Help me! I need an education. Subject: NPR - what's your problem?

[Selwynn]

Hello all,

I have seen serveral posts recently critical of NPR - really critical. I'm trying to sort out what is mainly just cynical ranting, and what is legitimate points.

Where I'm coming from is this: I have no problem with NPR. I've listened to NPR for a very long time. The first fact to remember is that NPR is not ABCnews, or CBSnews, or CNN all news Channel, or FOX all news channel, etc. NPR is not exclusively political nor even an exclusively news network. Its primary programming is social in nature. I think it is nearly impossibly to deny than NPR tends to be on the liberal side socially. And quite frankly, I believe even their news reporting has a liberal bent. I'll never forget the time I heard Bob Edwards completely take this republican governor to ask after he denied making certain statements, twice in response to Edwards question and follow-up, then he dug up the quote and quoted it back in his face. I loved it. Bob Edwards spoke here recently, by the way. Man there is no question about his personal political feelings. He had some incredibly funny things to say about Bush.

Anyway, I digress. The point is, I would claim that NPR is probably the most left-leaning of any of the big TV/radio news outlets. Does anyone dispute this, and if so, please name the national/network TV/news outlet that is more left leaning? And I don't mean some localized pirate radio station broadcast out of Buttnowhere, Ohio. So, we don't need to uniformly agree with everything that is said by anyone, or any organization. But I admit I raise a really skeptical brown towards the people cynically ranking out NPR for how "conservative" it is?

Ok so there you have it - I'm strongly skeptical about criticism of NPR as "conservative." However, I'm willing to be educated. So, let the education begin. Could I please see some good examples of the concern about NPR, specifics please? And what kind of concern is this? Is this the concern of people who have enjoyed a very left leaning organization that now seems to be drifting to the center? Or are you implying that NPR is literally more conservative than other mainstream news outlets?

I personally believe that PBS and NPR remain the best mainstream national sources for news and information. And what's more, their social programming is top notch. I love All Things Considered, one of my favorite shows. Tavis Smile is great as well. On the weekends I get this American Life which is via PRI.

So anyway, as a defensive lover of NPR, I'm asking - what the hell is your problem with my station?? :D

[Catholic Sensation]

1. Well, the only true conservative I can think of on NPR

Is Cokie Roberts, but I haven't heard her for a while (I heard she had some personal problems), the rest seem fairly moderate to me with actual fairness and balance.

[AP]

There's also Mara Liason and Juan Williams.

Think of it this way: the only liberal they have is Tavis Smiley, and they're trying to sabotage his show with some new program they're hawking.

And also, they have a dozen shows about the Market, but they don't have a single show about labor. Capital has a voice on NPR. Labor doesn't.

Also, when they pick an album they want to sell, they're shameless. Starting at Thanksgiving, you get half as much news and twice as many book and movie reviews.

[Yupster]

16. Boy

Cokie's mom and Dad were both Democratic congresspersons. Her dad was the Speaker of the House. I guess she's really fallen far from the tree.

[Junkdrawer]

56. Kick

:kick:

[Langis]

2. My only problem

Is the Jazz at night, bla.

[Selwynn]

4. Where I live, night is BBC - woo hoo! :D

[Langis]

6. Must be nice

After 7 here in Phoenix all we have is local conservative crap.

[AP]

3. All I can say is, you have to listen to it closely sometimes, and not so..

...closely other times.

I think they toe the Republican line way more often than not. Their weekend edition used to be the worst, but the most egregious reporter was since quite WE. E.g., once they did a story on a small toy mnfg. The interviewer said that they were having a problem competing because of consumer protection laws. Then they interviewed the owner about that, and the owners quote was (almost) literally, "it isn't any worse for us than anyone else."

It was stunning. The reporter totally editorialized and it was completely unsubstantianted by the interview.

That was just one piece of evidence in millions.

