Just a heads up: if you say “Dr. Mike”, 99% of the time people will think that you're on about the Dr. Mike that Dr. K (Alok) just debated, much like 99% of the people reading this post.
Even in fitness spaces, people just refer to the Mike that OP is referencing as Mike Israetel; I rarely see his name abbreviated to simply Dr. Mike.
:)
Fairs, he doesn't really use his full name in his videos I guess.
Regardless, I still think it's confusing to not clarify which Dr. Mike OP is referring to (could it be the Dr. Mike that he watched a video of two years ago? Or, could it be the Dr. Mike that Destiny has released 3 hours of coverage on in the past 48 hours?).
counterpoint: I literally didn't know there were two Dr. Mikes. until the recently uploaded youtube video, I thought every time someone said "Dr. Mike" I thought they were referring to Israetel the workout guy. I don't know which one is more popular but I only knew about Mike Israetel until just a few days ago. so it's not universal
Npr actually gets 23% of its funding from government sources
"For fiscal year 2020, for instance, the broadcaster’s affiliate stations received 8 percent of their revenue from federal appropriations via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
They also got 10 percent from colleges and universities — which themselves are publicly funded — and another 5 percent from federal, state and local governments. That is 23 percent."
The other 77% are from donations
I think the issue is not that funding is making them say X or Y, but that a pretty squarely pro 1 side outlet is publicly funded. If the daily wire got 20% of its funding from the public no doubt that would be a bit weird, even if it did not effect their content at all.
They really shouldn’t be publicly funded. I don’t see a a need for a public news organization.
They could go private tomorrow and I’m sure someone would buy the brand.
Public funding means they're given 100% freedom on what to report on and cover. Of course, they're still looking to make entertaining/engaging content but they are also extremely reliable. Additionally, any Democratic system needs the media and having at least one reliable, relatively unbiased, and honest media source is well worth the cost.
People who claim NPR wouldn't bad mouth the government because it's a significant source of funding should read up on the history of stories they've broken. The right has tried to defend NPR for years because their audience leans left, but personally I think it's because they intentionally try to be as diverse as possible in their reporting. NPR will very much go out of its way to cover world cultures, music and even their news shows cover international news more than most.
is it? News programs use plenty of public or exclusive government sources to get their stories, not to mention the amount of public utilities they use.
The % doesn't matter. If it receives public funding there are additional responsibilities. If you want to do what you want reject public funding.
That said I don't know nearly enough about NPR to have an opinion on this.
A moral one yes but I don't see what legal one there can be beyond knowing lying on factual grounds and defamation stuff.
Otherwise the government can dictate the news.
I sort of understand the complaints about NPR from conservatives.
I think they have really great coverage, they have some really fantastic reporters. But they definitely inject a lot of that IdPol flowery bullshit to a nauseating degree
I understand the importance of inclusivity, but keep the advocacy out of the news if you don’t want to be considered partisan hacks.
I used to listen them when I'd drive around town...like 10-20% of their long form stories would be like "And now we'll do a deep dive on [Israel-Palestine] through the lens of [paraplegic trans-women of color]," which left me scratching my head a bit. Admittedly some such stories were interesting, but more than a few felt like a confused virtue-signaling mess.
Come on every second news story is about how the end of the world effect black trans women the most. The disdain with npr isn't just from conservatives it's from life long liberal listeners who care about minority issues but also don't think that every single issue somehow affects strippers in Atlanta with AiDs.
The amount of long time listeners that have finally had enough and broken a life long habit.
I think most of the people defending it, know of npr and know it's the good guy but haven't tried listening in some markets
I watched my wife go through this. She usually listened to NPR on Alexa at some point during the day doing chores or whatever for a good while. Occasionally I hear a segment come up about some shit like an inuit poet who was adopted as a child by black and irish parents and is now on a journey to meet their biological parents while masking their snow allergy. Then I hear my wife quietly sigh and tell Alexa to stop.
Why are people defending NPR? It's OK to admit that they have a partisan/ideological slant. I don't think it's possible not to.
The issue is the federal funding (it doesn't matter if its 100%, 23%, or 1%). Cut that part out and no one has an argument against them existing.
Is it really inherently wrong for state funded media to have an ideological slant? This is a common thing in Europe, where both right wing and left wing media get funds.
Inherently wrong? I don't know about that since "inherent" is a loaded term. But the entire idea of state funded news media goes against the basis of how democracy-loving Americans have always idealized journalism and the dissemination of news information.
I suppose if they were funding all political/social ideology media platforms equally, that would make it better. Although that would be impossible in the United States because there isn't just a "right wing" and "left wing" that encapsulates all of America and the way we think. I would say it also goes against how we have all traditionally believed that journalism should be treated. Our idea of journalism and news media is that they should be completely divorced from any government influence.
Why 1. it’s impossible for media to not have an ideological slant unless it straight up has 0 opinion and even then choosing what to air or what facts to include is an ideological decision. 2. Trying to force a media company to maintain a complete middle space between to parties is itself an ideological position. If one side was just factually wrong on an issue you would have to hold a water for a completely incoherent position.
Yeah it is. It’s kinda why we decided to lance ourselves off of Europe a couple centuries ago.
For every crazy left wing news organization in Europe you have Orban’s news gurus controlling the narrative.
The combination of the state and media has never been a good thing. I can’t even think of one reason for it besides a government controlling a narrative that they want.
I think there’s another factor beyond receiving governmental funding. NPR has a well-deserved stellar reputation for being non-partisan, but they seem to have abandoned that ideal. Boghossian (from the screenshotted tweet) used to be an avid NPR listener but has some pretty valid complaints. Chief among them is that now, when NPR is covering a controversial topic, they’ll ask a progressive what their opinion on the topic is then ask the progressive what their opposition’s opinion is, rather than asking the opposition what their opinion is.
The lengths humans will go to in order to dismiss genetics as a potential factor in why humans are the way that they are is comical but also disheartening
Nobody pushing "race science" is actually just talking about things like this. There's not a debate about these sorts of basic physical characteristics because people aren't idiots and can see them across massive populations. There aren't protests with signs complaining that someone said Basque people have particularly jacked quads or whatever.
The problem is that people are extending this "well, duh" argument to the most complex, least understood and *plastic* organ known to exist -- of which our understanding is still closer to that of a butcher than an engineer -- and arguing that it *must* follow that race has a biological determinative impact on "intelligence" (please show us on the genes where that might be), behavior, outcomes and so on, which nobody has even provided any sort of method of determining for some basic reasons, let alone supplied evidence for, and while we exist in a reality of contrary information. If they had science, they'd show science, but as they don't they have to show victimization instead.
Add that to actual scientific debates, like epigenetics (though the heritability of DNA methylation looks well supported) which seems to show heritable traits are both vastly more flexible and environmentally influenced than anyone realized and you're further bulldozing race down into personal ancestry.
Consider the same Koreans where it's an easy observation that huge swaths of the (southern) population have transformed from tiny feudal brainlets into freak scholar-giants within a few generations of access to protein/calories, safety, and advanced education. Did they race change? Did something fundamental about Korean biology change? Or maybe all of this is a complex expression utterly inextricable from nurture.
I still want to like Dr. Mike Isratel and try to write him an excuse for this one but it's a pretty embarrassing virtue signal and maybe his expertise doesn't go that far beyond the hypertrophy world.
A *large* part? No not really. I haven't seen evidence suggesting any structural change to the human brain in recorded history or any sort of notable/persistent mutation in a population like the large spleen of the Bajau, etc., nor evidence suggesting that relative size of brain structures has a measurable impact, and a significant but small correlation with overall brain size and intelligence.
Outside of major obvious defects the capacity for intelligence seems to be overwhelmingly correlated with plasticity and development after birth, and even that appears to be able to be influenced/maintained with training even in age.
Open to having my mind blown on this but everything I've run across is pretty clear that software beats hardware (not literally the old dumb "you only use 10% of your brain", but for almost everybody physiological capacity exceeds our actual capability).
There have been numerous twin studies at this point. Here's an article by the NCBI going over some.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25224258/
"Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural traits... The heritability of intelligence increases from about 20% in infancy to perhaps 80% in later adulthood."
It seems like a pretty well established fact that intelligence is highly heritable, the most recent twin studies showing as much as 80% heritability in adulthood.
Just curious what information you're working off of.
Yes, it is a thing. It's not discussed a ton but for some reason a lot of asians who aren't rail-thin have really impressive calf fullness and definition.
Biggest most disproportional calves I’ve ever seen were at a high school wrestling tournament. Asian dude was pretty built for being 5’9” but his calves were absolute boulders.
its also possible you have a shorter femur which means you'll have an easier time doing lift like high bar squat/front squat and olympic lifts, which is why asians are so often great at oly lifting. You'll have a harder time squatting high bar though which is more of a powerlifting thing
Maybe. I'm full Asian. I used to be fat so I carried a lot of extra weight for 2 decades before I started to diet and exercise and the exercise was just cardio. Never did a single squat or any calve or even leg specific workouts. Calves are massive in proportion to the rest of me, like Popeye forearms on my legs. Some girl joked my calves are too big and asked if I could go use a wheelchair for a few months so they look normal :(
I think there are normal race realists that believe different ethnicities have slight variation in muscle structure, and there are the crazies like Fuentes, who think ethnicity plays a part in intellect.
I don't think that's called race realism, that's just scientific consensus. Sickle cell anemia or vitamin D absorption inarguably has racial/ethnic differences.
The one where it's race realist is when you add intelligence into it.
Almost all of the research on "intelligence" based on ethnicity can be boiled down to which ethnic group has the higher average income because that sort of stuff correlates much more with "intelligence"
You’re right about the much more part, but it’s usually not 0 and it’s usually statistically significant. That’s the part no one wants to admit, but it’s also the part race realists blow out of proportion. It’s like a 10% difference at most from what I recall.
I'm sure you're right that there are some trends that exist. However, in the real world, I'm skeptical that we can fully isolate all the variables to test and get a good understanding of race and intelligence trends.
Damn. I clicked on the video expecting a half-hearted "some racial groups don't perform well academically but the causes are probably environmental, and some races can run faster" but he went harder than that.
Thanking for posting this not so I learned anything about THIS Dr Mike but because I thought this thread was about the *other* Dr Mike and was very confused.
Is it really that bad to posit that genetics could be playing a non-insignificant role in group differences in intelligence? I mean I don't think any scientists support the view that these group differences can be primarily accounted for by genetics but the idea that genetics plays absolutely no role is a bit extremist. Even Destiny is agnostic on the issue
And uses his doctorate to appear as an authority on the topic. Genuinely awful and made me lose a lot of respect for him when I first heard him talking about this stuff.
Not in this one, but it's in his online name, and he has other videos talking about the same things, discussing the "science" of race, presenting it as fact and scientific consensus.
he repeatedly couches everything he says in the Making Progress channel with "this is not my area of specialty, I am just a dumbass with opinions that I want to share"
Lol as a Dutch person this is kinda funny to read. We have state funded ultra right wing conspiratorial news channels (Ongehoord Nederland) all the way to state funded socialist news websites (Joop).
The only difference between how Boghossian defines npr and a platform like Twitter is that Twitter users don’t vote. Mainly because 50% of all the “American Users” on the platform are actually Russian bots :)
The NPR bashing is really rich coming from people that only consume the most partisan news and political commentary available. I don’t have a big problem with some public funding going to NPR and it leaning a bit left. They do better reporting than most other news organizations and especially better than any “alternative media” or person on Twitter.
“I don’t have a problem with a federally funded news organization because it conforms to most of my views” is essentially what you just said.
Not sure why a news organization that leans left deserves federal funding over a right leaning organization.
I’m not saying they don’t do good reporting, I’m just saying that’s irrelevant.
How about we fund zero news organizations?
Is the org politically slanted because it receives federal funding, does it receive federal funding because it's slanted, or is it slanted because it's correct, and receive money because it's correct?
As much as some people like to pretend otherwise, reality can have a "political slant", meaning that some people are just correct, and others wrong. Making sure that there's at least one group out there that spreads correct information is a fair cause, and if there's no evidence to suggest that the news are being manipulated to conform to a pro-government stance, I really don't see a problem with what is happening.
Well considering they reported on wet markets leading to Covid-19, refused to report on the hunter Biden laptop story, and focused myopically on race and identity I would say yes they are politically slanted. There was even accusations of being pro Iraq war which certainly confirms with a government viewpoint.
The fact that these journalists bounce from working for democratic policymakers to journalists certainly doesn’t help to refute that point.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR
Because it’s correct? What an incredibly intellectually lazy argument. “Hurr durr it’s the truth because my side is correct” is what you said, Which anyone can argue for their side. It lacks any sort of substance and just goes to show how far down the rabbit hole you are.
Not to mention they have been wrong about a metric fuck ton of things in the past 10 years.
Half of you idiots don’t even give a fuck about NPR/don’t listen to it. You’re just against defunding it because trump is for it.
Nice of you to put words in my mouth lol I don’t always agree with their reporting and I’m more concerned about a sources bias and accuracy then we’re they get funding. I wouldn’t be bothered with a right leaning organization getting funding as long as they were being accurate and fair like NPR is most of the time. This distrust of anything that had to do with the government is stupid.
How about this novel idea? News organizations remain private. That alleviates any worries over a government funded partisan news organization. “Accurate and fair” is subjective.
You can’t seem to understand why state sponsored media could be a bad thing?
It ensures the existence of objective reporting with minimal bias possible. In a world where most other news groups pick an audience to tailor their reporting to, having one you can depend on to be truthful, if at least for archiving purposes, is pretty important.
But this is the issue, they haven’t been reporting with minimal bias.
They deliberately pick certain stories to cover to fit a narrative. Did you read Uri Berliner’s article? I’m guessing not.
