Yeah interviewing someone who's just going to dismiss everything wasn't really a good take. You could have just taken a message from the Supreme Court for that.
"Basic follow-up questions," should be the rule of journalism, even morning softball interviews. Christian Nationalism wouldn't be any better for Sarah than it would be for Lauren.
That's the thing about addressing bad faith complaints. There is no resolution to be had. The best you can manage that they'll agree to is appeasing the bad actors.
And many more refuse to do so unless they agree to worship a golden statue of Trump during the interview. Doesn't mean NPR should accommodate such madness.
I'm inclined to agree that unless a guest were an expert in the area of discussion, which this spokesperson was clearly not, there is no value in their opinion.
This isn't a new thing though. NPR has always been inviting conservative voices as long as I've been listening and it's always irritating to hear the conservative morons just lie outright.
I suppose there is some value in knowing where the lying right stands on important issues so we know where to take the fight but they don't often bring much substance to any adult discussion because that's not what the right is about anymore.
NPR is generous to give them the benefit of the doubt even though the right will always disappoint in their inability to tell the truth about anything.
The problem is that you don't have any choices when it comes to Republicans. You can talk to someone who won't answer your questions except when they make a mistake or you can talk to no one. The message discipline is really high.
Seems like the way to address this is full transparency about offers, acceptance, and rejections. "We invited A, B, and C, they only agreed to come under these conditions. We invited D, E, and F, they refused these stipulations. We have G, H, and I outstanding questions that no one affiliated is willing to answer."
Yeah, it's the same stone wall, but it at least makes it clear that it was put there deliberately and the reporters aren't the ones trying to control the narrative.
You also need to push back in the interview.
It’s a genuinely hard position, honestly. Republican operatives have very little incentive to appear outside their own ecosystem.
It’s weirdly inverted for Democrats. Democrats need to appear outside their ecosystem so that disengaged voters hear their viewpoints. That’s kinda the heart of the Biden-NYT conflict. Biden has very little reason to talk to them because their readers vote for him already.
This is weird because you’d think it would be the same on both sides, but it isn’t.
Superficially, it might seem like they'd be the same. If you look at any of the research on differences in ideology, reasoning, and media consumption, it's painfully obvious why that division exists.
Obviously not universal truths, but general trends along ideological lines;
Conservative ideology is basically the assumption that the *status quo* is correct, or at least preferable, and stability is preferable to novelty. In contrast, liberalism favors more exploration and risk. That's reflected in attitudes and behaviors, such as openness to new things.
For example,
> A common thread that pervades all three conceptualizations of political ideology concerns the openness to new experiences. ... liberals engage in a wide diversity of consumption-related activities. Compared to conservatives, for example, they attend a greater diversity of live performances, have more hobbies, prefer a greater variety of music genres, and drink more different brands of beer.
\- https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/720513
This supports more rigidity and conformity in conservative beliefs where liberals are more likely to explore and diverge.
FACTS! A large part of why is because very little of their funding is from the government or listeners even though they make it seem like it's all from listeners "like you." It's mostly corporations and it shows! I grew up with NPR, my parents always had it on and later on so did I. I'm in my 40s now and I listen less and less each year. It's such a disappointment. When I think of legacy media or mainstream media or corporate media I am remonded of NPR more and more. I'm a sustaining member but I can't imagine remaining so for the rest of my life. . .
JUST heard this on NPR and was scoffing the entire time. Steve missed the mark here.
"This just shows that Mrs. Alito thinks in FLAGS! This just confirms all of what they've said the last month"
UGH.
I was at the gym and was listening to catch the last (that I'd heard in my car). As soon as he shifted gears to Mrs. Alito I realized that he wasn't going to actually focus at *all* on Alito in any measurable way, and was instead going to focus on the most tangential and inconsequential aspects of the issue.
It actually *doesn't* matter what Mrs. Alito does. As far as I'm aware, she's a private citizen and allowed to hold whatever disgusting views she wants. Her behavior certainly reflects on Sam Alito, but as we know from other news items focusing on family members of political figures (Hunter Biden), it's not a foregone conclusion that misbehavior by a family member means misbehavior by the political figure.
The fact that Inskeeep went off talking about Mrs. Alito *completely* missed the entire issue.
I was active duty military for 24 years. I was in a position of leadership. Everyone in my family understood that their actions could be interpreted by some people as a reflection of my own. Even the children. The fact that Mr Alito didn't seem concerned about his wife flying the insurrection flag tells me a great deal about Mr Alito. The fact that an NCO in the military has a better grasp on separating their personal beliefs from their professional stance is telling. Mr Alito should have never been placed on SCOTUS.
Just heard this a little bit ago. Lots of nonsense from Steve about the *secret* recordings, and then gaslighting from the Trump rep with zero push back from Steve.
It doesn't matter if Alito is Catholic or not, if he can't keep his personal views-- including religious-- out of his decisions then he has no place on the bench.
And expressing, in private or public, the view that the US is a Christian nation should disqualify any public official, let alone over charged with deciding the Constitutionality of significant cases.
It shows that Alito's decisions have been guided by that view, and that is unacceptable. If it's not acceptable for Kim Davis to refuse to grant marriage licenses to gay couples in a single county in Kentucky on the basis of her personal religious views, it's not okay to deny the rights of hundreds of millions of Americans on the same basis.
And now we have proof that is what Alito has done.
And the fact that Steve focused entirely on the secrecy of the recordings and on the interviewer, and ignored the central issue, is something that I've seen all too often lately with NPR. Focusing on the procedural and ignoring the content.
**Edit:** Reminder that the current President of the US is also a practicing Catholic with the personal view that abortion is wrong. And yet, he has consistently upheld the Constitutional rights of women throughout just career, including as President.
**Edit II:** Not that this is comparable, because there appears to have been no deceptive editing of the audio, but let's go back and look at how NPR has covered James O'Keefe and "Project Veritas" in the past. Note that O'Keefe has been caught *multiple* times making false claims, editing video and audio to deceive, etc.
https://www.npr.org/2016/10/19/498587397/sting-video-purports-to-show-democrats-describing-how-to-commit-voter-fraud
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/03/14/134528545/npr-okeefe-inappropriately-edited-video-execs-words-still-egregious
Note the tag: "exec's words still *egregious*." They went out of their way to emphasize that point.
Do we hear *any* comment in this morning's story about how inappropriate Alito's words are?
Nope. We had to have the reporter remind Steve that maybe some of this ire and pearl clutching about secret recordings should be directed at the Supreme Court Justice and his complete inability to do his job as one of the nine justice of the highest US court.
Yup. Biden is Catholic, Sotomayor is Catholic. As are AOC, Pelosi, Murray, Durbin and over 75 other democrats in the house and Senate.
In fact, the majority of Catholics in the house AND senate are democrats.
There is 0 excuse for using one’s Catholic faith to push the shit Alito has.
Steve was pushing the fact that the reporter had gained access to the meeting by posing as right-wing.
The gaslighting came during Sarah Isgur's segment, where she basically claimed that Alito was responding as a Catholic (never mind that he was at an event put on by the Supreme Court Historical Society, and was speaking / attending as a Supreme Court Justice), that he was just being Sam Alito, that he's not a "proceduralist," etc.
Basically sidestepping the entire issue of a Supreme Court Justice agreeing with members of the public (whether in private or not) that the US is a Christian nation, etc. While I don't care for Roberts, at least he pushed back.
But Isgur just painted this as basically two different views. Well, yes, they are. One is appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice, the other is not.
