I get it! For those like me who are lacking context, here’s a decent article:

https://fair.org/home/update-npr-doesnt-ban-torture-but-offers-euphemisms-to-use-in-its-place/

Eh? https://www.npr.org/2023/03/21/1164916991/looking-back-on-shocking-revelations-u-s-forces-tortured-iraqis-at-abu-ghraib

Im not old enough to remember any reporting at the time, but I have found NPR to be one of the best mainstream sources of news. These critiques are valid, but feel the typical leftist purity test

I mean, I agree that it’s stupid to not be an environmentalist, but it sounds like you’re criticizing NPR for correctly using the english language and adhering to journalistic practices

NPR is highly critical of [insert atrocity here]. I doubt you can find an example where they’re not.

That’s just how headlines work. “Experts say X,” “Politician says Y” – that’s inoffensive.

Environmentalist is a well-understood term with meaning. There are people who are not environmentalists. Yeah it is ridiculous that anyone isn’t

I have listened to dozens of stories on climate change, pollution, etc. over the years. I mean look up “NPR fossil fuels” and you’ll see pages upon pages of critical, factual reporting. I’m not sure they’re beholden to the fossil fuel industry - have any more info?