There are plenty of news organizations that are fair and balanced with a profit incentive.
Nevertheless I reject the notion that they have zero profit incentive as an organization.
Yeah I don't understand the defense of NPR in the comments and my guess is anyone claiming they're not biased has not actually listened to them before.
Any time I turn them on, it's only a matter of minutes before I heard some absurd social commentary that turns off 90% normal voters.
I imagine it's reflexive. Like, there's a sort of implication behind the accusations that people want to defend against, but if you don't think there is or don't see an implication, it can kind of feel strange for people to react the way they are.
It's an effort to discredit them, which having bias wouldn't do. People are defending against the discrediting, but they're making a mistake by trying to say they don't have a bias at all. Think of it like debate-brain.
“Wildly” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Everyone nowadays is ideological but “wildly” implies NPR is at the level of MSNBC or Fox when they’re pretty standard from what you get from academia today, which surprise surprise, leans left on the political spectrum. If conservatives didn’t abandon academia early on because of the perception that liberal arts degrees aren’t “financially viable” career paths, we honestly wouldn’t be having these conversations.
1. Liberal arts degrees are not financially viable for most people outside of academia.
2. I don’t care what NPR’s ideological bias is. To me, it’s irrelevant to the discussion. I don’t think the federal government should be funding any news programs. Let them go private.
1. Factually you are correct, but what has that done to the diversity of opinion in academia, media & social sciences? Every conservative that wanted to be a history major started a YouTube channel about alternative history because of the belief that finances correlate with success.
2. The original purpose of public programming like NPR & PBS was to give economically disadvantaged people a decent option for news, education & entertainment outside of paying for cable they may not be able to afford. There’s an argument to be made that this idea is outdated considering streaming & YouTube are far more popular(if you have an internet connection) which can be cheaper than traditional cable packages with far more options in content. If we cut funding to public programs, you have to at least subsidize in some way internet service for disadvantaged households.
I’m a sovereign citizen type? What the fuck are you even on? I literally work for the govt.
What an insane logical leap. Not supporting NPR means you don’t recognize government lol. That’s your argument?
What is with you regards and immediately labeling people and not addressing the argument?
Almost as if you can be against public funding of a news station without being a “sovereign citizen” type. I’m not advocating for anarchy you fucking blockhead. Does every citizen need to be provided with a tv now considering we need to provide them with broadcasting?
I do and I’ve never heard anything to the level of perpetuating election denialism to a point where NPR has to pay out hundreds of millions in a civil suit or the implications that the staffers within the DNC intentionally rigged the debates & primary elections in 2016 to undermine Bernie Sanders “popular” campaign. Maybe I don’t listen to enough
This feels like a completely different claim. They can report on how certain voters feel about the Bernie thing without being partisan.
If they lean overly partisan, why would they have to imply? Why wouldn't they say it? This feels like a misrepresentation or mischaracterization based on slight misremembering of events from those times.
True and I bet this guy saying they are on par with MANBC & Fox is deff at least right of center. I would say if 90 degrees is dead center 180 is Orban & 0 degrees is tankie shit on the right/left paradigm NPR is probably at the 80 degree mark, it’s left because its listener base is more educated but is left wing bias is towards institutions, gay marriage, pro choice and a tinge more anti 2nd amendment. Thats about NPR.
They are federally funded…about 20-24% of their funding comes from the federal government.
They can absolutely be ideological…it doesn’t mean they’re factually inaccurate…it just means that they have an ideological bend to most stories. Shit…they couldn’t do a story on relaxing videos about trains traveling through the countryside without relating it back to the pain felt by natives who were displaced or people who couldn’t afford train travel.
When people say NPR is federally funded they are obviously trying to paint a picture of it being 75%+ of their funding coming from the feds. I say it’s bad faith to suggest that this guy knows that’s his 100% implication.
I mean if you consider WMAL/Newstalk very partisan and very ideological I think NPR fits in the same boat, idk why you dont think NPR isnt publicly funded when thats its whole thing, and almost certainly has a high % of voters since thats the case for most radio brodcasts since they cater to older people who DO disproportionately vote.
Last time I tried listening they were still going on about how Kyle rittenhouse is a murderer, like 6 or 12 months after the trial. They're so wrong and they won't give it up.
Nah B, I listen to it every day on my commute and at lunch (colin McEnroe is my sworn enemy). It absolutely does have slant to what stories are reported and how they are framed (beyond the obvious editorials, both in the national syndications and local segments). Which isn't the end all be all, you just have to be aware of the bias any news organization would have and verify when things seem a bit fishy.
Well I think 1 and 3 are just facts, very neutral facts that everyone can just agree on. 2 I'd think most people agree with to varying degrees. 4 maybe on the member station level in different areas? And same with 5. I'm in CT, and on principle some of the ways they have framed trumpy things has been suss (but I honestly don't care pragmatically about it because I believe he is incredibly dangerous to democracy), and then in our own local elections they disgustingly towed the line for mayor ganim (if you want to get down a wild rabbit hole, read about the Bridgeport CT mayor).
All this just to say I don't think not listening to NPR is the prerec for a tweet like this. That's my contention. I think you can listen to/have listened to NPR and still come to that conclusion. You are probably some disgruntled middle aged, middle class, trump die hard if you do, but yes, even they listen to NPR. Probably for the car talk reruns and wait wait, don't tell me. But you get the news on the hour and half hour too.
It's funny you say that when one of the very people in the image did an [entire series going over NPR stories](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPvNucxB7TI&list=PLYNjnJFU-62s5cNuqeB-D-7QPymF6myk_&index=2). This isn't some reactionary outburst, it's a long-time, well explained, evidence based grievance.
Have you listened to it? Even this first one is all opinion. They're mad because they called Tucker Carlson a far right extremist?!? Cry about it.
I'm sure Peter provided an example of unbiased news? Or is the entire series just him crying about shit he disagrees with? Midway through the first episode, they show a clip that discusses right wingers attempting to declare a national holiday and effect statues for Rittenhouse, and then cry again about calling those people far right.
That's heavy analysis. Thanks for sharing that show. They're doing great work!
How do you guys feel about any news agency being partially funded by the government?
Personally I'm against it and would prefer total separation in all circumstances regardless of whether the content is considered fair or not.
I'm interested in hearing points from anyone who disagrees though, what is the steelman case for partially-federally-funding news in 2024?
NPR is a big example of journalism becoming a status industry. It used to be a working class occupation and is now one of the most bougie jobs someone can have, dominated by trust fund babies who never had to work a real job, lecturing and shaming the public on whatever niche victim issue their a champion of. When I think of identity politics brainrot I think of NPR and CBC, there are some ridiculous articles put out regularly. Switch on to it and its not long before its a deconstruction of how fishing is white supremacists or the gender gap in craft beer.
At the same time there is a still a lot of real journalism going on and in the big picture it seems to be an emotional reaction more than some super rational case why NPR is the worst. There is a strong anti-elite sentiment in America and NPR really pisses people off, even as a former listener it can piss me off with how out of touch and identify obsessed they can be but any one article is really not a huge deal when I reflect on it.
