>… concerns that coverage is frequently presented through an ideological or idealistic prism that can alienate listeners.
Speaking as a lifelong NPR listener who recently had to cut them off because of ideological exhaustion: yep!
Speaking as a lifelong NPR listener who recently had to cut them off because of ideological exhaustion: yep!
My mind is craving thoughtful, non-partisan, deeply intellectual conservative analysis of current events.
Not cult of personality American GOP pop conservatism, not the dumb-dumb outrage machine new media personalities, but rather seriously legitimate academic right wing thought leadership to expand and challenge my thinking about the world. I honestly don’t know where to find it.
National Review is further right but still pretty good.
there’s your problem, academia skews overwhelmingly leftist
This theory explains why there are not a lot of conservative academics or scientists. Those careers are often low earning and more for the public good, so are more cooperative overall (even if they might be quite cutthroat in their own way).
It also begs the question that perhaps studying something deeply enough to get a PhD leaves a person with a perspective that is less compatible with certain viewpoints. Also, lower taxes for a college professor probably would be a net negative, as their college would be getting less government funding.
I gave up working in the tech industry to pursue a PhD with the hopes of becoming a professor. Considering I research NLP, I could be making top dollar in industry, but have opted for the academia route. My family mostly don't understand and view the PhD as a diversion. Despite securing a postdoc at Cornell, they still ask me to reconsider working in industry so I can become rich and powerful, which they equate with fulfillment in life.
Says a lot about modern conservatisme doesnt it?
The group is composed of former National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster, an economist and a historian, so you get diverse intellectual conservative perspectives.
Look up the John Birch Society and George Wallace for example. National Review was able to discredit that similar level of discourse back in the day.
Butnthe current conservative right is actively working to destroy thr Is, not making it run.
That's democrats and centrists that are trying to make the country work.
They do it all:
1) libertarians accepting (reasonably) big government is good
https://www.niskanencenter.org/freedom-government-part-one/
2) why ideology and utopia should not be part of your vocabulary:
https://www.niskanencenter.org/public-policy-utopia/
3) arguments for conservative pro-welfare policy
https://www.niskanencenter.org/libertarians-conservatives-st...
https://time.com/6258610/niskanen-center-bipartisanship-thin...
4) Income guarantees (UBI) and means-testing
https://www.niskanencenter.org/guaranteed-income-for-the-21s...
5) their philosophy in a nutshell: the free market welfare state
https://www.niskanencenter.org/the-free-market-welfare-state...
you won't find it, because there is none. it's ultimately "fuck you pay me", and it's a great deal if you're in the side saying "pay me". Or a rehash of the same Christian virtues that have have been repeated for centuries.
The point of conservative-ism is that it doesn't change. by definition you're not going to get expansion and growth and new.
Not an ad, just a happy reader.
One thing I have noticed again and again since reading the news letter is how often the GOP and Dems just talk completely past each other. They will have their own talking points about an issue that shoot completely over the other talking points from the other side. Quite interesting to see it happen in near real time.
No offense, but I just don't see how I can believe you, to believe any statement like this in this technological era. When I felt the same way when I started becoming politically active in my teenage years two decades ago, I went to this cool not-actually-new thing called an internet search engine, looked up right-(and left)-wing thought leaders/authors, think tanks, columnists/commentators, university researchers and etc. These people, just like all other political persuasions of public intellectual, have made website pages, books, papers and journals, conferences and expos, broadcasts of roundtables and interviews, and introductory infotainment pieces specifically for people like you, all in every format and length you can imagine.
All of this at least hundreds of hours of content put together over time is either directly accessible online for free or as easily purchasable as any other product on the web today. If it is true that your teeth are falling out because of low vitamin c, it's because you keep trading the orange in your rations for more hardtack. They're not any more difficult to get than whatever else you're reading right now, you just choose to put something else into your url/search field whenever you are in the mood to read. Right-wing intellectuals even happen to have terms for this phenomenon: "Stated preference" and "revealed preference". You state that you'd prefer to read a balance of political media, but someone observing you would reveal you only ever put the thirty seconds of effort it takes to open media on your computer into material that echoes what you've already read in the past. They point out that, as someone with a stated preference is observed over and over to act differently than it, the odds that the stated preference is a better description of their general mentality due to experimental variation than the preference that seems to be revealed by the observation approaches zero.
If you ever change this preference, though, the mentioned thirty seconds of googling got me these pages of Wikipedia's articles on ideology and activism groups in the united states (where I live, since I don't know where you do) categotized by general philosophy [1] [2]. Whenever I want to know what some corner of the political landscape thinks about current events, I follow some of these articles to their orgs' home page and read their recent materials.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_advocacy_gr...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_organizatio...
For example, I don't remember any overt politics at high school, but ours feeds a steady diet. Entertainment is another area.
These days, though, the social engineering seems front and center.
I still think that the major national shows like Morning Edition and All Things Considered hit just like they did a decade ago - albeit one dimension of our politics is less deserving of air time of the other, and that is reflected in their coverage.
At the end of the day these people at NPR care, and they are compassionate, but I do not find them credible on a lot of topics because they are only employing people who fit in. Economic and science issues? A joke. Horrible.
LUSE: I talked to other professors in preparation for this conversation, and something that came up was, like, it's seen by many as a very extreme form of nonviolent direct action.
WOODLY: Yes. I mean, it is the most extreme form of nonviolent direct action because self-immolation is not meant to hurt others. It's not meant to destroy property. It's really meant to use one's own life to make a statement. It's also on a spectrum - right? - like, you know, sort of on a spectrum from, for example, hunger strike. Some people do things like nail parts of their bodies to buildings. And then sort of self-immolation is, like, on that spectrum of the most extreme kinds of nonviolent direct action.