Thank you for posting. When I used to listen to NPR, regularly for decades, I could always hear in my head what wasn’t being said. Pointing to NPR’s bias (propaganda) is primarily an act of omission, skipping right over the “informed” listener’s non-firing synaptic connections. And, I agree, NPR’s Leftism is papal in its delivery of the word of NPR.
NPR talks about Liberal subjects like transgender issues and climate change. They never talk about geoengineering or deaths and injury from vaccine damage. They make omissions sound really chic too with their velvety voices spouting creamy insincerities. But then all major mainstream news does that, they stick to subjects that keep the "goyim" arguing, things that divide us, not things that we all want like clean air with no chemtrail poisoning and clean water with no fluoridation and a whole lot more.
Can we stop calling these folks ‘liberal?’ In the sixties we ‘liberals’ supported entrepreneurship for minority communities a la Thomas Sowell, sovereignty for Nicaragua (Sandinistas) and El Salvador (FMLN) and we called out IMF conditionality for what was in effect ‘neocolonialism.’
The framing of the question itself is a thought funnel.
NPR is a propaganda outlet that presents itself in a palatable fashion to a target audience. Its role is no different than any other propaganda outlet. It’s there to herd the culture and narrow thought. The more you listen, the less you’ll perceive this.
JD - Nice perspective. NPR, Hollywood and all MSM showed their true fascist cult colors during the pandemic. Global media control is concentrated into the number of fingers on one hand. One third of American's get their news from Facebook. Something is seriously f-ed up. Maybe it's the left, maybe its the right, maybe it's the WEF, maybe we should... https://youtu.be/QqFwlW2BQB4?
I used to listen to NPR on the way to work, when Bob Edwards was the morning host. Maybe I was an unconscious liberal or just an Edwards groupie, because when they got rid of him and the Middle East reporter I stopped listening to anything at all on the radio.
I think it is true as Tfish says that if you listen long enough you don't perceive that your perspective is being narrowed. Confirmation bias, I guess.
Sense-making is very high on my list (thus hardly getting any work done ever since I found Substacks!) Whenever I start wondering why in the world someone can't see the obvious, I remind myself that different perceptions of reality are complex. Are you familiar with Spiral Dynamics, the work of Clare Graves? https://www.clarewgraves.com/home.html
Your conflation of liberalism and left politics betrays the fact that you have accepted the decades long propaganda that saturates the American political landscape. Unfortunately this is the norm and there are only a handful of people that understand that liberals are in fact aligned with conservatives on all issues of import and liberals and leftists (the few that remain) are diametrically opposed on such issues.
With all due respect you have illustrated you know nothing about liberalism and less about what is actual left politics.
When I was growing up, the term "liberal" fell somewhere into the spectrum between "moderate" and "opportunist liar" depending on whom you spoke to. It always carried with it an "establishment" veneer, however. People weren't "liberal", political leaders and elected officials were.
Part of the reason was that it was clear that liberal politics was something different from the very real movements and forces in the society that were demanding something far greater. When the civil rights movement demanded racial equality, the liberals came up with affirmative action and measures against "racism".
Historically, liberals and leftists are not merely different points in a common spectrum but, in the end, they are implacable enemies. And the issue is precisely joined on the issue of class, as has been mentioned before but now seems to have disappeared from the general lexicon.
If the term "left" has any meaning other than a purely relative one, it is as that group of political ideas, parties, movements, and organizations which believes that politics is driven less by ideas than by interests and that those interests are based on economic class. Radical republicans (Civil War variety), revolutionary democrats, social democrats (including even a sizable chunk of the British Labor Party and the German SDs of today), socialists, utopian socialists, agrarian socialists, communists, anarchists, anarco-syndicalists, and nihilists - if these do not agree on anything else, they agree on the centrality of social classes even before they divide on what to do about them.
In contrast, "Liberals" explicitly reject the centrality of social classes. If such exist at all, they are assumed to be trumped by a common interest (national or otherwise) and any division is based only on transitory political opinion or policy. They are united with "Conservatives" in their agreement on the fundamental norms of society and on their long-term objectives (most importantly in the defense of private property and the projection of "national interest"). Indeed, for them, the current organization of society is the only one conceivable.
Liberalism is third-way capitalism, the hard and soft sides of the coinage of social control.
Thank you for posting. When I used to listen to NPR, regularly for decades, I could always hear in my head what wasn’t being said. Pointing to NPR’s bias (propaganda) is primarily an act of omission, skipping right over the “informed” listener’s non-firing synaptic connections. And, I agree, NPR’s Leftism is papal in its delivery of the word of NPR.