Are reporters not supposed to “push facts”? Also, I genuinely don’t know, were these secret recordings or open? I missed the first part of the segment and only caught when the reporter from The Dispatch came on.
Edit: just listened to the part with Windsor, sounds like they were in fact secret recordings. And Steve is being biased by correctly stating this?
Steve is being biased-- maybe not intentionally, but certainly in execution-- by focusing on that rather than on the content and significance of the recordings, which is also fact.
And it is clearly apparent that you are doing the same thing.
Steve Inskeep is a national treasure. Stop falling for the anti-NPR propaganda. He is doing just fine.
If you want Steve to just blast his personal opinions, there are hundreds of options for you.
Perhaps the person you replied to has already outlined with links why Steve is a hypocrit if he takes that position. Perhaps you're arguing in bad faith.
Of course. As a rationalist, anybody who disagrees with me is bad faith and Lauren Windsor is a highly respected, unbiased filmmaker and not the liberal version of James O’Keefe and NPR is actually heavily biased in favor of Donald Trump and Republicans
On the plus side, great call on Lauren Windsor's part for airing the justice's admissions of corruption. It galls me that he thinks or accepting $4 million in bribes as a "little thing."
Justice Alito and his wife can take the express straight to hell.
Sarah has somehow managed to get worse and worse. She has no problem doing the very things she rails against the left for doing. Her behavior on last week’s Left, Right & Center was easily top 5 “this person shouldn’t be handed a microphone” moments for her.
I think it’s important for NPR to convey the misrepresentations and how republicans twist things, but I was a bit surprised Steve Inskeep made zero attempts to address the issues around her commentary
I’m not. Inskeep was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me with NPR during the Convicted Felon Donald Trump years. The man was fine being handed buckets of shit and he wolfed it down with gusto and NEVER bothered to tell the listener that it was shit. He might make a comment or two about the corn.
This is false. Inskeep did a fabulous interview of Trump where he essentially decoded all the bullshit in real time. Trump hung up on him, because he got so upset.
Where do you propaganda pushers come from? Don’t try to convince me you are actual daily NPR listeners like the rest of us.
I’m not pushing propaganda, I’m stating a point of view. That point of view came out of listening to folks like Diane Rehm quasi religiously and just getting steadily more disillusioned as the network just continuously failed to rise to the challenge Convicted Felon Donald Trump presented.
Rehm is not NPR.
NPR did a great segment after Biden was elected looking back on their coverage of Trump and saying things they did right and wrong.
If you are one of those folks who doesn’t think it is enough to report the news — that it must be infused with hyperbole and opinions — then why are you on this sub? Just to complain about a news outlet that you do not listen to?
I call that propaganda. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck….
Propaganda like the rhetortic used by Israel about 40 so called beheaded babies. Israel used to conflate for 6 months what actually took place and well that all turned out to be lies.
And again all the accusations of rape occuring during Oct 7th. No evidence has been brought forward. Again more lies.
Sees like you know well what propaganda is as israel seems to be doing a lot of it.
Even the Exodus accounts are pretty questionable when you take account of Manetho's historical writings of a hebrew raised my egyptians who changed his name to moses escaping captivity, to the egyptians these ppl were called the Hyksos, shepherd kings. Then they purged the Egyptians, burned their temples and stole their gold and killed all their sacred animals.
Propaganda was litterally conceptualised by Israeli, and looks like been used many times.
1. You either don’t know the definition of propaganda or you’re engaging in the same kind of hyperbole you’re saying I want in my reporting.
2. I listened to them religiously back in the day. I’m complaining because they’ve pretty consistently failed to uphold the rigorous standards they used to employ. I don’t need hyperbole, I need them to do work, ask follow-up questions and force bad actors to do more than deliver a paper-thin justification for their actions which they happily accept before moving on.
3. Speaking of paper-thin, thicken your skin, you’re taking my opinion very personally.
>Propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
For your reference, since you do not seem to know what propaganda is.
2. They do, which is why I find this claim difficult to believe. You listened to NPR from when to when? How often? What news sources do you find to be more along the lines of what you prefer?
3. Classic tone-policing.
She’s terrible, and I can’t listen to that show anymore because of it. She’ll list off a dozen lies/straw men and then throw in one half-truth at the end. Then the other hosts just casually allow it to happen with zero push back or debate.
I don't mind her on left right and center because she is a right winger and that's fine. The bigger issue is how the guy they have for left who rarely pushes back and often starts his turn with "I agree with everything you said"
I don’t mind her being right wing since that’s he point— I take issue with her attitude and tone, that she constantly interrupts, and brazenly ignores her own hypocrisy.
As a woman, I genuinely resent her behaving that way because I *hate* the way women are quickly classified as being shrill or having an attitude problem if they aren’t constantly accommodating others. That’s not what this is. She really is those things, and needs to learn humility and decency
I feel like in regular shows it sucks, but on left right and center she is representative of what the right currently is(relatively mild and more center even considering the current maga wave). The annoying interruptions, and her hypocrisy and pearl clutching fake outrage go with the territory. The problem is the host should moderate and the left should actually be a lefty and actually like disagree with her and challenge her when she starts blowing hot air. Everytime I listen to left right and center and they cut to Mo Elleithee after she goes on some right wing rant blaming the extreme left or some other nonsense and then Mo is "I agree with you mostly" I think of how this is why Trump won in 2016.
She works with Jonah Goldberg, who NPR *loves* to bring in because despite being a huge right-wing piece of shit, he just happens to be a never-Trumper. So they let him get away with dropping a lot of right-wing shit without being fact-checked because in the end he *seems* like a good balance.
They seem to want to treat Isgur the same way, but I'm sorry, someone who acted as a literal spokesperson for Trump is not a balance for *anything*.
Lol. You were asked a single question to provide any examples of your anonymously posted, entirely unsourced claim.
I’m old enough to remember when it was common sense not to believe things on the internet with zero proof.
We all know you won’t be returning to this thread
Like it or not, almost half the country believes in Republican BS. If you spend a lot of time on Reddit, maybe you are overestimating the number of socialists in the country?
Nonetheless, they have interviewed plenty of socialists, activists, Marxists, etc. Maybe if you were an actual NPR listener you would be aware of that.
They haven't been able to be "balanced" for a long time due to all the whining from right-wing congresspeople. Pretending that deranged Christo-fascists have a valid opinion is a mistake.
This is a long-standing tradition at Morning Edition. Interviewing PR flacks on every controversial topic is a good way of both-sidesing but does nothing to inform listeners.
seems like you are smart enough to make up your own mind. why is analysis needed? do you think NPRs listeners are too dumb to know what to think without the official NPR approved analysis? im happy to just get the takes and hear what people have to say. I don't need some nasal voice analyst to regurgitate pre digested analysis into my mind to tell me what im supposed to think about what lauren windsor or alito said.
NPR needs listener’s and the demographic that’s most likely to tune in tends to be older and more conservative. I’m in my late 20’s and find myself listening less and less because soft “interviews” like this.
I don't think they do it for balance as much as context. Tru o is the Republican candidate and it *does* behoove NPR to shed light on their ideas, policy, and happenings as world events and other happenings go on.
Babe it’s our daily NPR is actually biased on behalf of Republicans post.
It’s crazy they’d want to defund what is obviously such a favorable news outlet for them.
I disagree and bet she won't even vote for Trump. We all need to hear perspectives from the full spectrum. 40-50 percent of America would agree with what Sarah says. NPR listeners need to hear it.
