The context is that the left claims that just about anyone or anything that contradicts their narrative is doing so because of some sort of evil intent. To the left, their side is full of pure motives, and so even when they're in the wrong, they'll claim they were still doing so with "good motives" or that they were driven to being wrong by hatred and oppression from others. Also to the left, they think their opposition is motivated by "racism", "sexism", "bigotry", etc. When the left's opposition wins, the left rationalizes it by saying it happened because of the spread of "misinformation", or because of some other underhanded tactics.

In sum, the left simply cannot fathom that their own ideas are flawed.

Neither can the right 🤷

While it is true that the right does not have a monopoly on true ideas, I think it's safe to say that the left is vastly more of a threat due to its inability to recognize its own flaws. For example, when Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in 2016, the left couldn't understand why, and the deflection then shifted to a narrative that Trump used subterfuge to conspire with the Russians to throw the election. The left then used false allegations to drag the entire nation through years of hearings, and countless hours of leftist pundits pushed this hoax narrative.

In the end, these investigations found that Donald Trump did not engage in subterfuge. He simply won because more people preferred him.

Yes but have you tried LISTENING to NPR? Even if it's not what you believe, it's good to try to understand the reasoning of the other side. Sometimes I listen to fox news to try to understand but mostly they just sound angry. Another thing I notice while listening to fox is that there are a lot of ads. Now, while there are some ads on NPR, they're not as much as on Fox.

Ok, so with that said -
hear me out for a minute -
What if fox news is sharing exaggerated news stories to get views? What if that's why they sound a little angry? Humans are biologically wired to pick up on each other's emotions, so when the fox news anchors sound a little angry, it gets the listener a little riled up too. Anger clouds judgment.
What if they're telling you things that aren't necessarily true to get you hooked on the program so they can show you ads? When a media company agrees to show ads, they get ✨ money ✨ and when consumers see those ads and buy the product, the company also gets ✨money✨. What if this is just a money making scheme disguised as a news channel?????????

Of course, NPR does pledge drives, but at least they're being honest and not trying to get views for money. They just ask.

Think on it.

Yes, I have listened to NPR in the past. The problem is not that *everything* they report is leftist propaganda. The problem is that most political reporting *is* filtered through a leftist lens. This is the way media bias often works: editorializing that pushes some socio-political viewpoint masquerades as hard news reporting.

If you watch Fox News, you'll find that the people who "sound a little angry" are not news reporters, but people giving editorials (Hannity, Jesse Watters, etc.). In other words, they are not trying to report hard news. Now, if you said that Brett Baier was "sounding angry", then that would be remarkable. However, you will never hear him "sound angry" because he is a hard news guy.

While that is a fair point, I don't think you really read my entire comment. And on another note, you calling NPR "leftist propaganda" is just the same as me saying that fox is "right wing propaganda." Now, fox's political reporting is filtered through a right wing lens. But it's not *all* lies, as fox also isn't all lies. For example, fox news reported that Donald trumps lost the 2020 election. So did NPR.

I did read the rest of your comment, so if you're referring to "ads", the fact that NPR doesn't run ads at all (to my knowledge) makes it much different from private media organizations.

In any case, I do agree that Fox News' coverage does lean toward the right. The large problem is that if we're keeping score, that's one network on the right, and countless networks that lean left - CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, etc.

But back to the issue at hand, it's not just me calling NPR "leftist propaganda". This is why we heard moves on the right to "defund NPR". Here's just a taste of what's going on:

https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/npr-challenges-readers-to-disregard-their-eyes-and-common-sense-on-trans-sports/

Alright alright, but have you ever considered that MAYBE the majority of news sources saying the same thing could be bc they are all SEEING the same thing? Like I totally understand your point but that article- like- you just said "here's what's really happening" aND SENT ME AN *OPINION* ARTICLE

Yes, I sent you an "opinion" article which commented on the NPR article, which was a news article. The point was that NPR's *news* article (in the sports section) tried to frame the issue of transgender athletes in support of trans athletes. This is what I have been saying - when news organizations try to spin *hard news* through a leftist lens, it's bias or propaganda. If NPR published an opinion article which advocated for leftist policy in sports, I may disagree with them, but at least I couldn't say that NPR was trying to dupe me. The biggest problem with media bias is the game of *pretend* - when activism/propaganda is masqueraded as hard news.

But ask yourself if the *NPR* story is about women's sports or trans rights.

The context is they are pushing acceptance of big eaters despite denying that they are pushing acceptance of bug eating: