Funny enough it was NPR that clued me into this mess 20+ years ago. I was listening to them on a long drive. The same story came up over and over. Each NPR station pretended like they had wrote it themselves. Conan has a few fun skits that shows off this effect. If they are willing to lie about something so cheesy I have no choice but to think the 'big lies' would be easy. Our news is corrupt to its core, controlled by few large conglomerates and read by pretty faces and smooth voices.
If we are going to teach them to think critically, they not only need to think about the biases of sources, but to make decisions about trust. 'Everyone is equally and absolutely untrustworthy' is no more critical or skeptical than 'everyone is equally and absolutely trustworthy'. We can trust different news sources to different degrees, and in different situations. The National Enquirer is not the same as the New York Times.
> The same story came up over and over. Each NPR station pretended like they had wrote it themselves. Conan has a few fun skits that shows off this effect. If they are willing to lie ...
Should an important story only be available to listeners in one locality? If you drive between localities, you're going to hear some redundancy.
How is it a "lie" to broadcast a segment produced elsewhere? I think listeners are much better off getting the best segments in the country, and not being restricted to the limited resources of the local station. It would be very redundant (and obviously unaffordable) if every station ran a global news operation.
How did they "pretend"; did they say 'we produced this segment here in town X'? I've heard plenty of NPR and never had that impression at all (in fact, IIRC they say 'from our sister station in ...').
This is true. But the NYT has an agenda, would you not agree? The Enquirer is easy to spot. The NYT is more subtle about what they do (mostly). I ask "If you have to 'unfilter' everything why am I reading this"? Look at the stories they choose to cover and ignore. Then look at the particular phraseology they use to talk about particular groups. Which groups are always in glowing terms. Which groups are constantly downed on. No group is that 'good/evil'. Selective editing of stories to make one side look better/worse is their typical weapon of choice.
Many are also using the Richelieu method "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
> How did they "pretend"; did they say 'we produced this segment here in town X'? Yes they did say they had done it. They did not say 'from someone else', probably just a goof in the mad-lib script. It was just what keyed me into the subtle deceptions that go on in our news. On the face of it by itself it is not really that big of a deal. It is the pile of little lies that are not technically lies that are cause for concern. They are using top shelf persuasion techniques. Not for the good of the public or you or me. But as a way to get 'clicks' these days or move paper years ago. What the new set of persuaders call 'engagement'.
I can not honestly sit and say 'oh read this set' as they are brain junk food. Many are little more than outrage machines that try to keep engagement, usually by stroking cognitive biases and primed assumptions using the bernays techniques. You can try to sift through it but if they are just copying from each other and amping up outrage for something, playing the game of telephone. You are going to have a very hard time untangling that mess. Many times you roll backwards in time and have to become a news detective to find out the original source.
Everyone has an agenda, including you and I, but it's like saying 'everyone lies' or 'everyone can write' - the significance is in how much they lie and how well they write.
For the NYT, I see some bias toward their readers in the lighter features - e.g., right now there's a headline, '6 Ways to Tame Airline Nightmares'. That's obviously biased toward people wealthy enough to fly frequently. My impression is of some bias in those articles toward serving a more liberal readership, but I can't cite anything ATM, but that is different than an agenda.
In hard news, I don't see an agenda, i.e., a program to promote something, or much bias. They do talk about things that conservatives object to, such as discrimination against minorities and women, but a large part of journalism is reporting things others want covered up. They do the same to liberals - they break stories about major liberal figures, such as Hilary Clinton's email. They are hated by all sides, a great sign.
They don't report stories in the reactionary conservative sphere that lack facts, or if they do, they investigate and report the facts as they are, such as the election fraud and anti-vaccination claims. They label claims 'false' if they are well-established to be disproven or 'baseless' if appropriate. Journalism isn't affirmative action for political ideas and bad information; it's about what's actually happening in the world.
Their opinion pages have an entire spectrum of columnists; there is (almost) every kind of agenda there, absent the more extreme claims of neo-reactionaries. Their NY Times Editorials, from the newspaper, are definitely liberal in general, but that is labeled opinion.
> You are going to have a very hard time untangling that mess. Many times you roll backwards in time and have to become a news detective to find out the original source.
I don't find it hard. There are many sources, I know their natures, and I can put it together pretty easily. I rarely find I am surprised by changes in information: For example, the lab leak theory went from not 'false' as critics say, but 'unfounded' to 'potential' (and still not nearly established): I wasn't surprised; knowledge changes with new information. In part that's practice, I'm sure, but I think the agenda of many is to discredit the institution of journalism. I don't buy it.
But these are opinion, so examine one news story from also today: https://www.nytimes.com/article/emotional-labor.html
"emotional labor" you never will hear outside of very leftwing area, same with use of term like "partner" or specification of "in heterosexual partnership". These are not noticeable for many readers from urban area but are almost jump off the page to any from, say, more rural background. Coverage clearly is more than "a little" bias.
They have opinion columnists from the entire spectrum. Check out the opinion page - it's got everything, and in pretty good balance, from (pretty) far right to (pretty) far left.
> "emotional labor" you never will hear outside of very leftwing area, same with use of term like "partner" or specification of "in heterosexual partnership". These are not noticeable for many readers from urban area but are almost jump off the page to any from, say, more rural background.
First, this article isn't news; it's a how-to feature.
Let's assume it's true that the content is better known in 'leftwing areas'. Does that make it less valuable to readers everywhere? Also, the NYT is there to tell people things they don't already know, the most valuable ideas they can find; should they limit it by some political measure? Dumb it down because you think that people in rightwing areas can't handle something unfamiliar (I'm attributing that to you, because it's not my idea or the NYT's)? A more general and far more important question: Must everything be politicized and restricted accordingly?
'Heterosexual partnership' is in this sentence:
In heterosexual partnerships, emotional labor often falls to women, who are generally socialized to take on the emotional lives of others, said Arlie Russell Hochschild, professor emerita at University of California, Berkeley ...
Again, must everything be politicized? Can people in rural areas not handle the language? And what words should be used instead - 'marriages' would seem incorrect, not limiting it to heterosexual relationships would seem confusing.
.............
One problem with the parent's point is that (very, very broadly) liberalism seeks change and improvement, while conservatism seeks to keep things as they are or were. Naturally, innovations will come from more liberal sources.
> what words should be used instead - 'marriages' would seem incorrect, not limiting it to heterosexual relationships would seem confusing.
Marriages probably the choice in other parts of the country, maybe "romantic relationships". Specify "heterosexual" is only left-wing thing, most others realize that gays are only small part and so do not bother to make mention. Saying "emotional labor often falls to the woman" would be most elegant though because it make implicit the normal man-woman scenario and avoid extra words.
> Must everything be politicized
Not in necessity but it does show significant bias on NYT. Also this is not all so much political as cultural.
> liberalism seeks change and improvement, while conservatism seeks to keep things as they are or were
You make a conflation between change and improvement, liberalism seeks the former and sometimes gets the latter. Some liberalism good and represent progress, some pointless and only change for change's sake. Example being push to use "nice words" for things every so many years. Idiot become retard become mentally handicapped become learning disabled... point here is that not every change is good change.