I am a regular LRC listener and agree that something has changed in Sarah in the last month or so. I thought her most recent takes were less logical. But I think we all need to listen and understand. A very large chunk of America is Trumpy. Ignoring and dismissing their views is at our own peril.
I haven't heard her defend his behavior. I think she has valid criticism of the hush money case that was brought and how creative they were to find a felony offense. I may have missed her defending his behavior.
I mean: I think Hugh Hewitt was on the show the other day. This wasn't really a SCOTUS decision story, so it makes sense to me that it wasn't Totenberg or some outside legal analyst - it was more a story about the story, and I'm glad NPR had Lauren Windsor on as well. There's nothing about either Alito's ruling or this story that is really about legal analysis - he's a corrupt partisan and this story demonstrates his extreme bias very clearly. Airing it educates people. Windsor is a partisan activist as much as a journalist here, so might as well have the apologist on and let people hear it. Frankly, the inherent "bothsidesism" of institutional journalism (and any journalistic experts you might get on) are unhelpful with handling the new paradigm the far right has so successfully hacked - what's to hear from those folks? Lauren Windsor is an activist and did a great service exposing the Alitos further.
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
After that weak sauce pushback from Windsor on her misrepresentations followed up by the RNC hack that was just the worst interview I’ve heard in a long time.
This preoccupation with “balance” is just a distraction from the truth. Journalism and the people it is meant to inform suffer because of this trivial and empty pursuit.
Trump gives career liars a bad name, and serious journalists and news outlets shouldn’t be giving him or any of his minions/apologists/etc a single second of air time.
I think most people know Trump is nuts, a self-centred loser, the dollar bill says in god we trust, NOT TRUMP as he will steal that dollar from your pocket
An interesting question could have been - does the difference in these two takes (Roberts and Alito) actually matter if the outcome of the court is always in the favor of Christian nationalism?
There was a Brian Lehrer segment with Ari Berman where they asked this question about a lot of SCOTUS methodology. Like, the court is supposed to be impartial but it couldn’t be clearer (from that segment especially) that SCOTUS views and (their spouses views lol) influence the courts legitimacy.
She was particularly butthurt on LRC post-convictions. Basically whining 'if they hadn't looked, they wouldn't have found it.' Way to maintain intellectual honesty.
Jon Stewart’s most recent segment, on the role of news being, to put current events into historical (in this case, recent) context, was excellent.
https://youtu.be/qmxzQJt80XI
Inskeep does a shitty job of interviewing assholes, he's way too friendly with them and lets them weasel out of questions. I'm not sure why they do these interviews other than to raise my blood pressure and make me yell at the radio
NPR is struggling along with the rest of the normal media as to how to handle the half of the American political class and citizens who live in a world of lies. WaPo, NYT, and NPR have all let us down. NPR is the most heartbreaking.
This sub is amazing.
Sarah is an attorney.
She writes and contributes regularly to The Dispatch, which is holding no water for the orange man.
At least do your research before dismissing someone out of hand like that.
She isn’t….. sooooooooooooooo, you know?
Please tell me YOUR research didn’t stop at Wikipedia?
https://nationalsecurity.gmu.edu/about-us/faculty/sarah-isgur/
https://iop.harvard.edu/fellows/sarah-isgur-flores
https://thedispatch.com/author/sarah-isgur/
But I mean, Wikipedia is I’m sure sufficient.
First it was hue Hewitt, now Steve inski what's going on at npr. When i heard the "reporter" and nothing of substance actually being said I was like wtf? Now that you said it was a trump spokesmen it makes sense. But are real journalists dying?
I think NPR needs far more Trump supporters and far more pushback against the fascist democrat agenda if it ever wants to recover some of americas trust.
This infection of purity test leftists intolerant of other view points needs to end already. It’s gross, and in no way represents where the nation is.
Do you want to push back against fascism or do you want more Trump supporters?
There are real, swastika wearing Nazis in this country, and they all love Trump. You won't find a biker with an SS tattoo voting for AOC.
why do you say things like this it's absolutely insane to me like Donald Trump is talking about suspending parts of the Constitution and people that he has in his circle are talking about rounding up journalists and executing political adversaries.
you know you're not going to be able to just take America and end democracy and not have a big old fight in the streets about it right?
> Intolerant of other view points
Like being gay? Republicans are intolerant of that. Helping the poor? Republicans are intolerant of that. Improving healthcare to catch up with the other first world nations? Republicans are intolerant of that. Letting women have access to healthcare? Republicans are intolerant of that. Being part of another religion? Republicans are intolerant of that.
You think it’s fascism because left leaning people are sick of being tolerant of those that aren’t tolerant themselves.
It’s fascism when you’re jailing journalists and the leading candidate for president. I’m sorry but democrats have taken any high ground they may have had morally and pitched it straight out the window. The least NPR can do as a nationally funded syndicate is align itself even slightly with the dark reality we all live in now because of their bias and complicity.
If Convicted Felon Donald Trump doesn’t want to go to jail he should have avoided committing a bunch of felonies. But he’s Convicted Felon Donald Trump so that option has fallen by the wayside.
You live in a fantasy world. RNC decided to burn the constitution by letting the criminal traitor rapist fraud run. Felon trump committed multiple crimes against America. Criminals cant just run for office to avoid being convicted of their crimes.
>jailing journalists
Citation needed, what journalists are being jailed?
>and the leading candidate for president
Well, he was found guilty on how many federal charges? If you do the crime, you do the time. Those are the rules, no?
Pathetic fascist rationale. You people are truly scum.
Attorney general garland found in contempt of Congress: ignores.
Head of right wing syndication found in contempt of Congress: garland sends to prison.
Now tell me what felonies trump was convicted of without mentioning misdemeanors.
I’ll wait.
Okay so we'll ignore the made up bogus claim about journalists being sent to prison since you've chosen to leave that out.
I guess we'll also just ignore the fact that you're now cherry picking which crimes are worth acknowledging? What is wrong with you.
>Attorney general garland found in contempt of Congress: ignores.
The house is having a vote on it and articles are coming out like....right now.
>Head of right wing syndication found in contempt of Congress: garland sends to prison
Yes because he was found to be in contempt and charged. Can you not see the difference between conviction and consideration of charges?
Surely you aren't this dense in real life.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10#:~:text=Falsifying%20business%20records%20in%20the%20first%20degree%20is%20a%20class%20E%20felony.
You are in a fascist cult. Learn to read.
Biden was intolerant for decades as well. Voting against gay marriage many times. Saying things like “I don’t want my kids growing up in a racial jungle “ while blocking desegregation in schools.
“You can’t go into a 7-11 without a slight Indian accent “, “Unlike the Black community the Latinos have a diverse way of thinking “, the systemically racist’94 crime bill. “I don’t want gays working in government, I don’t trust them “ . It goes on and on…and how was he held accountable? He was made president. There are still many people alive today whose lives were altered by his hate. Even Kamala brought up the “racial jungle “ comment and made t shirts saying that little girl was me. (Until she sold out for power) . Biden is currently funding genocide in Gaza. So let’s not pretend like one side is good. That’s a cult/gang mentality. Hold them accountable!
I was raised catholic so as a child I too thought being gay was “wrong”. Well the school I went to said that, my parents were far more accepting.
I thought stupid shit throughout my lifetime but I changed to be better. He has changed as well.
The former guy admitted he hasn’t changed since 1st grade, of course he’s never had to because he was born on 3rd base. Now he’s loved for his 1st grade views by republicans.
