In other words you believe what you want to believe, and ignore anything that might question that.
I understand. No problem. Keep up the good work.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Biased terminology on KTRH
- Thread starter Mark Roberts
- Start date
- Status
In other words you believe what you want to believe, and ignore anything that might question that.
I understand. No problem. Keep up the good work.
Not quite.
I'm just saying you keep injecting distracting, off-topic questions and statements into this discussion, and I'm not going to waste time on your nonsense.
You seem to be trying to question Berliner's credentials, since his piece doesn't fit with your view of NPR overall. I'm discussing what's presented in the article he wrote, and in the NPR response, which actually fails to address the concerns he cited.
It's not my job to research his business reporting at NPR, and evaluate it for bias. That's your job if you want to drag off-topic distractions into the discussion.
Nothing I said is off topic. It just doesn't fit your view of NPR. You agree with what he wrote, and anything that questions it is off topic. He's just putting his views out there, and we all have a right to question them.
The bias, or lack of it in the business reporting on NPR that he oversees is off-topic.
If it's not, tie it in for us. Explain what your own research on this topic indicates. If there's something actually relevant to the discussion there, show us what it is.
If you lived in the area within a hundred or so miles of the border (as I also do) you would be concerned about the economic effect, the non-vetted nature of nearly all border crossers, the increase in crime, the increase in wild "escape if you can" driving, and the general fear of people who's very identity and origins are untraceable.
So, in that environment, "hordes of illegals" expresses very well the concern we have when out driving, seeing odd behaviours in shopping area parking lots, reading our daily police reports and noting the increase in thefts and assaults.
Now you're the one who's taking us off topic. I just asked why he didn't cover business topics in his article.
But is it factual or offensive? That was the question you yourself asked.
And I didn't answer, because it's irrelevant.
He made his point. He backed his point with facts. The fact that he didn't cover subjects irrelevant to the point he was discussing doesn't bother me.
He also didn't talk about dogs, cats, what kind of oatmeal is best, or any of the other million or so irrelevant topics he could have thrown in.
And I think that we have gotten, 128 messages later, to the point where there is some agreement that each partisan group has its own acceptable terminology.
To me (and to my former Univision TV news anchor and national radio personalty partner) the term "hordes of illegals" represents factually what we are witnessing in our own little metro area.
KTRH; "This is just elitist cyclists spreading their left wing propaganda!"
KUHF; "BLM! Bike Lives Matter!"
KTRH; "Deport those savage cyclists back to those communist velodrome sh*tholes!"
KUHF; "Stop putting children in cages with four wheels!" (Biker slang for cars)
-------
Here is a meme that encapsulates this thread!
But he was SELECTIVE with his facts and he eliminated any context from them in order to prove a point.
That kind of BIAS BY OMISSION is what he accused NPR of doing. That's MY point.
You're telling me there are hordes of illegals in Palm Springs?
Berliner provided the context for NPR's erroneous decisions in each case.
Bias by omission occurs when the facts are known, but not reported by a particular outlet because they don't fit the narrative.
Has NPR been accused of bias omission with regard to the business stories Berliner oversees for them?
The examples he cited are well known cases which would have been politically damaging to liberals or liberal causes.
Do you have any examples of his business reporting which fits the type of bias he's describing?
If you can't cite any, you don't have much of a point.
But were they true? Or just damaging to liberals? NPR directly responded to criticism of their lack of coverage about the Hunter laptop story at the time. Four years later, we can all see what a red herring it was, because there was no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden. If there was, we'd know by now. Guiliani pushed this story because it was potentially damaging, which was what he was after. Had there been an actual story of wrongdoing, they would have covered it.
I don't understand why you keep bringing this up. The only reason I mentioned it was as an example of stories he has direct knowledge of. The other stories were overseen by other editors. So he doesn't really have first-hand knowledge. As I said, he's just repeating stories that others have already brought up. They're just his opinions.
Last edited:
What's the definition of "far left"? I don't hear anyone calling for the confiscation of private property. Thinking Americans shouldn't go bankrupt from medical bills? Count me "far left".
In far-off Tennessee, we're being told we're being overrun by hordes of illegals, however I don't see any more Hispanics than I ever have. It's meant to inflame racial fears.
You don't see hordes of illegals throwing chairs from rooftop bars!
I haven't listened to enough right-wing news to know if it's standard practice to refer to "President Trump" as though he were the current President, and "Biden" as though he were not, as most MAGA politicians and personalities do.
This might be helpful to the discussion. Our Trump reporting upsets some readers, but there aren’t two sides to facts: Letter from the Editor
This might be helpful to the discussion. Our Trump reporting upsets some readers, but there aren’t two sides to facts: Letter from the Editor
Last edited:
You can talk about how bad the KILT and KPRC signals have become in Galveston now that they've diplexed onto other stations' arrays.
In the metro, yes. Indio, Thermal, Coachella are so filled that the largest local food bank ran a special fund raiser last Friday because they can't keep up. One local source estimated that there were as many as 20,000 new "residents" and that would be a full 5% increase in population in the last year.
Naturally, we can't tell who is legal and who is not by sight. But when you have a huge increase in population for no other apparent reason, it's not hard to make a conclusion.
The market is 54% Hispanic to begin with, and many new arrivals have friends, family or contacts here. And the agricultural industry is notorious for not checking "papers" for farm workers. The farmland that extends down as far as Calexico begins a mile or two from where I live.
- Status