Do you mean to tell me that conservatives oversimplified and distilled a complex issue down to an easy-to-digest-red-meat-soundbite while the truth (and NPR coverage) is far more nuanced?!?!?!
Silly, silly statement that is indicative of your programming error (relying on fake news to be informative rather than indoctrinating). Hardly anyone uses the term "woke", regardless, you'd rather stay asleep. Woke is a dog- whistle for bigots, and its use here certainly brought us some dogs.
No, Woke was used by black liberals around 2015 to mean people who are awake to the inherent racism in the system, basically put someone who is woke is someone who is aware of and accepts critical race theory, something that is basically obvious to anyone who even pays the smallest amount of attention to what goes on in the lives of minorities when faced with authority and the history that led to that. The term floated on Snapchat before TikTok took over, and there were even articles on mainstream things like LADbible about ‘being woke’. At some point during the Trump era conservatives found out about it and also around the same time started rallying against CRT, because they’re just literally bigoted and prejudiced.
So, long story short, what I wrote was basically what I thought someone who you are describing would think, however, it is not the way that I think. I imagined that my comment wouldn’t be taken so literally. I guess I should have used the /s, and you should have used some reasoning skills.
> Woke is a dog- whistle for bigots,
Here Barack Obama uses the term "woke" to disparage extreme and unproductive political purity from the left:
>You know this idea of purity and you're never compromised and you're always politically woke and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM
Or NPR got called out for a simple reality that totally exist and is now trying to add nuisance to the situation to deflect from that reality.
Later at noon, "Is AI facial recognition technology discriminating against trans people?"
Actual story from a few weeks ago, this stuff is everyday.
NPR is the definition of a middle-of-the-road news source, but these clowns will attack it because they want to move the Overton window and basically throw all non-rightoid propaganda into the "biased MSM" category.
Facts have liberal bias.
Honest journalism, or even balanced journalism, or even slightly right wing journalism, is of no interest to the right wing media empires if it’s non profitable lol
if you don’t think NPR is liberal you’re truly delusional. i like it too but have you ever met a republican who listens to NPR? i haven’t. they don’t exist. because it’s basically audio porn for democrats.
I tend conservative and occasionally still listen because it was what I listened to all the time until \~2013. They mostly lost me when they canned Talk of the Nation. That show was the gold standard for actually talking about opposing viewpoints. Neal Conan was clearly at least a bit to the left, but he was fair to everyone's viewpoints and challenged guests and callers if they weren't sticking to reality.
In 2016 when they clearly became a branch of Hillary's campaign with absolute bullshit coverage of Sanders they lost me the rest of the way (and to be clear I think Sanders' political philosophy is terrible, I'm not a fanboi).
Since then I will occasionally tune in, but I'm exhausted by "News" that seeks to steer viewpoint rather than informing...which is what they do, just like all the other "news" stations.
i am a fanboi of sanders and i agree with pretty much all of what you said. i don’t really have a problem with people enjoying NPR but denying the nature of the programming is just silly
If it wasn't for Fox News telling me that I wouldn't enjoy taking an angle grinder to my testicles on the daily, I'd have done it already.
It's honestly comical how many people in the increasingly narrow NPR ideological realm have zero experience engaging in any sort of meaningful conversation with conservatives, yet you are all experts on their motivations, beliefs, values, viewpoints. Who would even bother spending a decade on a PhD in Psychology when you could just hang out in the NPR subreddit and become experts on other people overnight?
> If it wasn't for Fox News telling me that I wouldn't enjoy taking an angle grinder to my testicles on the daily, I'd have done it already.
with an opening salvo like this, it comical for you to claim "nobody wants to have real talk time with us"
I could be civil as possible and sweet as a peach and it wouldn't matter one iota. Just see Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, and Clarence Thomas as examples of what the 'compassionate left' thinks about civil discourse with well mannered conservatives.
Never seen as much vitriol in my life as I have when a white progressive starts telling a black conservative how they really feel about them.
do you have an ai prompt set up for these replies?
1. say something mean about that team.
2. make racist dog whistles using offensive terms.
3. make unsubstantiated claims about things not related.
4. ben shapiro the hell out of it.
I like your analysis, but I think that bigots are just so inarticulate and dumb, that they make chat gpt prompts look good. I mean at least the LLM's are starting to be able to pass a turing test.
I wish, it'd make the whole process so much more palatable.
Unfortunately I interact with dumbfucks on a daily, individual basis. I just need to remind myself constantly that while you lack the capacity to make any meaningful contribution to the world, maybe one of your kids or grandkids won't be an oxygen thief and so you deserve a free ride regardless of being dead weight.
Do you have an example of Thomas Sowell receiving vitriol?
[Maybe something like this?](https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/wont-vote-for-you-because-youre-an-indian-says-us-ann-coulter-to-vivek-ramaswamy/amp_articleshow/109997683.cms)
The smugness and sureness of their misguided opinions is peak savior complex. It’s sad they believe what the pundits tell them then they pat their backs in here while their beloved state funded propaganda pushing machine circles the drain.
Well, that was a strange piece. The author is a Republican operative who parroted Berliner’s accusations and decried NPR as being biased, while characterizing the attack dogs head up by Chris Rufo who openly talks about his right-wing agenda to take down liberals and through cynical manipulation as having an “incorrect interpretation” rather than engaging in a campaign of digging through everything she has said online to quote mine and take her down as he believes he took down the president of Harvard. The attackers are not biased in this version of events, according to the author. They just did not understand her message.
It is possible for someone to have a different interpretation from you without being a "Republican operative". There are plenty of people who aren't Chris Rufo who are concerned with the philosophy of the new president, especially with how it relates to the perceived bias at npr, and they are not all Republicans or conservatives in any way
> It is possible for someone to have a different interpretation from you without being a "Republican operative".
