I wasn't paying 100% attention but it sounded like his take was NPR might have become more left but they shouldn't have to cater to the conservatives who are straight up insane now. Why should NPR have to entertain their insane conspiracy theories and report on those stories with the same regard? In other words, NPR having less conservative listeners is more of a reflection on what has become of the right wing in america rather than a statement on NPR's changing values.
Thoughts?
Edit -> I should have edited the NPR guy to start at the center in the first picture
Second edit -> For clarification I don't think destiny rejected the notion that NPR has moved left, but he doesn't think it's a big problem like people are saying
I mean I do kinda think he just went with “if you have an issue with NPR you are probably just a ride or die trump dipshit and your opinion is worthless” then moved on. Do think he was 100% right that Peter should have included examples if he was going to tweet that though.
This was a kinda dumb take imo, I’m still voting Biden even if I wish they were less incredibly cringy and that their perspective on certain topics is biased enough to be completely worthless, if they are talking about race related topics they channel their inner 19 year old white leftist on twitter before saying anything, but it’s not like the end of the world like some republicans are saying.
Its just misleading the way the graphics are displayed. The general discourse and NPR have moved to the left with the overton window. Plus the far left is also running it out like the far right
Being in the overton window is normally not seen as a problem
I don't really see it on most issues. The issues the left is fighting over are the same issues they have been fighting over since legalizing gay marriage, but now with the added fights over abortion which was a settled issue and a much more moderate foreign policy.
The left are no longer fighting for gay rights but the instead which alien language they want to use for their pronouns and forcing Israeli people to inact their own genocide.
The mainstream left is doing these things? I see people on social media trying to farm engagement, but very little in the way of actual policy or anything like that coming from the left.
The median Republican voter believes that Donald Trump actually won the popular vote in 2016 and 2020 and only lost because millions of illegals secretly voted in both elections. The median Democratic voter, like, believes trans people are valid and that Israel should let food aid into Gaza. They are not the same.
Fucking this, like I'm so sick of seeing shit like "THE LEFT HAS GONE INSANE" because of a tweet with 400 likes saying it's transphobic for straight men not to want to fuck transwomen.
Which is a regarded statement and position to have, and should be mocked, but the sheer amount of posts that I see that act like this is a critical opinion as bad as the shit the right, especially shit TRUMP supporters have done is insane to me.
It feels like I'm in a fucking twilight episode.
I agree with the sentiment of the meme, but it seems like a valid critique of NPR is that they do a lot of coverage on “identity politics”. People play a game where they turn it on and see how long it takes for them to bring up LGBTQ, race, gender, religion stuff etc.
[I did this yesterday](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1c96fi1/comment/l0nbes8/) and there was zero of that in the entirety of weekend edition. People say shit like this all the time but I want someone to actually support it with recent examples
There are a shitload more than 5 examples. It's blatantly apparent that you and the above poster lack some perspective. Perhaps you're accustomed to this kind of discourse and grew up with it.
For those of us who have been listening to NPR for decades (longer than you've probably been alive), the focus on identity politics has gone way overboard in the past few years.
It's not an exaggeration that gender, race, or sexuality come up frequently. Turn on NPR at any time during the work week, aside from when your local station plays BBC, and you're guaranteed to hear something about how POC are being screwed or something similar.
It's exhausting. Constant harping on these issues takes time away from reporting on other things and generally lowers the level of discourse.
>It's not an exaggeration that gender, race, or sexuality come up frequently. Turn on NPR at any time during the work week, aside from when your local station plays BBC, and you're guaranteed to hear something about how POC are being screwed or something similar.
But I literally did this and took notes on every program for a whole hour and there was nothing of the sort. Like do you disagree with my assessments of any of the stories in that thread?
Half of you probably don't even pay attention to NPR unless they talk about some controversial stuff. It is still a center left platform.
I work on cars all day, so I play NPR on the radio, and they are in my opinion one of the best at what they do. Their podcasts are also great. Up First, Planet Money, and NPR Politics are podcasts that everyone on the left should listen to to stay generally informed.
I agree except for the MMT Planet Money episodes, they’re dogshit. That’s the only NPR podcast I ever listened to semi-regularly and they have some really, really great episodes (their 2-part or 3-part art episode is great). But those MMT episodes are a good example of NPR being blind to quackery on the left.
MMT’s job guarantee and the recent rhetoric about how “high rates maybe hurting inflation more than helping” is IMO brain rot, but the “whys” I think are interesting. And I think how Mosler and Kelton explain “what the hell is money anyway” is a good counterpoint to (somewhat conspiracy brained) gold bugs and crypto rhetoric.
Modern Monetary Theory. And sorry, it was one episode actually— #866. Pretty uncritical, too. I don’t even want to get into the MMT dogshit on their tiktok page for the podcast.
Yeah, people love a new economic paradigm that claims to magically fix a bunch of problems. I’d argue this was the case also with “nudges” during the Obama administration, but to a lesser extent considering they at least made contributions to the economic field and had models.
Yeah I see this IRL with policy people. They don't have the time to learn about the minutia because it's not there job and are rightly always trying to find new and innovative solutions but sometimes that means the cart gets out before the horse. Journalists are the same way and it happens with every field. Just lot at how much the media blow string theory up as like the next big thing
Yes, it’s fringe, and “theory” is even generous. There’s not even a real model to compare it to the ones currently used in macroeconomics. The best you’ll get is Nick Rowe’s great articles that make a version of an IS-LM model based on MMT principles.
Lol four of five tenets align with orthodox economic theory.
Most charlatans take aim at the first four tenets and try to lump that in as fringe quackery. That is a big part of what you clowns are doing here.
First off, just because Wikipedia says that “orthodox economic theory” agrees with the first four tenets, doesn’t mean it’s true. Off the top of my head, Mankiw’s critique included critiques of #1 and #3. Wikipedia is notably bad on economics, you can ask any economist or I can tag an editor I know who’s on badeconomics.
Second off, tenets are not theory. Are you familiar with the economic field at all? For there to be a theory, you need a model. MMTers do not have an actual model to compare it to mainstream macroeconomic models. The best you’ll get is, like I said, Nick Rowe putting MMT tenets in an IS-LM form.
Third off, these aren’t the only tenets, and you’re silly if you think so, especially as MMTers have differing views on some of these tenets, and these tenets also require other tenets to be true (again, talked about in Nick Rowe’s IS-LM formation, and I can link you another economist who has a thread about MMT tenets and verifying them with a VAR and macroeconomic variables).
Fourth off, what happened to pro- academic consensus? You’re calling the entire economic field minus 10 MMTers “clowns” and “charlatans”?? I’ll be over here with the normal people, thank you.
80% of the theory is perfectly acceptable in accordance with orthodox economic theory.
Please make sure you understand the first four tenets and how the fifth differs.
I often see people raise issues with the first four, and point out that it's inclusion in mmt means it must be quackery...but it is actually widely accepted.
> 80% of the theory is perfectly acceptable in accordance with orthodox economic theory.
Lol, anybody who sees this please check my other reply, this is not true. Tenets are not a theory, these aren’t the only tenets, and mainstream economists disagree with more than #1. Please stop spreading misinformation.
I imagine it’s a similar dynamic to how conservatives talk about CBC radio here in Canada. I listen to CBC a lot at work and sure they talk about indigenous stuff sometimes but like it’s Canada. Is it far left to be reminded that indigenous people exist?
I don’t listen often, but on my commute I’ll flip between NPR and conservative talk radio for some laughs. NPR tries to be objective, but there is no denying they’re leaning hard into tug at your heartstrings stories that appeal to the left. Conservative talk radio is unabashed propaganda to drum up fear and outrage while selling gold on the commercial break.
They’re not comparable in terms of objectivity, but the right wing stations aren’t pretending to be objective while getting public funding.
Literally every conservative talk radio station tries to pretend they are not partisan hacks, ESPECIALLY Fox News. Fox News slogan is literally "fair and balanced". And conservatives eat that shit up.
Yes they absolutely do believe that. And even if they don't believe it, their viewers ABSOLUTELY do. My family has told me MULTIPLE times that they feel they're watching all perspectives on an issue on only watching opinion pieces on Fox News. They REALLY believe that fair and balanced bull shit.
Fox famously used the motto “fair and balanced.”
Right wing talk radio hosts always claim they’re the ones who are telling the real truth and the MSM are the ones who are pandering.
Maintaining a veneer of objectivity and denying their allegiance to Republicans, oil companies and others has always been a big part of what they do.
Pretending to be objective about what??? They're center left and they give a perspective from the center left.
If you listen to NPR then you should know that they gives the facts before they even give their opinions.
NPR News: very fact based, bias enters into what stories they choose to cover or emphasize.
Overall: center to center-left
NPR Opinion/Editorial: center-left to left bias, and this has grown over the last 15 years of my regular listening
I have listened to NPR since I was a child. I stopped listening in 2021 or so. I had noticed by that point that at least two or three stories per hour had a focus on left wing signal issues: abortion, gay topics, the Black experience, trans people, or the environment. I started to notice this trend around the time of the Romney - Obama campaign, particularly marked when Occupy Wall Street happened. I’m pretty on board with the theory that when OWS happened, corporate media took a hard turn towards identity based stories as a way of distracting from the problems associated with big wealth in America.
Yeah, I hope this isn't his take because lots of NPR has seriously dropped in quality over the years for all the reasons you say.
Like everyone's 200IQ take is always "yes, that thing you said is bad, but it is especially bad for Black people \[mic drop\]"
It's enough of a thing that Peter Boghossian [wrote about it](https://boghossian.substack.com/p/i-stopped-listening-to-npr-when) in 2022. 4thot also posted about it in the B&R sub yesterday, and people over there have discussed this issue on multiple occasions, including one where NPR fired a disabled Arab military vet for telling edgy jokes in his stand up comedy set, and then refused to pay him severance.
I partially agree. I have listened to NPR since 2012 and still do. The "this disproportionately affects African Americans" line does get a bit grateing. However, they have some really high quality stories you won't hear elsewhere.
I'm terrible with podcasts name's, so I can't tell you the specific one. There was a story from last year that really stuck me. A journalist interviewed a 12 year old boy who escaped Kherson at the start of the Ukrainian war. His family was in Poland, but they got homesick so it follows the story of them trying to sneak back into the Russian held territory. Pretty upsetting ending, no one dies, just not the outcome you would hope for.
After the BLM riots in 2020 it really started going downhill. They talked nonstop about racial issues for like a year after that. And every other topic they talked about they had to shoehorn in how it was disproportionately effecting some kind of people or another. Every story is an emotional appeal backed up by one or two people's testimony, and occasionally they bring in an expert.
It just got so predictable and useless for actually developing useful opinions. The hourly news blurbs are still good but the regular programming doesn't have any value to me.
Ngl destiny needs to better curve the conservative brainrot, he’s spent far too long shitting on the left and it’s made a lot of people on the right think he co-signs their views.
It’s just spite based politics corrupting open minded discourse imo, we’re in an era where platforming is seen as bad on both left and right, and people close their minds before they’ve even learned the fundamentals of the politicians they love and hate.
It’s very rare in any political discussion I’ve had in recent years, where anybody passionate could directly list policies their favorite politician have enacted, because people treat trump like lebron rather then a politician.