They're total cheerleaders for the economy. During the clinton administration all they reported on were interente stocks. I think they played a vital role in creating the bubble. In 2001, I heard a reporter honestly say the economy was getting better becasue the rate of increasing something-or-other was decreasing, That's right. It wasn't because it had turned postive, it was because the rate of increasing crappiness dropped. Well, the economy hasn't gotten any better.

[Selwynn]

9. I would think that ought to alway be our attitude no matter who it is?(nt)

[punpirate]

12. I agree that there's been some changes...

... albeit, slow but progressive ones in NPR over the years. Some of the reasons for that are found here:

http://www.fair.org/media-beat/020411.html

Reserving complaints for specific individuals (as is common here at DU for personalities on commercial network news and opinion shows) doesn't quite work for NPR, although, I think, there have been some exceptions. Cokie Roberts is certainly one--her general sneering in Clinton's direction and her more or less complete adulation of Bush have pretty much defined her level of independence--but she is not so much a force there since working for ABC. Linda Wertheimer's change in direction has been more subtle and pervasive.

But, as I say, it's not individual correspondents that have drastically changed their own slants, but an overall corporate change in attitude. A lot of that may be due to Kevin Klose's influence--that public radio is a cheerleader for America, just as propaganda radio is.

And the influence of corporate sponsorship is now pervasive, and some of it is quite troubling. I am still amazed that the Howard Ahmanson, Jr. Foundation is part of the permanent endowment of NPR, for example. And, the number of pundits from right-wing think tanks being asked for both commentary and for exposition of stories seems to me to be clearly on the rise.

The changes over the years have been subtle, but they are there.

Cheers.

[Snow]

38. They went nuts during the Lewinsky scandal....

they were nearly as excited by the whole business as all the rest of the liberal media. I stopped being a listener when I heard Cokie Roberts say something like "Bill Clinton will be toast inside 2 weeks."

[Junkdrawer]

5. Here's a recent email I sent...

Dear NPR:

Your 9/24/03 Morning Edition report on the Maryland SAIC Report in regards to the Rubin’s report was woefully inadequate in several areas. Specifically:

1.) The issue of a voter-verified paper trail is at the center of touch screen voting debate. Without a paper trail, horror stories such as the negative 16,0222 votes given to Al Gore in Volusia County Florida would never have been resolved. Your offhand dismissal of this absolutely needed reform by citing unnamed experts giving unspecified reasons why this method would not add to
voter confidence is most troubling.

2.) The SAIC report was over 200 pages long and yet only 40 pages were released to the public. Your report made no mention of this fact. The public needs to know why the software, hardware and procedures used in the non-proprietary process of counting our votes are held in such secrecy.

Sincerely,

[onebigbadwulf]

7. Actually

The majority of people who listen to NPR tend to be conservatives. From what I've seen, it's completely objective. However, compared to Fox News and MSNBC, everything looks like a hippie liberal. It's a contrast effect. Anyway, the contrast thing in addition with scientific discoveries without mentioning religious doctrine makes right-wing whackos THINK that NPR is wildly liberal when in reality it is the TRUE meaning of conservative.

[Selwynn]

10. NRP listeners majority conservative - Source?

"The majority of people who listen to NPR tend to be conservatives."

Can you give me a source for this statement?

[Ivory_Tower]

8. No problem here

They have some conservative spinners on who annoy me from time to time, but overall they're the closest thing to "fair and balanced" that I've heard.

Although I have to admit that I kept turning off the radio during the war because every news break featured an audio clip of Shrub giving some repulsive speech.

I like mixing my radio listening up a little bit between three stations here: Classical/NPR, Bluegrass/NPR, and Jazz/Blues/Pacifica. It's a nice mix of music and information.

[Junkdrawer]

11. I think they made a Faustian bargain...

They can broadcast "liberal" opinions on social/environmental issues if they carry this administration's water on foreign policy. The only exception is Daniel Shorr, whom they relegate to Weekend Edition.

