Update on NPR’s Unmasking

That is kind of a fanciful title, I guess. The only people who didn’t realize that NPR has been strongly biased leftward over the last, oh, two decades or more would be those who agree with that bias, so naturally think the taxpayer funded radio network is just “telling it as it is.” Selective editing to make, say, Ted Cruz sound like a far-right nut case, or having a Supreme Court correspondent who is pals with the most liberal justice on the Court are just, you know, “mistakes.”

But having an insider who is obviously a progressive Democrat himself blow the whistle and announce that “the nonprofit radio network had allowed liberal bias to affect its coverage” (Ya think???) meant that attention must be paid, and the furious reaction of NPR’s leadership to that statement of the obvious–-“How DARE he! We’re NPR!”—gave instant credibility to his indictment, again, not that it should have needed any more, if people were paying attention.

Now comes the news of the obvious other shoe dropping: Uri Berliner, the senior business editor who blew said whistle, has been suspended by the network but for just for five days. In an interview with NPR earlier this week, Berliner revealed that NPR said he would be fired if he violated the policy against unapproved work for another media outlets again. Apparently NPR figured out that the Streisand Effect applies, and the more they go after Berliner and deny, deny, deny, the more visible the network’s progressive propaganda proclivities will be.

They figured it out too late, unfortunately. The mask, which was hanging anyway, is off now. NPR can blame any future criticism on Republicans and conservatives “pouncing,” but as long as it is led by a woman whose social media comments mark her as an extreme anti-American social justice activist, the strategy is unlikely to work. Fine, let NPR preach to the metaphorical choir—but I shouldn’t have to pay for it.

Meanwhile…

Continue reading

Curmie’s Conjectures: Why There’s a Teacher Shortage, Exhibit A

by Curmie

I’ve promised two essays that are indeed partially written; I could finish one of them in 20 minutes or so if I could just concentrate, but something else always seems to come up.  So let me try yet a different topic.

One of my friends and former students (we’ll call him L for the purposes of this post) teaches theatre in a public school.  He recently posted on Facebook about a confrontation he’d had with the father of one of his students.  The boy had failed to do three significant assignments, and, curiously enough, his grade reflected that fact.

Ah, but you see, the lad is an athlete, and a failing grade made him academically ineligible.  So Dad screams for “about 15 minutes.”  My friend responded like this: “I want him to be able to play […], too. I understand how important it is for him to have that outlet. But if I want lights on in my house, I gotta pay bills. If I wanna drive a car, I gotta pay to put gas in the car. So, if _______ wants to play […] then he’s gonna need to stop being lazy and do what is required in this class. Not to mention the other three classes he is failing.” 

Continue reading

Ethics-DEI-Baseball Dunce: Ja’han Jones

I know, we’ve been seeing a lot of Sidney Wang lately.

Ja’han Jones is the blogger for Reid Out, the MSNBC race-baiting show (well, one of them) starring Joy Reid. As such, the fact that he has such a bone-headed and biased position regarding diversity is like finding out that water is wet, but it is still surprising to see anyone who can put his shoes on (I’m assuming Ja’Han can) write something as ignorant and idiotic as “The decline of Black players in MLB should be a warning about the war on DEI.

If DEI proponents keep making arguments this bad, eventually even the dimmest members of the public will figure out that it’s a hustle. (Won’t they? Don’t they have to?) Another rule Ja’Han seems to have missed is “Don’t write about subjects you know nothing about when a lot of your readers do, because they will figure out that you are a fake.”

To summarize one of the worst published screeds I have read in a long time, this supposed “futurist,” journalist and pundit argues that Major League Baseball needs DEI programs to increase the percentage of black baseball players. (Baseball’s number of black players has been declining for a welter of cultural, financial and attitudinal reasons, none of which involve discrimination.) It’s difficult to know where to start a rebuttal of an argument that is only worthy of “What the hell are you talking about?” Might as well just dive right in…

Continue reading

Case Study: When “Diversity” Actually Makes an Organization Better

I am firmly of the conviction that the DEI fad is primarily a ruse to justify discriminating against whites and men. It amazes me that white actors, in particular, haven’t had the courage to protest and even sue: I suppose that living in the brutally woke show business bubble is sufficiently intimidating that they will accept the illegal stealing of their paychecks and the crippling of their careers. Before Grace died, I had scheduled a day to watch broadcast and cable TV all day and night, tallying up the demographics of the commercials, taking particular note of mixed race couples. By the standards employed by courts and the EEOC to find actionable discrimination based on racial composition alone even in the absence of any evidence of intent, the current treatment of whites is discriminatory, and obviously it is intentional. But I had to cancel my survey, so I don’t have hard evidence other than that of my own two eyes.