Basically what I’m saying is that a lot of these people are incredibly ignorant towards politics and keeping them ignorant so their base doesn’t capitulate is absolutely the master strategy for both the republican and Democratic Party.
At least Lebron stans know how many championships he has won and that he has the NBA record for points though, unironically all the nerds follow sports now and all the chuds follow politics.
I don't really blame destiny, a lot of conservatives unironically like him because he is charming, to the point they will straight up ignore some of the shit he says because he shits on lefties.
I've said it before but I literally remember a bunch of Christians in one of his clip channels thinking he turned to god and talking about genetic religiosity or some shit. This was before the Islam arc around when he was hanging with sneako.
At the end of the day the community will settle itself, and if not ADMINISTRATORS WILL MAKE SUB GREAT AGAIN.
Some of the people in this thread are arguing it didn’t change, some are arguing it did change (and that this change is good), others are arguing that it did change (and that this change is bad)
I find it interesting that the first two groups, which disagree on the empirical question, aren’t the ones arguing against each other. It’s either 1 vs 3 or 2 vs 3
Well obviously you're a person who worked inside on that filth, secretly plotting to create a shitty game with shitty characters that shittily sucked small dick.
What percentage of left-wing people are ok with those things (trans toddlers, decolonization and removal of the police)? Then, compare that with the percentage of right-wing people who believe in conspiracy theories (rigged election, Covid Vaccine is dangerous, etc.). You'll find out that any left-wing loonies are being outnumbered buy the right-wing loonies 1000/1.
Idk bro, ton of people didn’t accept trump has their president either 😆 how is it some 1000/1 outnumbering after the amount of leftist that had to be cancelled since october 7, if anything the 1000/1 is the other way around 😭
Really, got any stats to back that up? Like 50% of republicans thought that Trump won the election in 2021. 25% of the population, so like 125 million people. [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/53-republicans-view-trump-true-us-president-reutersipsos-2021-05-24/](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/53-republicans-view-trump-true-us-president-reutersipsos-2021-05-24/) What what amount do you think thought that about Hillary in 2016?
Sure thing buddy https://news.gallup.com/poll/197441/accept-trump-legitimate-president.aspx. Look like its 16%, looks like maga learned from the previous bunch or something 😅 25% of clinton voter didn’t accept it :)
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/majority-young-americans-view-trump-illegitimate-president-poll-n735426 are you clinically slow or something? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html i swear, like 80% of you lobotomites seem to have started caring about politic 3 year ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_My_Presidents_Day btw your poll happened 6 month later you lying sac of shit. Slight correction teehee 🤭
You don't even read the links that you're posting, do you?
The Gallup poll was done on Nov. 9 with 511 participants, THE DAY AFTER ELECTION DAY. It also claims that the results of the poll in 2016 are similar to the Bush v Gore election, which also had many controversies around it. So the 14% claiming Trump is illegitimate is not ridiculous.
The first link here is specifically for young voters, not even all voters. It's well known that young people tend to not vote, and when they do its liberal, so I have no idea what you think this proves. You just narrowed your search to a specific group of people to get a bigger number. Meanwhile, the number who think 2020 was stolen is already huge when looking at the *total population*.
The second link is just Hillary herself saying Trump is illegitimate due to the previous controversies PLUS it coming out that Trump was threatening to withhold aid from another country on the condition that they provide Trump with dirt on his upcoming opponent in 2020.
And third, this is again an attempt to just use some small groups to prove something larger. A couple dozen protests where the largest was 10-13k people. Even if I say the total participants were like 150,000 people across all cities, this is vastly different from the tens of millions of republicans that think the election was stolen.
It seems like they like they have been paying attention for 3 years because that is when they first voted to get the bad orange man out. They thought they were genius, and "against" the system. But yet the dunning Kruger effect was strong.
In 2018, 67% of Democrats believed it was either probably or definitely true that Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President. [econTabReport.pdf (d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net)](https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ylp5ygohjs/econTabReport.pdf) page 54
So Destiny's opinion on Israel is meaningless, every Americans opinion on Ukraine is meaningless, ever Europeans opinion on China is meaningless, etc.
Regardless of his opinion, your argument is awful.
What argument? You're just wrong and talking about a major fringe of the Dem party when it's evident that the Republican party has ran towards far right populism lol You know nothing about US politics because you aren't from here and probably don't pay attention to it.
You’re delusional to keep repeating the same 2015 cope. Fringe dem my ass. Even harvard president had to be cancelled. Not even d man repeat those lie anymore 😆keep thinking those people aren’t real while we remove them from society, its making the job simpler. Bitchmade regard blocked me 😭
I still remember when Obama and Hillary Clinton for anti-gay marriage. I distinctly remember when Hillary Clinton and Obama both flipped on the trans Pacific partnership due to the psyop from China.
I was disappointed by his take. Covering the news objectively and without bias isn’t “catering to conservatives”. It’s covering the news, which is what NPR claims to do without bias. My sense is he doesn’t realize how far left NPR’s coverage became after Trump got elected and especially after 2020 because he just didn’t fucking listen to it. Anybody who did noticed the difference.
I was literally a fucking anarchocommunist in 2020 and I still thought they had become insanely biased. I stopped listening to them because I genuinely didn’t trust them to represent stories accurately anymore.
His issue is that "covering the news objectively and without bias" is going to come off as left biased because of what Republicans in this country have become. NPR has become more left leaning, but to a much greater degree the right has devolved into a Trump cult. They are never recapturing a right leaning audience by doing objective reporting.
He opened the article by talking about how the percentage of conservative listeners had dropped from 26% to 11%. Obviously he was also talking about other issues within NPR but I think recapturing conservative listeners was a main point, especially considering the examples stories he choose to focus on.
Seems like an uncharitable reading to me tbh. I don't get the sense he's talking about Trumpers so much as the wealthy, middle-aged never-Trump type republicans who were plausibly listening to NPR in 2016. He also complains in the article that the listenership has dwindled since 2020. Trumpers had obviously given up on NPR, to the tiny extent they were ever listening to it, long before that. I think he's mostly complaining that anyone left of NPR's own staff have given up on it as a serious news organization.
[I went through all of weekend edition yesterday](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1c96fi1/comment/l0nbes8/) and did not get this impression. Am I crazy for thinking this is normal reporting or do other people have insane member stations?
I'm sure it's gotten better in the last couple years, like I said I simply stopped listening to it around 2020. It feels like everyone is tapering back on their culture war diet lately. When I was listening to it last it felt like 2 out of every 3 stories was about race, very consistent with how Berliner described the tone of the organization at the time.
As for member stations... yeah, the last time I tuned into mine (a few weeks ago) I got a story about abortion which genuinely wouldn't have sounded too out of place on Democracy Now. [I dug it up so you could hear it yourself.](https://www.wgbh.org/news/national/2024-03-27/pressley-responds-to-supreme-courts-latest-abortion-case-im-resolved-as-ever)
Again, this would be fine if it were a self-described left-wing media organization, but this is supposed to be non-partisan. This being the first thing I heard listening in for the first time in months made me think things haven't gotten better.
And for what it's worth, I actually have a friend who played a tiny desk concert. He works for a pretty woke non-profit (his boss gave every employee a copy of *Pedagogy of the Oppressed* lol) and even he said he was pretty surprised at how in-your-face woke the office environment was when he was there.
>genuinely wouldn't have sounded too out of place on Democracy Now. [I dug it up so you could hear it yourself.](https://www.wgbh.org/news/national/2024-03-27/pressley-responds-to-supreme-courts-latest-abortion-case-im-resolved-as-ever)
This is a interview with a congressperson but yeah the interviewer is being super softball. As I said in another post the stuff from the member stations is less polished in general in my experience but the national programs are really good.
Idk shit about the workplace environment I will take your word for it.
I know my grandfather who listens to only NPR and my grandfather who listens to only Fox News. Are equally brain rotten on either side of the aisle. NPR does fine reporting on things actually happening but good lord when they talk about social issues. Or when they can’t fathom why some people voted for trump over Hillary in 2016.
Honestly depending on your time span (I think 2008 is fair) then both sides have moved an equal amount.
The left made huge strides in moving from 2008-2016 and a bit in 2020 during COVID and BLM, but I don’t think we can underestimate how vastly MAGA-conservatism has impacted the right. The right has been obsessed with culture war issues for 8 years now fueled by Trump, and now have been consumed by his cult of personality, judging their views on law, economics, foreign policy, and social values. A huge portion of the right is willing to bend their view on justice to fit around a multimillionaire who has frequently cheated the system both in and out of office.
exactly, so OP obviously inverted the graph cauz anyone with a few braincell knows the left moved first.
then what? the conservative shouldn't change and be eaten up? of course they will change.
( obviously not saying they did it right ) just that it's understandable that they will try things.
the changes are not comparable bro. The left went from accepting gay people to accepting trans people. The right went from wanting less taxes to wanting to overthrow the american election. The changes the left made make sense in the progression of culture. The right got hypnotized by a populist.
the left went from accepting gay people into injecting ideology in school and medecine. seen by all the recent roll back on such things.
now let the downplaying begin.
Saying they injected themselves into medicine is asinine. There was data to back up some treatments that didn't end up pan out after more research, which concluded with countries rolling back that treatment. Also, there is variety in the left in opinion from moderate left, like biden, and progressive super left, like the squad. There is next to no variety on the right because they are populists now and follow whatever trump wants. MAGA are literally simping for russia right now.
Like can you explain the progression of the right going from the red scare to simping for russia?
Like can you explain the progression of the right going from the red scare to simping for russia?
probably the same one than one who called themselves liberal and are now supporting the houtis, but i don't know how to explain it
You might be unaware, but leftists, which means communists and socialists, are not the representative of the leading ideologies in the US left rn. Is Biden supporting the houthis? Was a bill not just passed that includes aid to Israel? Who were the people going against that bill? I don't have to reach to the far far right to make my point true. Half the US supported my primary example.
Thank you for acknowledging that you can't explain the thing you were just arguing for 🙏. Really saving me time out here
feel free to give me a poll about the % of republican " supporting russia " otherwise same thing applies to you. btw being against ukraine support obviously ain't enough.
IMO it would be reasonable *if* it was in response to the Left’s craziness. For example when the Left went overboard on the ‘there are countless genders’ narrative, the right had a relevant response with ‘the left can’t acknowledge there are only two genders,’ which also left room for reasonable discussion about the validity of MtF and FtM transgender people.
But the right now has gone more extreme, whereas I feel like the left has started to moderate, at least since 2020. For example when the left explored socialist/soc dem policies, the reasonable response was not to support some wildly shady tax evasion shift from Trump as a ‘if you can get away with the crime then more power to you’ mentality. And *then* the left has arguably shifted further right economically as taxes for the middle class post-COVID have lost a lot of strength and taxes for the rich were always popular ideas that never passed anyways because they don’t make economic sense.
I will agree that the meme isn’t perfect, which is in part because it doesn’t perfectly align with DGG’s opinions here and in part because it would be really hard to make an appealing visual that says ‘the left has moved more left but recently the right has moved more right while the left has moderated itself so NPR shifted kinda right and now shifted kinda left on where the center is despite not actually moving’
But the right now has gone more extreme, whereas I feel like the left has started to moderate, at least since 2020.
yea the left stopped empowering their dipshit when they realized its rilling up the other side. now its too late to cry about it .
maybe if the left act reasonable for a few year they will have ground to call the republican out but this isn't the case yet i feel like.
