silence

STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
NPR Bans Feedback Comments, Removes Reality
By Daily Bell Staff - August 18, 2016

NPR is killing off comments. That’s great news! … NPR made a big announcement Wednesday: It is ending its users’ ability to offer comments at the bottom of each story posted on its site.  “We’ve reached the point where we’ve realized that there are other, better ways to achieve the same kind of community discussion around the issues we raise in our journalism,” Scott Montgomery, NPR’s managing editor of digital news, explained.  This is terrific news. –Washington Post

No, it is not terrific news that NPR is going to ban feedback to its articles.

No doubt the move is being made because NPR leaves out so many facts in its articles. And the feedbacks tend to be a good deal more informative than the articles themselves.

The basic issue with NPR, like all the mainstream media, is that it doesn’t grapple with the fundamental issue of globalization.

The world is run by banking interests mostly located in London’s City. These interests control central banking around the world and have at their disposal literally trillions of dollars.

Don’t believe it?

During the 2008-2009 financial crisis, Ben Bernanke sent $16 trillion around the world to ensure the current system didn’t crash.

When the Fed was audited, this money was revealed. In 2011, Bernie Sanders posted the results on his website, HERE.

The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study.

“As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world,” said Sanders. “This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.”

If Bernanke can simply print up and sent $16 trillion around the world (illegally), imagine the power and wealth of those who actually control central bank facilities via the Bank for International Settlements that coordinates central bank policy.

There is a whole separate government functioning in the world today that has nothing to do with regular politics or the supposed policies that are conducted by governments.

The world’s real “controllers” want global government and using the astonishing funds of central banks have installed a system that works every day to push the world in this direction.

Universities have been corrupted with this money, as have think tanks, the media, government agencies, politicians, scientists and generals. Virtually every area of public and private life is now controlled by shadowy forces that coordinate and propel an ongoing, massive internationalization.

Here at DB, we try to reveal this unprecedented, historical conspiracy and to put it into context.

But NPR, being a mainstream facility controlled by these forces doesn’t put anything in context at all. As a result, ironically, NPR’s readers and commentators – informed by the Internet – understand a lot more than NPR intends to reveal.

NPR’s feedbackers often expose what is really taking place. Solution: The feedback is being offloaded to Facebook among other facilities. Facebook is basically controlled by the CIA and thus feedbacks inimical to the current mainstream dialogue will gradually be phased out.

You won’t learn anything like this from the Washington Post article, though. The Post is controlled by the same people controlling NPR. When it comes to this commentary, the “blind” lead the “blind.”

More:

What the comments section actually is in this supercharged partisan media environment is a mudpit where the only rule is there are no rules. And, by definition when fighting in a mudpit, no one comes out clean.  So, good on you, NPR for taking a stand against comments sections.

The idea here is that comments are too costly to moderate and too difficult to control. But as we’ve just pointed out, feedbacks represent the only alternative viewpoints at most mainstream websites.

The Internet, through the release of a flood of economic, sociopolitical and military information has provided those who wish to look with an increasingly accurate understanding of what’s really going on. It’s quite astonishing and unprecedented when you understand it.

But NPR and other mainstream reporting entities are now making sure reality will not compromise their increasingly misleading posts.

Conclusion: They are not interested in promoting the truth. They are banishing it.

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Charlie Primero

    I was IP banned from the NPR comments and forums a couple of years ago.

    I never cursed, used non-PC words, or was disrespectful. I was banned solely for questioning their doctrines.

    • TimeToWakeUPAmerica

      I was IP banned from Alex Jones’ INFOWARS, despite the fact, that I too, never cursed/swore, or did anything but point out inconvenient facts, especially as it pertained to “JEW”-ISH-control of Western Institutions.

      • Well, we don’t much believe in Jewish control either. We believe in “trillionaire” control.

  • ErdosNumberOne

    Having commented there before, I am glad for this. Most comments sections are virtual sewers of hatred, reaction, fear, the lowest and basest forms of human interaction and engagement. They allow us to dehumanize other beings. Online comments sections seem to bring out the worst in people. We would rather focus on the art of argument and critiques of writing instead of personal insults and attacks.

    • Sven

      Well at least we have you! 😉

      Why don’t we give it a fair shake? Comments sections like the town squares of old are crucibles of information sharing and character testing.

      Yes it’s a little “wild westish” right now but consider how new this type of technology is to humanity. Very new. We still have to mature with it. And we will learn to mature with it but not if certain channels of democracy are shut down.

      Because you don’t like the nature of the dialog you would shut off the dialog? Why don’t you just not read them? Read the article and move on. You’re making the choice in that instance for yourself not making a decision that will impact millions of people.

      You’ve fallen into the same trap these millenial snow flakes have fallen into: assuming that their sensitivities are shared by others. It’s just short of communism.

      What have you done to yourself?

