I was listening to National Public Radio a couple of mornings ago, when I realized that it’s pretty simple to ascertain what a “news” organization’s bias is. The show was NPR’s morning fake news program called, “Morning Edition.”
The NPR host was interviewing Senator Democrat Debbie Stabenow of Michigan on the topic of the Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination, and then let her simply spout talking points, never challenging a single one.
Republicans come on, and they also give out talking points, each of which meets with some kind of a challenge from the host. That’s would be just fine, if the same were true of Democrat talking points.
Here’s what I heard this time on NPR: Stabenow said that a Supreme Court nominee should meet a 60 vote threshold to be on the court, because, she said, that would ensure that we get “mainstream justices” — justices who meet with the approval of a super-majority — 60 votes out of 100 — of Senators.
That logic seems defensible on the surface, but the NPR host let pass a really obvious piece of evidence that completely demolishes the thought: there are no fewer than four Supreme Court members — Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg — who all vote absolutely, lock-step — nearly no exceptions ever — for whatever political outcome the American Left favors. You don’t even have to try the case … you know well in advance how these four will vote.
All four hard-leftist members of the Supreme Court passed through the Senate, with huge super-majorities, and nearly no fuss from Senate Republicans. To pretend that those four are in any way “mainstream” is to say that the word is synonymous with “mindless, lock-step, ovine leftist.”
So, why didn’t the NPR host push back? Simple: NPR is never inclined to question/challenge leftist talking points… because of their bias. And that is how you can determine the bias of a so-called “news” organization.
And NPR does consider “mainstream” to mean “leftist.”
Not only will the personnel of the “news” organization not challenge the talking points, they’ll build upon and amplify the guest’s talking points to elicit further talking points. Something like,” Well if it’s true that as you say that x, then is y also true?” That both allows the interviewee to add to the talking points on the checklist, and allows x to remain unchallenged.
Look for this. You’ll see it if you look for it. But, first and foremost, never, ever, not ever, not for even a moment should you believe it when a “news” organization says it’s “unbiased.” That’s a pure and simple impossibility.