Category: Free speech

NPR’s subtle bias

NPR recently reported on an interview that one of its journalist had with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The report indicating that a heated discussion between the two had erupted after the interview due to a disagreement regarding its terms. The discussion was not recorded, and as can happen in such cases the details of this after-interview discussion are in dispute and there is no way to verify whose account is correct. Under such circumstances NPR’s report should treat the differing accounts as equally plausible and should not make assumptions for the reader as to whose account is correct. NPR is free to note that they believe their journalist, but that should be a separate statement from the reporting of events.

Unfortunately, NPR’s report clearly shows bias. For instance, it reported Pompeo’s claim that the journalist could not find Ukraine on a map as patently false without any proof of their claim:

“He ends the statement with an assertion that appears to falsely imply Kelly was unable to locate Ukraine on a map.” [emphasis mine]

The bias is subtle but clear: an unbiased report would have left out the word “falsely”, since it is a statement of fact without proof. NPR was free to instead cite both accounts (without bias) and then to make a statement that they believe and stand by their reporter, but to report their belief as fact without proof is undeniable evidence of bias.

Secretary Pompeo’s decision to meet with this reporter to voice his displeasure was a poor move on his part, for which he should be rightly chastised. However, NPR’s clearly biased report of the incident will be considered by many as proof of the bias cited by Pompeo, and will only lend credence to his claims regarding the interview and its aftermath.

Sadly, NPR has devolved from what used to be one of my most trusted news sources to nothing more than a propaganda machine. I can no longer trust NPR to provide an unbiased account of anything having to do with the current administration. It’s unfortunate, because now more than ever we need unbiased sources.

Citizen’s United (again?)

Even the ACLU agrees: Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission was correctly decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The alternative is censorship – which means someone has the power to decide who can speak and what they can say.

Don’t let politicians convince you that it was somehow a bad decision; they are the ones who would benefit if Citizen’s United was overturned.

Democrats Still Fundraising Off Citizens United, Still Wrong About What It Means

NPR? OMG! WTF?!?

Misleading information continues to flow from NPR as they race CNN to the bottom.

In their latest propaganda release, NPR sets out to disparage the Republican tax cuts passed under President Trump using data that is true but misleading. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

“In fact, more than 60% of the tax savings went to people in the top 20% of the income ladder, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The measure also slashed the corporate tax rate by 40%.”

What is so offensive about this article is how NPR has framed their “facts” so as to imply that one group was receiving an unfair share of the benefits.  This implication, however, is patently false. A quick glance at 2016 tax data shows that the top 19.1% if taxpayers pay 57% of all income taxes – so why shouldn’t the top 20% received 60% of the savings? It’s commensurate with the taxes paid; how is that unfair?

What NPR also doesn’t tell you is that the source they cite (follow the link!) is actual a projection of tax impacts, not an actual result (note the date of the report – 12/18/2017). They also conveniently leave out that the report’s findings were in many way positive, including:

“…the bill would reduce taxes on average for all income groups in both 2018 and 2025.” [emphasis mine].

Something else that NPR twists to their liking is the federal deficit numbers. From the same article:

The federal deficit this year was $984 billion — an extraordinary figure at a time when the country is not mired in recession or widespread war.

What they try to imply is that this is a result of Trump’s tax cuts, but the truth is that spending – not tax cuts – have been driving the deficit. According to the very report cited by NPR, tax revenue grew by 4% and 3.8% in 2018 and 2019, while spending increased 8% and 12% respectively. We should not solve the deficit problem with more taxes on the American public; instead  we really need to operate more efficiently and reduce governmental costs.

When major news outlets such as NPR twist the data to suit their purpose rather than reporting the facts they border on becoming the “fake news” media that Trump regularly denounces. It lends credence to his claims and makes a mockery of our free press system. We should expect better – and nothing less than the unadulterated truth.

[Editor’s note: While penning this post I received a pop-up message from NPR asking me to “Support independent journalism today”. Somewhat ironic, given that I am pointing out their lack of independence.]

Tolerance?

A student at Sacramento State University was caught on video assaulting a former president of the College Republicans. In the aftermath, the attacker had this to say:

“I apologize for lunging at Floyd’s phone, although I strongly emphasize that it was not without provocation.”

There is no justification for the use of force, except force or a credible threat of force. No words are sufficient “provocation” to justify physical violence. Sadly, this is not an isolated incident of some claiming that words justify physical violence. Here is another example where a man was murdered over words he uttered in hate, with the local prosecutor refusing to charge the killer due to “racist vitriol“.

