NPR is a Propaganda Outlet

But some of us already knew that.

If you’re in the business of journalism then you should probably tell the truth, but NPR and the MSM don’t do that.
Here’s a few gems from this piece. Russiagate wasn’t real, they knew it and didn’t report on it.

The laptop was real and they knew it, but didn’t report on it.

The lab leak theory was credible and they knew it, but didn’t report on it.

With the lab leak people were called racists and were banned from social media at the behest of the federal government violating their first amendment rights, but liberals don’t care about that because it was the wrong people saying it.

https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust
If you are no longer telling the truth then you’re just spouting propaganda.

Going to "about".
Hmm, founded by Bari Weiss. Let's look up Bari Weiss.
Ah, another contrarian pseudo-lib like Jimmy Dore. Boy, FF looooves his pseudo-libs.
Hmm, what's this "witch trails" category?
Oh! "The Witch Trials of JK Rowling"!
A big fat Gregorian chant laden clit-suck to JK that grudgingly gets to trans perspectives in episode fucking 6.
Hosted by the daughter of Fred Phelps who rebelled against WBC, but then swung right back into "just asking questions" transphobia.
Lovely!

https://www.thedailybeast.com/npr-fires-back-at-staffers-missive-about-left-wing-miscues

Attacking the source just makes you look weak.

Refute the claims. Was Russiagate real, yes or no?
Is the Hunter Biden laptop real, yes or no?
Were scientists doing gain of function research in Wuhan, yes or no?

Then anything goes, and you can just go ahead and post Stormfront shit.
No?
Why not?
Okay then.
Go fuck a cactus.

Picking bad sources makes you look like an idiot.

Refute the claims!
Is pizzagate real!?
Is the Earth flat!?
Was 9/11 an inside job!?
Did we land on the moon!?
Debate me, coward!!
You must know it's all real!!
Your silence speaks volumes!!


Fuck off.

Stormfront is your obsession and your go to excuse to deny, deflect and dodge. It’s also not a news outlet.

is federal farmer a gullible dupe? Yes or no?
Do you want mayo on that? Yes or no?

Neither is the junk you posted.

a cactus spine has more length and girth than his limp needledick. He should get fucked by a cactus.

What does "Is the Hunter Biden laptop real?" even mean?

Is there a laptop that once belonged to Hunter?

Yes.

Did he give it to someone to repair?

Yes.

Is there proof on there that he committed crimes?

No.

Because if there was, he would be in jail or on trial.

Y'know, like Trump is.

You would not have the GOP dancing around a bunch of "questions need asking" BS like they're an underage poster on a web forum and failing to find any credible witnesses.

I did not realize it was Federal Farmer self humiliation day again.

As I’ve already said, pizzagate is not real and there’s no credible documentation that would support it. Pizzagate is not something that I have claimed to be real.
Science has proven the earth is not flat, anyone can see that if they go on a plane. Another claim that I didn’t make.
9/11 was a huge intelligence failure, but I do believe that the Israelis knew something was coming and didn’t say anything to us. So not an inside job. Another claim that I didn’t make.
Yes we landed on the moon. Again, I never claimed otherwise. Now answer my questions.

Yes it is. It’s not junk, it’s the actual truth. The media lied to you, but you refuse to believe it because that would destroy your reality bubble.

Plucky bloggers know the real truth!
Because reality is a bad Hollywood movie!

This. It's the kind of thing that requires scrutiny. We're all susceptible to propaganda, every last one of us, and especially the person who claims they aren't. What Uri is complaining about is this notion that objective media means airing both sides as legitimate and letting the people decide. The problem with that, especially in the US, is that the people are grossly under and miseducated. If you're taught fascism is okay, you're going to grow up reading fascist news articles as the default, and news articles saying "maybe we shouldn't mulch the poor and use them in bar soap" as extremist content catering to an extremist population.

