Biased terminology on KTRH

[radiofan2023]

Driving back through Houston this afternoon, I tried getting weather and traffic reports from KTRH. It turns out that, in my opinion, KTRH does a bad job with those service elements. Traffic reports were skimpy and did not cover much at all; the weather forecast was brief and only covered the afternoon and not what was forecast for the evening. I believe the root cause is that not enough time is allotted to those service elements when you take into consideration the market. I expected better, but probably shouldn't have, considering everything else.

"There are hordes of cars on the Katy Freeway..."

 

[Deleted member 108832]

"All driving out to Katy to avoid paying those gaudy big city sticker prices!"

🎶 Westside Chevrolet, Katy Freeway, Peek Road exit, Hous-ton. 🎶

 

[davideduardo]

"All driving out to Katy...

Now known as Katyzuela.

 

[ThatVoice22]

I've worked with both journalists and commentators. The latter group give opinions. The former does not.

That's in a perfect world that does not exist. Journalists are just as prone to assert opinions as commentators.
The New York Times claims to be journalism - and we know what a lie that has become. Same for NPR and a long list of others that pretend to produce unbiased journalism.
There is no difference between writing in a journal and commenting in media. Both are subject to spouting slanted opinions.

 

[TheBigA]

There is no difference between writing in a journal and commenting in media. Both are subject to spouting slanted opinions.

The difference is that there is an editorial process in journalism, where an article is evaluated by editors, who send it back to the writer for updates and improvements, asking questions that the writer might not have asked. That editorial process doesn't exist in a lot of places (like message boards), so opinions go out without any evaluation for whether or not its slanted.

 

[TheBigA]

In a nutshell, he acknowledges and outs pervasive political bias at NPR, much of which manifests as the news they don't report - bias by omission.

It sounds like you just read the headline, not the article. What you call "political bias" is what others call an attempt at diversity and inclusion. Because that policy is under attack, it's then called political bias. But they omit a lot fewer stories than other media organizations. Nobody is perfect. But the problem being discussed in this article is far worse at other places, because they don't have this kind of discussion. That was brought out during the Dominion lawsuit.

 

[2Speakers]

It sounds like you just read the headline, not the article. What you call "political bias" is what others call an attempt at diversity and inclusion. Because that policy is under attack, it's then called political bias. But they omit a lot fewer stories than other media organizations. Nobody is perfect. But the problem being discussed in this article is far worse at other places, because they don't have this kind of discussion. That was brought out during the Dominion lawsuit.

No, I read the entire article. Did you?

Among the gems in it:

The registered political party affiliation for the Washington D.C. newsroom is 87 Democrat, 0 Republican. (A fact that the author laments.)

He says they (NPR) "hitched our wagon to Trump’s most visible antagonist, Representative Adam Schiff" during the Russia collusion scandal, and they made zero efforts to walk back or correct their reporting after the Mueller report came out.

Likewise, he details their thought process behind ignoring the Hunter Biden laptop, which was driven by politics. He said "I listened as one of NPR’s best and most fair-minded journalists said it was good we weren’t following the laptop story because it could help Trump."

On COVID, he laments "Politics also intruded into NPR’s Covid coverage, most notably in reporting on the origin of the pandemic."

Then there's this: "There’s an unspoken consensus about the stories we should pursue and how they should be framed. It’s frictionless—one story after another about instances of supposed racism, transphobia, signs of the climate apocalypse, Israel doing something bad, and the dire threat of Republican policies. It’s almost like an assembly line."

These are the words of a senior editor at NPR, not mine.

No political bias? He outlines it numerous times in the article.

 

[gimmethemoldies]

First sign of the apocalypse: Houston RadioDiscussions not having pages-long political arguments on threads

 

[Mediafrog+]

First sign of the apocalypse: Houston RadioDiscussions not having pages-long political arguments on threads

I’m hoping for news on the 92.1 and 97.5 sale situations so we can have something else to talk about.

 

[2Speakers]

The difference is that there is an editorial process in journalism, where an article is evaluated by editors, who send it back to the writer for updates and improvements, asking questions that the writer might not have asked. That editorial process doesn't exist in a lot of places (like message boards), so opinions go out without any evaluation for whether or not its slanted.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the afternoon editor in one of the largest all-news radio newsrooms in the country makes this proclamation every time a Republican politician is being interviewed on Fox News:

"What's (insert name of Republican politician here) lying about on Fox News now?" He will then sometimes turn up the interview and watch it, then grouse about whatever was said afterward.

He does this in a loud, baritone voice where every news writer in the room can plainly hear him.

Now, let's assume you're a writer in that newsroom. Do you suppose the editor's hourly proclamations of his own political bias might cause you to slant your stories in a particular way?

I can't see how this practice could lend itself to fair, objective reporting on this station.

I had a front row seat to this show for about two weeks while performing technical upgrades for this station.