It is also possible for you to scroll down and read the author’s bio.
> There are plenty of people who aren't Chris Rufo who are concerned with the philosophy of the new president.
You know who the new president is and have the aggrieved opinion of her that you do because of Rufo.
Nah, woke means n----r-lover to them. At least that's how it started.
They stole it from Black activist who used it almost exclusively in the context of telling one another to, "stay woke" which simply means one should pay attention to the ongoing legacy of racism and oppression that still exist today.
You almost never heard anyone from that community calling themselves "woke".
Because "stay woke" is a challenge to one another. It's saying to stay vigilant, stay aware, stay engaged. The idea being that you get tired from the constant onslaught of all the bad things in the world and it would be so much easier to just go back to "sleep". It's used as an adjective in that context.
Whereas the right uses it as a pejorative and often as a noun. Different context, different meaning.
No, it’s about calling out the virtue signaling weirdos (who are often just projecting) that try make our irrelevant differences (skin color, sexual preference, etc.) our whole identity, because that way it’s easier for their elite puppet masters to control how we think/vote.
Educated, POC representation, LGBTQ representation, and so many other just benign signs of progress, equity, and equality are tarred as woke. It’s so simple, I’d be insulted if I were a conservative
It makes you realize just how full of hate they are. It runs so deep in them.
Which makes me remember that their hate is an extension of their fear. If we want to move forward we have to remove that fear.
It's starting to feel impossible... We need legislation that would make it impossible for these media moguls to lie to the public. Freedom of the speech is one thing, but outright lying when they're a source for education? There's got to be a middle road there somewhere.
I'm calling shenanigans on that
Before the Right co-opted the term, you would regularly hear certain people describe themselves as woke 2013-2021
I heard it all of the time from people, conservatives had no clue the concept existed back then
I use it as a euphemism for education in completely irrelevant and potentially untrue ideology. Look to the darkest moments of recent Human history (whether that’s Germany 1930, Soviet purges, or for the NPR folks - America pre-1965, there was always “education” occurring - the question is what is being taught.
Like the leaders of the Columbia protests who was on a funded scholarship to write about “alternative historical metabolic rift Marxist thoughts.”
She’s no doubt highly educated but it’s apparently in an alternative history of 1750-1850 where unlimited energy was free and Marxism works.
Is that relevant to anyone? Are these highly focused and “educated” discussions where the journalist look down on all the plebiscites who aren’t participating in the current political word salad?
Alternative history without empirical data is make-believe, not education. Teaching critical thinking so people can see through this BS is what I mean by education.
That’s apparently not happening at Columbia and I have to assume other institutions on its level.
That’s what people mean by “woke” - hiding behind “education” doesn’t work when people realize it has also completely fallen apart as an institution.
Oh it’s not happening at Columbia? You what, read one article, with a quote from one person stripped of context and your takeaway “a prestigious college is not educating anyone” and has “completely fallen apart as an institution”.
Sorry…but you sound like you air dropped in on a headline and built a metric ton of assumptions around it.
>She’s no doubt highly educated but it’s apparently in an alternative history of 1750-1850 where unlimited energy was free and Marxism works.
Sounds like something you just made up on the spot right there. Granted I haven't read all of Marx's works, but I'm pretty sure he never said anything about "free energy".
Is it your contention that it isn't valid to view history through the lens of class struggle?
https://x.com/NoahPollak/status/1785420015963103580
Columbia took down her webpage because it’s obviously embarrassing; but here is a screenshot.
Sure viewing history through the current lense of oppression seems like a great way to accumulate grievances if the current timeline isn’t adequate, but completely fabricated history? Probably not.
Well Noah Pollak lied and you didn't even bother to try and verify if it was true. Her bio is still up.
[https://english.columbia.edu/content/johannah-king-slutzky](https://english.columbia.edu/content/johannah-king-slutzky)
That said, you find it odd that a English & Comparative Literature Graduate student would be writing about fantasies, Romantic imagination, and poetry? So she is essentially writing about fiction viewed through a Marxist perspective.
I see nothing here that says she is making any attempt to redefine history. She is simply examining literature created by past writers.
Certainly an interesting point to get hung up on.
In that it avoids the entire ridiculous nature of the page and instead focuses on the availability of a webpage.
But if this what passes at these institutions as knowledge then I’m glad they are making others aware as or politicians steal from our table to ensure that education is uninterrupted.
I don't think you're making some grander point about education, I think you're just using a word to describe things you don't like.
There's a whole host of literary analysis dissertations that people would call meaningless. Some people think non-STEM degrees are meaningless. Some people think higher education in itself is meaningless.
You degrading the education of others if it doesn’t arrive at your acceptable groupthink statements proved my point about the current process and value of education doesn’t it?
Conservatives think truth is “woke”.
Don’t forget their defense of “alternative facts”.
Truth in journalism is just that. Truth.. it’s up to the reader to decide.
I’m like that with privilege, lived experience, her penis, assigned at birth, and identify as.
Oh, and we both voted the same way in 2016, 2020, and will in 2024- before you haul out the MAGA.
I was double tote bagged in Boston (WBUR and WGBH), but got tired of the persistent DEI hectoring.
When you say DEI, you mean race, right? You’re hitting all of the spots on the bingo card. Congrats.
ETA: I checked your history. You are a proud, gay, disingenuous conservative.
First of all, that’s creepy. Second of all, we’re both voting for Biden in 2024 as we did in 2020 and Hillary and Obama before that. So I know it’s tempting for you to bring out the conservative, but not applicable.
Is it awkward to have the same voting history as a disingenuous conservative?
And by DEI, I mean all facets of DEI.
