Note that I still like quite a bit of their content, but…
The frequency and aggressiveness with with some NPR folks try to seek out perceived “victims of society” can be eye-roll worthy. I realize that it’s a narrative that resonates with their audience, but they can definitely cherry-pick their sources to the point that one could reasonably argue that their sources are not representative of the population/group (often by a lot).
This has certainly been true when I’ve known the populations/groups well. Friends from other areas/domains have confirmed similar bias in their geographic areas and/or areas of professional expertise.
> The frequency and aggressiveness with with some NPR folks try to seek out perceived “victims of society” can be eye-roll worthy.
>> Matthew 25:40 “The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”
ps. re: a bible quote, I am either an atheist or at best a radical agnostic in the James Randi tradition of "I don't know - and you don't know either".
I think that most regular NPR listeners, including me, are on board with helping “the least of these brothers and sisters”.
The issue I have is when NPR uses sources theoretically representing “the least of these brothers and sisters” who do one or more of the following:
- refuse help
- actively sabotage themselves or their situation
- leave out key details of the story
- lie about key details of the story
It’s these types of folks who both undercut the veracity of NPR coverage and push away moderate listeners (again, most of whom are on board with helping those in need).
I disagree on this viewpoint entirely. You should not help the least, but the most. Collectivism improves society, which also includes individuals. Now, this isn't to say you should never take an individualistic standpoint. But to do so with balance.
Note that I still like quite a bit of their content, but…
The frequency and aggressiveness with with some NPR folks try to seek out perceived “victims of society” can be eye-roll worthy. I realize that it’s a narrative that resonates with their audience, but they can definitely cherry-pick their sources to the point that one could reasonably argue that their sources are not representative of the population/group (often by a lot).
This has certainly been true when I’ve known the populations/groups well. Friends from other areas/domains have confirmed similar bias in their geographic areas and/or areas of professional expertise.