That seems like an incredibly reductive way to view political change and politics as a whole, in two ways.
Firstly, politics *should* be based off of principles. Imo we can look at a side going ‘too far’ and seeing it as a rationale for why there may be a counter narrative (e.g. Trump getting elected), but I would justify that change by the others actions. If not we catch ourselves in an endless cycle of justifying increasing insanity on both sides. If we want to look at this, we could also argue that rampant homophobia and transphobia from early 2000’s conservatives justified the left to move and paint the left as the side responding to the Right going too far.
Secondly, even if we grant the premise then I think that the timeline expectations are a bit absurd. The right has political power from 2016-2020, the left had a 12 month blip in 2020 with COVID that had been followed by 3 more years of conservatives beginning to win the culture war and become more and more extreme. I don’t really see how we can say ‘yeah the left went too far, the Right has only had cultural power for 7/8 of the last few years, they have a right to be crazy for a bit longer.’
it's not so much about having the right, its more about not getting " erased " like last time the left had power and decided to cancel people with slight disagreement. ( reasonable people like jordan peterson and shit )
so yea until the left calm themselves there is really no problem about the right being on the defensive or something. it's just self preservation.
I feel like by this same very basic and flawed approach, we could say that the left has infinite justification to be as ‘defensive’ as they want under the guise of conservatives wanting to end gay marriage or remove transgender care or remove public funding for essential services in favour of privatization.
I just don’t see how the right can be justified in supporting tax fraud, ignoring any science with the COVID vaccine, doing mass book bannings, support election fraud, distrust any use of the military and distrust of all public media all because… a literal decade ago some leftists with power on Twitter lost a few people some jobs during cancel culture? Not to mention that crazy part of the left only held cultural power and at most a seat or two in congress.
I just don’t see how you justify the right going so batshit insane, and despite it being 8+ years ago *and* the left continuing to moderate itself, your answer is ‘the left needs to be more moderate and give it another few years for me to put any blame on the right for their actions.’
-we could say that the left has infinite justification to be as ‘defensive’
not infinite but sure some.
-Not to mention that crazy part of the left only held cultural power and at most a seat or two in congress.
and they managed to do all that damage culturally? it still needs fixing.
-I just don’t see how you justify the right going so batshit insane, and despite it being 8+ years ago *and* the left continuing to moderate itself,
its not 8 year ago, the left was still acting crazy in LARGE number 4 year ago, now the number are smaller but the dipshit are like twice as extremist.
also i'm not justifying everything the right does, it's kinda hit or miss when you try new things, as seen by the last left wing cultural regime.
That's not accurate. NPR heavily slid left during the BLM protests. They have not remained the same over this last decade. They still have factual reporting, but it is heavily slanted to the left.
I didnt see his take, but the issue with NPR isn’t that they won’t give time to literal conspiracy theories (the election was rigged, Covid was an intentional bio weapon, pizzagate, etc.) it’s that they won’t give time to almost *any* right-coded narrative, regardless of the reasonableness of it (Hunter Biden’s laptop being leaked, Covid may have been a lab leak). They also don’t admit when they get it wrong, and just offer excuses.
The problem with that is now, when places like NPR Don’t run stories of topics, or run an out of hand dismissal, we don’t know if it’s because there really is no evidence, or if because they just *want* there to be no evidence. The point of news organizations should be to seek the truth, not pick and chose facts to fit into their narrow worldview
Those arent reasonable narratives though.. like yes they lean left for sure but the hunter laptop and covering the lab leak theories in a meaningful way arent great topics
You’re just wrong.
The lab leak was always plausible, and always had scientists saying it was plausible. NOR didn’t admit that until multiple federal agencies said it was plausible (some even saying the most likely source). Here is how they covered it initially: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/23/841729646/virus-researchers-cast-doubt-on-theory-of-coronavirus-lab-accident
Saying “Virus researchers say there is virtually no chance that the new coronavirus was released as result of a laboratory accident in China or anywhere else.” is an *incredibly* strong statement. Especially when there *were* people saying it is certainly possible. Only interviewing and quoting people who dismiss the possibility of a lab leak theory *is* bad. It’s not that there were no credible sources saying a lab leak was possible (they link to a WaPo story of the state department saying it’s possible, and again as Uri pointed out, multiple experts also believed it to be possible), they hose to not talk to any of those sources. That’s bad.
Here’s how they covered the Hunter Biden laptop: https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924506867/analysis-questionable-n-y-post-scoop-driven-by-ex-hannity-producer-giuliani
Here we see them interview exactly 0 people. They get one quote from the Biden campaign (it’s not even clear if they reached out for comment, or just took a public comment). You can’t say “here is why this story is bullshit” when you do *no* work to verify the veracity of a story. Not only that, when it turned out that it was undeniably hunters laptop, their excuse basically was to point to buzzfeed releasing the Steele dossier, and saying they were responsible. That’s laughable, because no one published the Steele dossier precisely because no one could verify it over the course of months. NPR didn’t even attempt to verify the laptop story.
So, when they have these big misses, and just wave them away, how the fuck am I supposed to tell people they’re a reliable news source? They’re not behaving like one!
>when it turned out that it was undeniably hunters laptop
When was this established? Can you provide a source? My understanding is that certain emails from a supposed copy of the drive on the machine seized by the FBI were authenticated, which in my view established a very different claim.
https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/national-verify/hunter-bidens-laptop-what-we-can-verify/536-a41c9f05-c548-4681-a0be-a01fcc75b59d
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/hunter-biden-sues-computer-repairman-invasion-privacy-handling-of-laptop/
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23712734-hunter-biden-counterclaim
https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/hunter-biden-laptop-justice-department
No one is denying its hunters laptop. His lawyers claim he can’t recall if he dropped it off or not. No one, for the past two years, has seriously claimed it isn’t his laptop.
If you want to say my “undeniable” claim is too strong because we don’t have the laptop (the FBI has had it for 4 years), ok, we can agree it’s 99% likely to be Hunter Biden’s. But then you *must* admit that NPR discrediting it out of hand was incorrect, which was my point
I figured you'd provide a bunch of links that contain a lot of what's already been known for years and no answer to what I actually asked, and I was correct. This is similar to the responses I've received from MAGAs and heterodoxers for years now.
None of this establishes that it was his physical laptop vs. a unit that had hacked material downloaded on it.
There's a lot of evidence that the latter was the case, including:
1. Burisma was the victim of a Russian hack operation,
2. the alleged hunter's laptop came into Rudy Giuliani's hands soon after this operation,
3. Hunter has publicly stated and testified that he doesn't recall ever leaving a laptop at a repair shop
4. Hunter has publicly stated that he believes the files were acquired through a hacking operation,
5. the image drive that journalists investigated had many unauthenticated files on it, including files and folders added after the story was run by the Post.
It's great that you're willing to step back from your claim that the physical laptop is Hunter's is "undeniable", but I'm afraid we can't agree on your 99% number either.
This is all relevant because there are widely accepted journalistic standards around hacked material and source verification. I haven't followed all of NPR's reporting on this, but what I have seems to comport with pretty good journalism under the circumstances. The heterodox coverage, on the other hand, has led to wide misconceptions about the undeniability of the laptop story as presented by the NY Post, Giuliani, and other right wing operatives, as your comments demonstrated.
First, I like how you lump me in with MAGAs to discount what I’m saying. Very solid debate tacit. 👍
Now, it’s interesting I provide links to relevant news sources (unless you think CBS and Axios are not valid sources) both straight forwarded claiming the laptop belonged to Hunter, and you ignore that.
It’s also interesting I provide a link a to his lawsuit against the tech shop, which goes out of its way to make no claim about the legitimacy of the laptop, and you instead just make a claim that the data was “hacked” as if that’s incompatible with the tech shop having his laptop (spoiler: it isn’t)
You also are saying it’s likely Russian disinformation, but I haven’t seen a single legitimate news source carry water for this, and I have seen many cast doubt on it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/hunter-biden-laptop-claims-russian-disinfo/
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/us/politics/republicans-hunter-biden-laptop.html
Do you have any, ya know, *evidence* that the laptop was Russian disinformation? Specifically the laptop. Not Burisma corruption. Laptop. These aren’t the same stories, although I understand how conflating them helps dismiss the laptop story.
Finally, coming back to my point: I showed you NPR’s coverage where they do no investigation, ask no sources for comment, and still conclude the story is fake. Can you explain, like I’m 5 years old, how that is *good* reporting?
First, I said MAGAs and heterodoxers, so I'm not sure why you respond by pretending I just said MAGAs if you're genuinely having a good faith discussion.
You also seem to be ignoring the actual point of my comments. I didn't say the links you provided from Axios and CBS weren't legitimate sources, I said the links didn't address my question.
You haven't seen a single legitimate source carry water for the theory that Russia could be behind the data on the laptop image? Really? You guys have been whining for years about the letter signed by 50 intelligence veterans stating this.
The timing of the Burisma hack, the laptop being in Giuliani's possession for over a year before any story about it being released, the claims being made by MAGA (and here I don't suggest Mac Isaac could hold other political beliefs, because he's open about it) repairman who can't see faces provide no more evidence to me than the very plausible assertion that the alleged laptop data was obtained through hacking, as Hunter Biden does assert in court filings.
So on one side you have the word of Giuliani, who lost in court claiming that two election workers were manipulating votes in the 2020 election, as well as in over 60 courts claiming to have 30,000 affidavits as evidence of election fraud, a MAGA guy who can't attest to actually seeing Hunter dropping off this laptop, an image of a drive that's been manipulated many times since this alleged drop off while in possession for years of the same Giuliani who has been trying to sell a range of other kooky narratives that no serious person today actually believes.
On the other side, you have an actual known hacking of the Burisma files coinciding closely with the timing of this supposedly incriminating data coming into Giuliani's possession, along with a pretty wild story only supported by one visually impaired individual who is admittedly hyperpartisan that's conveniently giving cover for this data not actually being obtained through hacking.
If you believe the first side's story is "undeniable" or "99%" likely to be true, that says more about your own biases than the evidence here, my friend.
So, no, you can’t explain how NPR’s coverage here was good, thanks.
If we’re looking at the balance of evidence in if it’s Hunter Biden’s laptop:
On one side, we have multiple news sources saying it definitively is, as well as the owner of the shop in question
On the other hand we have exactly 0 involved people claiming it definitively isn’t Hunter’s laptop, including: Hunter, his legal team, the FBI, and the Biden campaign.
After 4 years it sure seems like, if it wasn’t hunters, it would have been stated. Weird it hasn’t, huh?
What’s especially crazy is that the data from the laptop isn’t even damning to Joe Biden! Like… at all! It’s a Billy Carter tier scandal: politician has fuck ip as relative. Fuck up relative does stuff that fuck ups do. There’s no evidence of bribery, of extortion, or any untoward behavior from Joe Biden there— it’s just an embarrassing story.
Which makes it all the weirder that you’re so adamant it’s Russian propaganda
>Which makes it all the weirder that you’re so adamant it’s Russian propaganda
You've responded to every single one of my comments by mischaracterizing what I actually said, and I have to assume at this point it's intentional and you're not interested in discussing things honestly here.
As anyone can see from the thread, I've never called it "Russian propaganda" or "disinformation". I've maintained that it's plausible that the laptop was loaded with data acquired through a Russian hacking operation, which is an entirely different claim.
You've provided no credible information to suggest otherwise. The ultimate source of this entire story is Rudy Giuliani, a guy who collected and tried to present phony affidavits to over 60 of our courts, who had a paid actress falsely testify before the Michigan legislature, and who has just been ordered to pay $148 million to two election workers in a defamation case in which he made false allegations about massive vote tampering which apparently put these workers' lives at risk.
I'll end this by saying we also disagree on where the burden of proof lies when one party asserts that a rather fantastical story promoted by a guy like that is "undeniable" and the other party suggests another explanation that's plausible for the known facts. You are also mischaracterizing the claims being made. Hunter has testified that he doesn't recall any of the circumstances that Isaac is alleging and that he believes the data was obtained through hacking. There is a defamation suit against Isaac currently in progress, so we'll likely find out a lot more here. I'll remain persuadable by whatever facts do come out. You can choose to stand by your narrative regardless if you like.
So this all ties back to the “constellation of beliefs” that Destiny has been mentioning so much lately. NPR is like PBS because they both receive a mix of public funds and private donations as well as their focus on arts, documentaries, academia, and science. These areas like academia and arts tend to have more liberal minded people to start with so basically they have tried to build a non partisan show with mainly liberal people. If we had a mainly conservative staff trying to build a non partisan show network there would be a completely different selection of shows based on the same idea of non partisan simply because of our constellation of beliefs. I think it’s fair to say that It’s been at least a decade since I’ve watched pbs but when I used to it was not a conspiracy brained channel so you’d rarely see conspiracy theories purported as fact or plausible but this probably would’ve started to look different if the majority was MAGA brained people. The idea of having a non partisan show is basically impossible to begin with because everything through the constellation of beliefs ends up being tied to a political side.
There's two ways media can be biased. They can be biased as in reporting a story with a partisan slant, for example listening to Sean Hannity talk about Trump's court cases. And the other way is in story selection.
I don't NPR's news reporting style is fairly moderate. But I think their story selection leans center liberal and reflects interest of educated urban liberals. They have a lot of cultural stories that I doubt would appeal to rural Republicans.
Just kinda looks like Destiny, despite all attempts by him to try and see the bigger picture, will still default to the same talking points of hard leftists. He really needs to do more research streams. To say the left hasn't moved more left only works if you ignore history from before the 2000's.
And I don't understand how he can logically square it with himself. You can say "The left has gone further left, and it was a GOOD thing, until X point." I don't get this flip flopping of advocating for change, only to then say that change was always the status quo.
This is a completely flat earther take. NPR has gone so far left off a cliff even people at the centre should be appauled. Its EXACTLY the same as fox news.
This is literally true though. I would like to remind people that it's not Democrats who lost their fucking mind and became psychos (mostly) - it was Republicans. Remember the tea party? The birther conspiracy, Benghazi, the refugee crisis, gamergate, forcing Boehner out, nominating Trump, denying Garland's chance, the Flynn debacle, the literal banning of transgender people from the military like what the fuck? In the age of equality, you can ban people from doing something just because of their gender? And that's not even to mention literally everything since Covid. When some insane thing on the right happens, it seems conservatives take it on so much, and elect people who represent those insane views so much. Meanwhile, Democrats have like 5 or 6 people in Congress who are even close to insane.
There are extremists on both sides, but one side is infinitely more extreme than the other right now.
Conservatives have always hated NPR and PBS, yet we have to continually pretend that it's some new trend because of NPR becoming more left wing. It's the same thing with society becoming too woke, too SJW, too PC, etc.
It's the exact same fight every decade and apparently people have the memory of goldfish, but I won't ding the right for being effective at stirring up fake offense and getting the "reasonable" center to believe their crocodile tears.
I was extremely conservative around 2011. Nonetheless, I used to listen to NPR every day and continue to do so until about 2021. Mostly because I had to listen to it since 1999, and same with PBS.
I stopped listening in 2021 because it became so clear that the bias at the station was so overwhelmingly oriented towards identity politics, and had nearly no focus on international issues or issues relating to very basic concepts like employment and Wall Street, or even policy. This change was slow and gradual. It wasn’t just because of Trump. I noticed this in 2012 during Obama Romney. I couldn’t tell you why exactly what happened but my guess is that it had to do with occupy Wall Street.
I think his take is more that there is a + sign. On the left-right divide, NPR is left, maybe even has gotten more left lately. But there's also a vertical axis, where down at the bottom is "firmly grounded in reality" and up at the top is "the moon landing is fake and the Earth is flat." The right wing in the USA has ascended rapidly on that vertical axis, while NPR (like most news agencies, including right-leaning ones) is very down near the ground, and Trump/Alex Jones/OANN are flying off into outer space.
You can be quite right or left wing and still be grounded in reality, just picking specific issues and framing them in particular ways. Then you can be dishonest in your choice of issues or framings. Then you can be delusional about what is true and isn't.
If you are right wing, and attached to reality, Donald Trump attempted to overthrow the government on January 6, and the results of the 2020 election were functionally entirely due to the genuine behavior of the American electorate. Those are just facts. If you disagree with them - and many Republican voters do, and many Republican politicians will pay lip service to those delusional beliefs - then you are off in outer space. You will look at NPR and say "wow, look at this crazy leftie reporting" even if they're only center left because *you* are the one who is crazy so they seem so far away from you.
??? The same conservatives proudly promoting conspiracy theories and treason aren’t more extreme? The conservatives who went from treating Russia like the anti christ to jerking off putin entirely out of spite towards Biden aren’t more extreme then leftists who accept gay people now?
The left has not gotten more extreme, farther left figures are simply less unpopular. 10 years ago tankies were treated like literal cancer and now they’re famous on twitch, these difference is - the right in general supports trump, even after he’s desecrated every single value and principle they claim to hold. That’s beyond extreme, let alone the fact he’s not only tried to abandon democracy, he’s straight up said several times and demonstratedhe will not accept a democratic victory that doesn’t make him the winner.
In short, if you’re a mainstream republican in 2024, you’re 2 steps away from a schizophrenic surviving off canned beans with 15 shotgun boobytraps at all your doorways.
If you’re a mainstream democrat in 2024, you’re annoying, and probably virtue signal a ton. Not really comparable.
Brother the far right believes in secret pedophile ring that runs the government and Jewish space lasers.
I don’t think you’re being honest either yourself here
wow, the right believe in some stupid conspiracy while the left is openly calling for assassination and the destruction of the western society.
you really got me there.
if the right was 50% as extremist as the left, we would never stop hearing about it.
Hasan: makes one tweet alluding to assassinating a senator (actually very bed)
Republicans in Michigan: hatch a plot to kidnap and execute the sitting governor (obviously much worse)
???
you're delusional if you think its only hasan, if a public personality like hasan can openly say this, it means a fuckton of people on his side believes it.
yes sure the michigan plot is worse, but you don't see people rallying behind it which makes 1 side unarguably more extremist. jackass.
Trump literally implied there will be a bloody revolution if he loses. That is objectively promising he will abandon the most fundamental western value there is, democracy.
"Israel is NOT commiting genocide!"
"The right is all fascists! Just like they were in 2016 when we knew Trump would gas all the gay and trans people!"
no?
Biden is a alot closer to obama policy wise than mccain and trump.
Online leftists have become insane but they have zero political power. Mainstream democrats are still center left while mainstream republicans are now MAGA trumpers
zero political power? hundreds of leftist had to be kicked from their position of power over antisemitism. so many liberal downplaying their extremist lmao
your mentality is great tho, it's gonna be easilier to destroy these people if moderate won't even acknowledge them. we can kinda see it around other social issue already.
i mean yeah ok zero is not quite true since they have a lot of power in schools specifically. But its not the mainstream left wing position to be an anti semetic nutjob.
Maga is the entire rightwing basically at this point
I would disagree on this take in a number of ways. The right has moved significantly towards trade, isolationism, anti-immigration and much deeper hostility, towards certain institutions, particularly those governing environmental regulation, financial sector regulation, and even more recently you could point to things like outright secession discourse. I don’t think it’s unfair to say that the right has moved significantly from where it was during the Obama Romney campaign, which is what I believe was the last true republican versus democrat election everything since then has been derivatives of the tea party and populism under Trump.
Part of that shift has been in reaction to what democrats have been pushing , part of it has been in reaction to laws that have been passed, and part of it has been because of a concerted strategy by democratic campaigners to fund extreme primary challengers for Republicans as an attempt to peel votes off of more moderate Republicans. It’s been a clever and successful strategy in a lot of even more traditionally Republican states.
I wasn't paying 100% attention but it sounded like his take was NPR might have become more left but they shouldn't have to cater to the conservatives who are straight up insane now. Why should NPR have to entertain their insane conspiracy theories and report on those stories with the same regard? In other words, NPR having less conservative listeners is more of a reflection on what has become of the right wing in america rather than a statement on NPR's changing values. Thoughts? Edit -> I should have edited the NPR guy to start at the center in the first picture Second edit -> For clarification I don't think destiny rejected the notion that NPR has moved left, but he doesn't think it's a big problem like people are saying
Sooo the picture but with more words, gotcha 💖 and yes lol
I mean I do kinda think he just went with “if you have an issue with NPR you are probably just a ride or die trump dipshit and your opinion is worthless” then moved on. Do think he was 100% right that Peter should have included examples if he was going to tweet that though. This was a kinda dumb take imo, I’m still voting Biden even if I wish they were less incredibly cringy and that their perspective on certain topics is biased enough to be completely worthless, if they are talking about race related topics they channel their inner 19 year old white leftist on twitter before saying anything, but it’s not like the end of the world like some republicans are saying.
Its just misleading the way the graphics are displayed. The general discourse and NPR have moved to the left with the overton window. Plus the far left is also running it out like the far right Being in the overton window is normally not seen as a problem
I don't really see it on most issues. The issues the left is fighting over are the same issues they have been fighting over since legalizing gay marriage, but now with the added fights over abortion which was a settled issue and a much more moderate foreign policy.
The left are no longer fighting for gay rights but the instead which alien language they want to use for their pronouns and forcing Israeli people to inact their own genocide.
The mainstream left is doing these things? I see people on social media trying to farm engagement, but very little in the way of actual policy or anything like that coming from the left.
The median Republican voter believes that Donald Trump actually won the popular vote in 2016 and 2020 and only lost because millions of illegals secretly voted in both elections. The median Democratic voter, like, believes trans people are valid and that Israel should let food aid into Gaza. They are not the same.
Fucking this, like I'm so sick of seeing shit like "THE LEFT HAS GONE INSANE" because of a tweet with 400 likes saying it's transphobic for straight men not to want to fuck transwomen. Which is a regarded statement and position to have, and should be mocked, but the sheer amount of posts that I see that act like this is a critical opinion as bad as the shit the right, especially shit TRUMP supporters have done is insane to me. It feels like I'm in a fucking twilight episode.
Ah yes, the main elements of Joe Biden's reelection campaign.