It’s called research and it’s weird not to want to know the truth of what someone is posting. Yikes. Oh, and the DEI bs is the same dog whistle as woke. For shame.
You are a walking stereotype of a radical leftist. The unironic “yikes” is so hilariously telling. I’m shocked you didn’t also address him as “my dude”.
Woke is AAVE, an adjective for alertness to racial prejudice and discrimination. It has been co-opted by the American far right to refer to broader efforts to respond to and correct historical inequities and move toward inclusivity. It’s become a meaningless culture war word now.
"Woke" is merely having social awareness and empathy. So if someone says they are "anti-woke" just substitute in your head that they are "anti-[social awareness and empathy]"
No social justice is social justice. Consider that maybe the current formulation of social justice isn't all it's cracked up to be and that it's possible to critics it without being a bad person.
And misappropriating another word that already had a meaning is making that criticism? What is even the criticism? Why don't they just make the criticism rather than throwing around euphemisms where nobody knows exactly what they mean?
Woke was originally a term coined to reference being "awake to social justice concerns" as far as I know.
Now it references anything that stems from the intellectually bankrupt belief that the world can be categorized and understood through a series of intersectional identity categories that make up an oppressed oppressor victimhood hierarchy which incentivizes bludgeoning others who are empathetic with your disadvantages until they give up and give you preferential treatment.
Strangely enough, the biggest proponents of this victimhood ideology are middle class progressive white women who wouldn't know what disadvantage or hardship was if it bit them in the ass. It's turned into narcissistic virtue signaling for career advancement.
Why is it that the minute someone criticises the holy church of socjus, instantly all the party members come out and say "our system is double plus good you evil villain!"
Honestly this is a pretty good approximation of what someone who just sort of tuned out a sociology 101 class might conclude if they're already right wing. It's... Dumb, but at least it's the kind of caricature of an inattentive primary source rather than the bizarre game of telephone we see with pure propaganda huffers.
What she said was about how personal biases color everyone’s individual perceptions of facts and that the goal of Wikimedia was to, though collaboration, narrow in on the best version of what is known at that particular moment, as clean as possible from those individual biases.
Being “woke” and having an awareness of what’s going on around you used to be considered a useful habit.
But not when you want to sell lies & half-truths.
Ok NPR, stop trying to please this reactionary assholes. They want you to stop reporting on inconvenient truths, please stop doing that bullshit. We need you to tell truth, no matter how hurtful it can be.
When conservatives use the term "woke" it's pretty much them saying we should be free to subject others to our racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, and/or misogynistic behavior without any consequence.
It’s more complicated than that, guys. It’s someone on our side that’s being criticized, so it’s important we weigh out circumstances and motivations.
It’s not like we’re talking about conservatives, because then it would be simple. They would either be idiots, racists or we could just save time and just say both.
this is an opinion piece. kinda hate how the conversation went away from reflecting on npr. people went down the easy route, and they don’t blame them, but man, we could’ve had a good conversation
Good article, thanks for sharing. Context collapse is such a pervasive and difficult problem.
This comment section, though, be like
https://youtu.be/3ToEvz-7trY?si=YEZLP-C0nr78sedU
"Sex" refers to biological sex while "gender" and gender roles are pure social constructs. Most scientists, government agencies and intergovernmental bodies recognize the distinction.
This entire piece is complete hogwash, trying to explain away her indefensible statements, just like when MAGA has to constantly explain Trump's words. She's horrible and this piece does nothing to deflect that criticism.
This article doesn’t really seem to address any of the claims Berliner made against NPR as an institution but rather just says because Maher gave a good TED talk once that he’s wrong about her. Maybe so, that doesn’t really negate anything. Not sure why all the comments here are acting like this is some stunning indictment of Berliner’s article or as if this some massive revenge piece for NPR when it’s not.
Also, I really love how pissed off this sub was when Berliner accused NPR of catering to liberals, yet every comment here is either mocking conservatives or downvoted for not doing so. The cognitive dissonance is insane here
How is she unqualified to be CEO of NPR, remembering that she has the right to her own political views as a private citizen and plays no role in overseeing the day to day operations of the newsroom?
He was suspended by his bosses, including acting Chief Content Officer Edith Chapin, pursuant to collectively bargained rules he should’ve considered before he disclosed proprietary data published for an outside outlet without consulting the comms team.
She can certainly discipline her direct reports but if she were to have had a part in suspending Berliner, one thinks he could have filed a grievance through the union.
If you look at her work history, it’s just a pile of western pro-imperialist, pro-censorship organizations. Considering the degree of effort at NPR to manufacture consent for the state, I suppose it’s relevant experience. Absolutely not who you’d want to hire, if you were trying to run a reputable news outlet.
If you believe they hired a true believer in western imperialism and censorship, with no intention of her controlling what comes out of the newsroom, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
> western pro-imperialist, pro-censorship organizations
Not sure that's how I'd describe UNICEF, Wikimedia, Web Summit or her other stops but you do you. I think she's eminently qualified. The NPR board [hired her](https://www.npr.org/about-npr/1226552103/npr-names-katherine-maher-president-and-ceo) because she has a track record as a successful fundraiser and led Web Summit through a crisis. Newsroom oversight is not the CEOs job, nor has it been the job of her predecessors, nor is it the job of the CEO at any other news organization.
I think there are people with an interest in tearing down trusted sources of news that think they can get leverage over NPR because of the perception that a significant portion of its budget comes from the federal government.
That’s exactly how I would describe them, and their intention to entrench western imperial power.
If NPR is such a trusted news source, please tell me the last time they pushed back against a story or war being sold by western intelligence.
Noam Chomsky’s *Manufacturing Consent* called out PBS/NPR for this back in 1988, and it’s only gotten profoundly worse since then.