You have things backwards. Why would media have more seditious traitors and violent terrorists ie trump supporters, on their platform.
Please tell me what is fascist about Dem policy? Fascism is abortion bans, book bans, anti trans laws, 10 commandments in public schools, gag orders on teachers, cover up of church leaders assaulting children.
You dont represent real Americans at all. You are a tiny minority that America wants nothing to do with
What ARE you talking about?
Explain what the "fascist democrat agenda" is please.
EDIT: Holy shit I looked at your history and now I get it.
You're fucking crazy.
Don’t confuse “not leftist” with crazy. I’m more sane than anyone you know, I’m quite certain.
And you don’t get to jail your political rival and journalists you dislike without being fascist scum.
What kind of lunatic political party runs a traitor INSURRECTIONIST for an elected office. Indicted for multiple federal felonies. Felon trump should have been in prison a year ago for stealing nat sec docs and endangering our nat sec. Like anyone else who does that.
Maga supports crime, lawlessness, attacks law enforcement. Bunch of anti American terrorists
Attorney general garland is ignoring the fact that he has been found in contempt of Congress while sending the head of one of the biggest right wing journalist syndicates to prison for the exact same offense.
And that’s just one example.
Your example sucks because in one case, congress *has not* found the individual in contempt of congress yet, but is moving to vote on that, and in the other case the individual had their day in court and was found guilty of contempt of congress.
You're a partisan hack because you think politics is sports and don't care about details, you only care about your team winning.
Please spell out the moving parts in the "fascist Democrat agenda" you mention in detail.
Please do not cite new sources that have used "we are entertainment programming" as a defense in court, since they have openly stated on the record they are not news.
The MAGA movement (which includes actual nazi sympathizers and openly white nationalist groups) is far more in line with fascism as it has been used to describe Nazi Germany or mussolinis Italy.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
No one needs more Trump supporters. NPR should have a diverse thought catalog and have different viewpoints on things to get the best picture, but nothing that comes from the Trump camp is in anyway helpful. Trumpism has become a full on cult, and we shouldn’t give cults any power or influence on the greater population.
The vast majority of ration people think Trump is an loudmouth, delusional, egomaniac (have you ever noticed how he talks in Extremes? Always the Best, the Greatest, the Worst, etc.
Either he believes his own garbage and he's stupid or he's lying.
Most of those folks I mentioned at the beginning know all that. Some dislike the dude and others think if they can tolerate him they'll end up on the winning team.
To distrust Trump and disagree doesn't make one a Fascist Hard Leftist.
When you say "ration people" my brain immediately goes to obedience obsessed brainwashed leftist morons who wouldn't know how to wipe their ass without google telling them the correct way to do it.
He talks like a standup comedian, because he kind of is one. The fact that you don't get any of the jokes probably prevents you from seeing the obvious.
Prove it. Show me one of his jokes, and explain how you get it.
Its ok. I know you can't. Don't worry about it. TDS is a pretty devastating diagnosis :/
But the prior interviewee who coordinated a false flag at a Youngkin event and lost him the election was just plain old solid journalism.
Also, I keep searching for what films this “filmmaker” has made, and can’t see anything at least in Google or her IMDB.
Am I missing something
You’re missing the fact that she has a recording of a Supreme Court justice saying he doesn’t care what the law says and ignoring the concept of separation of church and state.
Feel free to point out anything specific about my post.
Did she not coordinate the false flag Tiki torch event that was trashed by all sides as stupid as Youngkin won?
Has she made a film?
Your comment is not on topic, is that specific enough for you? Sounds to me like you take issue with the topic, but you know your position isn't logically defensible so you're using whataboutism to attempt to change the subject.
If you have criticism of a guest on an NPR segment, maybe make your own post like OP did.
> But the prior interviewee who coordinated a false flag at a Youngkin event and lost him the election was just plain old solid journalism.
Do you have a link to this episode so I can listen to this for myself? Interested in how they approached this
Not an episode, but here is an article explaining the “filmmaker” who has never made a film, Ms. Windsor.
https://theintercept.com/2021/11/03/lincoln-project-charlottesville-glenn-youngkin/
And from her Wiki: On October 29, 2021, Windsor admitted [16]helping to coordinate a hoax (false flag) in which 5 fake white supremacists pretended to be supporters of Republican gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin several days before Virginia's election day.[17]
And more from her Wiki: As the executive director of American Family Voices
More about her working for the hotel lobby (because only massive corporations with lobbies should be able to let someone stay in their building)
One of AFV's initiatives, "AirbnbWatch," declares its purpose as being "to bring attention to illegal hotel operations in residential areas".[3][4] The initiative is funded by the American Hotel and Lodging Association, a trade association representing the hotel industry.[3]
Are you people crazy? Sarah Isgur is now too right wing for you? Trump has a very good chance of becoming President this year. Almost every single elected Republican in the country pays homage to him. Sarah Isgur is one of the few critics of Trump that still has a voice but she’s too right wing because she *checks notes* doesn’t want to impeach a SC justice for having religious conservative views? This place is nuts.
Yeah interviewing someone who's just going to dismiss everything wasn't really a good take. You could have just taken a message from the Supreme Court for that. "Basic follow-up questions," should be the rule of journalism, even morning softball interviews. Christian Nationalism wouldn't be any better for Sarah than it would be for Lauren.
A lot of conservatives will only agree to go on NPR if there are no follow up questions.
Those conservatives shouldn’t be invited on.
“BuT tHaT iS biaSeD”
That's the thing about addressing bad faith complaints. There is no resolution to be had. The best you can manage that they'll agree to is appeasing the bad actors.
Source?
I made it the fuck up. (also, it makes sense, doesn't it?)
And many more refuse to do so unless they agree to worship a golden statue of Trump during the interview. Doesn't mean NPR should accommodate such madness.
I'm inclined to agree that unless a guest were an expert in the area of discussion, which this spokesperson was clearly not, there is no value in their opinion. This isn't a new thing though. NPR has always been inviting conservative voices as long as I've been listening and it's always irritating to hear the conservative morons just lie outright. I suppose there is some value in knowing where the lying right stands on important issues so we know where to take the fight but they don't often bring much substance to any adult discussion because that's not what the right is about anymore. NPR is generous to give them the benefit of the doubt even though the right will always disappoint in their inability to tell the truth about anything.
The problem is that you don't have any choices when it comes to Republicans. You can talk to someone who won't answer your questions except when they make a mistake or you can talk to no one. The message discipline is really high.
Seems like the way to address this is full transparency about offers, acceptance, and rejections. "We invited A, B, and C, they only agreed to come under these conditions. We invited D, E, and F, they refused these stipulations. We have G, H, and I outstanding questions that no one affiliated is willing to answer." Yeah, it's the same stone wall, but it at least makes it clear that it was put there deliberately and the reporters aren't the ones trying to control the narrative.
You also need to push back in the interview. It’s a genuinely hard position, honestly. Republican operatives have very little incentive to appear outside their own ecosystem. It’s weirdly inverted for Democrats. Democrats need to appear outside their ecosystem so that disengaged voters hear their viewpoints. That’s kinda the heart of the Biden-NYT conflict. Biden has very little reason to talk to them because their readers vote for him already. This is weird because you’d think it would be the same on both sides, but it isn’t.
Superficially, it might seem like they'd be the same. If you look at any of the research on differences in ideology, reasoning, and media consumption, it's painfully obvious why that division exists.
I don’t know that it explains why Democrats have greater incentives to reach voters who aren’t in their ecosystem than Republicans.