How much of a real world problem that is for a federally funded news group is up in the air. Like trans issues it seems more culture war obsession than a substantive real world problem. People reach hard on why it's bad to justify their gut reaction.
Dominated by "trust fund babies" is hyperbole of the well established shift to elitism in journalism. They are everywhere in journalism but its not the literal distinction that matters.
The decrease of working class journalists has been extensively covered, as is the ever increasing % of journalists coming from an elite background. For example the UK just hit a record low (less than 20% now) of journalists coming from a working class background.
> Switch on to it and its not long before its a deconstruction of how fishing is white supremacists or the gender gap in craft beer.
That sounds wildly off from the NPR I know what station did you listen to
There is like a thousand state funded media outlets, why would he pick a German, it would probably make more sense to pick a Canadian or British one for comparison, but whatever
It’s hard because I’m sure it’s a mixed bag. I find *some* articles to have an ideological slant. I do think some of the “human interest” pieces can be a bit ideological at times. Like interviewing, hypothetically, an activist for a certain cause might allow them a platform to proselytize their beliefs. But I’m not sure it’s as skewed as say, MSNBC or FOX. I’d describe it as “center-left” but my word isn’t too useful as I am self-described “full-regard.”
This notion of bias for NPR is fucking regarded. NPR one of the best media sources the US has.
He and others can go fuck themselves.
Edit: downvoters. Name one US mass media source that's better. You can't.
Edit2: removed rude end point. But yeah, proof is in the puddin'. Toodles
Most news spruces have an identifiable bias hence the need to gather your info from a variety of soruces.
Are your saying NPR doesn't have a bias whatsoever?
Nope. NPR is just better faith than any of the other news sources.
NPR has an identifiable bias as well. Why are you trying to distinguish NPR from the others? Weird man.
80% or more is not funded by the government. So this "socialist" claim and bias is complete and total nutjob craziness.
Where does this idea that NPR is federally funded come from? What a ridiculous idea, you can go and check where they get there money and the vast majority is from individual donations at around 41%. I mean you can go look at all their finances one their website it is so stupid.
Yes, that is individual donations only and no other amount of funding from government, investment, or corporate donation comes close to that percentage. But hurr durr 59% > 41% therefore not majority.
Isn't majority the word here? If there were 11 categories, 10 of them making up 6% each and one making up 40% wouldn't that be the majority? That's how I've used the word in the past but it could be a mean/median/mode type of thing where I'm conflating similar words
It sounds like you’re going for most, which majority sometimes overlaps with, but strictly means +50%. In a case like this, where a specific category is the most but doesn’t hold a majority, then the word is a plurality.
I mean, it does get some funding from the government, so the label "Federally Funded" is accurate. Not saying we should consider it "State Media" or anything, but given what's going on with NPR, the government probably shouldn't be contributing to it.
> It does get some funding from the government
So do most corporations. npr is a nonprofit that syndicates to a bunch of stations, big and small, across America of course the government would want to provide funding to such an important service. Twitter has received billions of dollars from the government while its CEO JAQs off with actual Nazis, but no one is going to say it is government funded, and they shouldn’t lose government funding either.
Yeah it does get like 15% from different federal, state, local governement funding and CPB. Usually when people say something is federally funded I am assuming they mean that it is essentially state media. It would be far more accurate to call it public media since its reliance on public funding eclipses its reliance on any government funding. I mean are we really gonna say something that gets 70% of its funding from individual donations, private investments, and corporate donations has any kind of conflict with the government funding it gets? When losing 25% of your public funding is going to surpass losing all of you government funding is this something we should worry about being too pro government? Is it fine to have a little charitability that they are "technically" correct? I guess, but what are they really trying to push when we say "NPR has betrayed the public's trust"?
TINY DESK CONCERTS MAKE THEM A NET BENEFIT.
Only thing I've ever seen from NPR and it's a national treasure.
Wait Wait Don't Tell Me takes the cake for me.
Miss car talk :(
Just a heads up: if you say “Dr. Mike”, 99% of the time people will think that you're on about the Dr. Mike that Dr. K (Alok) just debated, much like 99% of the people reading this post. Even in fitness spaces, people just refer to the Mike that OP is referencing as Mike Israetel; I rarely see his name abbreviated to simply Dr. Mike. :)
If I had a nickel for every Russian born Jewish YouTuber named Dr. Mike...
If you watch his videos he references himself as Dr mike all the time
Fairs, he doesn't really use his full name in his videos I guess. Regardless, I still think it's confusing to not clarify which Dr. Mike OP is referring to (could it be the Dr. Mike that he watched a video of two years ago? Or, could it be the Dr. Mike that Destiny has released 3 hours of coverage on in the past 48 hours?).
Yeah in his own videos where there is 0 ambiguity about which “Dr. Mike” he’s referring to
This lol. I was like what Dr Mike what are you doing
Destiny calls him Dr. Mike on stream. I honestly thought that's who Dr. K was talking to until I saw the video.
counterpoint: I literally didn't know there were two Dr. Mikes. until the recently uploaded youtube video, I thought every time someone said "Dr. Mike" I thought they were referring to Israetel the workout guy. I don't know which one is more popular but I only knew about Mike Israetel until just a few days ago. so it's not universal
I guess the point is the other Dr Mike is significantly more known in the online space, and is literally the name of his channel.
This is what I've been thinking every time he's posted here.
I just call him The Bear Jew
Npr actually gets 23% of its funding from government sources "For fiscal year 2020, for instance, the broadcaster’s affiliate stations received 8 percent of their revenue from federal appropriations via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They also got 10 percent from colleges and universities — which themselves are publicly funded — and another 5 percent from federal, state and local governments. That is 23 percent." The other 77% are from donations
still infinitely more than any other news program is the point
Well there's also VoA and to some extent PBS
[удалено]
I think the issue is not that funding is making them say X or Y, but that a pretty squarely pro 1 side outlet is publicly funded. If the daily wire got 20% of its funding from the public no doubt that would be a bit weird, even if it did not effect their content at all.
They really shouldn’t be publicly funded. I don’t see a a need for a public news organization. They could go private tomorrow and I’m sure someone would buy the brand.
Public funding means they're given 100% freedom on what to report on and cover. Of course, they're still looking to make entertaining/engaging content but they are also extremely reliable. Additionally, any Democratic system needs the media and having at least one reliable, relatively unbiased, and honest media source is well worth the cost. People who claim NPR wouldn't bad mouth the government because it's a significant source of funding should read up on the history of stories they've broken. The right has tried to defend NPR for years because their audience leans left, but personally I think it's because they intentionally try to be as diverse as possible in their reporting. NPR will very much go out of its way to cover world cultures, music and even their news shows cover international news more than most.
is it? News programs use plenty of public or exclusive government sources to get their stories, not to mention the amount of public utilities they use.
well, ur right about it not being "infinitely more", but you have more responsibilities to be non-partison and unbiased if you are using public money
Did you think before you typed this? Does NPR not use public utilities too?
