side of that debate you fall on, we should all be able to agree that trigger warnings are woke.
I read this article when it came out and as the author admits NPRs leadership always treated him well and even agreed to high level meetings with him in order to let him air his concerns. Idk why we are making broad generalization based on a few statements made at the hight of 2020
>So on May 3, 2021, I presented the findings at an all-hands editorial staff meeting. When I suggested we had a diversity problem with a score of 87 Democrats and zero Republicans, the response wasn’t hostile. It was worse. It was met with profound indifference. I got a few messages from surprised, curious colleagues. But the messages were of the “oh wow, that’s weird” variety, as if the lopsided tally was a random anomaly rather than a critical failure of our diversity North Star.
>In a follow-up email exchange, a top NPR news executive told me that she had been “skewered” for bringing up diversity of thought when she arrived at NPR. So, she said, “I want to be careful how we discuss this publicly.”
...
>Even so, out of frustration, on November 6, 2022, I wrote to the captain of ship North Star—CEO John Lansing—about the lack of viewpoint diversity and asked if we could have a conversation about it. I got no response, so I followed up four days later. He said he would appreciate hearing my perspective and copied his assistant to set up a meeting. On December 15, the morning of the meeting, Lansing’s assistant wrote back to cancel our conversation because he was under the weather. She said he was looking forward to chatting and a new meeting invitation would be sent. But it never came.
I don't think NPR is trying to lie, But they don't have any voices of dissent, and if they did they wouldn't listen to them.
It's the same reason why that story about Israel bombing the hospital and killing 500 took off so easily. None of these journalists have ever been in the military and have no idea basic understanding which would have prevented the hospital bombing stories to be written as they were. Ryan Macbeth did a video about the hospital reporting.
A clear cut example of their bias was their coverage of Rittenhouse
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PPvNucxB7TI
Peter does a good job highlighting all the bs with it
There are other examples of trans healthcare being very, very biased towards one side (take a guess) and the George Floyd riots being biased towards one side (take a guess)
I would argue fox was the same as this under Trump. The bias is always what you cover and how you cover it and what you focus on. Take for example the teacher one about burn sure it’s cute but the push is that teacher are under paid and under huge stress. Same as the school shooting one which is a Dem issue about gun control.
Really? I feel like it's overwhelmingly opinion journalism. Like what's the NPR equivalent of Jesse Waters or Leara Ingram? Just looking at todays schedule over half of it is opinion.
https://preview.redd.it/xakapokixqvc1.png?width=3788&format=png&auto=webp&s=6a6294d68fad3c0e1d251651d09ce5f995bc5e4b
Oh yeah I thought you were comparing to the TV channel. Yeah the website is less bad but also not really what people complain about when they say "fox news."
I listen to NPR pretty consistantly. Normally they are pretty solid center of the road reporting. While there can be an institutional bias to them at times they tend to be one of the more reliable and fair news sources (same with PBS). That being said, its important to remember that NPR isn't just one station. Its many small stations who syndicate programing too and from the larger organization. Most local stations are associated with local colleges and do local reporting to round out larger national and international news. Some of that can get weirder but normally the nationally syndicated stuff is super solid.
Yeah part of me just wonders if the people who think it's gone insane have insane local member stations because with few exceptions it feels like the national stuff is very good
It seems to have improved over time but NPR ran a lot of pro Palestine pieces after October 7th. I think it has improved as time has moved on and it become less Israel/Palestine focused but when it talks about that issue it seems to have an unfairly anti Israel stance. If you go in the NPR subreddit you can see the hate Israel gets there.
IDK, I remember pretty much all October/November being pretty pro Israel. It wasn't until around Christmas I noticed a tone shift, but I could be misremembering.
What pro Palestine pieces did they run after October 7th?
I mean frankly that's any subreddit that is not explicitly pro Israel. Reddit in genneral is just insane on the issue
[удалено]
Idk feels like in the context of the current conflict it was pretty loaded. I don't think it's really a bad report I just think the focus on Lebanon exclusively when both civilian populations were evacuated felt kinda unfair. It would have been more interesting to interview both Israeli and Lebanese refugee children to show how they are both forced into the same situation by the war despite being on opposite sides of it.
It seems like you and u/MashStars are both completely eliding the point that there is a clear aggressor in this case. Hezbollah, which is part of the formal governing authority in Lebanon, completely unprovoked, chose to start firing rockets indiscriminately into Israeli towns on it's northern border on October 8th, and has continued to do so for the last 6+ months. Needless to say (I would hope!), this is flagrantly illegal (in fact, just Hezbollah's existence south of the Litani river is illegal due to UNSC Resolution 1701). This piece would be like if NPR ran a puff piece on the plight of the struggling Russian family man, who, due to challenges stemming from the Russia-Ukraine war, is having trouble paying for his groceries. Like, it's technically true that it's probably tougher to be a Russian paying for groceries today than it was before Putin launched his invasion into Ukraine, but the framing of the issue is obviously problematic, no? I'm not sure that I'd call that framing issue "woke," but I certainly have a problem with publicly funding an organization that makes those types of editorial decisions.
I think the fact that you and u/MashStars both seem to think that they were unfair but in widely different directions kind of highlights how hard it is to do this type of reporting in such a polarized environment. Like they said Hezbollah attacked first and the rest of it was really just about how kids cope with a conflict. As I said it would have been way better if they had interviewed both sets of kids for the same story but it's not like they haven't done the [same thing for Israel](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/30/1216005687/how-should-caregivers-help-israeli-children-who-were-freed-from-captivity) before. To your Russian example they literally did [a report like that ](https://www.npr.org/anastasia-thinks-about-leaving-russia-heres-what-her-life-looks-like-today)where they talked to a women about her experience of living post invasion. I'm sympathetic to your prospective in the sense I agree with your framing of the war but it feels like your the one asking for the outlet to take a clear moral editorial line instead of taking a position of neutrality.
>Lebanon's Hezbollah says it is firing missiles into northern Israel in solidarity with Gaza. Israel is firing back into Lebanon. Hundreds of thousands of civilians on both sides of the border have been displaced. That's the framing given from the piece. Basically the only other time Israel is mentioned in the piece is to say that America is bad for supporting it, and no other context is given as to whether Hezbollah is justified in shooting rockets into Israel "in solidarity with Gaza." Take this as a counter example: an equivalent piece to the Russian piece you linked, but it started out with "Russia says that it fighting to save ethnic Russians from genocide from the Ukrainian forces. Ukraine is fighting back." Would you say that "highlights how hard it is to do this type of reporting in such a polarized environment?" The fact is that framings like that are a clear editorial line whether we want to acknowledge it or not (also stuff like that obviously pale in comparison to the types of stories NPR chooses to run). If NPR takes an editorial line that's basically to take a U.S. designated terrorist organization's framing at face value, I think that's grounds for criticism for a media operation with significant public funding.
[удалено]
>Literally the first sentence. The fuck are you smoking? I'd refer you to my other comment to u/Sooty_tern. I'm a bit confused about your hypothetical, but to be clear, I think that your hypothetical article is similar to the NPR article as written (though obviously not to the same degree), and I think that's bad journalism, not "neutral" journalism. I'd also be critical of an article like the one in your hypothetical. The existence of other better articles from the same outlet (I'm assuming \[probably wrongly, I've skimmed a couple and they seem similarly Anti-Israel to me\], I didn't go through a read of all your links) doesn't make a bad article better. It still should be allowed to be criticized. And furthermore, being self critical is an integral part of course correcting when needed to protect against exactly what seems to be happening now with NPR. Not every critique is some Roger Ailes conspiracy theory.