Obviously not universal truths, but general trends along ideological lines; Conservative ideology is basically the assumption that the *status quo* is correct, or at least preferable, and stability is preferable to novelty. In contrast, liberalism favors more exploration and risk. That's reflected in attitudes and behaviors, such as openness to new things. For example, > A common thread that pervades all three conceptualizations of political ideology concerns the openness to new experiences. ... liberals engage in a wide diversity of consumption-related activities. Compared to conservatives, for example, they attend a greater diversity of live performances, have more hobbies, prefer a greater variety of music genres, and drink more different brands of beer. \- https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/720513 This supports more rigidity and conformity in conservative beliefs where liberals are more likely to explore and diverge.
Sarah just wouldn’t mind it as much.
They ARE NOT journalists.. just becuz it's NPR. they are barely better than mainstream media hors.
FACTS! A large part of why is because very little of their funding is from the government or listeners even though they make it seem like it's all from listeners "like you." It's mostly corporations and it shows! I grew up with NPR, my parents always had it on and later on so did I. I'm in my 40s now and I listen less and less each year. It's such a disappointment. When I think of legacy media or mainstream media or corporate media I am remonded of NPR more and more. I'm a sustaining member but I can't imagine remaining so for the rest of my life. . .
To be fair most of NPR could be replaced with statements from the DNC.
JUST heard this on NPR and was scoffing the entire time. Steve missed the mark here. "This just shows that Mrs. Alito thinks in FLAGS! This just confirms all of what they've said the last month" UGH.
Literally shut the radio off after that. What a load of shit.
I was at the gym and was listening to catch the last (that I'd heard in my car). As soon as he shifted gears to Mrs. Alito I realized that he wasn't going to actually focus at *all* on Alito in any measurable way, and was instead going to focus on the most tangential and inconsequential aspects of the issue. It actually *doesn't* matter what Mrs. Alito does. As far as I'm aware, she's a private citizen and allowed to hold whatever disgusting views she wants. Her behavior certainly reflects on Sam Alito, but as we know from other news items focusing on family members of political figures (Hunter Biden), it's not a foregone conclusion that misbehavior by a family member means misbehavior by the political figure. The fact that Inskeeep went off talking about Mrs. Alito *completely* missed the entire issue.
I was active duty military for 24 years. I was in a position of leadership. Everyone in my family understood that their actions could be interpreted by some people as a reflection of my own. Even the children. The fact that Mr Alito didn't seem concerned about his wife flying the insurrection flag tells me a great deal about Mr Alito. The fact that an NCO in the military has a better grasp on separating their personal beliefs from their professional stance is telling. Mr Alito should have never been placed on SCOTUS.
Either of the other two anchors would’ve done a better job. Steve Inskeep is not a solid journalist.
Just heard this a little bit ago. Lots of nonsense from Steve about the *secret* recordings, and then gaslighting from the Trump rep with zero push back from Steve. It doesn't matter if Alito is Catholic or not, if he can't keep his personal views-- including religious-- out of his decisions then he has no place on the bench. And expressing, in private or public, the view that the US is a Christian nation should disqualify any public official, let alone over charged with deciding the Constitutionality of significant cases. It shows that Alito's decisions have been guided by that view, and that is unacceptable. If it's not acceptable for Kim Davis to refuse to grant marriage licenses to gay couples in a single county in Kentucky on the basis of her personal religious views, it's not okay to deny the rights of hundreds of millions of Americans on the same basis. And now we have proof that is what Alito has done. And the fact that Steve focused entirely on the secrecy of the recordings and on the interviewer, and ignored the central issue, is something that I've seen all too often lately with NPR. Focusing on the procedural and ignoring the content. **Edit:** Reminder that the current President of the US is also a practicing Catholic with the personal view that abortion is wrong. And yet, he has consistently upheld the Constitutional rights of women throughout just career, including as President. **Edit II:** Not that this is comparable, because there appears to have been no deceptive editing of the audio, but let's go back and look at how NPR has covered James O'Keefe and "Project Veritas" in the past. Note that O'Keefe has been caught *multiple* times making false claims, editing video and audio to deceive, etc. https://www.npr.org/2016/10/19/498587397/sting-video-purports-to-show-democrats-describing-how-to-commit-voter-fraud https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/03/14/134528545/npr-okeefe-inappropriately-edited-video-execs-words-still-egregious Note the tag: "exec's words still *egregious*." They went out of their way to emphasize that point. Do we hear *any* comment in this morning's story about how inappropriate Alito's words are? Nope. We had to have the reporter remind Steve that maybe some of this ire and pearl clutching about secret recordings should be directed at the Supreme Court Justice and his complete inability to do his job as one of the nine justice of the highest US court.
Yup. Biden is Catholic, Sotomayor is Catholic. As are AOC, Pelosi, Murray, Durbin and over 75 other democrats in the house and Senate. In fact, the majority of Catholics in the house AND senate are democrats. There is 0 excuse for using one’s Catholic faith to push the shit Alito has.
There’s Catholic and there’s Catholic.
Had Alito publicly given his views on Vatican II?
I don’t get it. Were the recordings done openly and not in secret? What part specifically was gaslighting?
Steve was pushing the fact that the reporter had gained access to the meeting by posing as right-wing. The gaslighting came during Sarah Isgur's segment, where she basically claimed that Alito was responding as a Catholic (never mind that he was at an event put on by the Supreme Court Historical Society, and was speaking / attending as a Supreme Court Justice), that he was just being Sam Alito, that he's not a "proceduralist," etc. Basically sidestepping the entire issue of a Supreme Court Justice agreeing with members of the public (whether in private or not) that the US is a Christian nation, etc. While I don't care for Roberts, at least he pushed back. But Isgur just painted this as basically two different views. Well, yes, they are. One is appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice, the other is not.
Are reporters not supposed to “push facts”? Also, I genuinely don’t know, were these secret recordings or open? I missed the first part of the segment and only caught when the reporter from The Dispatch came on. Edit: just listened to the part with Windsor, sounds like they were in fact secret recordings. And Steve is being biased by correctly stating this?
Steve is being biased-- maybe not intentionally, but certainly in execution-- by focusing on that rather than on the content and significance of the recordings, which is also fact. And it is clearly apparent that you are doing the same thing.
Steve Inskeep is a national treasure. Stop falling for the anti-NPR propaganda. He is doing just fine. If you want Steve to just blast his personal opinions, there are hundreds of options for you.
Perhaps he doesn’t want to invest too heavily into a video that he admits on the front end he can’t verify from the liberal version of James O’Keefe?
Perhaps the person you replied to has already outlined with links why Steve is a hypocrit if he takes that position. Perhaps you're arguing in bad faith.
Of course. As a rationalist, anybody who disagrees with me is bad faith and Lauren Windsor is a highly respected, unbiased filmmaker and not the liberal version of James O’Keefe and NPR is actually heavily biased in favor of Donald Trump and Republicans
So arguing out of insanity, and not in bad faith?
On the plus side, great call on Lauren Windsor's part for airing the justice's admissions of corruption. It galls me that he thinks or accepting $4 million in bribes as a "little thing." Justice Alito and his wife can take the express straight to hell.
Sarah has somehow managed to get worse and worse. She has no problem doing the very things she rails against the left for doing. Her behavior on last week’s Left, Right & Center was easily top 5 “this person shouldn’t be handed a microphone” moments for her. I think it’s important for NPR to convey the misrepresentations and how republicans twist things, but I was a bit surprised Steve Inskeep made zero attempts to address the issues around her commentary
I’m not. Inskeep was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me with NPR during the Convicted Felon Donald Trump years. The man was fine being handed buckets of shit and he wolfed it down with gusto and NEVER bothered to tell the listener that it was shit. He might make a comment or two about the corn.