As soon as Bush declared victory, NPR broadcasted piece after piece about how the troops are trying to bring peace to Iraq. And this continues to this day.

And for all that, they will probably get fried anyhow what with the Terri Gross interview of Bill O'Reilly.

[Selwynn]

42. Daniel Shorr is not weekend only

In fact I get his commentary every night of the weekdays on All Things Considered. And there reporting on the war has been far from sympathetic. I mean, if you are wanting them to come out Mike Malloy style and froth at the mouth, I guess that's one thing. But FOX news they aint!

[DUreader]

13. GE , I mean NPRArcherDanielsFanniEMaFreddie, Continues in Violation of its

Charter(Unless they finally got around to changing that charter)

Plenty of adCopy masquerading as news with a huge dose of "you are

such a smart, well informed listener"

NPR: Guilty of Corporate Whoring and the most insidious Lies by Omission!

Thats not even my 2 cents, don't get me started

[Selwynn]

15. Since you said nothing of any content, I'd like to get you started...

Ok, so you don't like NPR. Cool.

Do you want to actually post a coherent post that helps me understand what your problem is.

Do you realize that of all their sponsorship - corporate = less than 50% ? Primary sponsorship are charitable orgs and individuals. Again, like I said, I'm willing to be educated, but so far all I've seen is rants of no substance like the one you just made?

I'm trying to sort through that to get to concrete facts...

--edit: I apologize if that was too harsh. I am just *trying* to sort through all the different points of view, and particularly the rants and get to some concrete meat.

[DUreader]

19. Corp. Sponsorship, when instituted, violated the Charter

For many years they never even changed the Charter, they may have recently

but I wouldn't know.

Lie by omission while reporting (hyping) true but incidental core issues.

Editorializing in reporting.

Advertising disguised as news.

[Selwynn]

43. How large a % is Corporate Sponsorship

I believe it is less than 50% - a lot less. Does anyone have hard numbers?

Lie by omission: exmaples?

Editorializing: examples? I'll pay more attention to this..

Advertising disguised as news: Examples?

[DUreader]

21. NPR stomped on Low Power FM Community Broadcasting

[mitchum]

41. That's my number one beef with those dulcet-toned assholes...

but there are many more

[Selwynn]

44. Such as?

[mitchum]

53. DUReader has done my work for me

Honestly, he/she has posted a number of compelling reasons

[DUreader]

22. NPR: Genetically altered food is good for You.

[Selwynn]

47. Did it say "is good for you" or is that your inference

May I have a source please? I'd like to look at your evidence for myself.

[DUreader]

23. NPR: "Bush Won Florida, now we can go on vacation"

That one is paraphrasing

[Selwynn]

46. Yeah .. paraphrasing just a bit

Can I have a hard reference please?

[DUreader]

26. NPR: Controlling the other side of the message so you don't have to think

[Selwynn]

48. Source? Evidence? Examples? Anything other than YOUR commentary?

PLEASE?

[DUreader]

28. www.fair.org www.projectcensored.org www.kpfa.org DEMOCRACYNOW!!!!!

http://www.fair.org/

http://www.projectcensored.org/

www.kpfa.org

www.democracynow.org

[Selwynn]

49. Do any of these links link to evidence for your position?

Damn, I'm finding it really difficult to get people to come out with something of substance... :/

[DUreader]

29. CSPAN II seminar on journalistic ethics.............NAUSEATING

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=529080

julka (1000+ posts)
Mon Oct-13-03 09:01 PM
Original message
CSPAN II seminar on journalistic ethics.............NAUSEATING



Marvin Kalb, Bob Schieffer, Dan Schorr, Karen Jurgensen (USA Today), Margaret Warner sit there, patting
themselves on the back on how ethical they are, how well they serve the common weal, how
WONDERFULLY the embedded reporters served both the government AND the American public.

this last assertion was heartily seconded by Schieffer, who said, most ironically, I thought, that they have
lots of ways to get a story out that needs to be told (referring to the possible difficulties in publishing
work unflattering to the DOD, etal).