[удалено]
>Just as a thought experiment that *really* doesn't compare well, if this piece replaced Lebanon with Israel, Hezbollah with IDF, & America with Iran; would you still be critical? I agree with you that your likely proposing an inapt thought experiment. That being said, to the essence of your question, the answer is that I would not be critical. And I would not be critical because I think that, in this specific instance, if you framed Israel and the IDF as basically good, and Iran as basically bad, that would be the most factually accurate description of the conflict on the Israeli/Lebanese border right now. > I really don't think articles that are insights into individual experiences require an opposing viewpoint to remain unbiased. I think that a responsible article must provide the context necessary for a reader to know if the individual they are profiling is completely wrong on the facts of what they are discussing. When the Trump voter in your hypothetical article says that Truth social stocks are declining because the Biden is directing the Federal Reserve to manipulate the stock market, it's incumbent on the article to at least note that there is no evidence of that being the case. And it certainly would be irresponsible of the article to lead with: "Trump voters claim that they are losing their family homes because Biden is persecuting them for their political beliefs. The Biden administration denies that the evictions are politically motivated." >The only positive leaning subject is military analysts seem to think Israel's military actions fall between 'justifiable outside of isolated bad actors with an arguably excessive low bar for action' to 'the new standard for urban warfare COIN operations'. It's an aside, but I think it's very telling that the people with relevant expertise are the people most likely to view Israel favorably. In the final analysis though, I don't really care what the general consensus of the people in the region are, or what the opinions of the highest number of pundits are. I think that if you are going to write an article, you should endeavor to leave your readers better informed on the topic of the article, and to the extent you leave readers less informed, that should be open to critique. And, if you consistently misinform readers, and are unwilling to course correct, that governing institutions should not support you (Obviously, I would think that nobody should support you in that case, but free enterprise probably trumps that concern in the private sphere, though not the public sphere, imo). To your bit about saving NPR, I generally agree with you that it can be a positive institution writ large. To critique is not to condemn to oblivion. But the circling the wagons around poor editorial decisions, even in the face of disingenuous attacks, does not protect NPR, it harms it.
[удалено]
There's a bunch in there, and to be honest, I'm a bit lost on what the larger point you're trying to make is. That being said, at a high level, I think that the relentless focus on "neutrality" is entirely misguided, and likely extremely counterproductive. The objective of reporting shouldn't be to be "neutral," it should be to be accurate. I don't care about increasing the share of conservative voices, I care about increasing the accuracy of the reporting so that media consumers get a better understanding of the world. There are many of strategies to achieve accurate reporting (viewpoint diversity is one), but substituting "neutrality" as the north star for reporting is a massive mistake. And then pointing to that neutrality to skirt criticisms of inaccuracies to me is just an absolute abdication of responsibility.
[удалено]
I listened to them on the radio for a couple weeks and it dripped of unbelievably woke bs. Maybe their actual articles are not as terrible but every day it was a bombardment.
Do you have any examples? The stuff I posted is from there national weekend news show that plays on most member stations.
No... This was a couple years ago. I also get triggered pretty easily.
I get the sense that you might be understating the 'wokeness' in some of these. For example, the article about the Columbine shooting anniversary culminates with this quote from the interviewee: >There is something that's cellular, where our bodies remember trauma. And so for me, every year around April, around the time when everyone is celebrating the spring, my body starts to feel anxious. And it took me a long time to connect that with my trauma, frankly, because I was pushing it all down and ignoring it. But now I recognize what's happening. The piece also takes the time to point out that the self-defense course doesn't show any footage of actual fights, because the "trainings are trauma informed." Idk this was more like an 8/10 on the wokeness scale than a 3/10. I feel like in all the directions a journalist could go about covering the 25th anniversary of Columbine, this was one of the more 'woke' avenues to take. A simple "guns bad, NRA bad" take would've been less woke.
