The Anti-Conservative Bias of NPR and Wikipedia

Wikipedia’s article on Barack Obama makes no mention of scandals during his administration. Contrarily, Wikipedia’s article on Donald Trump is rife with criticisms and information on investigations and controversies involving Trump are nearly as long as information directly pertaining to his presidency.

Wikipedia’s socialism and communism articles have zero mention of the genocides, forced labor and man-made famines caused by socialist and communist regimes.

Philosophy Professor Larry Sanger, one of two original founders of Wikipedia

Conservapedia                               

Just as the “mainstream” news media in America is not really a “news” media but an arm of the Democrat Party, so Wikipedia is not really an encyclopedia but left-wing propaganda team disguised as an encyclopedia.  Taxpayer-funded National Public Radio (NPR) was recently exposed when Uri Berliner, long-time NPR reporter, told how NPR “cooks” the news in an anti-conservative direction.  This scandal led to the NPR CEO, Katherine Maher, who, coincidentally, used to be CEO of Wikipedia.  Maher sports a Bachelor’s degree in Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies from NYU and studied at the Arabic Language Institute in Egypt and in Syria.  She explains Wikipedia’s attitude to the truth:

[O]ur reverence for the truth might be a distraction that’s getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done. … [O]ne of the things we all acknowledge is that the reason we have such glorious chronicles to … all forms of culture is that we acknowledge that there are many different truths.  I acknowledge that the truth exists for you and probably for the person next to you, but this may not be the same truth.  This is because the truth … is for many people what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world.  We all have different truths. They’re based on where we come from, how we’re raised, how other people perceive us. … [R]emember, our truths come from where we come from.

Note how easily Maher slides easily from “the truth” to “many different truths” to “the truth for you vs. the truth for me” to “what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world” to “our truths that come from where we come from?”  First, however, how does that “merging” work?  Second, why should one want to “get things done,” if one doesn’t know that it’s true that one should “get [those] things done”?  After all, if one doesn’t know that it’s true that one should “get those [specific] things done”, then, by seeking “common ground” rather than the “distraction” of “the truth,” one might actually make things worse.  E.g., Consider California’s concentrated solar energy Ivanpah disaster!  Truth turns out to be a tad more important than self-impressed amateurs think it is. 

Further, doesn’t Maher’s view, applied to herself, mean that since Maher’s “truths” “come from” where she came from, no one who “came from” somewhere else should care about what she says?  Does Maher even realize that she is rehashing the Protagorean sophisms discussed by Plato 2500 years ago in ancient Greece?  Unfortunately, Maher’s doctrine, like Protagoras’, is prima facia incoherent because it is self-refuting, i.e., if her views are true then they are false.  That is, if my view (that Maher’s view is false) is true, then Maher’s view is false.  But, of course, Maher’s view (that my view is false) is also true.  So, Maher’s view is both true and false but my opposing view is also both true and false.  How does this juvenile playing at thinking about the notion of truth, help anything? 

It doesn’t and it’s not supposed to. What Maher’s sophistry is actually meant to do is provide a cover for people of her political persuasion to enforce their views on others under the false cover of being “inclusive”.  Consider, therefore, a few test cases to determine how “inclusive” Wikipedia’s wonderful methods for achieving “common ground” actually is.

In its literally comical article on Donald Trump, Wikipedia devotes 12,336 words to criticism of Trump spread over individually titled sections like, Conflicts of Interest, Misogyny, Allegations of Sexual Misconduct, Racial Views, Relationship with the Press, Incitement of Violence, Conspiracy Theories, Misleading and False Statements, Scholarly Assessment and Public Approval Surveys, Civil Lawsuits, Federal and State Civil Cases, Criminal Referral by House January 6 Committee, FBI Investigations and Classified Material at Mar-a-Lago, Jan. 6 Capitol Attack, First Impeachment, Second Impeachment, Concern about Possible Coup Attempt or Military Action, False Claims of Voter Fraud, Attempts to Prevent presidential transition, Mueller Investigation, Russian Election Interference, Hush Money Payments, Trump Wall, Government Shutdown, Lafayette Square Protestor Removal and photo-op and so on and on and on.  The article reads like a Democrat Party hit list on Donald Trump (which, in fact, it is).

Each of these issues deserves a serious discussion and some are already exposed as hoaxes.  For a start, Trump did not admit he grabs women by the p***y and did not “suggest” injecting “disinfectant” to cure the Coronavirus.  About the disinfectant, he asked some doctors a “question” which is precisely what non-doctors are supposed to do with doctors.  For Wikipedia, however, every partisan accusation about involving Trump is given the worst possible interpretation to create a false narrative for political purposes. 

By contrast, in it’s article on their beloved Messiah Barak Obama there is not a single section of criticism, although, surprisingly, Conservapedia somehow managed to find a few.  There is no mention whatsoever of Obama’s 2013 Politifact Lie of the Year that if the peasants like their health care plan and doctor they can keep their health care plan and doctor.  The article barely mentions Obama’s drone strike killing of a US citizen abroad only to remark casually that his DOJ said it was ok.  The Guardian of London is not quite so forgiving.  The article does not even mention the 500+ billion dollars Solyndra scandal. It does not even mention the Obama administration‘s involvement in the fake Steele dossier, known by Obama’s FBI to be fake, that Hillary and the DNC used to smear Donald Trump and start the unjustified FBI Mueller investigation of Trump.  The article makes no mention of Obama’s documented fantasies about having sex with men … and so on.  Obama‘s scandals are not even noticed at all or, if noticed, are casually dismissed.  Not very inclusive to the conservative half of the country. 

One of the virtues Maher claims for Wikipedia is that it forces one to face disagreements about one’s own views.  Please show us Maher where in the Wikipedia article on Obama faces disagreements about the Messiah’s greatness!  We can’t wait to see it.

Near the end of the video, Maher identifies the real (and predictable) boogeyman: Too much about the truth has been decided by “Western white men.”  In fact, these “Western white men,” Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Mill, etc., were attempting to create is ways of thinking about the world not specific to Western white men.  That is the whole point of looking for “the truth”.  It‘s not “Western white” truth.  Please, for a start, Maher, tell us what Modus Ponens, first identified by Theopharastus in ancient Greece, has to do with his race or gender.  We cannot wait for your brilliant answer.

Maher’s problem, with so many sanctimonious “liberals,” is that when she looks at the world she sees her own liberal cosmos. Wikipedia and NPR are designed to keep it that way. 

Agree/Disagree with the author(s)? Let them know in the comments below and be heard by 10’s of thousands of CDN readers each day!