I’m digressing: sorry. The point of all that is that I may be one of the last commentators you would expect to register some support for the over-hyped benefits of diversity in the workplace. Yet I think I just experienced an example of when diversity has tangible benefits.

I had to take Spuds in for his annual comprehensive physical, including shots, this morning. I use the Banfield Pet Hospital in Falls Church now, though the Alexandria one is much closer, so I lose about 45 minutes that I would otherwise have on my deathbed. We used our neighborhood Banfield’s for many years, but during the pandemic the staff turned over, and suddenly all of the non-veterinary staff were rude, curt and seemingly hostile black women who never smile, never say”Hello,” “please” or “thank-you,” bark out orders, and seldom looked in my eye except with an expression of barely restrained contempt, perhaps based on their assumption that I was a descendant of Simon Legree. Talk about microaggressions. Their phone manner was the same.

It eventually became so stressful dealing with these women—stressful because the little unethical devil on my shoulder kept whispering in my ear to tell these women, loudly and with people in the lobby, that they were unprofessional and offensive—that I decided to take my dog and my business elsewhere. It seemed clear to me that along with having poor training, lax oversight and management, the Alexandria Banfield’s staff had developed a culture of arrogant black privilege and hostility toward white customers, or perhaps the world in general; for all I know, the staff treated black customers with equal rudeness. Nonetheless, all of the women were black and behaved in the same hostile manner, and it seemed to be self-reinforcing. The vets in the back, meanwhile, probably have decided that it isn’t worth fighting with the whole support staff, so they just tend to the needs of their four-legged patients while the abuse of the two-legged customers continues.

The Falls Church Banfield is like a little U.N. Today, while dropping Spuds off, I counted two African American women, two white women, one of whom is handicapped, a Filipino, two Asians, an Indian or Pakistani, and some brand of Hispanic. They were all professional, friendly, and a pleasure to deal with, and there was no sense of any “group,” just a well-managed, well-trained staff. (Women outnumbered men out front, but as with the Alexandria branch, the veterinary staff was more or less gender-balanced.)

It occurred to me that a diverse staff can be an effective prophylactic against toxic organizational cultures taking over, as the “Screw Whitey” vibe has poisoned the my neighborhood Banfield’s.

Competent management, hiring, effective training, and a professional staff not dominated by weenies also helps.

Pick a Title: “Follow the Science!” or “Who Can You Trust?”

Those stories both appeared on March 27. Both are still up, too. Apparently the earth is spinning both faster and more slowly at the same time!!!!

Dana? Dana! Ah, here she is…

The NBC story is here; CBS’s is here.

I wonder what NPR says? That should settle it. After all, it is a news organization built on a foundation of robust editorial standards and practices, well-constructed to withstand the hardest of gazes.

______________

Pointer: Not the Bee.

How Can NPR Maintain Even Its Current Diminished Level of Credibility If It Keeps Katherine Maher As Its CEO?

Let’s see if the tax-payer funded progressive propaganda network has even Harvard’s survival instinct, or is even more arrogant. Amazingly enough, this story has gotten worse since I posted about it just four days ago.

You will recall that veteran NPR journalist, Uri Berliner, frustrated that his concerns about blatant progressive and Democratic bias reaching destructive proportions in the workplace he loved, blew a harsh whistle with an article on Substack headlined “I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust.” Nothing in the article was surprising, certainly not to me, except that a current and prominent staffer wrote it. NPR, also hardly unexpectedly, circled its wagons while pretending Berliner didn’t write what he wrote, but rather a criticism of NPR’s DEI obsession. In fact he was writing about the lack of diversity at NPR of the kind that matters: viewpoint diversity and political diversity. One smoking gun he cited in his piece was the infamous tweet by NPR’s former public editor, now the Editor-in-Chief at USA Today:

Yes, in the world of “advocacy journalism,” being wrong gets you promoted, as long as you’re wrong while helping Democrats.

Then, incredibly, proving how deluded the organization is regarding both its own bias and the right way to respond to Berliner, NPR’s newly appointed CEO lied, spun and erected straw men. That’s sure to bolster NPR’s credibility!

Continue reading

Ethics Quiz: The Tanked Free Throw

Unlike most ethics quizzes, I’ve made up my mind about this incident, but I acknowledge that others may feel differently and have good reasons—maybe—to do so. I hate it, however.

The NBA’s LA. Clippers and Chick-fil-A collaborated on a promotion that if a player on an opposing team misses two consecutive free-throw attempts, fans will win a free Chick-fil-A chicken sandwich. And thus it was that when Houston Rockets’ Boban Marjanovic went to the free-throw with 4:44 to play in the fourth and final quarter of the Rockets’ game against the Clippers with his team leading 105-97 (not an insuperable margin), he had a twinkle in his eye. He missed his first shot, and the Clipper fans stared cheering—for chicken. Marjanovic looked around, pointed at himself, and bounced his shot off the basket rim. The fans went wild, and Marjanovic seemed to revel in his failure.

