patrick.net

That is encouraging. I also heard a story recently about the number of Somalis in St. Cloud, MN (about 10,000 out of 100,000 people). It was interesting that their governor and congressman both basically told the city to fuck off and move elsewhere no matter how long they had lived there, and that they were racists for even suggesting that Somalis were not integrating well, and they would be bringing more in to settle there no matter what the residents wanted.

The interesting part was that NPR actually allowed some voices on the radio which said that no, those people were not bad for wanting to maintain the character of their city.

Don't know how that got past the NPR censors.

Yeah, I gave up on her a few weeks ago. I can't remember which show it was I think it was the lame attempt to cover Wikileaks, with lasted 3 min and then 37min about Russia.

rando says

Don't know how that got past the NPR censors.

NPR isn't really a single entity. It's a federation of local radio stations that subscribe to some common national programs and generate local content. The censors would be operating at the local level, so the quality of NPR stations will vary. My observation has been that the political correctness is largely contained in the west coast stations, particularly around San Francisco / Berkeley.

The Diane Rehm Show and the other shows I suggested in your news source thread are national programs and they aren't censored by local stations. However, not all local stations subscribe to each of these national syndications.

I never listen to the local programming of any NPR station. I just don't find it interesting. In the case of WLRN, the Palm Beach county Florida station, it's mostly jazz, Haiti stuff in Creole, and interviews with artsy fartsy artists. However, I do like the national programs. Of course, I don't agree with all the guests. That's would be impossible as the guests frequently argue. But if anything, these national programs are too much into balance.

For example, the guest of (if memory serves, and it might not) All Things Considered, tries to make everything seem debatable even when one side is clearly wrong. If he was hosting his show in 1943, he'd say something like

A lot of people are saying that the Nazis should be burning the Jews in ovens, but is that the answer to racial strife? I don't know. What do you think?

Fair and balance does not mean giving equal credence to both sides regardless of the evidence. Flat-worlders do not have equal evidence to support their claims. Neither do astrologists, climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, the anti-vaccination movement, and so many other wacko groups. Fair and balance means that you hold all sides up to the same standard of evidence and reasoning. It does not mean you pretend that both sides have equally met this standard.