Besides sheer dishonesty in not admitting their unsubtle bias, here’s another of National Public Radio’s (NPR) major problems: They accept absolutely uncritically whatever those who are ideologically congenial to them say.
This morning, Rachel Martin, the hostette of their morning Fake News program — Morning Edition — was interviewing a Georgetown Law professor on the topic of “our broken criminal justice system.”
The Georgetown professor said, and I quote: “We incarcerate more people in this country than any other country in history.”
Well. Any other country in history!
One wonders: Had this guy never heard of the following countries: The Soviet Union, Communist China, Vietnam, North Korea, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Cuba, all of Eastern Europe under the Communists? Had he ever heard the terms: “Gulag?” Or “Khmer Rouge?” Or “Gestapo?” Or, “KGB,” “NKVD,” “MGB,” and a whole host of other noxious agencies?
But did our earnest little NPR hostette challenge the professor’s ummm questionable assertion? Did she follow up with, “Really? More than Russia or the Soviet Union? More than Nazi Germany?”
No, she did not. Having uncritically accepted the dubious statement on its face, she simply asked why this was so. That’s NPR for you! The “in-depth” news organization! Yeah, okay.
A tad later in the interview, hostette Martin asked the Georgetown Law prof what he would suggest in order to fix the American criminal justice system. His answer was the usual porridge of silly left-wing ideas, one of which was: raise the minimum wage. Now, built in to that policy proposal is the painfully obvious follow-up question: Have minimum wage hikes in the past had a demonstrably positive effect on the crime rate? And, did our intrepid Rachel ask that question? No, she did not. And why would she? She was not about actually questioning the so-called expert; she knew that his ideology and point-of-view were congenial with her own, and she unthinkingly accepted everything he said.
This is only one example that I’ve observed over the years. They do it time and time and time and time again. Pretty much every time. a far as NPR is concerned, their left-wing guests present facts, while the rare Conservative commentator they have on must be challenged on everything that comes out of his mouth.
Now, just between you and me, I don’t mind that at all. The term “journalistic objectivity” is a nonsense term. There’s no such thing, and there’s no possibility of any such thing. An news organization that looks you in the eye and says it’s objective is lying to you. That’s why I appreciate FOX News; in their opinion programs, they wear their bias on their sleeves. They make no bones about their general bias as a generally right-wing organization, but in their news programs, they’re scrupulous challenging both sides of any argument.
And that’s the right-wing way! We challenge ourselves, and our ideas, and we welcome the challenges. Go ahead and try to challenge left-wing orthodoxy on, say, a college campus. You’ll find out very quickly that the American political left wing is not all about exposing their ideas to intelligent, informed dissenting thoughts.
Since that’s what we on the right are always doing, it’s no wonder we always thump leftists in any genuine debate.
Remember — never forget — you always come out of any NPR “news” presentation less informed than you go in. If, that is, you accept NPR’s premise that they’re presenting actual news to you, and not what it really is: fake news.