As you know, we’ve posted a lot of exposés revealing National Public Radio for the left-wing hacks that they are. We’ve shown that NPR does not not have “journalists” in any meaningful sense of the word(1). They’re a leftist propaganda outfit, bent on taking the events and issues of the day and using them to advance a very much leftist political agenda in America today.
However… and it’s a big one… whereas I thought there was no one of any real discernment, honesty or integrity at NPR, I was wrong. I had long ago lost hope for NPR, when along came Ken Stern.
Stern is the former CEO of NPR… a former very big wig indeed! He decided to do what I figured NPR personnel would never do. Ever! He went out into the land and met people who disagreed with his various premises and spoke with them, and most importantly, listened to them. Guess what that made of him. Yep. A Republican.
Here’s a YouTube video that has a summary of the rest of Mr. Stern’s story:
It’s the astonishing, jaw-dropping story of a man who spent most of his life completely enveloped in all things leftist in life, and in his tenure as the CEO of National Public Radio, and he decided to try to hear an opposing point of view.
Stern fails to mention one thing, though: We on the Right are awash in the left-wing message. We hear it all the time, 24/7/365. It’s the default point of view, and to discover other viewpoints, or to dissent from that viewpoint, requires extra effort, above and beyond watching the evening news. More to the point, we on the Right can’t avoid the leftist view. To find the right-wing message, people have to go seek it out. Furthermore, Stern goes way, way too easy on NPR. He doesn’t consider them hacks, though they are. He gives them vastly more credit for integrity than they deserve.
To Ken Stern’s great credit, though, he went to seek out other points of view, and allowed himself to assimilate those new and different perspectives into his own.
Kudos to Mr. Stern!
(1) With the level of journalistic malpractice that nearly all “news” organizations exhibit — and, really, have always exhibited — the very concept of “journalism” should be vigorously re-explored, with an eye to making the term itself meaningful again.