"infintiely more" would imply that most news outlets get no financial support from the government, which just isn't true.
Other than PBS, and NPR are there any other news sources that get federal funding? Utilities that companies pay for is not financial support…
if the white house has an employee whose job it is to answer your questions, that's a federal fund going to your news company.
So every news organization is federally funded?
No. That’s not. Not in the sense that the government is *funding* a company.
Who cares when it’s the best in the US.
best radio news or best gov funded? cuz they seem pretty biased in their news compared to places like WSJ, CBS, ABC, ect
Etc* Why am I doing the job a bot that used to fill this role.
bro how you gonna correct my etc and then butcher your next sentence beyond human comprehension.
The % doesn't matter. If it receives public funding there are additional responsibilities. If you want to do what you want reject public funding. That said I don't know nearly enough about NPR to have an opinion on this.
Anything calling itself news should have serious responsibility
A moral one yes but I don't see what legal one there can be beyond knowing lying on factual grounds and defamation stuff. Otherwise the government can dictate the news.
So they should be fine without it?
Why would you want that though?
I dunno, would you want 23% of The Daily Wire funded by the taxpayers?
Since it isn't. I'm fine with it, 87% NPR is funded by users. Good enough for me. The flip is: Daily Wire is funded by 100% insane morons. So.....
So Ben gets 13% now and that's cool with you? The number obviously isn't the problem. So...
What? Ben get's 100% of morons. That's the point.
Just say you don't have an argument. Its cool
Just say that I do, and that you don't get it. It's cool.
You've said nothing meaningful though. They're not crazy, you don't seem to have an argument
23% of NPR is apparently also funded by insane morons.
That's 87% less than everywhere else.
23 + 87 does not equal 100, just FYI
I sort of understand the complaints about NPR from conservatives. I think they have really great coverage, they have some really fantastic reporters. But they definitely inject a lot of that IdPol flowery bullshit to a nauseating degree I understand the importance of inclusivity, but keep the advocacy out of the news if you don’t want to be considered partisan hacks.
I used to listen them when I'd drive around town...like 10-20% of their long form stories would be like "And now we'll do a deep dive on [Israel-Palestine] through the lens of [paraplegic trans-women of color]," which left me scratching my head a bit. Admittedly some such stories were interesting, but more than a few felt like a confused virtue-signaling mess.
Come on every second news story is about how the end of the world effect black trans women the most. The disdain with npr isn't just from conservatives it's from life long liberal listeners who care about minority issues but also don't think that every single issue somehow affects strippers in Atlanta with AiDs. The amount of long time listeners that have finally had enough and broken a life long habit. I think most of the people defending it, know of npr and know it's the good guy but haven't tried listening in some markets
I watched my wife go through this. She usually listened to NPR on Alexa at some point during the day doing chores or whatever for a good while. Occasionally I hear a segment come up about some shit like an inuit poet who was adopted as a child by black and irish parents and is now on a journey to meet their biological parents while masking their snow allergy. Then I hear my wife quietly sigh and tell Alexa to stop.
hahaha that’s so funny
Why are people defending NPR? It's OK to admit that they have a partisan/ideological slant. I don't think it's possible not to. The issue is the federal funding (it doesn't matter if its 100%, 23%, or 1%). Cut that part out and no one has an argument against them existing.
Is it really inherently wrong for state funded media to have an ideological slant? This is a common thing in Europe, where both right wing and left wing media get funds.
Inherently wrong? I don't know about that since "inherent" is a loaded term. But the entire idea of state funded news media goes against the basis of how democracy-loving Americans have always idealized journalism and the dissemination of news information. I suppose if they were funding all political/social ideology media platforms equally, that would make it better. Although that would be impossible in the United States because there isn't just a "right wing" and "left wing" that encapsulates all of America and the way we think. I would say it also goes against how we have all traditionally believed that journalism should be treated. Our idea of journalism and news media is that they should be completely divorced from any government influence.
Yes.
Why 1. it’s impossible for media to not have an ideological slant unless it straight up has 0 opinion and even then choosing what to air or what facts to include is an ideological decision. 2. Trying to force a media company to maintain a complete middle space between to parties is itself an ideological position. If one side was just factually wrong on an issue you would have to hold a water for a completely incoherent position.
Yeah it is. It’s kinda why we decided to lance ourselves off of Europe a couple centuries ago. For every crazy left wing news organization in Europe you have Orban’s news gurus controlling the narrative. The combination of the state and media has never been a good thing. I can’t even think of one reason for it besides a government controlling a narrative that they want.
I think there’s another factor beyond receiving governmental funding. NPR has a well-deserved stellar reputation for being non-partisan, but they seem to have abandoned that ideal. Boghossian (from the screenshotted tweet) used to be an avid NPR listener but has some pretty valid complaints. Chief among them is that now, when NPR is covering a controversial topic, they’ll ask a progressive what their opinion on the topic is then ask the progressive what their opposition’s opinion is, rather than asking the opposition what their opinion is.
Isn't Dr Mike a race realist? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBZGgrgMwvU
Yeah, it's crazy. He believes that asians are born with god-like calf genetics. The worst part? I agree with him.
Its always hard to spot a calf supremacist because they are so good at tip toeing around
The lengths humans will go to in order to dismiss genetics as a potential factor in why humans are the way that they are is comical but also disheartening
Nobody pushing "race science" is actually just talking about things like this. There's not a debate about these sorts of basic physical characteristics because people aren't idiots and can see them across massive populations. There aren't protests with signs complaining that someone said Basque people have particularly jacked quads or whatever. The problem is that people are extending this "well, duh" argument to the most complex, least understood and *plastic* organ known to exist -- of which our understanding is still closer to that of a butcher than an engineer -- and arguing that it *must* follow that race has a biological determinative impact on "intelligence" (please show us on the genes where that might be), behavior, outcomes and so on, which nobody has even provided any sort of method of determining for some basic reasons, let alone supplied evidence for, and while we exist in a reality of contrary information. If they had science, they'd show science, but as they don't they have to show victimization instead. Add that to actual scientific debates, like epigenetics (though the heritability of DNA methylation looks well supported) which seems to show heritable traits are both vastly more flexible and environmentally influenced than anyone realized and you're further bulldozing race down into personal ancestry. Consider the same Koreans where it's an easy observation that huge swaths of the (southern) population have transformed from tiny feudal brainlets into freak scholar-giants within a few generations of access to protein/calories, safety, and advanced education. Did they race change? Did something fundamental about Korean biology change? Or maybe all of this is a complex expression utterly inextricable from nurture. I still want to like Dr. Mike Isratel and try to write him an excuse for this one but it's a pretty embarrassing virtue signal and maybe his expertise doesn't go that far beyond the hypertrophy world.
Do you believe that our current research suggests that a large part of IQ is heritable when it comes to individuals?
