I should begin this comment with a disclaimer: Because I'm trying to condense a lot in small comments, please do understand the lack of nuances.

I'm mostly talking about political news. What I said applies probably a lot less to tech or sports news.

And don't take me as a news ascetic. I often listen to NPR while driving, too. I just actively try not to have any feelings for what I hear, as well as try to ensure I do not pass what I hear along to anyone (this is easy to do in small talk, and a habit I had to force myself to stop).

>Misinformed or underinformed?

Mostly the former, but it does include the latter. I'll speak more about it below. For the "misinformed" portion, I am not claiming NPR news summaries have (intentional) incorrect facts. However, take the example of people who only browse headlines (be it in a news stand or on a news site). They may read the full article if something sounds interesting enough, but mostly they will just see the headlines.

When I got into heavy news reading, I was completely surprised by how many articles directly contradicted the headline. I mean, many (but not most) of us may be aware that the headlines may miss some very important nuances that can be found in the article. But seriously: So many times the article directly contradicted the headline that I am no longer surprised about it.

That's an easy example of the average Joe being misinformed.

For me, being misinformed is broader: Having an opinion about something based on information that is incorrect. And you can end up this way even if all the facts you heard on the news is true.

Humans, by default, do not like ignorance or confusion. Generally, if they are underinformed, their brains will fill the gaps subconsciously. A minority of us have learned to guard against this, but otherwise, it is the norm. Most people will form an opinion based on the notions that the brain filled. Being uninformed does lead to being misinformed, unless the person guards against this. You and I may do this, but most people do not.

I honestly think even you and I, who may actively guard against this, cannot do a good job.

Take the issue of Muslims, and the opinion people who barely know one have of them. You'll hear a lot of interesting things (and usually not the "good" kind of interesting). It's easy for me to explain it away with "oh, probably some propaganda they heard on talk radio." But I've found that model doesn't hold up. The negative perception holds even for those who've never been misinformed about Muslims. They have, however, been underinformed: Almost all the news they hear/read is negative (terrorism, women's lack of rights, etc), and thus their opinion is negative.

Let me put this in a different way. It's always amusing to me to see someone here in the US get so happy when they hear something positive/uplifting from the Arab world. I wish I could think of better examples, but I'll go with these for now: "Qatar held a public, civil debate on some hot topic". Or that the Arab world had their own, local version of "American Idol", but with the competition being about eloquence and poetry.

That happiness is usually due to being misinformed. Their view of that place was something about a backward society, and they see this as a "step forward". They had a faulty perception of that society in their mind - faulty enough to think that this event is a "big thing" in that society, and indicative of something big. They are/were misinformed, and even without being told any lies about the place. It all happens subconsciously.

It is arrogant for me to think "Yeah, but it only happens to them, and not to me!" I may have some control over it, but I'm sure that even if I listen to all my news with a skeptic mind (but without going in depth), I will end up being misinformed on a number of topics.

Moving on: Let's take the Aleppo example: In the 3 minutes where they talk about some new event in Aleppo, NPR will likely state facts. But will they state only news? Not always. It is common for them to end the segment with some context. Such as "Syria has been in civil war since 2011".

That's not news. That's context. What's more, it is editorializing. Why did they decide to include it? And why not include more context? Or even some other context? People who are strongly passionate about a news topic notice this very quickly, particularly when they are not happy with the context provided.

The above example seems benign. But let's take Michael Jackson's arrest in around 2003 on child molestation charges. Suppose they had mentioned the arrest, and then ended the brief segment with "He had been accused and investigated for similar behaviour in 1991".

Should they have said that? For most people, that is sufficient context. But for his fans, they'd be upset that they brought up the 1991 case without also mentioning the outcome of the 1991 investigation (never charged, etc). Others may fundamentally object to it being brought because they'll feel (as I believe the law's stance is) that earlier history is not relevant to the current case.

How often, when casually listening to NPR, do we scrutinize and distinguish between news, hearsay (I did not even get to this topic), and context? Ideally, we should always scrutinize it.

>but they tend to deliver whatever current facts are out there. Do they have to edit and possibly leave out some facts/stories?

If they are omitting (time constraints, etc), then they are not delivering "whatever current facts are out there" They are delivering "a few facts that are out there".

Some random points (not related to your comment):

About a decade ago, Iranian president Ahmadinejad gave a talk at Columbia University, the president of the university, Lee Bollinger heavily criticized him while introducing him to talk. He supposedly said "exhibit[s] all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator."

This made news.

Lee Bollinger really cares about human rights, right?

But that same day another president also gave a speech at Columbia University: The president of Turkmenistan. Bollinger also introduced him to the stage. But he didn't criticize him as he did Ahmadinejad.

Yet they have a horrible human rights record (if you're not aware, you should read HRW reports on Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan) - worse than Iran's. I've ended this comment with snippets from Wikipedia to give you an idea.

So how much did Bollinger really care about human rights? Or is it more likely that he was merely capitalizing on the anti-Iranian rhetoric in the country at the time.

Very few news outlets noted this difference in treatment on the very same day. His criticism of Ahmadinejad made all the news. His lack of criticism for Turkmenistan's president mostly went unmentioned.

Do you see how easy it is to state only facts (his criticism of Ahmadinejad), and yet have people view Bollinger as someone who is acting out of concern for human rights? How would an ordinary person ever know otherwise unless he/she digs really deep?

"universities have been encouraged to reject applicants with non-Turkmen surnames, especially ethnic Russians"

"Russian newspapers were banned earlier"

"It is forbidden to teach the customs and language of the Baloch, an ethnic minority."

"banned playing of video games, listening to car radios, performing opera and ballet, smoking in public, long hair on men, and even growing facial hair."

"closure of all libraries outside the capital of Ashgabat in the belief that all Turkmen are illiterate."

"According to Reporters Without Borders' 2006 World Press Freedom Index, Turkmenistan had the third-worst press freedom conditions in the world, behind North Korea and Burma. It is considered to be one of the ten most censored countries"