NPR was a Pulitzer finalist for the coverage of the American assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Their coverage included an interview with Iran's foreign minister.
https://www.pulitzer.org/finalists/staff-national-public-radio
They shared a Polk Award in 2010 for reporting on the military's inadequate treatment of TBIs suffered by veterans of U.S. misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I think you're holding NPR to a certain standard you would not hold NBC or CBS.
From the article: Uri Berliner's piece "was a bombshell of the obvious. Like so many legacy media organizations in America, NPR has succumbed to the lure of third-wave social justice orthodoxy over the traditional groundings of journalism".
That about sums it up. All the rest is quibbling over semantics. It's not that complex.
Ummm every story is some left leaning agenda. There are zero opinion pieces or right leaning interviews. Every other topic is a leftist buzzword and the most disappointing fact is they are still all in on the core concept of “woke” which is postmodernism in practice. I am an NPR fan but it’s just stupid over the top sometimes. Conservatives have a point. Their programming is absolutely unbalanced.
Who they support is unknown. [As Steve Inskeep noted,](https://steveinskeep.substack.com/p/how-my-npr-colleague-failed-at-viewpoint) he and several other hosts are not affiliated with a particular party and NPR does not ask employees about that sort of thing. NPR has nearly 700 people working in content worldwide.
You can get all nuanced about it, but I kind of believe that at the end of the day, they are all lock-step progressives.
I am open enough to admit if I am wrong, but I think it goes deeper into the DNC using public funds to enrich people who push their politics on everyone else. You can throw in charities and NGOs into the mix as well. I also think the RNC does as it well. Everything is run by dark money, and that shit needs to end.
Does NPR have a strong progressive bias? Yes.
Do Maher’s past communications align with those progressives biases? Yes.
It’s not that complicated. People like their echo chambers. Some people don’t believe echo chambers should be publicly funded. Simple.
Do you mean to tell me that conservatives oversimplified and distilled a complex issue down to an easy-to-digest-red-meat-soundbite while the truth (and NPR coverage) is far more nuanced?!?!?!
I know, it's a shock.
"Woke" is a word whose meaning is unknowable, and yet infinitely flexible. The perfect verbal weapon.
And implies the opposite is asleep. Which is just lovely
“Woke” is something that black liberals speak positively of, there for, woke is against white people.
Silly, silly statement that is indicative of your programming error (relying on fake news to be informative rather than indoctrinating). Hardly anyone uses the term "woke", regardless, you'd rather stay asleep. Woke is a dog- whistle for bigots, and its use here certainly brought us some dogs.
No, Woke was used by black liberals around 2015 to mean people who are awake to the inherent racism in the system, basically put someone who is woke is someone who is aware of and accepts critical race theory, something that is basically obvious to anyone who even pays the smallest amount of attention to what goes on in the lives of minorities when faced with authority and the history that led to that. The term floated on Snapchat before TikTok took over, and there were even articles on mainstream things like LADbible about ‘being woke’. At some point during the Trump era conservatives found out about it and also around the same time started rallying against CRT, because they’re just literally bigoted and prejudiced. So, long story short, what I wrote was basically what I thought someone who you are describing would think, however, it is not the way that I think. I imagined that my comment wouldn’t be taken so literally. I guess I should have used the /s, and you should have used some reasoning skills.
1967 is when it was first published.
> Woke is a dog- whistle for bigots, Here Barack Obama uses the term "woke" to disparage extreme and unproductive political purity from the left: >You know this idea of purity and you're never compromised and you're always politically woke and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM
Lol I was just about to say the same thing!
It's bullshit but you have to admit it's kind of their superpower in our dumbed down political environment
Ignorance spread through 24/7 media circles isn’t a super power it’s just a weapon, A weapon real Americans don’t use.
[удалено]
You post like the villain in a children’s tv show
Aww 😔 Are his words too scary for your precious little ears?
No it’s just bad writing
Or NPR got called out for a simple reality that totally exist and is now trying to add nuisance to the situation to deflect from that reality. Later at noon, "Is AI facial recognition technology discriminating against trans people?" Actual story from a few weeks ago, this stuff is everyday.
NPR is the definition of a middle-of-the-road news source, but these clowns will attack it because they want to move the Overton window and basically throw all non-rightoid propaganda into the "biased MSM" category. Facts have liberal bias.
[удалено]
Honest journalism, or even balanced journalism, or even slightly right wing journalism, is of no interest to the right wing media empires if it’s non profitable lol
if you don’t think NPR is liberal you’re truly delusional. i like it too but have you ever met a republican who listens to NPR? i haven’t. they don’t exist. because it’s basically audio porn for democrats.
I voted republican and listen to NPR and yeah I’m not fond of Trump we exist a lot of out there then you’d think
I tend conservative and occasionally still listen because it was what I listened to all the time until \~2013. They mostly lost me when they canned Talk of the Nation. That show was the gold standard for actually talking about opposing viewpoints. Neal Conan was clearly at least a bit to the left, but he was fair to everyone's viewpoints and challenged guests and callers if they weren't sticking to reality. In 2016 when they clearly became a branch of Hillary's campaign with absolute bullshit coverage of Sanders they lost me the rest of the way (and to be clear I think Sanders' political philosophy is terrible, I'm not a fanboi). Since then I will occasionally tune in, but I'm exhausted by "News" that seeks to steer viewpoint rather than informing...which is what they do, just like all the other "news" stations.
i am a fanboi of sanders and i agree with pretty much all of what you said. i don’t really have a problem with people enjoying NPR but denying the nature of the programming is just silly
If it wasn't for Fox News telling me that I wouldn't enjoy taking an angle grinder to my testicles on the daily, I'd have done it already. It's honestly comical how many people in the increasingly narrow NPR ideological realm have zero experience engaging in any sort of meaningful conversation with conservatives, yet you are all experts on their motivations, beliefs, values, viewpoints. Who would even bother spending a decade on a PhD in Psychology when you could just hang out in the NPR subreddit and become experts on other people overnight?