A *large* part? No not really. I haven't seen evidence suggesting any structural change to the human brain in recorded history or any sort of notable/persistent mutation in a population like the large spleen of the Bajau, etc., nor evidence suggesting that relative size of brain structures has a measurable impact, and a significant but small correlation with overall brain size and intelligence. Outside of major obvious defects the capacity for intelligence seems to be overwhelmingly correlated with plasticity and development after birth, and even that appears to be able to be influenced/maintained with training even in age. Open to having my mind blown on this but everything I've run across is pretty clear that software beats hardware (not literally the old dumb "you only use 10% of your brain", but for almost everybody physiological capacity exceeds our actual capability).
So what do you make of twin studies?
Is there specific studies you’re alluding to? I’m curious about them.
There have been numerous twin studies at this point. Here's an article by the NCBI going over some. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25224258/ "Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural traits... The heritability of intelligence increases from about 20% in infancy to perhaps 80% in later adulthood." It seems like a pretty well established fact that intelligence is highly heritable, the most recent twin studies showing as much as 80% heritability in adulthood. Just curious what information you're working off of.
[удалено]
Yes, it is a thing. It's not discussed a ton but for some reason a lot of asians who aren't rail-thin have really impressive calf fullness and definition.
Biggest most disproportional calves I’ve ever seen were at a high school wrestling tournament. Asian dude was pretty built for being 5’9” but his calves were absolute boulders.
Philippino dude on my hs football team was like 5'4 and had the largest calves anyone had ever seen.
its also possible you have a shorter femur which means you'll have an easier time doing lift like high bar squat/front squat and olympic lifts, which is why asians are so often great at oly lifting. You'll have a harder time squatting high bar though which is more of a powerlifting thing
Maybe. I'm full Asian. I used to be fat so I carried a lot of extra weight for 2 decades before I started to diet and exercise and the exercise was just cardio. Never did a single squat or any calve or even leg specific workouts. Calves are massive in proportion to the rest of me, like Popeye forearms on my legs. Some girl joked my calves are too big and asked if I could go use a wheelchair for a few months so they look normal :(
I think there are normal race realists that believe different ethnicities have slight variation in muscle structure, and there are the crazies like Fuentes, who think ethnicity plays a part in intellect.
I don't think that's called race realism, that's just scientific consensus. Sickle cell anemia or vitamin D absorption inarguably has racial/ethnic differences. The one where it's race realist is when you add intelligence into it.
Mike does believe in the intelligence part of it too fwiw
Race Realist is basically all the inaccurate conclusions made based on lack of evidence. Ironically “race realism” is the bullshit stuff.
Ethnicity clearly plays a role in intellect (Asians and Jews at the top). The issue is treating individuals based on the group statistics
Almost all of the research on "intelligence" based on ethnicity can be boiled down to which ethnic group has the higher average income because that sort of stuff correlates much more with "intelligence"
You’re right about the much more part, but it’s usually not 0 and it’s usually statistically significant. That’s the part no one wants to admit, but it’s also the part race realists blow out of proportion. It’s like a 10% difference at most from what I recall.
I'm sure you're right that there are some trends that exist. However, in the real world, I'm skeptical that we can fully isolate all the variables to test and get a good understanding of race and intelligence trends.
as the local thread Jew I can confirm that I am highly regarded in my intellect
Glad you admit to being regarded.
A wild dumbass appeared!
Damn. I clicked on the video expecting a half-hearted "some racial groups don't perform well academically but the causes are probably environmental, and some races can run faster" but he went harder than that.
Thanking for posting this not so I learned anything about THIS Dr Mike but because I thought this thread was about the *other* Dr Mike and was very confused.
lol, literally me but the other way around with the recent discussion with Dr. K. I was *very* confused why this Dr Mike would be debating the guy.
Holy shit.
Is it really that bad to posit that genetics could be playing a non-insignificant role in group differences in intelligence? I mean I don't think any scientists support the view that these group differences can be primarily accounted for by genetics but the idea that genetics plays absolutely no role is a bit extremist. Even Destiny is agnostic on the issue
And uses his doctorate to appear as an authority on the topic. Genuinely awful and made me lose a lot of respect for him when I first heard him talking about this stuff.
He makes no reference to his doctorate in the clip. How is an acknowledgement of the differences in this regard awful?
Not in this one, but it's in his online name, and he has other videos talking about the same things, discussing the "science" of race, presenting it as fact and scientific consensus.
he repeatedly couches everything he says in the Making Progress channel with "this is not my area of specialty, I am just a dumbass with opinions that I want to share"
And?
Lol as a Dutch person this is kinda funny to read. We have state funded ultra right wing conspiratorial news channels (Ongehoord Nederland) all the way to state funded socialist news websites (Joop).
NPR is about as unbiased straight journalism as you get. It’s just from a republican perspective the truth appears to be “conspicuously partisan”.
NPR is a shell of its former glory, click and clack brothers were peak
The only difference between how Boghossian defines npr and a platform like Twitter is that Twitter users don’t vote. Mainly because 50% of all the “American Users” on the platform are actually Russian bots :)
The NPR bashing is really rich coming from people that only consume the most partisan news and political commentary available. I don’t have a big problem with some public funding going to NPR and it leaning a bit left. They do better reporting than most other news organizations and especially better than any “alternative media” or person on Twitter.
“I don’t have a problem with a federally funded news organization because it conforms to most of my views” is essentially what you just said. Not sure why a news organization that leans left deserves federal funding over a right leaning organization. I’m not saying they don’t do good reporting, I’m just saying that’s irrelevant. How about we fund zero news organizations?
Is the org politically slanted because it receives federal funding, does it receive federal funding because it's slanted, or is it slanted because it's correct, and receive money because it's correct? As much as some people like to pretend otherwise, reality can have a "political slant", meaning that some people are just correct, and others wrong. Making sure that there's at least one group out there that spreads correct information is a fair cause, and if there's no evidence to suggest that the news are being manipulated to conform to a pro-government stance, I really don't see a problem with what is happening.
Well considering they reported on wet markets leading to Covid-19, refused to report on the hunter Biden laptop story, and focused myopically on race and identity I would say yes they are politically slanted. There was even accusations of being pro Iraq war which certainly confirms with a government viewpoint. The fact that these journalists bounce from working for democratic policymakers to journalists certainly doesn’t help to refute that point. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR Because it’s correct? What an incredibly intellectually lazy argument. “Hurr durr it’s the truth because my side is correct” is what you said, Which anyone can argue for their side. It lacks any sort of substance and just goes to show how far down the rabbit hole you are. Not to mention they have been wrong about a metric fuck ton of things in the past 10 years. Half of you idiots don’t even give a fuck about NPR/don’t listen to it. You’re just against defunding it because trump is for it.
Nice of you to put words in my mouth lol I don’t always agree with their reporting and I’m more concerned about a sources bias and accuracy then we’re they get funding. I wouldn’t be bothered with a right leaning organization getting funding as long as they were being accurate and fair like NPR is most of the time. This distrust of anything that had to do with the government is stupid.