Like Bush AWOL, PNAC, WMD serial lies, right?

I saw only the first half hour, so they may have covered other stuff.

time for QandA right now.

can't wait to see if anyone in audience is not swallowing the swill.

[Toucano]

14. Personally, I agree with you.

"I personally believe that PBS and NPR remain the best mainstream national sources for news and information. And what's more, their social programming is top notch."

One problem for some people is their local station may not air some of the best shows. But generally, if you are a right-wing person, the center looks leftist. If you're a leftist, the center looks right.

Also, sometimes a story that may seem slanted pro-Israel, for example, will be balanced by a pro-Palestine story later in the week.

They are also not beyond biting the hand that feeds them. These stories were critical of ADM.

http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1024248
http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1058243
http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1045163

[Selwynn]

17. About I/P reporting

I realize with ever post I make I sound like an NPR apologist but what the hell: one of the things that really impressed me is that NPR has been the ONLY national mainstream TV/Radio outlet that I've ever heard run a clearly pro-palestinian (though by that I don't mean anti-israel) piece.

The piece was on the conditions of palestinians, the agression of Israel (which included break downs of HRW reports of human rights abuses) and included comments from palestinans talking about their desire for peace and sense of hopelssness. It was a very great, very moving, very counter-mainstream media report that would NEVER have been aired anywhere else.

[Toucano]

18. Yes

That story deepened my understanding of the situation a lot.

A also think PBS may be the only conventional news source that has even touched on the 911 cover up questions. On NOW with Bill Moyer's a month or so ago.

[punpirate]

32. A couple of things to remember...

PBS and NPR are now (and have been for some time) different entities, so they can't, in the same breath, be equated.

Second, Bill Moyers and NOW have a distinct advantage over other production companies in that they come to PBS with their own funding. They never have to beg a sponsor for funds, and therefore, don't have to bend too much in the way of content.

An independent filmmaker, on the other hand, who wants to do a compelling documentary, is often at the mercy of what a corporate entity may think of the subject, because the funding comes from them through CPB. The stories are legion about PBS not picking up specials because of PBS's own perceptions about how the subject would be received by its corporate sponsors. I can think of no better example of this than the recent failure of the PBS to air Jamie Doran's documentary on the killing of Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan. Even though a select few of larger affiliates did show the documentary, it was clearly off limits at the PBS national level. In the days before Congress's progressive defunding of public broadcasting (which was spearheaded by prominent conservatives such as Jesse Helms, largely as an attack on public broadcasting for its coverage and treatment of Watergate), this would not have happened.

Keep in mind that the degree of financial independence of a news organization does influence the character of what it reports, and perhaps not in obvious ways. There is simply no reason why this country cannot afford to fund a national broadcasting system with more or less complete independence, and yet, it does not, and it does not for purely political and corporate reasons.

While the level of corporate funding may be slightly less than 50%, that corporate funding is largely concentrated at the national level--and it is upon the national feed that many smaller stations depend. At that level of funding, there's more than just an appearance of influence--it's a reality.

Even at the local level, the influence of corporate sponsorship is considerable. My sister used to do local commentary on NPR in the Carolinas, until the station decided not to air one of her spots (and I assure you, my sister is _not_ a flaming radical--far from it). When she asked why, she was told that a sponsor had objected to the content, and they preferred to conform to the sponsor's wishes, rather than lose the sponsor. They expected my sister to say, "okay, I'll do something else," and to her eternal credit, she did not. She simply quit. She also discovered, in the discussions, that almost every bit of local content was reviewed by the station for its potential to disturb local sponsors, and if there was any question on content, the sponsor was asked to review and comment before the questionable item was aired.

That, by definition, is a dependency upon a special interest for funding, and is the antithesis of independence. The fact that the dependency is less than 50% of the total funding is a red herring--in fact, it means that almost half of what one sees and hears in public broadcasting is subtly or overtly affected by the source of funding. In such an environment, self-censorship becomes a dominant theme.

