The Great NPR Debate
From Zanecorpwiki
WIP
There is no mainstream definition of what's in bounds. "Neutral reporting" is just not possible because bias is--as far as we mean in normal usage--always a personal opinion. In such an environment, it makes sense for government to get out of funding media.
Arguments on the left that look at the "real motivation" are interesting, but don't make a strong case for policy. If the left purports to be guided by rationality, we must at least admit that the argument against NPR is sound, regardless of any underlying intent. To approach the argument with a focus on "what they're really trying to do" is like evaluating research based whether or not the scientist is a douche.
Guy saying that the news is excellent and he listens to it all the time but won't support it because he doesn't hear his socio-cultural point of view reflected on key issues in the socio-cultural programming (like "This American Life"). His point is perfectly reasonable and raises fair questions for NPR. Why can't he donate specifically to the excellent news shows? Does it make sense to run straight news under the same umbrella as "This American Life?" If they are separated in important ways, why isn't that understood?
The James O'Keefe sting is entertaining and could possibly be one of the most influential things in the entire debate. It's unfortunate, because O'Kiefe's style of inherently biased reporting[notes 1] is something of which we'll eventually learn to become properly dismissive. However, we as a society haven't yet found to defend against his particular kind of virulence so for the time being, it'll be a serious disease.
TODO: need to retone the O'Keefe PP (I like the note, though). The problem is that O'Keefe is entirely legitimate and honestly appeals to many people. The only big problem I have is not with O'Keefe, but how we treat him. I strongly believe he's
I found O'Keefe to be entirely legitimate and thought Bob did a great interview. The full interview was great to see, and O'Keefe's point on the practice of releasing full tapes is fair. (Please put up a transcript of the full interview as well, though.)
O'Keefe and NPR both miss a key point, though, which you can hear in the full interview. At one point (TODO: no transcript currently for full, find an quote) O'Keefe says something to the effect of "Everybody knew they were corrupt." I think he said it about both Acorn and NPR. By everybody, we can only take this to include O'Keefe. Which means that O'Keefe didn't go into Acorn to find out if they were corrupt, but rather to prove they were corrupt. That's a perfectly legitimate thing to do, but I wouldn't personally call it journalism.
It's the problem with the sting in general, which--because by it's nature it pre-supposes the outcome--you're going to see the evidence you want to see. You can only have sting journalism when you have extensive evidence that your target is corrupt before the sting. (And, "They disagree with my policy" isn't good evidence.)
We also have to say that that's what O'Keefe believe he had. And O'Keefe's fan's would probably agree. For me (and these questions are increasingly, necessarily relativist), O'Keefe is simply the Right's Borat. Or better yet, an inverse Jon Stewart. Whereas Stewart views himself as a comedian, but is often called "the best journalist we have" by people on the Left, O'Keefe calls himself a journalist, but uses the technique of theater to get his punchline.
Notes
- ↑ I listened to the full 45 min interview with On the Media, and I'm fairly well convinced that O'Keefe is biased. I could accept the idea that O'Keefe is sincere in his beliefs that what he does is unbiased reporting (or whatever you want to call it), and O'Kiefe is obviously highly aware of bias and thinks about bias a lot. Listening to him talk about bias is legitimately and un-ironically educational. However, in my estimation O'Keefe has a crucial mistake. At least twice in the interview, as I remember (TODO: find spot and quote) O'Keefe said something to the effect of, "Everyone knows X is corrupt." I believe he said it both when speaking about Acorn and NPR. I think we can only understand "everybody" as including O'Keefe. Perhaps it's a danger inherent in all "stings": the entire reason you do stings is to prove what you already believe. After the evidence gathering, it's some combination of tempting and quite natural to see what you want to see and disregard the rest. One might even come to believe that doing anything else would itself be bias.
Ed: Pages would normally be named, "Great NPR Debate, The", but in this case, "The", as the first word is critical to understanding the title. "The Great NPR Debate" is certainly "a great NPR debate", but I'm talking about this particular debate.