      • ErdosNumberOne

        No, no, no. I fully reject what you have written here.

        “What have you done to yourself?”

        You prove my point. You are personalizing, presenting what I have done, my error, mistake, what I am, even to the point of suggesting I am a communist! This is not “information sharing.” You have demonstrated how low the discourse is. It is without value and there is no enlightenment. Your vague attempt at magnanimity is revealed as fraudulent.

        • The issue is less one of civility and more one of reality.

          • Sven

            Some prefer reality, and some prefer coddling.

        • Sven

          What you’re missing is that you are proving your own points that others don’t agree with.

          Perhaps public debate is just not your thing, Spock.

          • ErdosNumberOne

            Yes, are correct. You are very smart. How come others will never see that about you?

    • Porcupines are coming

      “they allow us to dehumanize other beings” In one comment section I was reading somebody was dehumanizing a monkey. It was disgusting

    • SaiGirl

      Can’t help but evoke the oh so sensitive hurt feelings of as candy-ass coward.

    • Col. Edward H. R. Green

      I am NOT glad for this, for although comment sections do contain “the lowest and basest forms of human interaction and engagement”, they also contain many, many logical, well-reasoned, civilized, and cogent arguments.

      The comment sections offer a forum for the exercise of freedom of speech, which freedom logically must include base and irrational speech.

      It is the reader’s intellectual responsibility to disregard the rubbish comments and focus on the well-reasoned ones.

      The decision-makers at NPR–recipients of stolen property all, via coercively-funded (i.e. tax-funded) subsidies–want no dissent of any kind, reasoned or not, because they do not want the premises of their articles to be challenged and refuted, least of all in a way that is publicly accessible.

      By shutting down NPR’s comment section, they show their true colors.

      They reveal that they are statists who, like many of their programs’ listeners, and consistent with statist political philosophy, tolerate no dissent, an exercise of individual liberty that is anathema to them.

  • The BBC went down the same no comments NPR route and destroyed their imagined role as an intelligent voice for control of the masses whenever it removed practically all of its very popular and well supported comments and message boards/debating fora, maybe six or seven or ten years ago,

    The Great Debate board was a real gem for inconvenient information and greater intelligence which always delivered revised and refined news for subsequent broadbandcast a number of days before it went mainstream. And such was being regularly pointed out to commentators in comments.

    Very soon after that emerging phenomenon were all boards very hastily closed.

    Obviously it was deemed appropriate that we can’t have the masses realising how they are led down the garden path by tales which are shared for both fools and tools to believe are real, rather than understand they are just a fiction to be spread far and wide for application[s].

    The genie is out of that bottle though and it aint going back never ever, and that creates a major problem to solve and enigmatic dilemma to resolve, for whenever comment is denied on tales spread for consumption, is the story most probably certainly false and misleading and it surely also identifies the crass enemy to be dealt with APTly.

  • Praetor

    Excellent! This is the most fascinating aspect of the internet, at least for me.

    The commenter of discontent, yes they can become raunchy, rude, insulting and a down right ‘Bar Fight’. On the internet there is no ‘safe space’, if you’re feelings get hurt easily better to stay away.

    From Popular Science: On why they shut down the comment section. Quote > If you carry out those results to their logical end– Comments shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets ‘funded’– you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the ” off ” switch, that’s a Quote. HAHA! Shaping Public Policy. The Commenters Of Discontent are that important, really. Yes, really they are that important.

    When you’re in the comment section, you most always remember it is anonymous, you could be talking to a 12 year old or a 92 year old and everyone has an opinion plus some attitude thrown in.

    Just be brave, because according to Popular Science, the Commenters Of Discontent can Shape public Opinion!!!

    • Praetor

      Plus! I believe the Britexit/Trump are a result of the Commenters Of Discontent. PUBLIC OPINION, is Human Action in Motion!!!!

    • Thanks.

    • Samarami

      “…if you’re feelings get hurt easily better to stay away…”

      That, or develop a thicker layer of cyberthelial tissue. Sam

  • Dimitri Ledkovsky

    With all its built in elitism and elitist bias NPR was always pretty much irrelevant to me. (Same applies to PBS.)

  • Goldcoaster

    Nothing really new here. Bloomberg, AP, lots of others have dropped commenting long ago.
    Knowledgeable readers were lambasting their lack of factual reporting and bias. They were getting embarrassed. They had no choice.
    Yes, its great news. Just not in the way WaPo means.
    Its great from the perspective that we showed them they cannot lie and get away with it anymore, that there are still people out here that know and care about the facts.