Yecchh.

…not that I want to influence you, now.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz on this Patriots Day (in Boston) is…

“Was it ethical or unethical for Marjanovic to tank his free throw so the fans could get a free sandwich?”

Just listen to those idiots in the broadcast booth…

I absolutely think it was unethical; in fact, the NBA and his team should fine and suspend Marjanovic. But this is emblematic of why I detest pro basketball only slightly less passionately than I do the NFL. The sport has no integrity. Regular season games are virtually meaningless. Players literally play about 60% harder during the play-offs: you can see it.

This episode was disgusting, and unethical in more ways than one:

Continue reading

Comment of the Day: “A Tragedy in the Czech Republic Reveals the Pro-Abortion Hypocrisy”

This excellent Comment of the Day (which I happen to agree with completely, though that is never a requirement for COTDs) was sparked by a statement by esteemed EA squid, Extradimensional Cephalopod. This seem like a propitious time to salute EC, who is very thoughtful on this classic ethics conflict issue, for alerting me to a Zoom debate on abortion held by his group, Braver Angels (“leading the nation’s largest cross-partisan, volunteer-led movement to bridge the partisan divide…”).

Here is jeffguinn’s Comment of the Day on the post, “A Tragedy in the Czech Republic Reveals the Pro-Abortion Hypocrisy,” which appeared here on April 10:

***

Extradimensional Cephalopod said: It sounds like you’re presupposing the existence of a person who is killed in that situation. I think it’s simple enough to understand that people live in human brains, and if a human body hasn’t developed a brain, that means a person cannot yet have started to live in that body. Does that make sense? 

Presuming the concept of personhood is morally relevant, then it makes sense. That presumption is the entire basis upon which the pro-choice point of view rests. 

Accept as presented the assumption that personhood is an objectively definable state before which there is no ethical alarm set off by choosing an abortion.

Even granting without dissent that most essential assumption gains nothing.

Existence preceding personhood — the interval between achieving that status and conception — still has precisely two ways of ending: natural cause, or homicide. There is no other option.

Continue reading

Presumed Racism Raises Its Obnoxious Head at “Social Qs”

Philip Galanes’ stultifyingly woke advice column in the New York Times has been off my metaphorical radar screen since I dumped the print version of the paper, but somehow (I don’t recall why) this recent inquiry is an exception. Here was the inquirer’s question:

My wife and I attended my nephew’s wedding 18 months ago. He and his wife are now expecting a baby, and I was looking forward to meeting my newest relative. The problem: At their wedding, group pictures of our extended family were taken before my wife and I realized it. When we asked the photographer why we had been overlooked, he only reiterated that pictures had already been taken. My wife, a woman of color, believes that racism may be the reason for our exclusion. She wants nothing to do with my nephew or his family again. I understand her feelings, but I’d like to restart these relationships. My wife doesn’t want me to broach the subject. Thoughts?

Yecchh.

Continue reading

The Résumé Bias Experiment

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) released this month the results of an experiment designed to measuring the degree of racial bias displayed by various large companies when choosing which job résumés justify further consideration for hiring.

Ninety-seven of the some of the largest companies in the country were sent made-up résumés by fictional job applicants, in nearly identical pairs with equivalent qualifications but bearing names that (the researchers presumed) suggested that the applicants were white or black, and male or female. Latisha and Amy was one pair; Lamar and Adam was another.

This week the NBER released the results, the researchers’ conclusions, and names of the companies. The study seemed to show that, on average, employers contacted the fake white applicants 9.5% more often than the fake black applicants, though this depended on the company. Those logos above represent the companies with the smallest racial gaps in hiring, based on the experiment’s results.

This was the largest such experiment yet, with researchers sending 80,000 résumés applying for 10,000 jobs between 2019 to 2021. The apparent racial bias seemed to spike in food stores, food products, freight and transport, and wholesale enterprises. The New York Times concludes, “The results demonstrate how entrenched employment discrimination is in parts of the U.S. labor market — and the extent to which Black workers start behind in certain industries.”

The Times also quotes Daiquiri Steele, an assistant professor at the University of Alabama School of Law who previously worked for the Department of Labor on employment discrimination as saying, “I am not in the least bit surprised. If you’re having trouble breaking in, the biggest issue is the ripple effect it has. It affects your wages and the economy of your community going forward. The results demonstrate how entrenched employment discrimination is in parts of the U.S. labor market — and the extent to which Black workers start behind in certain industries.” (Gee, what kind of name is “Daiquiri”?)

Continue reading