Has NPR lost America’s trust?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
+1000. This is how I think as well. I used to love listening to NPR. Now, it’s about very left leaning politics and it turns me off to hear victimization all of the time. |
Anonymous
This is how I began feeling about NPR upwards of ten years ago. It was what you describe and also never ending migrant sob stories and white people are racist nonsense to browbeat flooding the West with migrants. All. Day. Every. Single. Day. |
Anonymous
The Republican Party is subverted controlled opposition. It’s a joke. Decent people are Conservative, but that is not the synonymous with the neocon GOP. So find Conservatives to hire, not more neocon Democrats pretending to be on the “red team.” 
|
Anonymous
DP. I love the left leaning politics and I'm here for supporting immigrants. I'm just tired of being told I suck because I'm white (I'm female, so I guess maybe that's mitigating), or that some things should be dismissed out of hand simply because they're part of the western canon or just because some white man came up with them (see the Katherine Maher video somebody above linked to). |
Anonymous
+1. NPR absolutely doesn't need elite MAGAs pandering to the low-info MAGA base. And that's not just because the MAGA base is never going to tune in anyway. NPR could do with a dose of real Republicans who are more about their social and economic values (even though I disagree with most of those values) and less about abortion or racism masquerading as criminal justice and immigration policy. As pp says, not more centrists pretending to be conservative. |
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
It’s hard to give examples of why I don’t trust Wikipedia because I feel like a lot of the issues are with having information missing. I feel like the editors are very selective on information they choose to add. So whereas I used to trust Wikipedia to give a fulsome picture of a topic, I now don’t. The information that is permitted is probably accurate and usually cited, but you can’t trust that all important or relevant information is provided. |
Anonymous
|
I’m truly confused about her blathering on Wikipedia. If she disagreed with the basic premise of Wikipedia, which indeed is compiling articles that are supported by record written evidence, why did she take the job? If she’s talking about specific things like encouraging more articles about a wider diversity of topics, or getting more female editors, ok fine. But why undermine the entire premise of Wikipedia? We have DCUM where everyone can just state their truth! |
Anonymous
the Talk page should include any debates |
Anonymous
Pp here and thanks for this. I don’t really disagree, although my take is a little different. As a user not an Wikipedia editor, I’ve edited Wikipedia pages myself for topics I have a national expertise. In the past I’ve removed right-wing garbage about a topic, and added what I hope are neutral stats. Then whoever at a right wing think tank tries to put their stuff back in and I take it out again. So there’s potential political bias depending on whose edits are more recent. |
Anonymous
Anonymous
He’s right. |