To be fair, I've spent quite a bit of time in other major market newsrooms, and haven't encountered anything even remotely like that, but seeing (and hearing) it first hand, repeatedly at this station was an eye opening experience for me.

 

[TheBigA]

The registered political party affiliation for the Washington D.C. newsroom is 87 Democrat, 0 Republican. (A fact that the author laments.)

I don't think it matters unless they let it matter. That's the same story for juries at trials. It doesn't matter what political party you're a member of. The question is will you let it affect your verdict. We all have our opinions. Targeting anyone for their political view is wrong, no matter what it is.

Likewise, he details their thought process behind ignoring the Hunter Biden laptop, which was driven by politics.

You're taking his POV on it. NPR took a lot of criticism about that when it happened, and they explained why then. How this editor missed that explanation says more about him than NPR. Then again, he's a business editor, not a politics editor, so he may have been out of the loop. That story happened during the Trump administration. They could have made it a bigger deal had they wanted to. But Bill Barr and others in the administration seemed to stay away from it. The NPR problem with the story was that it was an exclusive by the NY Post, and they didn't share the contents with other news organizations. Just Rudy Guiliani. Meanwhile there were a lot of people calling it Russian disinformation. That hurt any objectivity the story could have had. So they stayed away from it.

On COVID, he laments "Politics also intruded into NPR’s Covid coverage, most notably in reporting on the origin of the pandemic."

Covid itself was politicized and demonized by the right. It still is. To them, it didn't happen. I've never seen a pandemic turned into a political story but it did. Just mentioning the vaccine in anything but a negative way makes news organizations subject to that criticism. Yet the vaccine was released in a very non-political way, and should not have caused the issue it did other than a group had an agenda about it. I don't fault NPR's coverage of it one bit.

No political bias? He outlines it numerous times in the article.

Once again, NPR gets this criticism a lot. He talks about it as though it's a new thing. It's not. If you search the web, you'll find a lot of criticism about their coverage of Israel and the Middle East. One could easily criticize their coverage of abortion. The point is they give a broader view of these stories than you get at other news organizations. The one thing I agree with is the demographic has changed. People have become more isolated in their thinking than ever. I worked at the completely opposite kind of newsroom, run by Republicans. The only commentators they allowed were ones who supported their views. I didn't agree, and everyone there knew it. It didn't change how they presented the news.

 

[2Speakers]

I don't think it matters unless they let it matter.

The NPR senior editor's piece gives numerous examples of how NPR allowed it to matter. That's why he wrote what he wrote.

You're taking his POV on it.

I'm taking his POV because, like a good reporter, he backs his position up with facts and specific examples.

Covid itself was politicized and demonized by the right. It still is. To them, it didn't happen. I've never seen a pandemic turned into a political story but it did. Just mentioning the vaccine in anything but a negative way makes news organizations subject to that criticism. Yet the vaccine was released in a very non-political way, and should not have caused the issue it did other than a group had an agenda about it. I don't fault NPR's coverage of it one bit.

This entire paragraph is a red herring.

The NPR guy cites one specific example - NPR squashing any and all discussion of the lab leak theory. That's what's being discussed here, not your personal feelings and opinions about people with right of center political views.

Once again, NPR gets this criticism a lot. He talks about it as though it's a new thing. It's not. If you search the web, you'll find a lot of criticism about their coverage of Israel and the Middle East. One could easily criticize their coverage of abortion. The point is they give a broader view of these stories than you get at other news organizations.

Yes, NPR is criticized a lot. As far as it being a "new thing" he posits that it is, and backs that up with stats about how the NPR audience's political affiliations have shifted over the last decade and a half. That is the point of his piece - he is lamenting just how unbalanced and biased the reporting has become at NPR during his long tenure there. He has witnessed the shift firsthand, and has provided the insider information to back up his claims.

As for everything else you wrote here, it's more red herrings and your personal opinion. Lots of criticism of NPR on the web? It's not relevant in this discussion. We're talking about an NPR senior editor's criticism of the organization, which he backs with facts and specific examples. Your point that "they give a broader view of these stories" is contradicted by the NPR editor's claims and evidence.

Given a choice between your opinion and his facts, I think I'm going to side with the 25 year NPR veteran.

 

[TheBigA]

The NPR guy cites one specific example - NPR squashing any and all discussion of the lab leak theory.

The lab leak theory became a political football, especially in congress. At the time there was no verification. Just a lot of conjecture.

The question one needs to ask is how far NPR wants to get into presenting conspiracy theories. Some news organizations make that a central core of what they do.

We're talking about an NPR senior editor's criticism of the organization, which he backs with facts and specific examples.

What I was saying is the examples he gives have been discussed before. They aren't new. He presents examples that all prove his point. None that don't. So in effect, by exclusion, he's doing the same thing he criticizes.