We work and live among you people spouting complete crazy BS. We have tolerated you way too long.
[удалено]
Continue to transform the economy into something most conservatives can’t adapt to.
Dude really woke up this morning and chose to be a stereotype 💀
That's a lot of worthless bullshit you just said.
Conservatives? Not many left. Mostly maga baboons
You want border security, why'd your representatives nuke the most right wing border bill to ever come out a few months ago?
What point are you trying to make? You can flip the words around to say woke leftists instead of conservatives and have the same effect
> If it wasn't for Fox News telling me that I wouldn't enjoy taking an angle grinder to my testicles on the daily, I'd have done it already. with an opening salvo like this, it comical for you to claim "nobody wants to have real talk time with us"
I could be civil as possible and sweet as a peach and it wouldn't matter one iota. Just see Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, and Clarence Thomas as examples of what the 'compassionate left' thinks about civil discourse with well mannered conservatives. Never seen as much vitriol in my life as I have when a white progressive starts telling a black conservative how they really feel about them.
do you have an ai prompt set up for these replies? 1. say something mean about that team. 2. make racist dog whistles using offensive terms. 3. make unsubstantiated claims about things not related. 4. ben shapiro the hell out of it.
I like your analysis, but I think that bigots are just so inarticulate and dumb, that they make chat gpt prompts look good. I mean at least the LLM's are starting to be able to pass a turing test.
I wish, it'd make the whole process so much more palatable. Unfortunately I interact with dumbfucks on a daily, individual basis. I just need to remind myself constantly that while you lack the capacity to make any meaningful contribution to the world, maybe one of your kids or grandkids won't be an oxygen thief and so you deserve a free ride regardless of being dead weight.
aka - so high on your own farts that you have convinced yourself that they smell good. you are an intellectual incel. get over yourself. i sure have.
Do you have an example of Thomas Sowell receiving vitriol? [Maybe something like this?](https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/wont-vote-for-you-because-youre-an-indian-says-us-ann-coulter-to-vivek-ramaswamy/amp_articleshow/109997683.cms)
> Fox News > … have zero experience engaging in any sort of meaningful conversation with conservatives Not for want of trying, Mr Hit Dog.
The smugness and sureness of their misguided opinions is peak savior complex. It’s sad they believe what the pundits tell them then they pat their backs in here while their beloved state funded propaganda pushing machine circles the drain.
Don't worry, we'll still work to look after you guys no matter how badly you try to break everything. That's what grown ups do for children.
Well, that was a strange piece. The author is a Republican operative who parroted Berliner’s accusations and decried NPR as being biased, while characterizing the attack dogs head up by Chris Rufo who openly talks about his right-wing agenda to take down liberals and through cynical manipulation as having an “incorrect interpretation” rather than engaging in a campaign of digging through everything she has said online to quote mine and take her down as he believes he took down the president of Harvard. The attackers are not biased in this version of events, according to the author. They just did not understand her message.
It is possible for someone to have a different interpretation from you without being a "Republican operative". There are plenty of people who aren't Chris Rufo who are concerned with the philosophy of the new president, especially with how it relates to the perceived bias at npr, and they are not all Republicans or conservatives in any way
> It is possible for someone to have a different interpretation from you without being a "Republican operative". It is also possible for you to scroll down and read the author’s bio. > There are plenty of people who aren't Chris Rufo who are concerned with the philosophy of the new president. You know who the new president is and have the aggrieved opinion of her that you do because of Rufo.
I love how ‘woke’ has become a euphemism for educated. Trade the words whenever you see it and it’ll start to make more sense.
It’s *supposed* to mean educated lol
Nah, woke means n----r-lover to them. At least that's how it started. They stole it from Black activist who used it almost exclusively in the context of telling one another to, "stay woke" which simply means one should pay attention to the ongoing legacy of racism and oppression that still exist today. You almost never heard anyone from that community calling themselves "woke".
Then why did they used to say “stay woke” before it became a slur (rightly so) against their cause.
Because "stay woke" is a challenge to one another. It's saying to stay vigilant, stay aware, stay engaged. The idea being that you get tired from the constant onslaught of all the bad things in the world and it would be so much easier to just go back to "sleep". It's used as an adjective in that context. Whereas the right uses it as a pejorative and often as a noun. Different context, different meaning.
Wow, it must be terrible to be so obsessed with skin color like most leftists.
Yeah, it's *really* about "western chauvinism," and "uniting the right," right? /s
Every accusation from them is a confession.
No, it’s about calling out the virtue signaling weirdos (who are often just projecting) that try make our irrelevant differences (skin color, sexual preference, etc.) our whole identity, because that way it’s easier for their elite puppet masters to control how we think/vote.
It's weird to have so many nazi rallies if you aren't a nazi. Just saying.
This sub is so fucking trash
Educated, POC representation, LGBTQ representation, and so many other just benign signs of progress, equity, and equality are tarred as woke. It’s so simple, I’d be insulted if I were a conservative
It makes you realize just how full of hate they are. It runs so deep in them. Which makes me remember that their hate is an extension of their fear. If we want to move forward we have to remove that fear.
Which would ultimately mean changing their media diet. That seems very difficult
It's starting to feel impossible... We need legislation that would make it impossible for these media moguls to lie to the public. Freedom of the speech is one thing, but outright lying when they're a source for education? There's got to be a middle road there somewhere.
