[yostrovs]

When I listen to NPR, I know what their angle will be regarding almost every topic that comes up. I used to listen to them frequently, but they're too ideological, something that people that agree with them often fail to see. There used to be more nuance 30 years ago, the discussions smarter. It's now boring because it's predictable.

[troyvit]

I disagree with you but damn I don't get the downvotes. Every news org has an angle, and that angle often (but not always) follows revenue. I like to believe that NPR's angle follows the revenue they generate from their listeners. All that said, I don't listen to them either and only occasionally read the site. The best public radio news comes from the local reporters anyway.

[array_key_first]

I didn't downvote, but if I did downvote, I might do it because: middle ground is a fallacy. Or, rather, middle ground being more correct than extremes is a fallacy.

The idea that, on every issue, there are two extremes and the "right" answer is somewhere in the middle is just sort of made up. It makes a lot of sense, though.

If I say China is 1 mile away from the US and you say it's 1 billion miles away, then the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. It makes sense. Except, the middle is not constant. The middle is constantly moving. What was middle 10 years ago is no longer so. What was middle in Confucius' time is no longer so.

If you take a look at history, you'll notice the people in the middle are almost always wrong. The 3/5ths compromise is the perfect example of this middle ground fallacy. Well... that turned out to be wrong, very wrong.

It's possible NPR hasn't changed their positioning at all, but rather, the window has shifted and now what was previously middling is now "extreme". But they could have been right all along. It happens sometimes. There were people around during the 3/5ths compromise who wanted no slavery at all. They were right!