Cheers.

[Selwynn]

50. OMG - THANK YOU!

Good post...

I'll take some time to digest it.

[blindpig]

24. follow the money

newt's contract on america probably affected me most by emasculating NPR. used to be, NPR kicked ass during iran/contra, had serious environmental coverage & was pretty cool. while still the most intellegent stuff out there it has become smarmy & unbalanced by omision. being beholden to corporate & "wise use" backers has enfeebled NPR.
something else to piss me off!

[Kolesar]

20. Their coverage of the Conquest of Iraq was as bad as commercial media

They gave scant coverage to the reasons not to go to war. On the Saturday after the conquest began, Scott Simon brought in guests who were Iraqi expatriots to talk about human rights in Iraq. That was the first time they were brought on (!), and they were the entire show that Saturday. Antiwar voices were squelched.

NPR has moved from left-of-center to right-of-center. When they were left-of-center in the 1980s, they actually helped form my political opinions.

The bias that NPR has is shown by their choice of which stories they cover and which stories they don't cover. For example, global warming should be a story they cover almost daily and deforestation and the roadless policy should be covered weekly. When is the last time you heard a story about the upcoming rape of the Tongass National Forest in coastal Alaska? That is a major policy change, implemented by pro-industry cabinet heads who took over the departments of Agriculture and Interior. It undermines the roadless policy edict by Clinton and also circumvents the public by mandating very short periods for lawsuits to be settled.

NPR is in pledge week this week and I scarcely miss them. I get my news on The Latest Breaking News forum. NPR has lost their edge.

[AP]

27. NPR skipped right over the why and went to the when question viz Iraq

invasion FROM THE GET GO. There was no pause at all.

Then, my local station ran those war promos, I mean the press briefs every morning instead of running Tavis Smiley, which, at that time, was the ONLY place you could hear people like Cornel West criticizing the war.

Also, TOTN callers in wanted to talk about Theft 2000 for weeks after the election. TOTN aggressively avoided discussing it and then started cutting off callers who even mentioned it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. They're more liberal than the commercial media, but

they are under pressure from their corporate underwriters and from the threat of having the Republicans in Congress cut off their funding.

[screaming_meme]

30. NPR=Fox Lite

Slightly lower on the whore-ometer, but WHORES nonetheless. I only listen to Guy James and Pacifica.

[DUreader]

33. NPR LOVES FOXNEWS, It makes them seem so liberal

I wouldn't be surprised if Foxnews was established by a consortium

of the other major news outlets to balance their bias with

extreme propaganda.

All of the Networks love Fox because they can compare themselves to it

and say "see how great we are"

[AP]

36. That O'Reilly vs Terri Gross interview was great for both NPR and FOX

It allowed them both to perpetuate their self-mythyologizing, one as a sexist, pushy victim of liberal media, and the other as the wussy, pushed-around, stuttering liberal media.

[dobak]

52. thats just as bad as only watching FOX

Yeah, so NPR offers conservative points of view sometimes. They are not a liberal radio station and don't profess to be one.

I consider myself very far left, sometimes even thinking I am a Socialist and find NPR to be a great source of bias free news. That means free from liberal or conservative bias.

I am on here 1-2 hours a day. I read "The Nation", "The Progressive", "Harper's", "Z Magazine", and "Mother Jones". I also enjoy my local radio station, KFAI, which features "Democracy Now" and programming with an obvious liberal slant. NPR is to the right of all them, of course, but it is to the left of FOX/CNN/etc.... Hell, I even listen to my local RW radio station, "The Patriot", to get their view on things. Even if it is usually an ignorant and partisan view.

Ignoring media that "occasionally" runs stories that don't align with your worldview and only listening to "pure" media outlets is not a good way to participate in a democracy.

[sendero]

31. Well, I've posted this ten times....

... but a few more won't hurt.