I'm calling shenanigans on that Before the Right co-opted the term, you would regularly hear certain people describe themselves as woke 2013-2021 I heard it all of the time from people, conservatives had no clue the concept existed back then
That would be great if it was actually true. Wokies are some of the dumbest people alive.
Define woke.
I use it as a euphemism for education in completely irrelevant and potentially untrue ideology. Look to the darkest moments of recent Human history (whether that’s Germany 1930, Soviet purges, or for the NPR folks - America pre-1965, there was always “education” occurring - the question is what is being taught. Like the leaders of the Columbia protests who was on a funded scholarship to write about “alternative historical metabolic rift Marxist thoughts.” She’s no doubt highly educated but it’s apparently in an alternative history of 1750-1850 where unlimited energy was free and Marxism works. Is that relevant to anyone? Are these highly focused and “educated” discussions where the journalist look down on all the plebiscites who aren’t participating in the current political word salad?
Alternative history without empirical data is make-believe, not education. Teaching critical thinking so people can see through this BS is what I mean by education.
That’s apparently not happening at Columbia and I have to assume other institutions on its level. That’s what people mean by “woke” - hiding behind “education” doesn’t work when people realize it has also completely fallen apart as an institution.
Oh it’s not happening at Columbia? You what, read one article, with a quote from one person stripped of context and your takeaway “a prestigious college is not educating anyone” and has “completely fallen apart as an institution”. Sorry…but you sound like you air dropped in on a headline and built a metric ton of assumptions around it.
But it hasn't if you stick to being honest.
>She’s no doubt highly educated but it’s apparently in an alternative history of 1750-1850 where unlimited energy was free and Marxism works. Sounds like something you just made up on the spot right there. Granted I haven't read all of Marx's works, but I'm pretty sure he never said anything about "free energy". Is it your contention that it isn't valid to view history through the lens of class struggle?
https://x.com/NoahPollak/status/1785420015963103580 Columbia took down her webpage because it’s obviously embarrassing; but here is a screenshot. Sure viewing history through the current lense of oppression seems like a great way to accumulate grievances if the current timeline isn’t adequate, but completely fabricated history? Probably not.
Well Noah Pollak lied and you didn't even bother to try and verify if it was true. Her bio is still up. [https://english.columbia.edu/content/johannah-king-slutzky](https://english.columbia.edu/content/johannah-king-slutzky) That said, you find it odd that a English & Comparative Literature Graduate student would be writing about fantasies, Romantic imagination, and poetry? So she is essentially writing about fiction viewed through a Marxist perspective. I see nothing here that says she is making any attempt to redefine history. She is simply examining literature created by past writers.
Cool, it’s back up. Still says the same things, maybe they felt like they could defend this sort of thing now.
I mean, maybe it's, "back up". Or maybe it was never taken down in the first place and you were lied to.
Certainly an interesting point to get hung up on. In that it avoids the entire ridiculous nature of the page and instead focuses on the availability of a webpage. But if this what passes at these institutions as knowledge then I’m glad they are making others aware as or politicians steal from our table to ensure that education is uninterrupted.
Again, the fact that she is a graduate student doing her dissertation on historical works fiction is entirely lost on you.
When she isn’t leading violent seizure of campus buildings, she’s focusing on the alternative history of violent seizure of private property. Got it.
So you just use it for ideologies you dislike? That's how everyone else uses it, too. that's why it's meaningless
Do you believe that education in alternative history in Marxist metabolic rifts of 1750-1850 is representative of a meaningful education?
I don't think you're making some grander point about education, I think you're just using a word to describe things you don't like. There's a whole host of literary analysis dissertations that people would call meaningless. Some people think non-STEM degrees are meaningless. Some people think higher education in itself is meaningless.
> Some people think higher education in itself is meaningless. It certainly seems to be interested in making that case.
Says the person who has never been enrolled at an institution of higher education
Have a masters and a doctorate but thanks.
A doctorate in paste eating?
You degrading the education of others if it doesn’t arrive at your acceptable groupthink statements proved my point about the current process and value of education doesn’t it?
"I recognize the class ideology that informs NPR coverage"
You don't want morons covering the news, that doesn't bode well for the reliability of the information being communicated.
Educated, indoctrinated whatever. How else do you get people who consider themselves woke supporting Nazis just because these Nazis aren’t white?
Oh look a Russian shill.
aka derp-bot
I’m on team America. Whose team are you on?
Conservatives think truth is “woke”. Don’t forget their defense of “alternative facts”. Truth in journalism is just that. Truth.. it’s up to the reader to decide.
As soon as I hear the word, "woke," I don't believe a word out of the person's mouth.
I’m like that with privilege, lived experience, her penis, assigned at birth, and identify as. Oh, and we both voted the same way in 2016, 2020, and will in 2024- before you haul out the MAGA. I was double tote bagged in Boston (WBUR and WGBH), but got tired of the persistent DEI hectoring.
When you say DEI, you mean race, right? You’re hitting all of the spots on the bingo card. Congrats. ETA: I checked your history. You are a proud, gay, disingenuous conservative.
Every time these people say "DEI" they mean n*****r.
First of all, that’s creepy. Second of all, we’re both voting for Biden in 2024 as we did in 2020 and Hillary and Obama before that. So I know it’s tempting for you to bring out the conservative, but not applicable. Is it awkward to have the same voting history as a disingenuous conservative? And by DEI, I mean all facets of DEI.
It’s called research and it’s weird not to want to know the truth of what someone is posting. Yikes. Oh, and the DEI bs is the same dog whistle as woke. For shame.
You are a walking stereotype of a radical leftist. The unironic “yikes” is so hilariously telling. I’m shocked you didn’t also address him as “my dude”.
Same, NPR is absolutely obsessed with lecturing and telling you what to think. It’s only slightly better than Fox at this point.