With that in mind, here's NPR's response to the article:

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/09/1243755769/npr-journalist-uri-berliner-trust-diversity

 

[2Speakers]

With that in mind, here's NPR's response to the article:

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/09/1243755769/npr-journalist-uri-berliner-trust-diversity

Well, that's a lot of words to not actually refute what Berliner wrote, and many of them make me wonder about the reading comprehension skills of the editors at NPR.

Take this quote from a senior supervising editor for digital news at NPR:

"As a person of color who has often worked in newsrooms with little to no people who look like me, the efforts NPR has made to diversify its workforce and its sources are unique and appropriate given the news industry's long-standing lack of diversity," Alfonso says. "These efforts should be celebrated and not denigrated as Uri has done."

He entirely missed the point Berliner was making. Berliner wasn't criticizing NPR's efforts toward racial or ethnic diversity, he was very clearly criticizing their lack of ideological diversity.

If anything, this complete mischaracterization of what Berliner wrote reinforces the point of his article.

Berliner has clarified what should be obvious to anyone:

"I never criticized NPR's priority of achieving a more diverse workforce in terms of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation. I have not 'denigrated' NPR's newsroom diversity goals," Berliner said. "That's wrong."

 

[TheBigA]

Well, that's a lot of words to not actually refute what Berliner wrote,

Why do they need to refute the opinion of one of their employees? It's his view. He's entitled to it, don't you think?

Audacy fired one of their hosts because he criticized the company's bankruptcy in public. Is that what you think is proper here?

People have political views. That's a reality we live in. The fact that we can't talk about political issues without making accusations or getting angry is part of what we talked about at the start of this thread. A newscaster at KTRH started a story about immigration talking about "hordes of illegals." Was that appropriate? Was that unbiased reporting? Is anyone at KTRH asking serious questions about bias in their newsroom? If not, why not?

 

[2Speakers]

Why do they need to refute the opinion of one of their employees? It's his view.

I suppose they don't, but it's not much of a refutation of the Berliner piece. It's a lot of bloviating. It's lots of words where they disagree, but they don't actually say why they disagree, and then take what he wrote about diversity out of its plainly written context.

I'm fairly sure I addressed KTRH in my first comment. Nobody expects unbiased reporting from KRTH.

My point is the reporting on NPR, and KUHF by extension, was presented as unbiased, and the Berliner piece asserts that it is not.

 

[TheBigA]

My point is the reporting on NPR, and KUHF by extension, was presented as unbiased, and the Berliner piece asserts that it is not.

Depends on your definition of the word bias. Because he calls it bias by omission. Berliner is a business editor. I didn't see him say any business stories were biased. So does that mean their business coverage is unbiased?

 

[2Speakers]

Depends on your definition of the word bias. Because he calls it bias by omission. Berliner is a business editor. I didn't see him say any business stories were biased. So does that mean their business coverage is unbiased?

Yet another red herring.

Berliner has no business background that I can find. He has only worked as a reporter and editor for his entire career. The fact that he's now a business editor does not mean he is incapable of or unqualified to report on other issues, including those he has observed at NPR. He has reported on a wide variety of non-business subjects in the past.

Per his bio on the NPR website:

"Berliner joined NPR after more than a decade as a print newspaper reporter in California where he covered scams, gangs, military issues, and the border. As a newspaper reporter, his feature writing and investigative reporting earned numerous awards."

If I had to make a wild, purely speculative guess as to why he chose the stories he chose, he commented on the biggest ones that NPR has whiffed in recent years, because of the unbalanced political ideology he claims exists within the organization. If one of their biggest misses was a business story, I suspect he would have included it. The fact that he didn't include any mishandled stories about business is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[TheBigA]

Yet another red herring.

Berliner has no business background that I can find. He has only worked as a reporter and editor for his entire career. The fact that he's now a business editor does not mean he is incapable of or unqualified to report on other issues, including those he has observed at NPR. He has reported on a wide variety of non-business subjects in the past.

That ignored my question: Is there bias in their business reporting? See below.

If I had to make a wild, purely speculative guess as to why he chose the stories he chose, he commented on the biggest ones that NPR has whiffed in recent years,

But as I said, they all prove his point. He's not impartial or unbiased. He ignores the context of those stories and why the decisions were made. Truthfully, he didn't have to work there to bring them up. They've been brought up by others who don't work there. They've all been addressed previously.

If one of their biggest misses was a business story, I suspect he would have included it. The fact that he didn't include any mishandled stories about business is irrelevant to this discussion.

Not necessarily, because then he'd be admitting his own personal bias. It's much easier to claim bias by others than to admit it oneself.

 

[2Speakers]

That ignored my question: Is there bias in their business reporting? See below.

I'm not going to waste time on red herrings.

I don't follow NPR for business news, and I'm not going to research their objectivity or lack of it when it comes to business reporting to validate your distraction tactic.