not sure why you are confused by NPR reporting. they are typically not-objective and very biased, especially around science topics. No serious in depth science coverage.
not sure why you are confused by NPR reporting. they are typically not-objective and very biased, especially around science topics. No serious in depth science coverage.
I've observed that listeners have scotomas on NPR's obvious bias. I don't know if it's the breathy, low-key, way of talking over there that makes them sound more erudite, or the habitual interjection of "sort of" in their commentaries, or the use of "public" in their name, or what. But, I find people are shocked when I comment on npr bias. It's the same with NYT; just because it was once dubbed "paper of record" people can't see their incredible bias.
not sure why you are confused by NPR reporting. they are typically not-objective and very biased, especially around science topics. No serious in depth science coverage.
I've observed that listeners have scotomas on NPR's obvious bias. I don't know if it's the breathy, low-key, way of talking over there that makes them sound more erudite, or the habitual interjection of "sort of" in their commentaries, or the use of "public" in their name, or what. But, I find people are shocked when I comment on npr bias. It's the same with NYT; just because it was once dubbed "paper of record" people can't see their incredible bias.