10 ms·

> While I really like it, they're not unbiased like they may have you believe. I've never really heard NPR hosts/reporters claim it to be a bastion of unbiase

> While I really like it, they're not unbiased like they may have you believe. I've never really heard NPR hosts/reporters claim it to be a bastion of unbiased journalism. In fact, I don't think any news organization really claims to be unbiased except Fox News (and that isn't a judging statement, I say that based only on their "Fair and Balanced " tag line). I think NPR does make a fairly honest effort to avoid bias, and they're also receptive to accusations of bias; it's not uncommon to hear callers on various programs call in to say that they think the coverage of a certain topic is one sided or myopic, and in most cases the host allows the caller to speak their mind and let the criticism air for all to consider. I'd also add that NPR is not monolithic and the programming schedule of a given station is usually composed of sources from various studios around the country as well as local content for the region. Still, the bias cannot be denied, and I'd love to get a recommendation regarding a less biased or more reliable source of news programming (even if that means I'll have to stream a non-local station).

unethical_ban 10y ago
My local station goes on during the pledge drives about how NPR brings an unbiased, facts-based view of the world. the station definitely promotes it, and I believe the org thinks it, too. Certain programs are expected to have less bias than others, IMO. Panel shows like Diane Rehm, On Point and Fresh Air aren't necessarily meant to be completely unopinionated, while things like All Things Considered and Morning Edition (and perhaps Here and Now) are expected to bring a balanced perspective. They don't always succeed.
- steveax 10y ago
  Yes, but there is another form of bias which is guest selection. NPR guests on shows like Morning Edition are overwhelmingly mainstream establishment voices (often from think tanks like Heritage and Cato). I'd prefer a wider range of voices over some faux unopinionated notion.
- vectorpush 10y ago
  Fair enough. I haven't really heard that myself, but it does sound plausible based on some of the other over-the-top promotional lines I've heard during the pledge drives.
wfo 10y ago
Every human being has opinions, a world view, attitudes about what it means to be fair, civil, respectful, what makes a good program, grounding in a particular culture, socioeconomic class, etc. Anytime you get your news from a human being or group of human beings it is going to be "biased". If you want to avoid it entirely (not a goal I think is reasonable, feasible, or even attractive), the Associated Press generally just describes facts so your "bias" there is confined mostly to the facts they choose to describe (incidentally, the most impactful and insidious form of bias -- is this story about the police shooting someone news? Not if you don't think it's part of an ongoing pattern and story about police violence racism and abuse of power). But I think if you switch to fact-stating-only news sources I think you will walk away far less informed. It's a personal opinion of course but I'd much rather hear from a human (and therefore "biased", whatever that means) expert who does a thorough analysis and tries to explain the issues in the cleanest and most deep way possible, including subtext, context, and every other relevant text as he or she sees them.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  I think when most people say "unbiased", they don't mean the dictionary definition which is, as you say, unattainable, but they instead mean "without pushing a political agenda". The best anyone can hope for is a diverse enough staff (with all definitions of "diverse", not just the popular ones nowadays) so that enough people get input on what stories are coming out that the broadcast isn't the result of one or two people's opinions.
  - dublinben 10y ago
    The problem is that delivering the news "without pushing a political agenda" is just a status quo bias. Every news source is inherently biased, so it is important to recognize this and react accordingly.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      just a status quo bias. What does this even mean?
mc32 10y ago
During their pledge drives they do mention unbias and when donors call in to say that they donate because of unbias the hosts of the drives underscore that take. So, while officially they make no claims, in practice those claims are made, specially during their pledge drives.
gadders 10y ago
I don't know if you can get an unbiassed source. However, what I think is bad is when organisations like NPR don't admit to their bias. I'm happy that MSNBC, Fox, NPR, BBC etc exist, but don't claim to be unbiassed when you're not.

unethical_ban 10y ago

My local station goes on during the pledge drives about how NPR brings an unbiased, facts-based view of the world. the station definitely promotes it, and I believe the org thinks it, too. Certain programs are expected to have less bias than others, IMO. Panel shows like Diane Rehm, On Point and Fresh Air aren't necessarily meant to be completely unopinionated, while things like All Things Considered and Morning Edition (and perhaps Here and Now) are expected to bring a balanced perspective. They don't always succeed.

steveax 10y ago
Yes, but there is another form of bias which is guest selection. NPR guests on shows like Morning Edition are overwhelmingly mainstream establishment voices (often from think tanks like Heritage and Cato). I'd prefer a wider range of voices over some faux unopinionated notion.
vectorpush 10y ago
Fair enough. I haven't really heard that myself, but it does sound plausible based on some of the other over-the-top promotional lines I've heard during the pledge drives.

wfo 10y ago

Every human being has opinions, a world view, attitudes about what it means to be fair, civil, respectful, what makes a good program, grounding in a particular culture, socioeconomic class, etc. Anytime you get your news from a human being or group of human beings it is going to be "biased". If you want to avoid it entirely (not a goal I think is reasonable, feasible, or even attractive), the Associated Press generally just describes facts so your "bias" there is confined mostly to the facts they choose to describe (incidentally, the most impactful and insidious form of bias -- is this story about the police shooting someone news? Not if you don't think it's part of an ongoing pattern and story about police violence racism and abuse of power). But I think if you switch to fact-stating-only news sources I think you will walk away far less informed. It's a personal opinion of course but I'd much rather hear from a human (and therefore "biased", whatever that means) expert who does a thorough analysis and tries to explain the issues in the cleanest and most deep way possible, including subtext, context, and every other relevant text as he or she sees them.

Karunamon 10y ago
I think when most people say "unbiased", they don't mean the dictionary definition which is, as you say, unattainable, but they instead mean "without pushing a political agenda". The best anyone can hope for is a diverse enough staff (with all definitions of "diverse", not just the popular ones nowadays) so that enough people get input on what stories are coming out that the broadcast isn't the result of one or two people's opinions.
- dublinben 10y ago
  The problem is that delivering the news "without pushing a political agenda" is just a status quo bias. Every news source is inherently biased, so it is important to recognize this and react accordingly.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    just a status quo bias. What does this even mean?

mc32 10y ago

During their pledge drives they do mention unbias and when donors call in to say that they donate because of unbias the hosts of the drives underscore that take. So, while officially they make no claims, in practice those claims are made, specially during their pledge drives.

gadders 10y ago

I don't know if you can get an unbiassed source. However, what I think is bad is when organisations like NPR don't admit to their bias. I'm happy that MSNBC, Fox, NPR, BBC etc exist, but don't claim to be unbiassed when you're not.