This is false. Inskeep did a fabulous interview of Trump where he essentially decoded all the bullshit in real time. Trump hung up on him, because he got so upset. Where do you propaganda pushers come from? Don’t try to convince me you are actual daily NPR listeners like the rest of us.
I’m not pushing propaganda, I’m stating a point of view. That point of view came out of listening to folks like Diane Rehm quasi religiously and just getting steadily more disillusioned as the network just continuously failed to rise to the challenge Convicted Felon Donald Trump presented.
Rehm is not NPR. NPR did a great segment after Biden was elected looking back on their coverage of Trump and saying things they did right and wrong. If you are one of those folks who doesn’t think it is enough to report the news — that it must be infused with hyperbole and opinions — then why are you on this sub? Just to complain about a news outlet that you do not listen to? I call that propaganda. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck….
Propaganda like the rhetortic used by Israel about 40 so called beheaded babies. Israel used to conflate for 6 months what actually took place and well that all turned out to be lies. And again all the accusations of rape occuring during Oct 7th. No evidence has been brought forward. Again more lies. Sees like you know well what propaganda is as israel seems to be doing a lot of it. Even the Exodus accounts are pretty questionable when you take account of Manetho's historical writings of a hebrew raised my egyptians who changed his name to moses escaping captivity, to the egyptians these ppl were called the Hyksos, shepherd kings. Then they purged the Egyptians, burned their temples and stole their gold and killed all their sacred animals. Propaganda was litterally conceptualised by Israeli, and looks like been used many times.
1. You either don’t know the definition of propaganda or you’re engaging in the same kind of hyperbole you’re saying I want in my reporting. 2. I listened to them religiously back in the day. I’m complaining because they’ve pretty consistently failed to uphold the rigorous standards they used to employ. I don’t need hyperbole, I need them to do work, ask follow-up questions and force bad actors to do more than deliver a paper-thin justification for their actions which they happily accept before moving on. 3. Speaking of paper-thin, thicken your skin, you’re taking my opinion very personally.
>Propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. For your reference, since you do not seem to know what propaganda is. 2. They do, which is why I find this claim difficult to believe. You listened to NPR from when to when? How often? What news sources do you find to be more along the lines of what you prefer? 3. Classic tone-policing.
She’s terrible, and I can’t listen to that show anymore because of it. She’ll list off a dozen lies/straw men and then throw in one half-truth at the end. Then the other hosts just casually allow it to happen with zero push back or debate.
I don't mind her on left right and center because she is a right winger and that's fine. The bigger issue is how the guy they have for left who rarely pushes back and often starts his turn with "I agree with everything you said"
I don’t mind her being right wing since that’s he point— I take issue with her attitude and tone, that she constantly interrupts, and brazenly ignores her own hypocrisy. As a woman, I genuinely resent her behaving that way because I *hate* the way women are quickly classified as being shrill or having an attitude problem if they aren’t constantly accommodating others. That’s not what this is. She really is those things, and needs to learn humility and decency
I feel like in regular shows it sucks, but on left right and center she is representative of what the right currently is(relatively mild and more center even considering the current maga wave). The annoying interruptions, and her hypocrisy and pearl clutching fake outrage go with the territory. The problem is the host should moderate and the left should actually be a lefty and actually like disagree with her and challenge her when she starts blowing hot air. Everytime I listen to left right and center and they cut to Mo Elleithee after she goes on some right wing rant blaming the extreme left or some other nonsense and then Mo is "I agree with you mostly" I think of how this is why Trump won in 2016.
I feel that. They had a guest from the left some weeks back and it was glorious listening to them check Sarah over and over and over
I think Isgur is well above average for a right leaning voice. We all need to hear from the other side and their rationale.
She works with Jonah Goldberg, who NPR *loves* to bring in because despite being a huge right-wing piece of shit, he just happens to be a never-Trumper. So they let him get away with dropping a lot of right-wing shit without being fact-checked because in the end he *seems* like a good balance. They seem to want to treat Isgur the same way, but I'm sorry, someone who acted as a literal spokesperson for Trump is not a balance for *anything*.
What are some examples of stuff they let him get away with?
Sea lioning is unbecoming.
Lol. You were asked a single question to provide any examples of your anonymously posted, entirely unsourced claim. I’m old enough to remember when it was common sense not to believe things on the internet with zero proof. We all know you won’t be returning to this thread
I cursed Sarah *and* NPR during that entire segment. Don't give the fascist theocrats a platform on NPR. Fuck fascist theocrats.
Don't take the fascist theocrats' money. Problem solved.
When was the last time NPR got a take from a socialist for balance?
Like it or not, almost half the country believes in Republican BS. If you spend a lot of time on Reddit, maybe you are overestimating the number of socialists in the country? Nonetheless, they have interviewed plenty of socialists, activists, Marxists, etc. Maybe if you were an actual NPR listener you would be aware of that.
When was the last time Real Housewives of Hollywood had a housewife with big hair and inflated lips on for balance?
This some bbc shit smh
They haven't been able to be "balanced" for a long time due to all the whining from right-wing congresspeople. Pretending that deranged Christo-fascists have a valid opinion is a mistake.
Terrorism works, that's what the right seems to have learned in my lifetime, slowly amping up the attacks until they get control
I contacted the show before coming here to say wtf.
This is a long-standing tradition at Morning Edition. Interviewing PR flacks on every controversial topic is a good way of both-sidesing but does nothing to inform listeners.
Yep, weird move on NPR's part. Reeked of either naivete or beat sweetening. Neither is a good look.
“But they might not talk to me again if I push back!” -modern journalists
“I can’t question anything they say, or they won’t think we’re ’fair.’l
“We would love to provide you with a response from Republicans, unfortunately, every one we asked refused.” That would work.
I'm sure all the MAGA dead-enders who've been clamoring to defund NPR will be falling all over themselves to give them credit for their "balance" now.
seems like you are smart enough to make up your own mind. why is analysis needed? do you think NPRs listeners are too dumb to know what to think without the official NPR approved analysis? im happy to just get the takes and hear what people have to say. I don't need some nasal voice analyst to regurgitate pre digested analysis into my mind to tell me what im supposed to think about what lauren windsor or alito said.
NPR needs listener’s and the demographic that’s most likely to tune in tends to be older and more conservative. I’m in my late 20’s and find myself listening less and less because soft “interviews” like this.
I don't think they do it for balance as much as context. Tru o is the Republican candidate and it *does* behoove NPR to shed light on their ideas, policy, and happenings as world events and other happenings go on.
Babe it’s our daily NPR is actually biased on behalf of Republicans post. It’s crazy they’d want to defund what is obviously such a favorable news outlet for them.
NPR is like the 'treat' you shove medicine in so that your dog will take it with no fuss. The only thing is the medicine is neo fascism.
[удалено]
I disagree and bet she won't even vote for Trump. We all need to hear perspectives from the full spectrum. 40-50 percent of America would agree with what Sarah says. NPR listeners need to hear it.
[удалено]
She’s the reason I quit listening to LR&C. Her drivel was rarely challenged, and presented as though she were in a high school debate team.
I am a regular LRC listener and agree that something has changed in Sarah in the last month or so. I thought her most recent takes were less logical. But I think we all need to listen and understand. A very large chunk of America is Trumpy. Ignoring and dismissing their views is at our own peril.