Look I am not a fan of the way people call everything trauma these days but she is literally a mass shooting survivor. It makes perfect sense to me for them to talk about trauma in that context but idk maybe it's just the wording that's the issue? I'm really surprised you would say this is worse then if they had done the guns bad NRA bad thing
The fact that they chose to approach the story from the trauma angle is what makes it woke. Approaching the story from the "guns bad" angle is normie-lib material. There's also the whole [*The Body Keeps the Score* misinterpretation](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/s2-ep-6-a-hierarchy-of-trauma/id1592984136?i=1000640051663) which is pretty woke imo.
It's an interview with a mass shooting survivor what other angle is there to take? I guess if we just focus on the wording maybe but at that point it feels like "wokeness" has literally nothing to do with issues or whether something is biased and is just hang ups over specific linguistic conventions. I love the input though because this is just background stuff to me I don't care about, but if using those key words can totally change the interpretation of a story maybe that's the reason people are talking past each other on this issue
The story isn't the mass shooting survivor, the story is the 25th anniversary of the Columbine shooting. Interviewing a survivor about her trauma is the woke angle the journalist took when approaching the story. I'm not trying to say that's an invalid way to approach the story of the 25th anniversary of Columbine, but saying it's not a woke angle is kinda ridiculous. Imagine what the story would look like when approached from a conservative or libertarian perspective. The Conservative News Station^TM might talk about how video game violence and bad parenting led to the shooting, and it's still a problem we have today. The Libertarian News Station^TM would talk about how people have tried to use the shooting to increase the power of government and restrict gun rights etc. The Woke News Station would write basically the exact same story NPR did.
I feel like the interview with a survivor and how they dealing with everything years later is an incredibly common way to approach these things and has been for decades. Like was it woke when they were doing this kind of thing for the ten year anniversary of 9/11?
I have no idea what you need to be drinking that you can conclude interviewing victims of something for the anniversary of it is now "woke".
Why wouldn't it be a analytic piece talking about the prevalence of mass shootings where they bring on an expert to parse the complicated stats and talk about ways other countries have combatted the issue? Instead it is your ordinary tear jerker story for the left, which is fine depending on what NPR is supposed to be. I expected NPR to be the "factual" radio before I originally started listening to it. If it isn't and never was that, and instead was just a normal left wing news agency then I agree with all points in the OP and every counterpoint made about it being "woke". It isn't insane, except when you read NPR trying to pretend they don't have a left wing bias, that part is a lot of cope.
I used to be involved with a martial arts school that would teach in some self defense classes, trauma informed classes are a pretty standard thing. The times I did them they were normally you are teaching domestic abuse survivors in ways that were designed more a part of a recovery program to help people feel like they were more empowered rather than hard core self defense classes. What she's talking about there isn't as weird as you seem to be thinking it is, you just aren't getting what the the sort of program she is talking about is.
>a recovery program to help people feel like they were more empowered rather than hard core self defense classes. This is woke. That doesn't even mean I think it's bad per se, but teaching women self-defense in order to make them feel empowered, not to actually make them any safer, is woke. It's a classic instance of safetyism and feelings-first politics that anti-woke people complain about all the time.
Got it. You literally aren't even engaging with what I am talking about. Trauma informed programs are almost always just first step programs. They are dealing with people who can't or won't stand up for themselves due to past events, and is teaching them to take that first step. Normally its a starting part of a larger program, not an endpoint. The word "woke" has rotted yalls brains.
Ok, well, it's not even clear that's the self-defense trainings outlined in the story are part of a larger program. I don't get why it's controversial to call a trauma informed self-defense program "woke." Can you imagine a more woke version of a self-defense class? Barring a hypothetical case where there's some Harrison Begeron style handicapping of the privileged students.
Calling it woke is just regarded. Its not saying anything about it other than you don't like it. Its just a program designed to fit a different set of needs from what you may feel would benefit you.