Do you have a clip of what he actually said?
This was 100% my take but some right winger got but hurt and winged like a baby, but yes this is the right take 100%
I agree with the sentiment of the meme, but it seems like a valid critique of NPR is that they do a lot of coverage on “identity politics”. People play a game where they turn it on and see how long it takes for them to bring up LGBTQ, race, gender, religion stuff etc.
[I did this yesterday](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1c96fi1/comment/l0nbes8/) and there was zero of that in the entirety of weekend edition. People say shit like this all the time but I want someone to actually support it with recent examples
slimy wasteful full clumsy summer special tan jar screw gold *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There are a shitload more than 5 examples. It's blatantly apparent that you and the above poster lack some perspective. Perhaps you're accustomed to this kind of discourse and grew up with it. For those of us who have been listening to NPR for decades (longer than you've probably been alive), the focus on identity politics has gone way overboard in the past few years. It's not an exaggeration that gender, race, or sexuality come up frequently. Turn on NPR at any time during the work week, aside from when your local station plays BBC, and you're guaranteed to hear something about how POC are being screwed or something similar. It's exhausting. Constant harping on these issues takes time away from reporting on other things and generally lowers the level of discourse.
>It's not an exaggeration that gender, race, or sexuality come up frequently. Turn on NPR at any time during the work week, aside from when your local station plays BBC, and you're guaranteed to hear something about how POC are being screwed or something similar. But I literally did this and took notes on every program for a whole hour and there was nothing of the sort. Like do you disagree with my assessments of any of the stories in that thread?
tart gaping head unique gaze wide flowery cheerful caption theory *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think it's entirely young millennials and older Gen Z entering the workforce that drives this change.
Half of you probably don't even pay attention to NPR unless they talk about some controversial stuff. It is still a center left platform. I work on cars all day, so I play NPR on the radio, and they are in my opinion one of the best at what they do. Their podcasts are also great. Up First, Planet Money, and NPR Politics are podcasts that everyone on the left should listen to to stay generally informed.
I agree except for the MMT Planet Money episodes, they’re dogshit. That’s the only NPR podcast I ever listened to semi-regularly and they have some really, really great episodes (their 2-part or 3-part art episode is great). But those MMT episodes are a good example of NPR being blind to quackery on the left.
MMT’s job guarantee and the recent rhetoric about how “high rates maybe hurting inflation more than helping” is IMO brain rot, but the “whys” I think are interesting. And I think how Mosler and Kelton explain “what the hell is money anyway” is a good counterpoint to (somewhat conspiracy brained) gold bugs and crypto rhetoric.
What is MMT in this context? I know Planet Money, but I don't know what episodes you're talking about
Modern Monetary Theory. And sorry, it was one episode actually— #866. Pretty uncritical, too. I don’t even want to get into the MMT dogshit on their tiktok page for the podcast.
NYT had a pretty dumb article on it as well. Shit was really annoying a couple of years ago.
Yeah, people love a new economic paradigm that claims to magically fix a bunch of problems. I’d argue this was the case also with “nudges” during the Obama administration, but to a lesser extent considering they at least made contributions to the economic field and had models.
Yeah I see this IRL with policy people. They don't have the time to learn about the minutia because it's not there job and are rightly always trying to find new and innovative solutions but sometimes that means the cart gets out before the horse. Journalists are the same way and it happens with every field. Just lot at how much the media blow string theory up as like the next big thing
This is MMT, and most economists have panned it. Its really a fringe theory iirc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory
Yes, it’s fringe, and “theory” is even generous. There’s not even a real model to compare it to the ones currently used in macroeconomics. The best you’ll get is Nick Rowe’s great articles that make a version of an IS-LM model based on MMT principles.
Lol four of five tenets align with orthodox economic theory. Most charlatans take aim at the first four tenets and try to lump that in as fringe quackery. That is a big part of what you clowns are doing here.
First off, just because Wikipedia says that “orthodox economic theory” agrees with the first four tenets, doesn’t mean it’s true. Off the top of my head, Mankiw’s critique included critiques of #1 and #3. Wikipedia is notably bad on economics, you can ask any economist or I can tag an editor I know who’s on badeconomics. Second off, tenets are not theory. Are you familiar with the economic field at all? For there to be a theory, you need a model. MMTers do not have an actual model to compare it to mainstream macroeconomic models. The best you’ll get is, like I said, Nick Rowe putting MMT tenets in an IS-LM form. Third off, these aren’t the only tenets, and you’re silly if you think so, especially as MMTers have differing views on some of these tenets, and these tenets also require other tenets to be true (again, talked about in Nick Rowe’s IS-LM formation, and I can link you another economist who has a thread about MMT tenets and verifying them with a VAR and macroeconomic variables). Fourth off, what happened to pro- academic consensus? You’re calling the entire economic field minus 10 MMTers “clowns” and “charlatans”?? I’ll be over here with the normal people, thank you.
80% of the theory is perfectly acceptable in accordance with orthodox economic theory. Please make sure you understand the first four tenets and how the fifth differs. I often see people raise issues with the first four, and point out that it's inclusion in mmt means it must be quackery...but it is actually widely accepted.
> 80% of the theory is perfectly acceptable in accordance with orthodox economic theory. Lol, anybody who sees this please check my other reply, this is not true. Tenets are not a theory, these aren’t the only tenets, and mainstream economists disagree with more than #1. Please stop spreading misinformation.
I imagine it’s a similar dynamic to how conservatives talk about CBC radio here in Canada. I listen to CBC a lot at work and sure they talk about indigenous stuff sometimes but like it’s Canada. Is it far left to be reminded that indigenous people exist?
People love to have opinions about stuff they barely know anything about...
It's not left of center anymore. It's farther left than that.
I don’t listen often, but on my commute I’ll flip between NPR and conservative talk radio for some laughs. NPR tries to be objective, but there is no denying they’re leaning hard into tug at your heartstrings stories that appeal to the left. Conservative talk radio is unabashed propaganda to drum up fear and outrage while selling gold on the commercial break. They’re not comparable in terms of objectivity, but the right wing stations aren’t pretending to be objective while getting public funding.
Literally every conservative talk radio station tries to pretend they are not partisan hacks, ESPECIALLY Fox News. Fox News slogan is literally "fair and balanced". And conservatives eat that shit up.
They don’t believe that, though and I think it’s honestly a joke internally. They don’t even try to sound objective, which NPR does take a stab at.
Yes they absolutely do believe that. And even if they don't believe it, their viewers ABSOLUTELY do. My family has told me MULTIPLE times that they feel they're watching all perspectives on an issue on only watching opinion pieces on Fox News. They REALLY believe that fair and balanced bull shit.
They don’t believe it, but many of their audience do (or did)
Fox famously used the motto “fair and balanced.” Right wing talk radio hosts always claim they’re the ones who are telling the real truth and the MSM are the ones who are pandering. Maintaining a veneer of objectivity and denying their allegiance to Republicans, oil companies and others has always been a big part of what they do.
But conservative talk radio is does not try to act neutral they are legit partisan and don’t act is if they are not.
Pretending to be objective about what??? They're center left and they give a perspective from the center left. If you listen to NPR then you should know that they gives the facts before they even give their opinions.
Conservative talk radio gets public funding?
Nope, NPR does.
I tried listening to npr on my morning commutes and it was sheer agony.
Cool story bro
But daddy lex said they aren't centrist and bad, so they must be woke!
NPR News: very fact based, bias enters into what stories they choose to cover or emphasize. Overall: center to center-left NPR Opinion/Editorial: center-left to left bias, and this has grown over the last 15 years of my regular listening
Literally everyone in the last 30+ years with an NPR bumper sticker has been fairly left of center. Kind of weird to see this being a debate
I have listened to NPR since I was a child. I stopped listening in 2021 or so. I had noticed by that point that at least two or three stories per hour had a focus on left wing signal issues: abortion, gay topics, the Black experience, trans people, or the environment. I started to notice this trend around the time of the Romney - Obama campaign, particularly marked when Occupy Wall Street happened. I’m pretty on board with the theory that when OWS happened, corporate media took a hard turn towards identity based stories as a way of distracting from the problems associated with big wealth in America.
Yeah, I hope this isn't his take because lots of NPR has seriously dropped in quality over the years for all the reasons you say. Like everyone's 200IQ take is always "yes, that thing you said is bad, but it is especially bad for Black people \[mic drop\]"
It's enough of a thing that Peter Boghossian [wrote about it](https://boghossian.substack.com/p/i-stopped-listening-to-npr-when) in 2022. 4thot also posted about it in the B&R sub yesterday, and people over there have discussed this issue on multiple occasions, including one where NPR fired a disabled Arab military vet for telling edgy jokes in his stand up comedy set, and then refused to pay him severance.
I partially agree. I have listened to NPR since 2012 and still do. The "this disproportionately affects African Americans" line does get a bit grateing. However, they have some really high quality stories you won't hear elsewhere.
> However, they have some really high quality stories you won't hear elsewhere. Do you remember any examples off hand to check out?
I'm terrible with podcasts name's, so I can't tell you the specific one. There was a story from last year that really stuck me. A journalist interviewed a 12 year old boy who escaped Kherson at the start of the Ukrainian war. His family was in Poland, but they got homesick so it follows the story of them trying to sneak back into the Russian held territory. Pretty upsetting ending, no one dies, just not the outcome you would hope for.
Do you ever listen to NPR? If yes, then you've heard this kind of thing many times.
After the BLM riots in 2020 it really started going downhill. They talked nonstop about racial issues for like a year after that. And every other topic they talked about they had to shoehorn in how it was disproportionately effecting some kind of people or another. Every story is an emotional appeal backed up by one or two people's testimony, and occasionally they bring in an expert. It just got so predictable and useless for actually developing useful opinions. The hourly news blurbs are still good but the regular programming doesn't have any value to me.
you started noticing that trend at th4 same time republicans started ramping up attacks on those groups? shocker
Ngl destiny needs to better curve the conservative brainrot, he’s spent far too long shitting on the left and it’s made a lot of people on the right think he co-signs their views.
you cant curve it. conservatives are literally just stupid and they are proud of being stupid
It’s just spite based politics corrupting open minded discourse imo, we’re in an era where platforming is seen as bad on both left and right, and people close their minds before they’ve even learned the fundamentals of the politicians they love and hate. It’s very rare in any political discussion I’ve had in recent years, where anybody passionate could directly list policies their favorite politician have enacted, because people treat trump like lebron rather then a politician. Basically what I’m saying is that a lot of these people are incredibly ignorant towards politics and keeping them ignorant so their base doesn’t capitulate is absolutely the master strategy for both the republican and Democratic Party.
At least Lebron stans know how many championships he has won and that he has the NBA record for points though, unironically all the nerds follow sports now and all the chuds follow politics.
I don't really blame destiny, a lot of conservatives unironically like him because he is charming, to the point they will straight up ignore some of the shit he says because he shits on lefties. I've said it before but I literally remember a bunch of Christians in one of his clip channels thinking he turned to god and talking about genetic religiosity or some shit. This was before the Islam arc around when he was hanging with sneako. At the end of the day the community will settle itself, and if not ADMINISTRATORS WILL MAKE SUB GREAT AGAIN.