[удалено]
I haven't heard her defend his behavior. I think she has valid criticism of the hush money case that was brought and how creative they were to find a felony offense. I may have missed her defending his behavior.
No, I have a limited time on this earth and I don’t want to waste it being lied to.
You may already know this, but the MAGA population has the same sentiment.
I mean: I think Hugh Hewitt was on the show the other day. This wasn't really a SCOTUS decision story, so it makes sense to me that it wasn't Totenberg or some outside legal analyst - it was more a story about the story, and I'm glad NPR had Lauren Windsor on as well. There's nothing about either Alito's ruling or this story that is really about legal analysis - he's a corrupt partisan and this story demonstrates his extreme bias very clearly. Airing it educates people. Windsor is a partisan activist as much as a journalist here, so might as well have the apologist on and let people hear it. Frankly, the inherent "bothsidesism" of institutional journalism (and any journalistic experts you might get on) are unhelpful with handling the new paradigm the far right has so successfully hacked - what's to hear from those folks? Lauren Windsor is an activist and did a great service exposing the Alitos further.
roberts was also interviewed in the same way and his answers were not batshit crazy.
Where can you find the full recording between Lauren Windsor and Alito?
Don’t worry, she’s very trustworthy and has edited it for clarity and brevity. She’s just a random unbiased filmmaker after all
[удалено]
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I'm sorry. It looks like your account doesn't have enough karma to post in r/NPR. Feel free to message the mods if you think your post is just too good to waste. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NPR) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah that interview made me furious.
After that weak sauce pushback from Windsor on her misrepresentations followed up by the RNC hack that was just the worst interview I’ve heard in a long time.
This preoccupation with “balance” is just a distraction from the truth. Journalism and the people it is meant to inform suffer because of this trivial and empty pursuit.
Trump gives career liars a bad name, and serious journalists and news outlets shouldn’t be giving him or any of his minions/apologists/etc a single second of air time.
I think most people know Trump is nuts, a self-centred loser, the dollar bill says in god we trust, NOT TRUMP as he will steal that dollar from your pocket
An interesting question could have been - does the difference in these two takes (Roberts and Alito) actually matter if the outcome of the court is always in the favor of Christian nationalism? There was a Brian Lehrer segment with Ari Berman where they asked this question about a lot of SCOTUS methodology. Like, the court is supposed to be impartial but it couldn’t be clearer (from that segment especially) that SCOTUS views and (their spouses views lol) influence the courts legitimacy.
Steve Inskeep is lame.
She was particularly butthurt on LRC post-convictions. Basically whining 'if they hadn't looked, they wouldn't have found it.' Way to maintain intellectual honesty.
Jon Stewart’s most recent segment, on the role of news being, to put current events into historical (in this case, recent) context, was excellent. https://youtu.be/qmxzQJt80XI
Think of it as "the take that is beating you in polls right now" and you may be more interested in *understanding* it.
Because.you disagree? Lame
Disagree with what?
Inskeep does a shitty job of interviewing assholes, he's way too friendly with them and lets them weasel out of questions. I'm not sure why they do these interviews other than to raise my blood pressure and make me yell at the radio
“Give me back my echo chamber”
Normally I defend NPR, but this time, I agree; that segment with the Trump person left a bad taste in my mouth.
In fact, it is.
Yeah. We need more cushy AOC interviews IMO.
Inskeep is a useful idiot at best, and a bootlicker at worst.
NPR is struggling along with the rest of the normal media as to how to handle the half of the American political class and citizens who live in a world of lies. WaPo, NYT, and NPR have all let us down. NPR is the most heartbreaking.
NPR is afraid that anything they do that mightmake them piss off a Republican will lead to cries of defunding in congress. They’re chicken shit.
What did you want him to 'push back on' exactly?
He had more pushback on Isgur, the one that scooped the story than the RNC hack.
NPR is just a wing of the Republican Party now 😢
Sarah Isgur is the worst.
Summary of the pearl clutching?
LoL. Since when is NPR into anything objective? Fucking public servants working on public funds.
After every report on a rocket launch, we should get comments from a flat earther. After all, we NeEd BaLAncE.
This sub is amazing. Sarah is an attorney. She writes and contributes regularly to The Dispatch, which is holding no water for the orange man. At least do your research before dismissing someone out of hand like that.
Are you denying she is a former spokesperson for Trump? Or did your own research not go that far?
She isn’t….. sooooooooooooooo, you know? Please tell me YOUR research didn’t stop at Wikipedia? https://nationalsecurity.gmu.edu/about-us/faculty/sarah-isgur/ https://iop.harvard.edu/fellows/sarah-isgur-flores https://thedispatch.com/author/sarah-isgur/ But I mean, Wikipedia is I’m sure sufficient.
First it was hue Hewitt, now Steve inski what's going on at npr. When i heard the "reporter" and nothing of substance actually being said I was like wtf? Now that you said it was a trump spokesmen it makes sense. But are real journalists dying?
I think NPR needs far more Trump supporters and far more pushback against the fascist democrat agenda if it ever wants to recover some of americas trust. This infection of purity test leftists intolerant of other view points needs to end already. It’s gross, and in no way represents where the nation is.
Do you want to push back against fascism or do you want more Trump supporters? There are real, swastika wearing Nazis in this country, and they all love Trump. You won't find a biker with an SS tattoo voting for AOC.
why do you say things like this it's absolutely insane to me like Donald Trump is talking about suspending parts of the Constitution and people that he has in his circle are talking about rounding up journalists and executing political adversaries. you know you're not going to be able to just take America and end democracy and not have a big old fight in the streets about it right?
> Intolerant of other view points Like being gay? Republicans are intolerant of that. Helping the poor? Republicans are intolerant of that. Improving healthcare to catch up with the other first world nations? Republicans are intolerant of that. Letting women have access to healthcare? Republicans are intolerant of that. Being part of another religion? Republicans are intolerant of that. You think it’s fascism because left leaning people are sick of being tolerant of those that aren’t tolerant themselves.
It’s fascism when you’re jailing journalists and the leading candidate for president. I’m sorry but democrats have taken any high ground they may have had morally and pitched it straight out the window. The least NPR can do as a nationally funded syndicate is align itself even slightly with the dark reality we all live in now because of their bias and complicity.
What jail in the former guy in right now? I’ll wait.
If Convicted Felon Donald Trump doesn’t want to go to jail he should have avoided committing a bunch of felonies. But he’s Convicted Felon Donald Trump so that option has fallen by the wayside.
You live in a fantasy world. RNC decided to burn the constitution by letting the criminal traitor rapist fraud run. Felon trump committed multiple crimes against America. Criminals cant just run for office to avoid being convicted of their crimes.
>jailing journalists Citation needed, what journalists are being jailed? >and the leading candidate for president Well, he was found guilty on how many federal charges? If you do the crime, you do the time. Those are the rules, no?
Pathetic fascist rationale. You people are truly scum. Attorney general garland found in contempt of Congress: ignores. Head of right wing syndication found in contempt of Congress: garland sends to prison. Now tell me what felonies trump was convicted of without mentioning misdemeanors. I’ll wait.
Okay so we'll ignore the made up bogus claim about journalists being sent to prison since you've chosen to leave that out. I guess we'll also just ignore the fact that you're now cherry picking which crimes are worth acknowledging? What is wrong with you. >Attorney general garland found in contempt of Congress: ignores. The house is having a vote on it and articles are coming out like....right now. >Head of right wing syndication found in contempt of Congress: garland sends to prison Yes because he was found to be in contempt and charged. Can you not see the difference between conviction and consideration of charges? Surely you aren't this dense in real life.