First off, I don't dislike *all* of NPR, just their "news".

Terry Gross and Diane Rehm need make no apologies for their work, Ms Gross in unrelentingly and unapologetically liberal (and what's wrong with that, we have 500 equivalent right wingers who claim to be "balanced"). Diane Rehm hosts the best talk radio program I have heard. I think she might lean slightly to the left, but she is absolutely evenhanded, letting neither side get in bulls**t sound bites and she demands and gets civility from her guests and callers.

NPR news on the other hand is a train wreck. As a listener since the mid 80s, I can tell you it has taken a sharp turn to the right, and while some would say "so what, that's fair", I say yes, they have that right but they will never see another dime of mine and I've given plenty over the years. I can get that kind of balance from Fox or CNN or any number of other FREE news outlets, I won't pay NPR for it.

My number one complaint with them is their constant running of commentaries from the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the National Review. But do they bring in the left heavy hitters to tell the other side of the story? No. There is either silence or some yoho I've never heard of failing utterly to rebut the easily rebutted message of these conservative "think tanks" (their very description is misleading - the only thinking these folks do is 'how can we make a ridiculous and pernicious message palatable to the masses').

I'm fed up with NPR and as I said will not send another dime to the local affiliate until they change. A volunteer called a couple months ago asking for a pledge and I was happy to tell her what I thought of NPR and what I was going to do about it. She didn't say so explicitly, but I got the distinct impression she'd heard my complaint before.

So, no, balanced is not good enough, even if they were, which they are not. Because the right continues to paint them as flaming leftists, which is a great method for moving all discourse to the right. Screw NPR.

[DUreader]

34. Keep on Posting It, I even have gripes with Terry and Diane

I've pretty much shut them out since 911 but maybe I'll give them

a new chance

I know for sure they never competed with Pacifica

I'd take Amy any day over either of those two

[wellstone_democrat]

39. that's right on target

I can remember in the 1980s that their central american coverage sometimes made me a tad uncomfortable with their unapologetic leftward slant. Now, I can't even listen to Morning edition or all things considered----like Fox news in their choice of commentators and their biases. I've given plenty to NPR over the years and I stopped in 2001 and it would take a lot to get me back.

Sure, they made their frightened choice and they will live with the consequences: people like me have chosen not to listen or contribute.

[Selwynn]

51. Thank you very much for the thoughtful post

Gives me food for thought.

[TreasonousBastard]

35. Except for traffic and weather...

NPR is pretty much all I listen to on the radio. I find them generally well balanced, although you can always find something to quibble about. With any media format, liberal or conservative is in the eye of the beholder and no one is going to come out clean 100% of the time.

Personally, I like the way they give more than 30 seconds to a story. I remember a few years ago when Sister Prejean was in town plugging her book, and she spent five or ten minutes on all the morning TV shows, and a minute or two on the news radio stations. WNYC gave her well over a half hour, and no commercials.

Remember that PBS and NPR have had their funding cut because the wingnuts claim they are "too liberal" and it's a waste of taxpayer dollars. They get less than 10% government funding now, and have to make it up with listeners' or corporate funding.

They ain't gonna be hellraising Pacifica stations under those circumstances.

[Armstead]

37. They toe the elite establishment line

They're probably the fairest mainstream media we have. But they are still slanted to the elite view of the world, and do not allow a true balance of differing viewpoints.

They are "liberal" enough for wine and cheese yuppies, but they never question or challenge.

One example: When the recent FCC gift of the public airwaves to the corporate media ws in its early stage, NPR did a "news report" about the controversy. It was completely slanted to the view that it's fine to allow a handful of owners to control every media outlet in every community. There was almost no people with opposing views interviewed. The reporter ended the story with (slightly paraphrased): "Despite the worries that some express, those involved involved the issue assure us that this change will not cause the harmful effects critics are worried about."

I almost threw my radio out the window.

