1) I happen to know a great deal about Tiananmen, its precursors and its aftermath. But I am unusual because I was an East Asian history major at the time and because it actually impacted my life.
2) I find this criticism rather absurd. For one thing, he is mixing several different topics. NPR offers a number of talk radio shows (as well as music), some on specific topics, some of broad general interest. From his criticism, it appears he is targeting "All things Considered" and "Morning Edition." Possible some of the other general news programs as well.
But this rant applies to all general news programs in broadcast media. There are inherent limits in broadcast media as well as potentially huge advantages. One issue is that because access to the means of broadcasting is a under government control (licensing), and there are essentially no more licenses to be had, you get whatever broadcasters choose to provide. Outside of NPR, the national and international news is even shorter and more eclectic -- unless one looks at certain specialty productions such as Bloomberg Radio (financial news). Taking issue with NPR for offering a particular approach to news not offered elsewhere is ridiculous. While one can legfitimately criticize NPR for a wide variety of things, the fact that it offers a somewhat different set of stories and somewhat longer pieces hardly makes it evil.
3) The linked-to post seems to be conflating several very different things. One is the question of the maliability of human memory and perception manipulation. This has been demonstrated in a large number of experiments over time. Heck, Heinlien dealt with it extensively in a number of his stories -- such as _If This Goes On_ and _The Moon IsA Harsh Mistress_. The experiment itself is useful, particularly in light of the occassional controversy over doctored photos or the selection of images to accompany text. But the broader question of news coverage and how the mass media or print media address the strengths and limitations inherent in a mass medium is entirely different, if potentially related.
no subject
2) I find this criticism rather absurd. For one thing, he is mixing several different topics. NPR offers a number of talk radio shows (as well as music), some on specific topics, some of broad general interest. From his criticism, it appears he is targeting "All things Considered" and "Morning Edition." Possible some of the other general news programs as well.
But this rant applies to all general news programs in broadcast media. There are inherent limits in broadcast media as well as potentially huge advantages. One issue is that because access to the means of broadcasting is a under government control (licensing), and there are essentially no more licenses to be had, you get whatever broadcasters choose to provide. Outside of NPR, the national and international news is even shorter and more eclectic -- unless one looks at certain specialty productions such as Bloomberg Radio (financial news). Taking issue with NPR for offering a particular approach to news not offered elsewhere is ridiculous. While one can legfitimately criticize NPR for a wide variety of things, the fact that it offers a somewhat different set of stories and somewhat longer pieces hardly makes it evil.
3) The linked-to post seems to be conflating several very different things. One is the question of the maliability of human memory and perception manipulation. This has been demonstrated in a large number of experiments over time. Heck, Heinlien dealt with it extensively in a number of his stories -- such as _If This Goes On_ and _The Moon IsA Harsh Mistress_. The experiment itself is useful, particularly in light of the occassional controversy over doctored photos or the selection of images to accompany text. But the broader question of news coverage and how the mass media or print media address the strengths and limitations inherent in a mass medium is entirely different, if potentially related.