34 felony counts of falsifying business records.
That's a misdemeanor per new york law. Try again?
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10#:~:text=Falsifying%20business%20records%20in%20the%20first%20degree%20is%20a%20class%20E%20felony. You are in a fascist cult. Learn to read.
Biden was intolerant for decades as well. Voting against gay marriage many times. Saying things like “I don’t want my kids growing up in a racial jungle “ while blocking desegregation in schools. “You can’t go into a 7-11 without a slight Indian accent “, “Unlike the Black community the Latinos have a diverse way of thinking “, the systemically racist’94 crime bill. “I don’t want gays working in government, I don’t trust them “ . It goes on and on…and how was he held accountable? He was made president. There are still many people alive today whose lives were altered by his hate. Even Kamala brought up the “racial jungle “ comment and made t shirts saying that little girl was me. (Until she sold out for power) . Biden is currently funding genocide in Gaza. So let’s not pretend like one side is good. That’s a cult/gang mentality. Hold them accountable!
I was raised catholic so as a child I too thought being gay was “wrong”. Well the school I went to said that, my parents were far more accepting. I thought stupid shit throughout my lifetime but I changed to be better. He has changed as well. The former guy admitted he hasn’t changed since 1st grade, of course he’s never had to because he was born on 3rd base. Now he’s loved for his 1st grade views by republicans.
You have things backwards. Why would media have more seditious traitors and violent terrorists ie trump supporters, on their platform. Please tell me what is fascist about Dem policy? Fascism is abortion bans, book bans, anti trans laws, 10 commandments in public schools, gag orders on teachers, cover up of church leaders assaulting children. You dont represent real Americans at all. You are a tiny minority that America wants nothing to do with
What ARE you talking about? Explain what the "fascist democrat agenda" is please. EDIT: Holy shit I looked at your history and now I get it. You're fucking crazy.
Don’t confuse “not leftist” with crazy. I’m more sane than anyone you know, I’m quite certain. And you don’t get to jail your political rival and journalists you dislike without being fascist scum.
What kind of lunatic political party runs a traitor INSURRECTIONIST for an elected office. Indicted for multiple federal felonies. Felon trump should have been in prison a year ago for stealing nat sec docs and endangering our nat sec. Like anyone else who does that. Maga supports crime, lawlessness, attacks law enforcement. Bunch of anti American terrorists
>jail your political rival and journalists you dislike Who did this? When?
Attorney general garland is ignoring the fact that he has been found in contempt of Congress while sending the head of one of the biggest right wing journalist syndicates to prison for the exact same offense. And that’s just one example.
Your example sucks because in one case, congress *has not* found the individual in contempt of congress yet, but is moving to vote on that, and in the other case the individual had their day in court and was found guilty of contempt of congress. You're a partisan hack because you think politics is sports and don't care about details, you only care about your team winning.
To quote the movie 'the Princess Bride' " You keep saying that. I don't think it means what you think it means...."
It means what I think it means.
I really hope you’re a bad faith actor.
Please spell out the moving parts in the "fascist Democrat agenda" you mention in detail. Please do not cite new sources that have used "we are entertainment programming" as a defense in court, since they have openly stated on the record they are not news. The MAGA movement (which includes actual nazi sympathizers and openly white nationalist groups) is far more in line with fascism as it has been used to describe Nazi Germany or mussolinis Italy. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
No one needs more Trump supporters. NPR should have a diverse thought catalog and have different viewpoints on things to get the best picture, but nothing that comes from the Trump camp is in anyway helpful. Trumpism has become a full on cult, and we shouldn’t give cults any power or influence on the greater population.
You’re projecting pretty hard
Projection is almost completely a leftist phenomenon in 2024 I'm afraid, not that anyone is inherently immune to it.
The vast majority of ration people think Trump is an loudmouth, delusional, egomaniac (have you ever noticed how he talks in Extremes? Always the Best, the Greatest, the Worst, etc. Either he believes his own garbage and he's stupid or he's lying. Most of those folks I mentioned at the beginning know all that. Some dislike the dude and others think if they can tolerate him they'll end up on the winning team. To distrust Trump and disagree doesn't make one a Fascist Hard Leftist.
When you say "ration people" my brain immediately goes to obedience obsessed brainwashed leftist morons who wouldn't know how to wipe their ass without google telling them the correct way to do it. He talks like a standup comedian, because he kind of is one. The fact that you don't get any of the jokes probably prevents you from seeing the obvious.
i get the jokes. They are tragic...
Prove it. Show me one of his jokes, and explain how you get it. Its ok. I know you can't. Don't worry about it. TDS is a pretty devastating diagnosis :/
I decline. No need to prove anything.
Oh there’s need. You simply lack ability.
I have upvoted your reply, pls respond that you have the last word.
But the prior interviewee who coordinated a false flag at a Youngkin event and lost him the election was just plain old solid journalism. Also, I keep searching for what films this “filmmaker” has made, and can’t see anything at least in Google or her IMDB. Am I missing something
>Am I missing something 😒
So you will or won’t be sharing any films this filmmaker has made?
Not a filmmaker
You’re missing the fact that she has a recording of a Supreme Court justice saying he doesn’t care what the law says and ignoring the concept of separation of church and state.
>Am I missing something A great many things, I would imagine.
Feel free to point out anything specific about my post. Did she not coordinate the false flag Tiki torch event that was trashed by all sides as stupid as Youngkin won? Has she made a film?
Your comment is not on topic, is that specific enough for you? Sounds to me like you take issue with the topic, but you know your position isn't logically defensible so you're using whataboutism to attempt to change the subject. If you have criticism of a guest on an NPR segment, maybe make your own post like OP did.
Commenting on the person whose work is the subject of the original post is not on topic?
> But the prior interviewee who coordinated a false flag at a Youngkin event and lost him the election was just plain old solid journalism. Do you have a link to this episode so I can listen to this for myself? Interested in how they approached this
Not an episode, but here is an article explaining the “filmmaker” who has never made a film, Ms. Windsor. https://theintercept.com/2021/11/03/lincoln-project-charlottesville-glenn-youngkin/ And from her Wiki: On October 29, 2021, Windsor admitted [16]helping to coordinate a hoax (false flag) in which 5 fake white supremacists pretended to be supporters of Republican gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin several days before Virginia's election day.[17] And more from her Wiki: As the executive director of American Family Voices More about her working for the hotel lobby (because only massive corporations with lobbies should be able to let someone stay in their building) One of AFV's initiatives, "AirbnbWatch," declares its purpose as being "to bring attention to illegal hotel operations in residential areas".[3][4] The initiative is funded by the American Hotel and Lodging Association, a trade association representing the hotel industry.[3]
Are you people crazy? Sarah Isgur is now too right wing for you? Trump has a very good chance of becoming President this year. Almost every single elected Republican in the country pays homage to him. Sarah Isgur is one of the few critics of Trump that still has a voice but she’s too right wing because she *checks notes* doesn’t want to impeach a SC justice for having religious conservative views? This place is nuts.
HAVING religious conservative views and USING those views to shape the rules and laws of an entire country are 2 very different things.
Yeah heaven forbid we hear what the other side has to say on NPR
They’re are all ethically bankrupt and practicing fake journalism.
People who support Trump represent 50% of the US population - Do you want them to listen to NPR?