Tolerance of opposing viewpoints, no matter how rancorous, is critical for the functioning of a free society. We must send a loud message that the use of violence to settle debate is not acceptable. Towards this end, the student who physically lashed out should be dismissed from school and criminally charged for their actions.

How is this any different…

… than advertisers attempting to sway opinion (and dollars) towards their product(s) using subtle, subliminal or indirect methods?

YouTube Channels Suspended For ‘Coordinated’ Influence Campaign Against Hong Kong

Why shouldn’t the Chinese government be able to use such techniques to sway public opinion towards their end goals? People are free to make up their own minds as to the veracity or nature of the Chinese government’s actions, or to express their own views and opinions of their use of such methods. But to deny any entity a public forum – that creates two significant problems:

1) It implies that people are too stupid to recognize the attempt to influence, and that they need to be protected from such attempts; however, if they are that stupid do you really think we should let them vote at all?

2) It leaves private individuals – with no limit such as that imposed on the government with respect to freedom of speech – to determine who is allowed to speak. These social media platforms could just as easily allow opinion with which they agree be heard while silencing others, swaying elections or social change in their own image. Isn’t that what they are doing here by denying the Chinese government their own voice?

Think of it this way: what if the phone company took away your phone because of what they thought you might say, based solely on their own interpretation of your intent or message? Would you tolerate that? Yes, there are alternatives to the telephone; however, its ubiquitous nature and widespread use would result in a significant disadvantage if that service was denied. Would you stand idly in that case?

I’ve warned about this before but I’ll cover it again: when social media becomes the de facto means of communication, silencing someone on these platforms effectively silences them completely. And that’s not good…

Dangerous precedent

Free speech means that you are free to communicate your position to a willful audience, no matter the position of others. If you disagree with a particular position, you are free to communicate this to your own willful audience. However, in America you are not allowed to suppress the speech of your opposition.

Harvard President Lawrence Bacow to Activist Students Who Shut Down His Talk: ‘The Heckler’s Veto Has No Place’ Here

We are not honoring our free speech heritage when we allow some to stifle the voice of others.

Use of police power to stifle journalism

A very disconcerting story from NPR regarding the raid by San Francisco police of a journalist’s home in an attempt to discover the source of leaked information:

San Francisco Police Raid Journalist’s Home After He Refuses To Name Source

This is an act of tyrants and despots. The chilling effects of such unwarranted raids on journalists – to find their sources, no less – cannot be underestimated. The fact that it occurred in a liberal stronghold should clue you in on the true intent of this particular political ideology: control of – not freedom for – the masses.

Fascism v. Freedom of speech

A California woman chose to berate a man for exercising his freedom of speech by wearing a MAGA hat, to which she has every right (so long as she does not violate his rights in the process). However, freedom of speech means you get to have your say; it does not shield you from the consequences. This was a lesson she learned when she was fired from her job for her actions.

But let’s take a step back and analyze her attack on the wearer of the MAGA hat. According to the man she attacked, she screamed at him:

“Hey, everybody come here! This guy’s a racist! This guy hates brown people!”

However, the MAGA hat distinguishes someone as a nationalist, not a racist. Nothing in the tenets of the MAGA movement connote racism. Even if a group of racists take up the MAGA slogan, it does not automatically make the slogan or its proponents racist. When a slogan is hijacked it has simply been misappropriated, and this misappropriation should not be recognized as a stain on the movement it represents.

The woman is also noted to have made a Facebook post regarding the incident stating:

“You do not want to be the person who didn’t speak up as we slipped into fascism.”

However, it is important to note that it is fascism that limits opposing viewpoints, as was attempted by this woman. In America, freedom of speech means that even opinions you find revolting are allowed to be heard (you don’t have to listen). The woman was attempting censorship; the man was attempting freedom of expression. Who is the fascist in this picture?

Let’s try to honor one of the founding principles of our nation and recognize that we all have the right to express ourselves – even when some don’t want to listen.

Censorship via platform exclusion

Facebook Bans White Nationalism And Separatism Content From Its Platforms

It should be up to the individual as to whether or not they listen to an opinion – it should not be up to Facebook as to whether that opinion is spoken. All opinions, no matter how “repugnant”, should be allowed.

When opinions with which we disagree are in the open we can rebuke them publicly. When these opinions are forced underground they fester among believers with no voice of reason to offer counter-argument. You can guess the end result.

I’ve warned about this type of censorship before (here and here, for example). Don’t fall for the argument the some speech should not be allowed; next it might be you who are censored.