NPR talks about Liberal subjects like transgender issues and climate change. They never talk about geoengineering or deaths and injury from vaccine damage. They make omissions sound really chic too with their velvety voices spouting creamy insincerities. But then all major mainstream news does that, they stick to subjects that keep the "goyim" arguing, things that divide us, not things that we all want like clean air with no chemtrail poisoning and clean water with no fluoridation and a whole lot more.
Can we stop calling these folks ‘liberal?’ In the sixties we ‘liberals’ supported entrepreneurship for minority communities a la Thomas Sowell, sovereignty for Nicaragua (Sandinistas) and El Salvador (FMLN) and we called out IMF conditionality for what was in effect ‘neocolonialism.’
The framing of the question itself is a thought funnel.
NPR is a propaganda outlet that presents itself in a palatable fashion to a target audience. Its role is no different than any other propaganda outlet. It’s there to herd the culture and narrow thought. The more you listen, the less you’ll perceive this.
JD - Nice perspective. NPR, Hollywood and all MSM showed their true fascist cult colors during the pandemic. Global media control is concentrated into the number of fingers on one hand. One third of American's get their news from Facebook. Something is seriously f-ed up. Maybe it's the left, maybe its the right, maybe it's the WEF, maybe we should... https://youtu.be/QqFwlW2BQB4?
I've been listening to NPR since it signed on in 1971, and its spin has never been liberal, just whatever the CIA provided it.
PS I loved the music!
What we allow into our homes via the Telly matters a whole lot! Discriminate!
Tucker Carlson did a superb job interviewing Dugin regarding ‘liberalism’. By all means watch it a couple of times. https://twitter.com/tuckercarlson/status/1785066534995714067?s=12. It forces a rethink of liberalism itself.
please everyone should read the book One Idea to rule them All to see how we have been played and manipultated
I used to listen to NPR on the way to work, when Bob Edwards was the morning host. Maybe I was an unconscious liberal or just an Edwards groupie, because when they got rid of him and the Middle East reporter I stopped listening to anything at all on the radio.
I think it is true as Tfish says that if you listen long enough you don't perceive that your perspective is being narrowed. Confirmation bias, I guess.
Sense-making is very high on my list (thus hardly getting any work done ever since I found Substacks!) Whenever I start wondering why in the world someone can't see the obvious, I remind myself that different perceptions of reality are complex. Are you familiar with Spiral Dynamics, the work of Clare Graves? https://www.clarewgraves.com/home.html
New CEO of NPR is Katherine Maher, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Maher. She was formerly with Wikipedia. https://dianekern.substack.com/p/wikipedia-as-controller.
Your conflation of liberalism and left politics betrays the fact that you have accepted the decades long propaganda that saturates the American political landscape. Unfortunately this is the norm and there are only a handful of people that understand that liberals are in fact aligned with conservatives on all issues of import and liberals and leftists (the few that remain) are diametrically opposed on such issues.
With all due respect you have illustrated you know nothing about liberalism and less about what is actual left politics.
When I was growing up, the term "liberal" fell somewhere into the spectrum between "moderate" and "opportunist liar" depending on whom you spoke to. It always carried with it an "establishment" veneer, however. People weren't "liberal", political leaders and elected officials were.
Part of the reason was that it was clear that liberal politics was something different from the very real movements and forces in the society that were demanding something far greater. When the civil rights movement demanded racial equality, the liberals came up with affirmative action and measures against "racism".
Historically, liberals and leftists are not merely different points in a common spectrum but, in the end, they are implacable enemies. And the issue is precisely joined on the issue of class, as has been mentioned before but now seems to have disappeared from the general lexicon.
If the term "left" has any meaning other than a purely relative one, it is as that group of political ideas, parties, movements, and organizations which believes that politics is driven less by ideas than by interests and that those interests are based on economic class. Radical republicans (Civil War variety), revolutionary democrats, social democrats (including even a sizable chunk of the British Labor Party and the German SDs of today), socialists, utopian socialists, agrarian socialists, communists, anarchists, anarco-syndicalists, and nihilists - if these do not agree on anything else, they agree on the centrality of social classes even before they divide on what to do about them.
In contrast, "Liberals" explicitly reject the centrality of social classes. If such exist at all, they are assumed to be trumped by a common interest (national or otherwise) and any division is based only on transitory political opinion or policy. They are united with "Conservatives" in their agreement on the fundamental norms of society and on their long-term objectives (most importantly in the defense of private property and the projection of "national interest"). Indeed, for them, the current organization of society is the only one conceivable.
Liberalism is third-way capitalism, the hard and soft sides of the coinage of social control.