I have listened to dozens of stories on climate change, pollution, etc. over the years. I mean look up “NPR fossil fuels” and you’ll see pages upon pages of critical, factual reporting. I’m not sure they’re beholden to the fossil fuel industry - have any more info?
Sure they cover climate change, just like other commercial outlets – but the coverage is extremely milquetoast (“stressed about climate change? Write a letter to the Earth!”). That is what their sponsorship dollars are buying.
And in matters of foreign policy especially, public broadcasting has been extremely supportive of military mis-adventures in oil-rich countries. NPR lost a lot of support among totebaggers over their Iraq war coverage.
It’s not the understood perspective. Its the descriptions. Their subtext is always “it’s fine, let them [insert horror action here]”
So they’ll say “Critics say climate nearing point-of-no-return”.
I actually remember the first time I ever heard the news refer to “an environmentalist”. Like - . . . We all live in the environment, so why single out people for . . why are they singling them out?
I mean, I agree that it’s stupid to not be an environmentalist, but it sounds like you’re criticizing NPR for correctly using the english language and adhering to journalistic practices
Im not old enough to remember any reporting at the time, but I have found NPR to be one of the best mainstream sources of news. These critiques are valid, but feel the typical leftist purity test
A lot of funding is from the fossil fuel industry (some call it National Petroleum Radio).
I have listened to dozens of stories on climate change, pollution, etc. over the years. I mean look up “NPR fossil fuels” and you’ll see pages upon pages of critical, factual reporting. I’m not sure they’re beholden to the fossil fuel industry - have any more info?
Sure they cover climate change, just like other commercial outlets – but the coverage is extremely milquetoast (“stressed about climate change? Write a letter to the Earth!”). That is what their sponsorship dollars are buying.
And in matters of foreign policy especially, public broadcasting has been extremely supportive of military mis-adventures in oil-rich countries. NPR lost a lot of support among totebaggers over their Iraq war coverage.
It’s not the understood perspective. Its the descriptions. Their subtext is always “it’s fine, let them [insert horror action here]”
So they’ll say “Critics say climate nearing point-of-no-return”.
I actually remember the first time I ever heard the news refer to “an environmentalist”. Like - . . . We all live in the environment, so why single out people for . . why are they singling them out?
NPR is highly critical of [insert atrocity here]. I doubt you can find an example where they’re not.
That’s just how headlines work. “Experts say X,” “Politician says Y” – that’s inoffensive.
Environmentalist is a well-understood term with meaning. There are people who are not environmentalists. Yeah it is ridiculous that anyone isn’t
Everyone was an environmentalist until they coined the term.
They could have coined something to mean anti-environment before that but they didn’t. I wonder why.
(Not that NPR coined it. That’s too bold for them)
I mean, I agree that it’s stupid to not be an environmentalist, but it sounds like you’re criticizing NPR for correctly using the english language and adhering to journalistic practices
The way they do those things is, to the point, centrist at best.
Not once did they run a report about “enhanced interrogation” using the actual word for what it is. Not once.
So, I left.
Eh? https://www.npr.org/2023/03/21/1164916991/looking-back-on-shocking-revelations-u-s-forces-tortured-iraqis-at-abu-ghraib
Im not old enough to remember any reporting at the time, but I have found NPR to be one of the best mainstream sources of news. These critiques are valid, but feel the typical leftist purity test
Oh in 2023? Well that’s useful.