    • Good point.But we took the opportunity to comment because we haven’t before …

    • ConPatriot1234

      Part of their scam relies on people believing that other people believe the enemedia’s lies. When people read the comments and realize that everybody else sees through the lies too, the scam is in danger

    • Siriusly

      The last bastion of truly free speech is anonymous speech, and as more and more sites shut down comment sections, or require the use of your real name, free speech is also being shut down, deliberately. As John Stuart Mill pointed out in ‘On Liberty’, anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the essential purpose of the Bill of Rights, and in particular the First Amendment—to protect individuals expressing unpopular ideas and opinions from retaliation, and prevent their ideas from being suppressed by an intolerant majority.

  • ConPatriot1234

    ROFL. If it wasn’t for tax subsidies NPR would have gone broke ages ago. It’s a joke.

    • Here from Wikipedia:

      “A Harris telephone survey conducted in 2005 found that NPR was the most trusted news source in the United States.[44] According to 2009, NPR statistics, about 20.9 million listeners tune into NPR each week.[45] According to 2015 figures, 87% of the NPR terrestrial public radio audience and 67% of the NPR podcast audience is white.[46] According to the 2012 Pew Research Center 2012 News Consumption Survey, NPR listeners tend to be highly educated, with 54% of regular listeners being college graduates and 21% having some college.[47] NPR’s audience is almost exactly average in terms of the sex of listeners (49% male, 51% female).[47] NPR listeners have higher incomes than average (the 2012 Pew study showed that 43% earn over $75,000, 27% earn between $30,000 and $75,000).[47] The Pew survey found that the NPR audience tends Democratic (17% Republican, 37% independent, 43% Democratic) and liberal (21% conservative, 39% moderate, 36% liberal).[47]”

      • ConPatriot1234

        Well if it’s so popular why do they need tax money? I don’t know anyone who listens to or trusts NPR but it’s true I don’t know a lot of brainwashed libtards…

      • knifemare69

        Nice decade-old statistics that the old rotting relic uses to promote itself! NPR’s news content is a joke – what you get from a mere 20 minutes of the X22 Report, Corbett Report or other indie outlets takes NPR over 8 hours of continuous coverage throughout the day to address.

        What most lefties fail to realize is that NPR *admits* that it is bought and paid for largely by the Wall Street establishment; you didn’t think the Rockefeller, Carnegie-Mellon, John M. Olin trust and Ford Foundations spend all that money to NOT push an agenda, did you?

        The doublethink is real: people who listen to NPR *think* they are mildly anti-establishment but in reality they are more thoroughly programmed than even the Fox News crowd is…the thought forms of Wall Street robber barons infest their minds and they can’t even see it…

    • john cummins

      It’s like USPS.

  • john cummins

    Media that cut off feedback doom themselves to the dustbin of history. It’s understandable that Lamestream Dinosaurs would willingly go extinct.

  • Ernie Hopkins

    Great article!!!

  • knifemare69

    Yahoo News dropped comments on its articles back in 2006 when it became painfully apparent that even the numerous paid government trolls could not maintain the facade that the country was behind the Iraq War. People were regularly calling for Bush’s impeachment for war crimes and such, so the Wall Street poobahs took the comments down.

    NPR is essentially doing the same thing – they can’t fake support for Obama’s wars for oil in Syria and Libya any more either, much less promote the known war criminal Hillary Clinton for the job of murderer-in-chief without significant public outcry. The people are sick of the establishment’s crap and the minions can no longer keep their Potemkin Media Village from burning to the ground…

  • TimeToWakeUPAmerica

    “There is a whole separate government functioning in the world today that has nothing to do with regular politics or the supposed policies that are conducted by governments.”

    “The world’s real ‘controllers’ want global government and using the astonishing funds of central banks have installed a system that works every day to push the world in this direction.” — The Daily Bell

    Dr. John Coleman calls this secret parallel government (that controls the U.K. Government, the U.S. Government, and the Israeli Government (and really, all but a few of the governments around the world) ~ he calls it ‘THE COMMITTEE OF 300’. Most so-called conspiracy “theorists” are just people who have focused their attention on ONE FRONT GROUP of the ‘Committee of 300’, like the TRILATERAL COMMISSION, BILDERBERG GROUP, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, CHATHAM HOUSE, CECIL RHODES/MILNER GROUP, TAVISTOCK, CLUB OF ROME, NATO, FREEMASONRY, etc. THEY ALL WORK FOR THE SAME “ELITES” AT THE TOP, of the socio-economic pyramid.

  • wildeyedliberal

    To end discussions leaves only explosions.

  • Don Duncan

    When information and inquiry and investigation are banned on NPR, can there be any doubt what the goal is? Or who benefits? Voluntarists love debate. Do the control freaks? Or do they live on force & fraud?

    One form of fraud is omission that misleads. Will NPR post articles that challenge each other? What are their “other better ways”? Blank out! Now you see NRP for what it is: a propaganda puppet.

  • OLO101

    I left NPR and stopped following their facebook page the day they removed the comments.

  • Catrina soldevila

    Another one bites the globalist big one

  • Dennis Hicks

    You ăre ignorant.

loading