Oh and to my original point, why is this not cited or linked to in the executive order? I think it would strengthen it if anything.
This is an interview with an author that NPR acknowledges as controversial, not NPR presenting the author’s opinions as fact. But I doubt the distinction matters in the current rhetorical environment.
I could happily cherry-pick any of the multiple times they’ve interviewed controversial, evangelical Christian leaders and come to the opposite “revelation.”
> That acknowledgement was tacked on well after publication.
Retractions and postscripts are an accepted feature of journalism.
The original title was "One Author's Argument 'In Defense Of Looting'".
https://web.archive.org/web/20200827191914/https://www.npr.o...
> Even interviewing this person was an absurdity and revelatory of the kind of bias at npr.
So news organizations should not cover things which may seem sensational, especially those which are being actively talked about in the context of the current news cycle?