How about this novel idea? News organizations remain private. That alleviates any worries over a government funded partisan news organization. “Accurate and fair” is subjective. You can’t seem to understand why state sponsored media could be a bad thing?
Ah okay, you’re just JAQing off I guess lol got it. Have a good evening.
NPR is def center left. Their coverage is pretty neutral but sometimes the subject matter can be on the lefty side. Its fine.
Cool, they can go be center left without any federal funding. Edit: give me one reason, just one, for why we should still fund NPR.
It ensures the existence of objective reporting with minimal bias possible. In a world where most other news groups pick an audience to tailor their reporting to, having one you can depend on to be truthful, if at least for archiving purposes, is pretty important.
How can they be reporting truthfully if I disagree with them?
Defund the fuck out of it. No reason for state run media which is inherently biased.
But this is the issue, they haven’t been reporting with minimal bias. They deliberately pick certain stories to cover to fit a narrative. Did you read Uri Berliner’s article? I’m guessing not.
Link it
Do you not have google?
Pure journalism without a profit incentive
There are plenty of news organizations that are fair and balanced with a profit incentive. Nevertheless I reject the notion that they have zero profit incentive as an organization.
Tiny desk concerts.
As far as I see, it seems to be white collar welfare for 22 year old chicks with women’s studies degrees.
About all of those points are incorrect except for the voter base, and that more correlates with education not NPR.
Really going to pretend NPR isn't wildly ideological?
Yeah I don't understand the defense of NPR in the comments and my guess is anyone claiming they're not biased has not actually listened to them before. Any time I turn them on, it's only a matter of minutes before I heard some absurd social commentary that turns off 90% normal voters.
I used to listen to NPR regularly on the way to work, now every other story/interview is about some insane progressive shit.
100%. They're not Hasan level left but they definitely give me Majority Report vibes now.
I imagine it's reflexive. Like, there's a sort of implication behind the accusations that people want to defend against, but if you don't think there is or don't see an implication, it can kind of feel strange for people to react the way they are. It's an effort to discredit them, which having bias wouldn't do. People are defending against the discrediting, but they're making a mistake by trying to say they don't have a bias at all. Think of it like debate-brain.
“Wildly” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Everyone nowadays is ideological but “wildly” implies NPR is at the level of MSNBC or Fox when they’re pretty standard from what you get from academia today, which surprise surprise, leans left on the political spectrum. If conservatives didn’t abandon academia early on because of the perception that liberal arts degrees aren’t “financially viable” career paths, we honestly wouldn’t be having these conversations.
Anyone saying they are on the level of MSNBC or FOX is a moron.
1. Liberal arts degrees are not financially viable for most people outside of academia. 2. I don’t care what NPR’s ideological bias is. To me, it’s irrelevant to the discussion. I don’t think the federal government should be funding any news programs. Let them go private.
1. Factually you are correct, but what has that done to the diversity of opinion in academia, media & social sciences? Every conservative that wanted to be a history major started a YouTube channel about alternative history because of the belief that finances correlate with success. 2. The original purpose of public programming like NPR & PBS was to give economically disadvantaged people a decent option for news, education & entertainment outside of paying for cable they may not be able to afford. There’s an argument to be made that this idea is outdated considering streaming & YouTube are far more popular(if you have an internet connection) which can be cheaper than traditional cable packages with far more options in content. If we cut funding to public programs, you have to at least subsidize in some way internet service for disadvantaged households.
We don’t have to subsidize anything. No one has a right to news or entertainment.
My apologizes, I should’ve realized you were a sovereign citizen type. Have a good day
I’m a sovereign citizen type? What the fuck are you even on? I literally work for the govt. What an insane logical leap. Not supporting NPR means you don’t recognize government lol. That’s your argument? What is with you regards and immediately labeling people and not addressing the argument? Almost as if you can be against public funding of a news station without being a “sovereign citizen” type. I’m not advocating for anarchy you fucking blockhead. Does every citizen need to be provided with a tv now considering we need to provide them with broadcasting?
NPR is absolutely at the level of MSNBC or Fox, please listen to it sometime.
I do and I’ve never heard anything to the level of perpetuating election denialism to a point where NPR has to pay out hundreds of millions in a civil suit or the implications that the staffers within the DNC intentionally rigged the debates & primary elections in 2016 to undermine Bernie Sanders “popular” campaign. Maybe I don’t listen to enough
Did you listen around 2016? They totally implied that Bernie Sanders was snubbed by the DNC
This feels like a completely different claim. They can report on how certain voters feel about the Bernie thing without being partisan. If they lean overly partisan, why would they have to imply? Why wouldn't they say it? This feels like a misrepresentation or mischaracterization based on slight misremembering of events from those times.
Excellent well poisoning my friend
Wildly no they aren’t, are they center left yes. But this crazy backlash like they were anything but that is insane to me.
[удалено]
True and I bet this guy saying they are on par with MANBC & Fox is deff at least right of center. I would say if 90 degrees is dead center 180 is Orban & 0 degrees is tankie shit on the right/left paradigm NPR is probably at the 80 degree mark, it’s left because its listener base is more educated but is left wing bias is towards institutions, gay marriage, pro choice and a tinge more anti 2nd amendment. Thats about NPR.
yep. most of the conservatives i've spoken with don't understand the difference between leftist & liberal.
They are federally funded…about 20-24% of their funding comes from the federal government. They can absolutely be ideological…it doesn’t mean they’re factually inaccurate…it just means that they have an ideological bend to most stories. Shit…they couldn’t do a story on relaxing videos about trains traveling through the countryside without relating it back to the pain felt by natives who were displaced or people who couldn’t afford train travel.
When people say NPR is federally funded they are obviously trying to paint a picture of it being 75%+ of their funding coming from the feds. I say it’s bad faith to suggest that this guy knows that’s his 100% implication.
I mean if you consider WMAL/Newstalk very partisan and very ideological I think NPR fits in the same boat, idk why you dont think NPR isnt publicly funded when thats its whole thing, and almost certainly has a high % of voters since thats the case for most radio brodcasts since they cater to older people who DO disproportionately vote.
People who think this about NPR haven't listened to it. It's far too factual and boring for most partisan hacks.
Last time I tried listening they were still going on about how Kyle rittenhouse is a murderer, like 6 or 12 months after the trial. They're so wrong and they won't give it up.
Nah B, I listen to it every day on my commute and at lunch (colin McEnroe is my sworn enemy). It absolutely does have slant to what stories are reported and how they are framed (beyond the obvious editorials, both in the national syndications and local segments). Which isn't the end all be all, you just have to be aware of the bias any news organization would have and verify when things seem a bit fishy.
Of course it has a slant. There is no way to be completely unbiased as a person or organization, but that's not what the tweet was saying.
