> The operative phrase there is "outside paid work."
> you interpreted NPR's article exactly the way NPR intended you to interpret it.
This take seems born out of bias, one that comes with prebuilt animosity toward NPR while assuming the university admin's stated reason is the sole and actual reason for denying testimony.
It's notable that the university could defuse the situation by clarifying what are acceptable avenues for the professors to testify - and then doesn't do that.
I agree and agree the article is short on questions that the journalist should have brought up, even if they couldn't answer it (eg: names of the specific admins involved, how they got those positions and who they are beholden to).
> Do you believe the purpose of the article was to inform you of the nuances on both sides and let you make an informed judgement for yourself?
I hope not. We tried that with journalism and wound up with endless views from nowhere. It was barely better than when journalists parrot Gov/Biz/LEO press releases w/o vetting the content (which is done all the time).
edit: I'll append to note that NPR's 2008 election coverage set a gold standard for equanimity that I haven't seen repeated (inc by NPR). They gave conservatives a better shake than RW news orgs did.
Everyone is biased. The key to better journalism is competency.
The key to worse journalism is having an arms-race reaction to bias and building a news org on that reaction - which is to say building it out of bias.
It's an insignificant detail compared to competency and it seems tedious to let it bother you. Past that, a declaration would be counterproductive. No matter how it's worded, some substantive journalism will be seen to be in disharmony. Why invite that trouble for no meaningful benefit?
One example of how it's unimportant: A motto like "fair and balanced" kind of pretends that one particular network wasn't founded on activism but it was. More importantly, it's the activism that those viewers want.
Perhaps the motto brings the viewers some comfort by reinforcing a view that the only world worth having is the one they visualize. Why take that away based on some arbitrary calculation?
> you interpreted NPR's article exactly the way NPR intended you to interpret it.
This take seems born out of bias, one that comes with prebuilt animosity toward NPR while assuming the university admin's stated reason is the sole and actual reason for denying testimony.
It's notable that the university could defuse the situation by clarifying what are acceptable avenues for the professors to testify - and then doesn't do that.