The same standard applies here. Does NPR have bias? Yeah. It does. As does every other media outlet in existence. That doesn't make them bad or wrong by default, and you cannot completely remove human bias from human journalists, it's not possible. What you can do is step back and say "do I agree with this only because it agrees with my position, or is it factual?" then hunt down the sources of the information to verify whether it's firsthand, secondhand, or made up bullshit, and that takes more effort on the part of the reader/listener/viewer.

Some "free speech" advocates might get upset, but I'm perfectly fine with a publication saying "we won't post this Nazi viewpoint because fuck Nazis always."
Does that make me biased? Yes, just like every other human being on the planet, and especially the ones who think they're not.

So while I read all kinds of media, including bloggers as long as they're sharing their sources and I can check it myself, it's still up to me to weigh what is and isn't likely to be true. I guarantee I expend more effort doing that than most of the US, because we really do live in a kind of sad situation where people just accept what they're told without thinking. Fuck, most people don't read past the headlines!

-Yeah, Russiagate was real. Just because the people at the very top didn't get charged over it doesn't mean a lot of low level guys didn't get charged as a result of Mueller's investigation.

-Yeah, "the laptop" physically exists. But as others have pointed out many times before, the way it was handled makes it absolutely worthless as evidence. Everything about it reeked of a manufactured October Surprise, which is why every media outlet save one rejected the opportunity to run the story first.

-Is it possible covid was a lab leak? Sure. When people first started saying it was a lab leak did they have anything to back that claim up beyond racist paranoia? No. A friend of mine that got really into mushrooms warned me that the eclipse was a conspiracy by the lizard people to expose humanity to dark occult energies, should NPR be reporting on that too?

Pay attention to the argumentation structure Federal Farmer is trying to set up here, because the people he makes common cause with have always been extremely good at setting the underlying terms of the debate and getting everyone else to go along with them.

One of their end goals is to create a structure wherein they can make up any lie they want and demand that it be accepted as truth. But that requires several intermediate steps, and one of the ways they can get there is by setting up a "rule" in people's minds that when somebody makes an assertion of fact, you aren't allowed to evaluate that person's reliability.

Naturally, this structure benefits the makers of unreliable assertions. Which is the point.

You mean like the author of that piece did with NPR?

Speaking of pseudo-libs, I'm equally skeeved by ex-connies.
Michael Steele and Michael Cohen being liberal darlings makes me queasy.
It'd be like if Darth Vader survived "Return of The Jedi" put on white armor, and went around going "yeah, I'm totally good now ".
Uhh....no, I'm gonna keep a side-eye on ya, pal.

Sounds like conspiracy theories to me.

This shit is why everyone treats you like a child. Well, one of the reasons.

That's on YOUR addled brain.

I'd wager you twist every fucking Subway order the customers present you with into some Machiavellian scheme, but they really really just want a meatball sub, dude. They aren't asking for someone from M*A*S*H in a gimp mask.

Too bad you’re no good at debunking them.

But the Muller investigation found no credible evidence of Russian collusion. Most of the time when people claim something with no evidence it’s called a conspiracy theory. Why wouldn’t we do that in this case? Could it be your political affiliation?

Kill yourself.

Myth: Mueller found “no collusion.”

Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.

While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”


To find conspiracy, a prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime: an agreement between at least two people, to commit a criminal offense and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. One of the underlying criminal offenses that Mueller reviewed for conspiracy was campaign-finance violations. Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting. This meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish “willfulness,” that is, that the participants knew that their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a “thing of value” that exceeded $25,000, the requirement for campaign finance to be a felony, as opposed to a civil violation of law. But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was acceptable. Trump campaign members welcomed foreign influence into our election and then compromised themselves with the Russian government by covering it up.

Mueller found other contacts with Russia, such as the sharing of polling data about Midwestern states where Trump later won upset victories, conversations with the Russian ambassador to influence Russia’s response to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to election interference, and communications with Wikileaks after it had received emails stolen by Russia. While none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy, all could be described as “collusion.”

https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/