What is Reddit's opinion of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

>The claim that they "don't oppose" the use of torture is likewise puzzling. NPR doesn't take editorial stances. It has hosts who take various positions, and it reports on various arguments. It doesn't take a position as an organization. It doesn't have an editorial board (like WaPo or NYT) that is publishing opinions from its editorial staff collectively on what it thinks. I can find investigative reports detailing the harms of torture, and reports where they talk about what the government or its former staff is saying in response. That's calling reporting, not taking a side.

NPR refused to use the word torture to describe its usage by the US. To me, this is taking a soft line on it and implicitly accepting it by watering the term down to more milquetoast terms. This is historical as I say, but still important to note.

>This is a pretty silly ad hominem against NPR, and contains outdated statistics. For one, NPR has really reduced its funding from the government. Just 4% of funding in 2017 came from federal, state, and local governments combined, and less than 1% of its budget came from the federal government.

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of more recent figures, though the historical context does matter I will edit it.

>It does not take a "pro-US line" on foreign affairs in any of the ways you suggest. It did not "support" the war in Iraq. It tallied up its own articles pre-war and found that most were quite balanced, and when they weren't, they had a variety of opinion. They had op-eds on both ends of it, and didn't pick a side at all.

There are multiple sources criticising NPR's conduct during the period surrounding the Iraq war due to its heavy criticism of anti-war protestors and its often uncritical acceptance of the Pentagon line.

https://current.org/2016/03/a-critic-sees-pro-government-bias-in-nprs-reporting/

This book I read https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B000JMKR3E/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Here is one of them. Though reading more about it NPR had better coverage than most other source even if it was over-reliant on intelligence sources, so you have a point even if it is questionable.

Not having an explicit editorial stance =/= taking sides because there are structural influences on all national media from the state + capital that shapes coverage, as is seen by how strongly the intelligence community influenced media coverage including of NPR. It's a valid critique of the freedom of the media under the current political economic system IMO.