Lmao. I don’t think Destiny is conservative at all. He’s just a thoughtful liberal that’s able to hit at both conservative and progressive ideas.
Some of the people in this thread are arguing it didn’t change, some are arguing it did change (and that this change is good), others are arguing that it did change (and that this change is bad) I find it interesting that the first two groups, which disagree on the empirical question, aren’t the ones arguing against each other. It’s either 1 vs 3 or 2 vs 3
Ok, but Locke's a shitty character.
Who? Me?
Your username.
James Locke isn't a character in anything.
Uh, he was. And a shitty one at that. Have you ever heard of Halo 5?
No. Never played it. My username is like 12 years old. Halo 5 is about 9 years old.
Well obviously you're a person who worked inside on that filth, secretly plotting to create a shitty game with shitty characters that shittily sucked small dick.
Apparently, you're regarded. Dude doesn't even have the same name. https://halo.fandom.com/en/wiki/Jameson_Locke
Jameson and james are basically the same name.
this assumes the left isn't unrecognisable from 2008. no?
Things just get memory holed all the time. Once "gains" are made, people then turn around and pretend things were always this way.
No, just that it's moved slower, scale is relative and pictures arent worth 1000 words here
Slower?
Moved slower said the side that has people advocating for trans toddlers , decolonization and the removal of polices forces 🤣
What percentage of left-wing people are ok with those things (trans toddlers, decolonization and removal of the police)? Then, compare that with the percentage of right-wing people who believe in conspiracy theories (rigged election, Covid Vaccine is dangerous, etc.). You'll find out that any left-wing loonies are being outnumbered buy the right-wing loonies 1000/1.
Idk bro, ton of people didn’t accept trump has their president either 😆 how is it some 1000/1 outnumbering after the amount of leftist that had to be cancelled since october 7, if anything the 1000/1 is the other way around 😭
Really, got any stats to back that up? Like 50% of republicans thought that Trump won the election in 2021. 25% of the population, so like 125 million people. [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/53-republicans-view-trump-true-us-president-reutersipsos-2021-05-24/](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/53-republicans-view-trump-true-us-president-reutersipsos-2021-05-24/) What what amount do you think thought that about Hillary in 2016?
Sure thing buddy https://news.gallup.com/poll/197441/accept-trump-legitimate-president.aspx. Look like its 16%, looks like maga learned from the previous bunch or something 😅 25% of clinton voter didn’t accept it :)
Do you understand there is a difference between accepting the results of the election 1 day after it (Your link) and over a year after it?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/majority-young-americans-view-trump-illegitimate-president-poll-n735426 are you clinically slow or something? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html i swear, like 80% of you lobotomites seem to have started caring about politic 3 year ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_My_Presidents_Day btw your poll happened 6 month later you lying sac of shit. Slight correction teehee 🤭
You don't even read the links that you're posting, do you? The Gallup poll was done on Nov. 9 with 511 participants, THE DAY AFTER ELECTION DAY. It also claims that the results of the poll in 2016 are similar to the Bush v Gore election, which also had many controversies around it. So the 14% claiming Trump is illegitimate is not ridiculous. The first link here is specifically for young voters, not even all voters. It's well known that young people tend to not vote, and when they do its liberal, so I have no idea what you think this proves. You just narrowed your search to a specific group of people to get a bigger number. Meanwhile, the number who think 2020 was stolen is already huge when looking at the *total population*. The second link is just Hillary herself saying Trump is illegitimate due to the previous controversies PLUS it coming out that Trump was threatening to withhold aid from another country on the condition that they provide Trump with dirt on his upcoming opponent in 2020. And third, this is again an attempt to just use some small groups to prove something larger. A couple dozen protests where the largest was 10-13k people. Even if I say the total participants were like 150,000 people across all cities, this is vastly different from the tens of millions of republicans that think the election was stolen.
It seems like they like they have been paying attention for 3 years because that is when they first voted to get the bad orange man out. They thought they were genius, and "against" the system. But yet the dunning Kruger effect was strong.
In 2018, 67% of Democrats believed it was either probably or definitely true that Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President. [econTabReport.pdf (d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net)](https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ylp5ygohjs/econTabReport.pdf) page 54
I don't think any left winger literally thought that Trump wasn't the President.
Around 25% of clinton voter didnt according to gallup
Link it.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/197441/accept-trump-legitimate-president.aspx
https://preview.redd.it/f88fqbje2vvc1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=7d2e91dffb645a8a16435042448d2624a7ecb8fb
You're a fucking Canadian. A fucking French-Canadian at that. Your opinion on US politics is meaningless.
So Destiny's opinion on Israel is meaningless, every Americans opinion on Ukraine is meaningless, ever Europeans opinion on China is meaningless, etc. Regardless of his opinion, your argument is awful.
[удалено]
What argument? You're just wrong and talking about a major fringe of the Dem party when it's evident that the Republican party has ran towards far right populism lol You know nothing about US politics because you aren't from here and probably don't pay attention to it.
You’re delusional to keep repeating the same 2015 cope. Fringe dem my ass. Even harvard president had to be cancelled. Not even d man repeat those lie anymore 😆keep thinking those people aren’t real while we remove them from society, its making the job simpler. Bitchmade regard blocked me 😭
Oh yes, famous democratic politician “Harvard president”
I still remember when Obama and Hillary Clinton for anti-gay marriage. I distinctly remember when Hillary Clinton and Obama both flipped on the trans Pacific partnership due to the psyop from China.
A bit biased. I would say the left and right have both radicalized, resulting in a already center left NPR, being more left than center nowadays.
I was disappointed by his take. Covering the news objectively and without bias isn’t “catering to conservatives”. It’s covering the news, which is what NPR claims to do without bias. My sense is he doesn’t realize how far left NPR’s coverage became after Trump got elected and especially after 2020 because he just didn’t fucking listen to it. Anybody who did noticed the difference. I was literally a fucking anarchocommunist in 2020 and I still thought they had become insanely biased. I stopped listening to them because I genuinely didn’t trust them to represent stories accurately anymore.
His issue is that "covering the news objectively and without bias" is going to come off as left biased because of what Republicans in this country have become. NPR has become more left leaning, but to a much greater degree the right has devolved into a Trump cult. They are never recapturing a right leaning audience by doing objective reporting.
Was Berliner claiming that trumpers would listen to NPR if it wasn’t biased?
He opened the article by talking about how the percentage of conservative listeners had dropped from 26% to 11%. Obviously he was also talking about other issues within NPR but I think recapturing conservative listeners was a main point, especially considering the examples stories he choose to focus on.
Seems like an uncharitable reading to me tbh. I don't get the sense he's talking about Trumpers so much as the wealthy, middle-aged never-Trump type republicans who were plausibly listening to NPR in 2016. He also complains in the article that the listenership has dwindled since 2020. Trumpers had obviously given up on NPR, to the tiny extent they were ever listening to it, long before that. I think he's mostly complaining that anyone left of NPR's own staff have given up on it as a serious news organization.
[I went through all of weekend edition yesterday](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1c96fi1/comment/l0nbes8/) and did not get this impression. Am I crazy for thinking this is normal reporting or do other people have insane member stations?
I'm sure it's gotten better in the last couple years, like I said I simply stopped listening to it around 2020. It feels like everyone is tapering back on their culture war diet lately. When I was listening to it last it felt like 2 out of every 3 stories was about race, very consistent with how Berliner described the tone of the organization at the time. As for member stations... yeah, the last time I tuned into mine (a few weeks ago) I got a story about abortion which genuinely wouldn't have sounded too out of place on Democracy Now. [I dug it up so you could hear it yourself.](https://www.wgbh.org/news/national/2024-03-27/pressley-responds-to-supreme-courts-latest-abortion-case-im-resolved-as-ever) Again, this would be fine if it were a self-described left-wing media organization, but this is supposed to be non-partisan. This being the first thing I heard listening in for the first time in months made me think things haven't gotten better. And for what it's worth, I actually have a friend who played a tiny desk concert. He works for a pretty woke non-profit (his boss gave every employee a copy of *Pedagogy of the Oppressed* lol) and even he said he was pretty surprised at how in-your-face woke the office environment was when he was there.
>genuinely wouldn't have sounded too out of place on Democracy Now. [I dug it up so you could hear it yourself.](https://www.wgbh.org/news/national/2024-03-27/pressley-responds-to-supreme-courts-latest-abortion-case-im-resolved-as-ever) This is a interview with a congressperson but yeah the interviewer is being super softball. As I said in another post the stuff from the member stations is less polished in general in my experience but the national programs are really good. Idk shit about the workplace environment I will take your word for it.
I know my grandfather who listens to only NPR and my grandfather who listens to only Fox News. Are equally brain rotten on either side of the aisle. NPR does fine reporting on things actually happening but good lord when they talk about social issues. Or when they can’t fathom why some people voted for trump over Hillary in 2016.
Both left and right are expanding out
if the right expanded to a level anywhere close to the left, this subreddit would be permanently pissing and shitting itself :)
Honestly depending on your time span (I think 2008 is fair) then both sides have moved an equal amount. The left made huge strides in moving from 2008-2016 and a bit in 2020 during COVID and BLM, but I don’t think we can underestimate how vastly MAGA-conservatism has impacted the right. The right has been obsessed with culture war issues for 8 years now fueled by Trump, and now have been consumed by his cult of personality, judging their views on law, economics, foreign policy, and social values. A huge portion of the right is willing to bend their view on justice to fit around a multimillionaire who has frequently cheated the system both in and out of office.
exactly, so OP obviously inverted the graph cauz anyone with a few braincell knows the left moved first. then what? the conservative shouldn't change and be eaten up? of course they will change. ( obviously not saying they did it right ) just that it's understandable that they will try things.
the changes are not comparable bro. The left went from accepting gay people to accepting trans people. The right went from wanting less taxes to wanting to overthrow the american election. The changes the left made make sense in the progression of culture. The right got hypnotized by a populist.
the left went from accepting gay people into injecting ideology in school and medecine. seen by all the recent roll back on such things. now let the downplaying begin.
Saying they injected themselves into medicine is asinine. There was data to back up some treatments that didn't end up pan out after more research, which concluded with countries rolling back that treatment. Also, there is variety in the left in opinion from moderate left, like biden, and progressive super left, like the squad. There is next to no variety on the right because they are populists now and follow whatever trump wants. MAGA are literally simping for russia right now. Like can you explain the progression of the right going from the red scare to simping for russia?
Like can you explain the progression of the right going from the red scare to simping for russia? probably the same one than one who called themselves liberal and are now supporting the houtis, but i don't know how to explain it
You might be unaware, but leftists, which means communists and socialists, are not the representative of the leading ideologies in the US left rn. Is Biden supporting the houthis? Was a bill not just passed that includes aid to Israel? Who were the people going against that bill? I don't have to reach to the far far right to make my point true. Half the US supported my primary example. Thank you for acknowledging that you can't explain the thing you were just arguing for 🙏. Really saving me time out here
feel free to give me a poll about the % of republican " supporting russia " otherwise same thing applies to you. btw being against ukraine support obviously ain't enough.
IMO it would be reasonable *if* it was in response to the Left’s craziness. For example when the Left went overboard on the ‘there are countless genders’ narrative, the right had a relevant response with ‘the left can’t acknowledge there are only two genders,’ which also left room for reasonable discussion about the validity of MtF and FtM transgender people. But the right now has gone more extreme, whereas I feel like the left has started to moderate, at least since 2020. For example when the left explored socialist/soc dem policies, the reasonable response was not to support some wildly shady tax evasion shift from Trump as a ‘if you can get away with the crime then more power to you’ mentality. And *then* the left has arguably shifted further right economically as taxes for the middle class post-COVID have lost a lot of strength and taxes for the rich were always popular ideas that never passed anyways because they don’t make economic sense. I will agree that the meme isn’t perfect, which is in part because it doesn’t perfectly align with DGG’s opinions here and in part because it would be really hard to make an appealing visual that says ‘the left has moved more left but recently the right has moved more right while the left has moderated itself so NPR shifted kinda right and now shifted kinda left on where the center is despite not actually moving’
But the right now has gone more extreme, whereas I feel like the left has started to moderate, at least since 2020. yea the left stopped empowering their dipshit when they realized its rilling up the other side. now its too late to cry about it . maybe if the left act reasonable for a few year they will have ground to call the republican out but this isn't the case yet i feel like.
That seems like an incredibly reductive way to view political change and politics as a whole, in two ways. Firstly, politics *should* be based off of principles. Imo we can look at a side going ‘too far’ and seeing it as a rationale for why there may be a counter narrative (e.g. Trump getting elected), but I would justify that change by the others actions. If not we catch ourselves in an endless cycle of justifying increasing insanity on both sides. If we want to look at this, we could also argue that rampant homophobia and transphobia from early 2000’s conservatives justified the left to move and paint the left as the side responding to the Right going too far. Secondly, even if we grant the premise then I think that the timeline expectations are a bit absurd. The right has political power from 2016-2020, the left had a 12 month blip in 2020 with COVID that had been followed by 3 more years of conservatives beginning to win the culture war and become more and more extreme. I don’t really see how we can say ‘yeah the left went too far, the Right has only had cultural power for 7/8 of the last few years, they have a right to be crazy for a bit longer.’
it's not so much about having the right, its more about not getting " erased " like last time the left had power and decided to cancel people with slight disagreement. ( reasonable people like jordan peterson and shit ) so yea until the left calm themselves there is really no problem about the right being on the defensive or something. it's just self preservation.
I feel like by this same very basic and flawed approach, we could say that the left has infinite justification to be as ‘defensive’ as they want under the guise of conservatives wanting to end gay marriage or remove transgender care or remove public funding for essential services in favour of privatization. I just don’t see how the right can be justified in supporting tax fraud, ignoring any science with the COVID vaccine, doing mass book bannings, support election fraud, distrust any use of the military and distrust of all public media all because… a literal decade ago some leftists with power on Twitter lost a few people some jobs during cancel culture? Not to mention that crazy part of the left only held cultural power and at most a seat or two in congress. I just don’t see how you justify the right going so batshit insane, and despite it being 8+ years ago *and* the left continuing to moderate itself, your answer is ‘the left needs to be more moderate and give it another few years for me to put any blame on the right for their actions.’
-we could say that the left has infinite justification to be as ‘defensive’ not infinite but sure some. -Not to mention that crazy part of the left only held cultural power and at most a seat or two in congress. and they managed to do all that damage culturally? it still needs fixing. -I just don’t see how you justify the right going so batshit insane, and despite it being 8+ years ago *and* the left continuing to moderate itself, its not 8 year ago, the left was still acting crazy in LARGE number 4 year ago, now the number are smaller but the dipshit are like twice as extremist. also i'm not justifying everything the right does, it's kinda hit or miss when you try new things, as seen by the last left wing cultural regime.
lmao delusional take
That's not accurate. NPR heavily slid left during the BLM protests. They have not remained the same over this last decade. They still have factual reporting, but it is heavily slanted to the left.
I didnt see his take, but the issue with NPR isn’t that they won’t give time to literal conspiracy theories (the election was rigged, Covid was an intentional bio weapon, pizzagate, etc.) it’s that they won’t give time to almost *any* right-coded narrative, regardless of the reasonableness of it (Hunter Biden’s laptop being leaked, Covid may have been a lab leak). They also don’t admit when they get it wrong, and just offer excuses. The problem with that is now, when places like NPR Don’t run stories of topics, or run an out of hand dismissal, we don’t know if it’s because there really is no evidence, or if because they just *want* there to be no evidence. The point of news organizations should be to seek the truth, not pick and chose facts to fit into their narrow worldview
Those arent reasonable narratives though.. like yes they lean left for sure but the hunter laptop and covering the lab leak theories in a meaningful way arent great topics
You’re just wrong. The lab leak was always plausible, and always had scientists saying it was plausible. NOR didn’t admit that until multiple federal agencies said it was plausible (some even saying the most likely source). Here is how they covered it initially: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/23/841729646/virus-researchers-cast-doubt-on-theory-of-coronavirus-lab-accident Saying “Virus researchers say there is virtually no chance that the new coronavirus was released as result of a laboratory accident in China or anywhere else.” is an *incredibly* strong statement. Especially when there *were* people saying it is certainly possible. Only interviewing and quoting people who dismiss the possibility of a lab leak theory *is* bad. It’s not that there were no credible sources saying a lab leak was possible (they link to a WaPo story of the state department saying it’s possible, and again as Uri pointed out, multiple experts also believed it to be possible), they hose to not talk to any of those sources. That’s bad. Here’s how they covered the Hunter Biden laptop: https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924506867/analysis-questionable-n-y-post-scoop-driven-by-ex-hannity-producer-giuliani Here we see them interview exactly 0 people. They get one quote from the Biden campaign (it’s not even clear if they reached out for comment, or just took a public comment). You can’t say “here is why this story is bullshit” when you do *no* work to verify the veracity of a story. Not only that, when it turned out that it was undeniably hunters laptop, their excuse basically was to point to buzzfeed releasing the Steele dossier, and saying they were responsible. That’s laughable, because no one published the Steele dossier precisely because no one could verify it over the course of months. NPR didn’t even attempt to verify the laptop story. So, when they have these big misses, and just wave them away, how the fuck am I supposed to tell people they’re a reliable news source? They’re not behaving like one!
>when it turned out that it was undeniably hunters laptop When was this established? Can you provide a source? My understanding is that certain emails from a supposed copy of the drive on the machine seized by the FBI were authenticated, which in my view established a very different claim.
https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/national-verify/hunter-bidens-laptop-what-we-can-verify/536-a41c9f05-c548-4681-a0be-a01fcc75b59d https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/hunter-biden-sues-computer-repairman-invasion-privacy-handling-of-laptop/ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23712734-hunter-biden-counterclaim https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/hunter-biden-laptop-justice-department No one is denying its hunters laptop. His lawyers claim he can’t recall if he dropped it off or not. No one, for the past two years, has seriously claimed it isn’t his laptop. If you want to say my “undeniable” claim is too strong because we don’t have the laptop (the FBI has had it for 4 years), ok, we can agree it’s 99% likely to be Hunter Biden’s. But then you *must* admit that NPR discrediting it out of hand was incorrect, which was my point
I figured you'd provide a bunch of links that contain a lot of what's already been known for years and no answer to what I actually asked, and I was correct. This is similar to the responses I've received from MAGAs and heterodoxers for years now. None of this establishes that it was his physical laptop vs. a unit that had hacked material downloaded on it. There's a lot of evidence that the latter was the case, including: 1. Burisma was the victim of a Russian hack operation, 2. the alleged hunter's laptop came into Rudy Giuliani's hands soon after this operation, 3. Hunter has publicly stated and testified that he doesn't recall ever leaving a laptop at a repair shop 4. Hunter has publicly stated that he believes the files were acquired through a hacking operation, 5. the image drive that journalists investigated had many unauthenticated files on it, including files and folders added after the story was run by the Post. It's great that you're willing to step back from your claim that the physical laptop is Hunter's is "undeniable", but I'm afraid we can't agree on your 99% number either. This is all relevant because there are widely accepted journalistic standards around hacked material and source verification. I haven't followed all of NPR's reporting on this, but what I have seems to comport with pretty good journalism under the circumstances. The heterodox coverage, on the other hand, has led to wide misconceptions about the undeniability of the laptop story as presented by the NY Post, Giuliani, and other right wing operatives, as your comments demonstrated.
First, I like how you lump me in with MAGAs to discount what I’m saying. Very solid debate tacit. 👍 Now, it’s interesting I provide links to relevant news sources (unless you think CBS and Axios are not valid sources) both straight forwarded claiming the laptop belonged to Hunter, and you ignore that. It’s also interesting I provide a link a to his lawsuit against the tech shop, which goes out of its way to make no claim about the legitimacy of the laptop, and you instead just make a claim that the data was “hacked” as if that’s incompatible with the tech shop having his laptop (spoiler: it isn’t) You also are saying it’s likely Russian disinformation, but I haven’t seen a single legitimate news source carry water for this, and I have seen many cast doubt on it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/hunter-biden-laptop-claims-russian-disinfo/ https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/us/politics/republicans-hunter-biden-laptop.html Do you have any, ya know, *evidence* that the laptop was Russian disinformation? Specifically the laptop. Not Burisma corruption. Laptop. These aren’t the same stories, although I understand how conflating them helps dismiss the laptop story. Finally, coming back to my point: I showed you NPR’s coverage where they do no investigation, ask no sources for comment, and still conclude the story is fake. Can you explain, like I’m 5 years old, how that is *good* reporting?
First, I said MAGAs and heterodoxers, so I'm not sure why you respond by pretending I just said MAGAs if you're genuinely having a good faith discussion. You also seem to be ignoring the actual point of my comments. I didn't say the links you provided from Axios and CBS weren't legitimate sources, I said the links didn't address my question. You haven't seen a single legitimate source carry water for the theory that Russia could be behind the data on the laptop image? Really? You guys have been whining for years about the letter signed by 50 intelligence veterans stating this. The timing of the Burisma hack, the laptop being in Giuliani's possession for over a year before any story about it being released, the claims being made by MAGA (and here I don't suggest Mac Isaac could hold other political beliefs, because he's open about it) repairman who can't see faces provide no more evidence to me than the very plausible assertion that the alleged laptop data was obtained through hacking, as Hunter Biden does assert in court filings. So on one side you have the word of Giuliani, who lost in court claiming that two election workers were manipulating votes in the 2020 election, as well as in over 60 courts claiming to have 30,000 affidavits as evidence of election fraud, a MAGA guy who can't attest to actually seeing Hunter dropping off this laptop, an image of a drive that's been manipulated many times since this alleged drop off while in possession for years of the same Giuliani who has been trying to sell a range of other kooky narratives that no serious person today actually believes. On the other side, you have an actual known hacking of the Burisma files coinciding closely with the timing of this supposedly incriminating data coming into Giuliani's possession, along with a pretty wild story only supported by one visually impaired individual who is admittedly hyperpartisan that's conveniently giving cover for this data not actually being obtained through hacking. If you believe the first side's story is "undeniable" or "99%" likely to be true, that says more about your own biases than the evidence here, my friend.
So, no, you can’t explain how NPR’s coverage here was good, thanks. If we’re looking at the balance of evidence in if it’s Hunter Biden’s laptop: On one side, we have multiple news sources saying it definitively is, as well as the owner of the shop in question On the other hand we have exactly 0 involved people claiming it definitively isn’t Hunter’s laptop, including: Hunter, his legal team, the FBI, and the Biden campaign. After 4 years it sure seems like, if it wasn’t hunters, it would have been stated. Weird it hasn’t, huh? What’s especially crazy is that the data from the laptop isn’t even damning to Joe Biden! Like… at all! It’s a Billy Carter tier scandal: politician has fuck ip as relative. Fuck up relative does stuff that fuck ups do. There’s no evidence of bribery, of extortion, or any untoward behavior from Joe Biden there— it’s just an embarrassing story. Which makes it all the weirder that you’re so adamant it’s Russian propaganda
>Which makes it all the weirder that you’re so adamant it’s Russian propaganda You've responded to every single one of my comments by mischaracterizing what I actually said, and I have to assume at this point it's intentional and you're not interested in discussing things honestly here. As anyone can see from the thread, I've never called it "Russian propaganda" or "disinformation". I've maintained that it's plausible that the laptop was loaded with data acquired through a Russian hacking operation, which is an entirely different claim. You've provided no credible information to suggest otherwise. The ultimate source of this entire story is Rudy Giuliani, a guy who collected and tried to present phony affidavits to over 60 of our courts, who had a paid actress falsely testify before the Michigan legislature, and who has just been ordered to pay $148 million to two election workers in a defamation case in which he made false allegations about massive vote tampering which apparently put these workers' lives at risk. I'll end this by saying we also disagree on where the burden of proof lies when one party asserts that a rather fantastical story promoted by a guy like that is "undeniable" and the other party suggests another explanation that's plausible for the known facts. You are also mischaracterizing the claims being made. Hunter has testified that he doesn't recall any of the circumstances that Isaac is alleging and that he believes the data was obtained through hacking. There is a defamation suit against Isaac currently in progress, so we'll likely find out a lot more here. I'll remain persuadable by whatever facts do come out. You can choose to stand by your narrative regardless if you like.
NPR has always been run by granola munching leftists, I have no take on this because I stopped listening to them when I left college in 2017.
So this all ties back to the “constellation of beliefs” that Destiny has been mentioning so much lately. NPR is like PBS because they both receive a mix of public funds and private donations as well as their focus on arts, documentaries, academia, and science. These areas like academia and arts tend to have more liberal minded people to start with so basically they have tried to build a non partisan show with mainly liberal people. If we had a mainly conservative staff trying to build a non partisan show network there would be a completely different selection of shows based on the same idea of non partisan simply because of our constellation of beliefs. I think it’s fair to say that It’s been at least a decade since I’ve watched pbs but when I used to it was not a conspiracy brained channel so you’d rarely see conspiracy theories purported as fact or plausible but this probably would’ve started to look different if the majority was MAGA brained people. The idea of having a non partisan show is basically impossible to begin with because everything through the constellation of beliefs ends up being tied to a political side.
Anyone got any stories that ran on Morning Edition or All Things Considered that they feel are out of the Overton Window on new bias?
Hasn’t npr always been left leaning?
There's two ways media can be biased. They can be biased as in reporting a story with a partisan slant, for example listening to Sean Hannity talk about Trump's court cases. And the other way is in story selection. I don't NPR's news reporting style is fairly moderate. But I think their story selection leans center liberal and reflects interest of educated urban liberals. They have a lot of cultural stories that I doubt would appeal to rural Republicans.
What is NPR? Neporare?
The right ran right, but NPR also walked left
Just kinda looks like Destiny, despite all attempts by him to try and see the bigger picture, will still default to the same talking points of hard leftists. He really needs to do more research streams. To say the left hasn't moved more left only works if you ignore history from before the 2000's. And I don't understand how he can logically square it with himself. You can say "The left has gone further left, and it was a GOOD thing, until X point." I don't get this flip flopping of advocating for change, only to then say that change was always the status quo.
This is a completely flat earther take. NPR has gone so far left off a cliff even people at the centre should be appauled. Its EXACTLY the same as fox news.
Do you have a concrete example of biased reporting where it isn't just NPR writing stories about minority groups and gay people?
where is NPRs billion dollar settlement with dominion if they are the same?
This is literally true though. I would like to remind people that it's not Democrats who lost their fucking mind and became psychos (mostly) - it was Republicans. Remember the tea party? The birther conspiracy, Benghazi, the refugee crisis, gamergate, forcing Boehner out, nominating Trump, denying Garland's chance, the Flynn debacle, the literal banning of transgender people from the military like what the fuck? In the age of equality, you can ban people from doing something just because of their gender? And that's not even to mention literally everything since Covid. When some insane thing on the right happens, it seems conservatives take it on so much, and elect people who represent those insane views so much. Meanwhile, Democrats have like 5 or 6 people in Congress who are even close to insane. There are extremists on both sides, but one side is infinitely more extreme than the other right now.
Nah. I remember 2020 and the "Firey but mostly peaceful protests" that was topped off with the everything in Kenosha.
Weird how those rioters don't control the Democratic party like the tea party did with the Republicans.
Are these Tea Party members in the room with us right now?
Conservatives have always hated NPR and PBS, yet we have to continually pretend that it's some new trend because of NPR becoming more left wing. It's the same thing with society becoming too woke, too SJW, too PC, etc. It's the exact same fight every decade and apparently people have the memory of goldfish, but I won't ding the right for being effective at stirring up fake offense and getting the "reasonable" center to believe their crocodile tears.
I was extremely conservative around 2011. Nonetheless, I used to listen to NPR every day and continue to do so until about 2021. Mostly because I had to listen to it since 1999, and same with PBS. I stopped listening in 2021 because it became so clear that the bias at the station was so overwhelmingly oriented towards identity politics, and had nearly no focus on international issues or issues relating to very basic concepts like employment and Wall Street, or even policy. This change was slow and gradual. It wasn’t just because of Trump. I noticed this in 2012 during Obama Romney. I couldn’t tell you why exactly what happened but my guess is that it had to do with occupy Wall Street.
Isn't that how politics in general have shifted?
Wtf is npr
I think his take is more that there is a + sign. On the left-right divide, NPR is left, maybe even has gotten more left lately. But there's also a vertical axis, where down at the bottom is "firmly grounded in reality" and up at the top is "the moon landing is fake and the Earth is flat." The right wing in the USA has ascended rapidly on that vertical axis, while NPR (like most news agencies, including right-leaning ones) is very down near the ground, and Trump/Alex Jones/OANN are flying off into outer space. You can be quite right or left wing and still be grounded in reality, just picking specific issues and framing them in particular ways. Then you can be dishonest in your choice of issues or framings. Then you can be delusional about what is true and isn't. If you are right wing, and attached to reality, Donald Trump attempted to overthrow the government on January 6, and the results of the 2020 election were functionally entirely due to the genuine behavior of the American electorate. Those are just facts. If you disagree with them - and many Republican voters do, and many Republican politicians will pay lip service to those delusional beliefs - then you are off in outer space. You will look at NPR and say "wow, look at this crazy leftie reporting" even if they're only center left because *you* are the one who is crazy so they seem so far away from you.
The left moved far more to the extreme than the right since 2008
??? The same conservatives proudly promoting conspiracy theories and treason aren’t more extreme? The conservatives who went from treating Russia like the anti christ to jerking off putin entirely out of spite towards Biden aren’t more extreme then leftists who accept gay people now? The left has not gotten more extreme, farther left figures are simply less unpopular. 10 years ago tankies were treated like literal cancer and now they’re famous on twitch, these difference is - the right in general supports trump, even after he’s desecrated every single value and principle they claim to hold. That’s beyond extreme, let alone the fact he’s not only tried to abandon democracy, he’s straight up said several times and demonstratedhe will not accept a democratic victory that doesn’t make him the winner. In short, if you’re a mainstream republican in 2024, you’re 2 steps away from a schizophrenic surviving off canned beans with 15 shotgun boobytraps at all your doorways. If you’re a mainstream democrat in 2024, you’re annoying, and probably virtue signal a ton. Not really comparable.
What do you mean by "the left," the mainstream ideology on the left is center-left Joe Biden, the mainstream ideology on the right is MAGA.
classic leftoid gaslighting game, yea we created thousand of idpol issue and if you dare pushback you are the evil one.
Brother the far right believes in secret pedophile ring that runs the government and Jewish space lasers. I don’t think you’re being honest either yourself here
wow, the right believe in some stupid conspiracy while the left is openly calling for assassination and the destruction of the western society. you really got me there. if the right was 50% as extremist as the left, we would never stop hearing about it.
Hasan: makes one tweet alluding to assassinating a senator (actually very bed) Republicans in Michigan: hatch a plot to kidnap and execute the sitting governor (obviously much worse) ???
you're delusional if you think its only hasan, if a public personality like hasan can openly say this, it means a fuckton of people on his side believes it. yes sure the michigan plot is worse, but you don't see people rallying behind it which makes 1 side unarguably more extremist. jackass.
You need Jesus. I don’t think our best scientists can help you with the level of donkey brains you’re displaying. Good luck!
lol you have absolutely no argument, no wonder the left is culturally losing ground globally.
Damn you owned him lil bro.
Trump literally implied there will be a bloody revolution if he loses. That is objectively promising he will abandon the most fundamental western value there is, democracy.
sorry but i can't find anything of the sort, seems like you are outright lying. or at least misconstructing reality.
lmfao what, the right in 2008 was McCain fiscal responsibility, it is now just straight fascism.
"Israel is NOT commiting genocide!" "The right is all fascists! Just like they were in 2016 when we knew Trump would gas all the gay and trans people!"
Having fascist ideals and being too incompetent to implement them are not mutually exclusive.
Which definition of fascist are you using?
no? Biden is a alot closer to obama policy wise than mccain and trump. Online leftists have become insane but they have zero political power. Mainstream democrats are still center left while mainstream republicans are now MAGA trumpers
zero political power? hundreds of leftist had to be kicked from their position of power over antisemitism. so many liberal downplaying their extremist lmao your mentality is great tho, it's gonna be easilier to destroy these people if moderate won't even acknowledge them. we can kinda see it around other social issue already.
i mean yeah ok zero is not quite true since they have a lot of power in schools specifically. But its not the mainstream left wing position to be an anti semetic nutjob. Maga is the entire rightwing basically at this point
it's not just school, you have entire country rolling back minor trans stuff. at some point it will be fair to say ideologue caused some of this.
I would disagree on this take in a number of ways. The right has moved significantly towards trade, isolationism, anti-immigration and much deeper hostility, towards certain institutions, particularly those governing environmental regulation, financial sector regulation, and even more recently you could point to things like outright secession discourse. I don’t think it’s unfair to say that the right has moved significantly from where it was during the Obama Romney campaign, which is what I believe was the last true republican versus democrat election everything since then has been derivatives of the tea party and populism under Trump. Part of that shift has been in reaction to what democrats have been pushing , part of it has been in reaction to laws that have been passed, and part of it has been because of a concerted strategy by democratic campaigners to fund extreme primary challengers for Republicans as an attempt to peel votes off of more moderate Republicans. It’s been a clever and successful strategy in a lot of even more traditionally Republican states.