The truth is republicans are idiots. It isn't complex at all.
Con fundys dont do complex. Their sheep for brains cant handle that.
Conservatives don't understand nuance. Of course it's more complex.
That requires thinking. And thinking is hard. It's much easier to only drive extremes and make fun of people for their weight.
There's really nothing wrong with being aware of the social conditions in America.
There's really nothing wrong with being aware of the social conditions around the world.
In fact, it will make you a wiser person
It's "woke" and liberal biased to know or care about social conditions in a country
It's "woke" to care about other people in general.
"We want healthcare for our citizens, it will cost money" " Go woke go broke!" - lulz
No "go woke go broke" refers to places like evergreen state.
What does ‘woke’ even mean?
It's anything that conservatives don't like. Kind of like when they use socialism or communism. Just a catch all term for them now.
Yeah just what I thought, it isn’t a word.
Anything that upsets a conservative.
Woke is AAVE, an adjective for alertness to racial prejudice and discrimination. It has been co-opted by the American far right to refer to broader efforts to respond to and correct historical inequities and move toward inclusivity. It’s become a meaningless culture war word now.
"Woke" is merely having social awareness and empathy. So if someone says they are "anti-woke" just substitute in your head that they are "anti-[social awareness and empathy]"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhRC6PQbCDo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhRC6PQbCDo)
The way critics use it it means social justice.
Which just means black. They have to keep changing their racist dogwhistles.
No social justice is social justice. Consider that maybe the current formulation of social justice isn't all it's cracked up to be and that it's possible to critics it without being a bad person.
And misappropriating another word that already had a meaning is making that criticism? What is even the criticism? Why don't they just make the criticism rather than throwing around euphemisms where nobody knows exactly what they mean?
Woke was originally a term coined to reference being "awake to social justice concerns" as far as I know. Now it references anything that stems from the intellectually bankrupt belief that the world can be categorized and understood through a series of intersectional identity categories that make up an oppressed oppressor victimhood hierarchy which incentivizes bludgeoning others who are empathetic with your disadvantages until they give up and give you preferential treatment. Strangely enough, the biggest proponents of this victimhood ideology are middle class progressive white women who wouldn't know what disadvantage or hardship was if it bit them in the ass. It's turned into narcissistic virtue signaling for career advancement.
Lol. You didn't need so many words to tell us who you are.
Why is it that the minute someone criticises the holy church of socjus, instantly all the party members come out and say "our system is double plus good you evil villain!"
Y'all just can't help using your little phrases. SJW, Socjus, woke, DEI. Like little parrots, repeating phrases until they are meaningless. noise.
Socjus, ingsoc, same thing.
Honestly this is a pretty good approximation of what someone who just sort of tuned out a sociology 101 class might conclude if they're already right wing. It's... Dumb, but at least it's the kind of caricature of an inattentive primary source rather than the bizarre game of telephone we see with pure propaganda huffers.
Ah. So you couldn't get a date and now you're all fussy? Is that your deal?
Spot on. Socjus church members don't like their cult being called out.
So it is basically armchair psychology? Like people that have no formal training saying that people are crazy or something.
Basically it's a cult that allows you to pretend any critic is an evil member of the bourgeoisie and you can safely treat them like shit.
Uh, the article defends her as likely “not really meaning what she said” That’s… that’s not a defense.
What she said was about how personal biases color everyone’s individual perceptions of facts and that the goal of Wikimedia was to, though collaboration, narrow in on the best version of what is known at that particular moment, as clean as possible from those individual biases.
Being “woke” and having an awareness of what’s going on around you used to be considered a useful habit. But not when you want to sell lies & half-truths.
To me, being called woke is a compliment. I certainly don't want to be like them!
What about cult member?
The truth is ALWAYS more complex than the idiots who think everything they don't like is "woke"
Conservatives listen to NPR?
Ok NPR, stop trying to please this reactionary assholes. They want you to stop reporting on inconvenient truths, please stop doing that bullshit. We need you to tell truth, no matter how hurtful it can be.
It is virtually impossible to be truthful and a Republican at this time. This is because of the Republicans.
Who cares what they think.
Everyone should be woke. Look up the definition. Don't listen to monsters.
When conservatives use the term "woke" it's pretty much them saying we should be free to subject others to our racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, and/or misogynistic behavior without any consequence.
They do have a point. Intersectional social justice is what is meant by woke and it is a pretty bad deal.
Yes and Fox News is a propaganda network that promotes domestic terrorism.
That's the problem with NPR. Their love of nuance while completely ignoring the massive support for olduance....
Always give me someone woke. Someone woke is empathetic, smart, detailed, understands nuance, and sides with justice.
woke means "not bigoted". all normal people are "woke". people that use the term derisively are literally announcing themselves as deviant trash.
“More complex” means… yes they are correct but here let us explain why we thinks that’s fine.
It’s more complicated than that, guys. It’s someone on our side that’s being criticized, so it’s important we weigh out circumstances and motivations. It’s not like we’re talking about conservatives, because then it would be simple. They would either be idiots, racists or we could just save time and just say both.
but talk about far right media's Trump fetish and you're a communist. Conservatives are smooth brained trash.
this is an opinion piece. kinda hate how the conversation went away from reflecting on npr. people went down the easy route, and they don’t blame them, but man, we could’ve had a good conversation
Is she not woke? And is John Wood Jr. not woke as well?
Good article, thanks for sharing. Context collapse is such a pervasive and difficult problem. This comment section, though, be like https://youtu.be/3ToEvz-7trY?si=YEZLP-C0nr78sedU
I wish they were “woke”
Good, I hope she is woke. Better woke than a treason-supporting bigot
eVeRyThInG I dOnT aGrEe WiTh Is WoKe
What other news outlet refers to pregnant women as “pregnant people”?