T

[Junkdrawer]

55. Not enough new blood at the national level...

NPR started out as a bunch of kids just out of college who were tired of the corporate influence and the dumbing down of the news. As they grew older, their salaries rose and soon NPR membership dues rose. When Newt cut back on government subsidies, the "solution" was to allow corporate sponsorship.

We have come full circle. What we need is a new bunch of kids just out of college who are tired of the corporate influence and the dumbing down of the news.

[indigo32]

I happen to agree with you completely

I would maintain that just their lack of tabloid journalism allows them time to broach subjects other stations wouldn't. Just cuz it isn't always slanted left doesn't mean it's bad. Who among you have listened to the program "MarketPlace" (actually PRI but our local affiliate carries it)? I'd go stark raving mad without Public Radio.

[hiphopnation]

40. I won't argue with your points

because I think that NPR is one of the more "left-leaning" major outlets. It's still not left enough for me. If that makes me fringe, so be it.

I was a devout listener/contributor to my local NPR affiliate right up until 9/11. In the months proceeding, it seemed to me that every major news outlet took up the nationalistic, lock-step approach to news-reporting and jingoistic pride seemed to be trumpeted from every media outlet.

My natural reaction to 9/11 was quite the oposite of what the country seemed to be experiencing as a whole which was a coming-together and collective celebration of all things "American"; the "United We Stand" sentiment. My natural reaction to 9/11 was one of suspicion, introspection, and curiosity; and I didn't see any of that reflected in any major news media outlet not even NPR. The only place I DID find it was right here at DU.

Unfortunately I cannot fufill your requests for specifics, but I do know, and I stated it in the earlier thread about NPR, that something changed profoundly in the reporting on NPR post-9/11. I did not feel "connected" as a listener anymore. There was too much happening that I felt ShrubCo needed to answer for and I did not here those questions coming from the annals of NPR. I DID see them coming from the folks here at DU.

Then I realized that getting news, facts, information, and debate from my peers who have no vested interest in a bottom-line, only the truth, was the perferable way to recieve my news. But I digress.

I know that alot changed after 9/11, but all I can say is the newsreporting and analysis that I expected the months following 9/11 I did not hear at NPR. I admit that it may be myself that changed rather than NPR itself. I don't contribute anymore.

Of course when I saw Juan Williams and Marua Liason on some of the panels on Faux News I knew my instincts to be correct. My $0.02. Good Post. :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

45. NPR is not liberal....it's the way centrist news should be..... n/t

[dobak]

54. yes!

As I said in an earlier post:

Ignoring news media who present views that differ from your view, or ignoring news that sometimes offers programming in opposition to your view and only listening/reading/watching "pure liberal" media is not a healthy way to participate in a democracy.

Watch FOX, CNN, ABC, etc...

Read "The Nation", "Time", "National Review", etc..

Listen to "Democracy NOW, NPR, talk radio, etc...


You will be better informed and better able to effect change in society than if you only digest stuff your agree with.

[AP]

57. Only if you think centrist news should aid government propaganda

It's defense of marriage week, in case you didn't knowl. Yesterday, NPR ran a story about a single mom whose life sucked. It was part of a series Noah Adams is doing on low paid work in America. Since Bush's project has been to create more low paid Americans, I've read this series thus far as being a celebration of low paid work. Every story they've done so far has made low paid work sound fun. Don't believe me? Check out their web site.

It has been a while since they've done a new story on low paid work. They did one yesterday and I was stunned. It made low paid work sound like shit. They made some point about it being harder since the subject of the story got a divorce. IMMEDIATELY following this story, they interviewed (I think) a Newsweek reporter (I dindn't know that Newsweek was having such a hard time getting access to the public conscience that they needed to rely on public radio). The Newsweek reporter reported on a study concluding that married people were happier and wealthier.

The implicit message of these stories: if you're poor, get married.

This is effing propaganda for the Bush administration which doesn't want you think, hey, I'm poor, fix the fucking economy and stop giving the stoor away to the wealthy.