I used to like NPR a lot. I listened every single day on the way to work and back home. It seemed around 2013 or so the agenda became far less neutral and far more one-sided.
I haven't really found a source that is truly neutral. Reuters does an okay job and that's about it. Journalism is more-or-less dead in the era of eyeballs.
There is no such thing as a neutral news source. The act of editing a publication necessarily requires you to choose which stories you publish and whose viewpoints you leave out.
Furthermore, most folks don't really want a neutral news outlet - do I want to see equal time given to white supremacists and Black civil rights leaders? No, I'm just not interested in any "neutral" discussion of human rights. I don't want to read or listen to nationalists, incels, or whoever offering up opinions on the "great replacement theory" or whatever.
> No, I'm just not interested in any "neutral" discussion of human rights. I don't want to read or listen to nationalists, incels, or whoever offering up opinions on the "great replacement theory" or whatever.
You pick an extreme example to make the same point anyone says about "free speech". I do find it funny that you left out the other side of the extreme. I am equally uninterested in listening to climate extremists who spray oil on businesses, rioters, antifa, anti-gunners, etc. Turns out, the extremes don't groove well with journalistic integrity because they don't believe in truth anyway. In fact, many of these extremes are created by the exact "journalism" we are complaining about here.
I do want neutrality in the truest sense. If news could be a list of facts derived by good journalism with sources, interviews, etc then I would be content. I don't want spin, I don't want an editorial disguised as a front page article. I want a person with a mundane droning monotone voice to tell me what happened, read off the interviews, and then close out the show. I want a set of facts that I can then derive my own conclusion from. This leaping off point would let me take this to my friends or family and have a meaningful discussion on what they think, or how it effects people, etc. Instead everything is an emergency. Everything is extreme. Every news outlet on whatever side you believe is telling you what to think, not what happened. You can't even listen to the big 3 news outlets in America, average their opinions, and end up anywhere closer to the truth. Coincidentally, this is the same problem with so-called "fact checkers", which is just a clever rebranding of yellow journalism, where the "fact check" is just a re-link to another disguised editorial or speculation on the meaning of something with enough filler to feel "truthy".
Ah yes, the false equivalence of “I just want a news source that actually critically evaluates what leftist politicians in power say” with “I wish they would bring Hitler back”.
> There is no such thing as a neutral news source.
No there isn’t, but there are news sources that try to be critical of the points they normally support and don’t let people get away with bullshit for “the greater good”.
NPR (KQED in particular in the Bay Area) just went batshit after 2016. No more news, just wild conspiracy sessions about Trump nuking countries, etc. It was no longer about events, it was about how every presidential tweet made the hosts and guests feel.
There are very few leftist politicians in power, and nearly zero in the US. Kshama Sawant, for sure. And who else? Maaaaaybe AOC and the "progressive caucus"?
If your definition of “leftist” doesn’t include anyone considered “leftist” in the US Zeitgeist, then there really isn’t a point in having a conversation here because you’re just pointlessly getting hung up on irrelevant details.
Replace “leftist” in what I said with “elected under association with the Democratic Party in California”.
Language is important. There's a clear distinction between the left, leftists, and the Democratic party.
We often call the Democratic party the left, but they are not a leftist party. (In fact they are a pretty bog standard centrist party these days).
Just like the right isn't some monoculture, the left has pretty important sub groups. Leftist typically implies socialist, anarchist, maybe social democrats, communists, etc.
I'm not confused. Calling them the left and calling them leftist are different. One can be "left" of the GOP, and not be a leftist. Just like one can be "right" of the DSA and not be an arch conservative.
Neither the left nor the right are monocultures, and they do not hold consistent views. The world is more complicated than that. I'm a socialist who hates plenty of leftists and can hang with some right wingers because I don't write off anyone right of me as a "right wing nut job" or whatever.
You also seem really bothered by this. I'm not sure what's got you so upset. I just don't see the world as black and white as you do, we can say "agree to disagree" whenever if this conversation is making you angry.
I haven't really found a source that is truly neutral. Reuters does an okay job and that's about it. Journalism is more-or-less dead in the era of eyeballs.