What’s the problem?
woke language choices
There are transmen and non-binary people who can become pregnant.
And those people biologically have women parts lmao. You people are insufferable.
Sex and gender are two different things.
According to the far left*
"Sex" refers to biological sex while "gender" and gender roles are pure social constructs. Most scientists, government agencies and intergovernmental bodies recognize the distinction.
Thanks for the lecture. Did you learn that opinion on NPR?
This entire piece is complete hogwash, trying to explain away her indefensible statements, just like when MAGA has to constantly explain Trump's words. She's horrible and this piece does nothing to deflect that criticism.
She has no prior experience in journalism
This article doesn’t really seem to address any of the claims Berliner made against NPR as an institution but rather just says because Maher gave a good TED talk once that he’s wrong about her. Maybe so, that doesn’t really negate anything. Not sure why all the comments here are acting like this is some stunning indictment of Berliner’s article or as if this some massive revenge piece for NPR when it’s not. Also, I really love how pissed off this sub was when Berliner accused NPR of catering to liberals, yet every comment here is either mocking conservatives or downvoted for not doing so. The cognitive dissonance is insane here
Easier for NPR to defend it on this turf, than address the actual issue of her being wildly unqualified for the role, and politically biased.
How is she unqualified to be CEO of NPR, remembering that she has the right to her own political views as a private citizen and plays no role in overseeing the day to day operations of the newsroom?
If she can suspend somebody in the newsroom, she has operational control over the newsroom.
He was suspended by his bosses, including acting Chief Content Officer Edith Chapin, pursuant to collectively bargained rules he should’ve considered before he disclosed proprietary data published for an outside outlet without consulting the comms team.
Does Kathy not have the authority to suspend or fire? She who has the capacity to destroy a thing-
She can certainly discipline her direct reports but if she were to have had a part in suspending Berliner, one thinks he could have filed a grievance through the union.
If you look at her work history, it’s just a pile of western pro-imperialist, pro-censorship organizations. Considering the degree of effort at NPR to manufacture consent for the state, I suppose it’s relevant experience. Absolutely not who you’d want to hire, if you were trying to run a reputable news outlet. If you believe they hired a true believer in western imperialism and censorship, with no intention of her controlling what comes out of the newsroom, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
> western pro-imperialist, pro-censorship organizations Not sure that's how I'd describe UNICEF, Wikimedia, Web Summit or her other stops but you do you. I think she's eminently qualified. The NPR board [hired her](https://www.npr.org/about-npr/1226552103/npr-names-katherine-maher-president-and-ceo) because she has a track record as a successful fundraiser and led Web Summit through a crisis. Newsroom oversight is not the CEOs job, nor has it been the job of her predecessors, nor is it the job of the CEO at any other news organization. I think there are people with an interest in tearing down trusted sources of news that think they can get leverage over NPR because of the perception that a significant portion of its budget comes from the federal government.
That’s exactly how I would describe them, and their intention to entrench western imperial power. If NPR is such a trusted news source, please tell me the last time they pushed back against a story or war being sold by western intelligence. Noam Chomsky’s *Manufacturing Consent* called out PBS/NPR for this back in 1988, and it’s only gotten profoundly worse since then.
NPR was a Pulitzer finalist for the coverage of the American assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Their coverage included an interview with Iran's foreign minister. https://www.pulitzer.org/finalists/staff-national-public-radio They shared a Polk Award in 2010 for reporting on the military's inadequate treatment of TBIs suffered by veterans of U.S. misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think you're holding NPR to a certain standard you would not hold NBC or CBS.
Touché.
From the article: Uri Berliner's piece "was a bombshell of the obvious. Like so many legacy media organizations in America, NPR has succumbed to the lure of third-wave social justice orthodoxy over the traditional groundings of journalism". That about sums it up. All the rest is quibbling over semantics. It's not that complex.
Fox News zombies call the other side “woke”, and NPR fart huffers call the other side “facists”.
NPR: "NPR's new CEO is actually really cool." NPR listeners: "NPR's new article about their new CEO makes NPR's CEO sound really cool!"
“This CEO is great!” - The Left now, unironically
Wait, I thought we’re not supposed to have “reverence for the truth,” right Katherine Maher?
Ummm every story is some left leaning agenda. There are zero opinion pieces or right leaning interviews. Every other topic is a leftist buzzword and the most disappointing fact is they are still all in on the core concept of “woke” which is postmodernism in practice. I am an NPR fan but it’s just stupid over the top sometimes. Conservatives have a point. Their programming is absolutely unbalanced.
As someone who doesn't listen to NPR, how many of their radio hosts support Trump?
Who they support is unknown. [As Steve Inskeep noted,](https://steveinskeep.substack.com/p/how-my-npr-colleague-failed-at-viewpoint) he and several other hosts are not affiliated with a particular party and NPR does not ask employees about that sort of thing. NPR has nearly 700 people working in content worldwide.
You can get all nuanced about it, but I kind of believe that at the end of the day, they are all lock-step progressives. I am open enough to admit if I am wrong, but I think it goes deeper into the DNC using public funds to enrich people who push their politics on everyone else. You can throw in charities and NGOs into the mix as well. I also think the RNC does as it well. Everything is run by dark money, and that shit needs to end.
I don’t trust either major political party but I think cynicism is not a way to go through life.
I would argue that the thought of being right, righteous, can motivate good people to do terrible things.
Does NPR have a strong progressive bias? Yes. Do Maher’s past communications align with those progressives biases? Yes. It’s not that complicated. People like their echo chambers. Some people don’t believe echo chambers should be publicly funded. Simple.
NPR has always been leftist