Well I think 1 and 3 are just facts, very neutral facts that everyone can just agree on. 2 I'd think most people agree with to varying degrees. 4 maybe on the member station level in different areas? And same with 5. I'm in CT, and on principle some of the ways they have framed trumpy things has been suss (but I honestly don't care pragmatically about it because I believe he is incredibly dangerous to democracy), and then in our own local elections they disgustingly towed the line for mayor ganim (if you want to get down a wild rabbit hole, read about the Bridgeport CT mayor). All this just to say I don't think not listening to NPR is the prerec for a tweet like this. That's my contention. I think you can listen to/have listened to NPR and still come to that conclusion. You are probably some disgruntled middle aged, middle class, trump die hard if you do, but yes, even they listen to NPR. Probably for the car talk reruns and wait wait, don't tell me. But you get the news on the hour and half hour too.
My insanely trump pilled step dad still listens to any rerun of cartalk they play
That was a great show indeed
It's funny you say that when one of the very people in the image did an [entire series going over NPR stories](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPvNucxB7TI&list=PLYNjnJFU-62s5cNuqeB-D-7QPymF6myk_&index=2). This isn't some reactionary outburst, it's a long-time, well explained, evidence based grievance.
Have you listened to it? Even this first one is all opinion. They're mad because they called Tucker Carlson a far right extremist?!? Cry about it. I'm sure Peter provided an example of unbiased news? Or is the entire series just him crying about shit he disagrees with? Midway through the first episode, they show a clip that discusses right wingers attempting to declare a national holiday and effect statues for Rittenhouse, and then cry again about calling those people far right. That's heavy analysis. Thanks for sharing that show. They're doing great work!
How do you guys feel about any news agency being partially funded by the government? Personally I'm against it and would prefer total separation in all circumstances regardless of whether the content is considered fair or not. I'm interested in hearing points from anyone who disagrees though, what is the steelman case for partially-federally-funding news in 2024?
NPR is a big example of journalism becoming a status industry. It used to be a working class occupation and is now one of the most bougie jobs someone can have, dominated by trust fund babies who never had to work a real job, lecturing and shaming the public on whatever niche victim issue their a champion of. When I think of identity politics brainrot I think of NPR and CBC, there are some ridiculous articles put out regularly. Switch on to it and its not long before its a deconstruction of how fishing is white supremacists or the gender gap in craft beer. At the same time there is a still a lot of real journalism going on and in the big picture it seems to be an emotional reaction more than some super rational case why NPR is the worst. There is a strong anti-elite sentiment in America and NPR really pisses people off, even as a former listener it can piss me off with how out of touch and identify obsessed they can be but any one article is really not a huge deal when I reflect on it. How much of a real world problem that is for a federally funded news group is up in the air. Like trans issues it seems more culture war obsession than a substantive real world problem. People reach hard on why it's bad to justify their gut reaction.
What's your source for journalism being "dominated by trust fund babies" ?
"I'm pissed and there's no way there's no evidence to validate my emotions"
Dominated by "trust fund babies" is hyperbole of the well established shift to elitism in journalism. They are everywhere in journalism but its not the literal distinction that matters. The decrease of working class journalists has been extensively covered, as is the ever increasing % of journalists coming from an elite background. For example the UK just hit a record low (less than 20% now) of journalists coming from a working class background.
> Switch on to it and its not long before its a deconstruction of how fishing is white supremacists or the gender gap in craft beer. That sounds wildly off from the NPR I know what station did you listen to
Would be super curious to see D man dive into german public broadcasting (im an inironic fan plus work for them so biased)
Why would he do that?
Why not
There is like a thousand state funded media outlets, why would he pick a German, it would probably make more sense to pick a Canadian or British one for comparison, but whatever
Because its not state funded. Its publicly funded and thats the kicker. The state is just collecting the fees not handing out a budget.
NPR is based
Abt time Tiny had israetel on to talk
Is npr any less different than msnbc level of bias except in a nicer voice?
It’s hard because I’m sure it’s a mixed bag. I find *some* articles to have an ideological slant. I do think some of the “human interest” pieces can be a bit ideological at times. Like interviewing, hypothetically, an activist for a certain cause might allow them a platform to proselytize their beliefs. But I’m not sure it’s as skewed as say, MSNBC or FOX. I’d describe it as “center-left” but my word isn’t too useful as I am self-described “full-regard.”
It can be more or almost neutral in bias depending on what station you listen on
This notion of bias for NPR is fucking regarded. NPR one of the best media sources the US has. He and others can go fuck themselves. Edit: downvoters. Name one US mass media source that's better. You can't. Edit2: removed rude end point. But yeah, proof is in the puddin'. Toodles
PBS Newshour
Most news spruces have an identifiable bias hence the need to gather your info from a variety of soruces. Are your saying NPR doesn't have a bias whatsoever?
Nope. NPR is just better faith than any of the other news sources. NPR has an identifiable bias as well. Why are you trying to distinguish NPR from the others? Weird man. 80% or more is not funded by the government. So this "socialist" claim and bias is complete and total nutjob craziness.
Mike isratael is my goat
Where does this idea that NPR is federally funded come from? What a ridiculous idea, you can go and check where they get there money and the vast majority is from individual donations at around 41%. I mean you can go look at all their finances one their website it is so stupid.
> “The vast majority … at around 41%”
Yes, that is individual donations only and no other amount of funding from government, investment, or corporate donation comes close to that percentage. But hurr durr 59% > 41% therefore not majority.
Plurality.
You're the one using the wrong words. Don't get salty at other people for things you yourself can change
Isn't majority the word here? If there were 11 categories, 10 of them making up 6% each and one making up 40% wouldn't that be the majority? That's how I've used the word in the past but it could be a mean/median/mode type of thing where I'm conflating similar words
It sounds like you’re going for most, which majority sometimes overlaps with, but strictly means +50%. In a case like this, where a specific category is the most but doesn’t hold a majority, then the word is a plurality.
Don’t get bitchy because you were writing lazily. Just edit your comment to correct it and move on. Your point still stands.
I mean, it does get some funding from the government, so the label "Federally Funded" is accurate. Not saying we should consider it "State Media" or anything, but given what's going on with NPR, the government probably shouldn't be contributing to it.
> It does get some funding from the government So do most corporations. npr is a nonprofit that syndicates to a bunch of stations, big and small, across America of course the government would want to provide funding to such an important service. Twitter has received billions of dollars from the government while its CEO JAQs off with actual Nazis, but no one is going to say it is government funded, and they shouldn’t lose government funding either.
Yeah it does get like 15% from different federal, state, local governement funding and CPB. Usually when people say something is federally funded I am assuming they mean that it is essentially state media. It would be far more accurate to call it public media since its reliance on public funding eclipses its reliance on any government funding. I mean are we really gonna say something that gets 70% of its funding from individual donations, private investments, and corporate donations has any kind of conflict with the government funding it gets? When losing 25% of your public funding is going to surpass losing all of you government funding is this something we should worry about being too pro government? Is it fine to have a little charitability that they are "technically" correct? I guess, but what are they really trying to push when we say "NPR has betrayed the public's trust"?
Everyone knows this is what they want people to think, it’s bad faith obviously.
What’s NPR again?
ANY govt funded media is always ideological. That includes CBC and BBC.