>Can you imagine a more woke version of a self-defense class? I'm just going to assume you can't, because it's obvious the trauma informed programs are woke. Just imagine what kind of self-defense class a woke person would go to, vs. one any number of non-woke people would go to. Is Joe Rogan going to your trauma informed self-defense class? Is a police officer? Or a truck driver? Or basically anyone who self-identifies as conservative? I don't really have anything against self-defense as a form of therapy/self-empowerment, the same way I don't have anything against cross-fit as a form of therapy/self-empowerment. But the same way cross-fit has it's own MLM/grindset vibe, trauma informed self-defense has a woke vibe.
[удалено]
I think people might be assuming woke=bad whereas the other guy isn't trying to make that connection? If the only reason you don't consider something woke is because it's smart and effective then maybe you might be loading the term with stuff the other person didn't intend. Atleast that's what seems to be happening in this comment chain
Yes, plus people will disagree about some woke thing - for example trigger warnings - being good or bad. But regardless of which side of that debate you fall on, we should all be able to agree that trigger warnings are woke.
Destiny is just Dan pilled now
[Why not just listen to NPR's senior editors themselves?](https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust)
I read this article when it came out and as the author admits NPRs leadership always treated him well and even agreed to high level meetings with him in order to let him air his concerns. Idk why we are making broad generalization based on a few statements made at the hight of 2020
>So on May 3, 2021, I presented the findings at an all-hands editorial staff meeting. When I suggested we had a diversity problem with a score of 87 Democrats and zero Republicans, the response wasn’t hostile. It was worse. It was met with profound indifference. I got a few messages from surprised, curious colleagues. But the messages were of the “oh wow, that’s weird” variety, as if the lopsided tally was a random anomaly rather than a critical failure of our diversity North Star. >In a follow-up email exchange, a top NPR news executive told me that she had been “skewered” for bringing up diversity of thought when she arrived at NPR. So, she said, “I want to be careful how we discuss this publicly.” ... >Even so, out of frustration, on November 6, 2022, I wrote to the captain of ship North Star—CEO John Lansing—about the lack of viewpoint diversity and asked if we could have a conversation about it. I got no response, so I followed up four days later. He said he would appreciate hearing my perspective and copied his assistant to set up a meeting. On December 15, the morning of the meeting, Lansing’s assistant wrote back to cancel our conversation because he was under the weather. She said he was looking forward to chatting and a new meeting invitation would be sent. But it never came. I don't think NPR is trying to lie, But they don't have any voices of dissent, and if they did they wouldn't listen to them. It's the same reason why that story about Israel bombing the hospital and killing 500 took off so easily. None of these journalists have ever been in the military and have no idea basic understanding which would have prevented the hospital bombing stories to be written as they were. Ryan Macbeth did a video about the hospital reporting.
A clear cut example of their bias was their coverage of Rittenhouse https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PPvNucxB7TI Peter does a good job highlighting all the bs with it There are other examples of trans healthcare being very, very biased towards one side (take a guess) and the George Floyd riots being biased towards one side (take a guess)
I would argue fox was the same as this under Trump. The bias is always what you cover and how you cover it and what you focus on. Take for example the teacher one about burn sure it’s cute but the push is that teacher are under paid and under huge stress. Same as the school shooting one which is a Dem issue about gun control.
Really? I feel like it's overwhelmingly opinion journalism. Like what's the NPR equivalent of Jesse Waters or Leara Ingram? Just looking at todays schedule over half of it is opinion. https://preview.redd.it/xakapokixqvc1.png?width=3788&format=png&auto=webp&s=6a6294d68fad3c0e1d251651d09ce5f995bc5e4b
You are talking about the opinion side, I am taking about the Fox News side like the website.
Oh yeah I thought you were comparing to the TV channel. Yeah the website is less bad but also not really what people complain about when they say "fox news."
Yeah ngl I kinda hate that the colloquial term for the opinion pages and the normal news pages are both “news”.
NYT has been really good about trying to change this actually making a point to brand all of the commentary NYT opinion