Malloy: NPR Ombudsmen Issues Apology To Bill O'Reilly...

[WillyT]

For Terry Gross Fresh Air interview.

Malloy ain't happy about it. He will post the article on his site.

MFG - NPR, shame on you.

:puke:

[WillyT]

1. Hell, I'll Post It Here And Now !!!

<snip>

By the time the interview was about halfway through, it felt as though Terry Gross was indeed "carrying Al Franken's water," as some listeners say. It was not about O'Reilly's ideas, or his attitudes or even about his book. It was about O'Reilly as political media phenomenon. That's a legitimate subject for discussion, but in this case, it was an interview that was, in the end, unfair to O'Reilly.

<snip>

Link: http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/2003/031015.html

Jesus...

Do we even have a chance in 2004?

[brainshrub]

37. Here is an earlier thread a day after the interview happened

[brainshrub]

38. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&for

[brainshrub]

39. Oops, I'll nver try that again. *blush*

Sorry, I thought that links would work in the subject header. (Sorry) :dunce: :eyes:

Here's the link to the thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&for

[rocktivity]

48. The pot calling the kettle black

Or should I say the water carrier calling the other water carrier wet? If Bill O'Reilly is qualified to call someone a water carrier, then Hugh Hefner is qualified to call someone a pimp!


rocknation

[kcwayne]

2. Link please?

If NPR is going to bow over to O'Reilly, I am going to cancel my pledge. Do you have a link to more information on this?

[Cha]

5. Cancel! More People need to do this. I

didn't even pledge because I don't like the way they bend over.

[brainshrub]

36. I was very dissapointed in NPR after 9/11

I don't even bother listening to them anymore. If I want to know what's going on I look for media sources from outside the US.

[tinanator]

73. wont you please support Radio Enron?

I cant believe anyone would send money to those uberwhores.
knock me over with a feather. "Oh, but they are so much more even handed." No, you are just so much more removed from the reality they are hiding from you.

[frank frankly]

3. NPR--not helpful enough

very disappointing
very stupid and cowardly

[Bozita]

4. He's already said it. - "Have I told you lately that I hate these people?"

He's really pissed tonight.

[IranianDemocrat]

6. I actually take O'Reilly side on this.

That Fresh Air lady completely ambushed O'reilly, and she never even talked about his book which was supposed to be the topic of the interview. When Al Franken came on, it was the most soft ball interview ever(Which I have no problem with as long as she does the same to o'reilly.)

[sendero]

11. She did...

... what O-Reilly does to his guests every night. The little pussy can dish it out but he can't take it.

Just another vindication of my long held position that NPR is a lost cause and those defending them might as well defend FOX news.

[IranianDemocrat]

16. Thanks for trying to smear me.

The fact is that two wrongs don't make a right. I now O'reilly is a bully and a fraud, but I also don't like the way the NPR interview was conducted.

[sendero]

20. If I had wanted to smear you....

... I would have. Instead, I smeared your opinion. I would continue, but... well nevermind.

[tom_paine]

44. In Imperial Amerika two wrongs DO make a right

While you are self-analyzing, moralizing, and contemplating your navel, the Busheviks have no such compunctions and will disembowel you (and by extension, all of us and the Old American republic, too).

O'Reichly IS a cowardly bully who can dish it out but can't ake it.

And I am disgusted that libs do what they always do when Busheviks bully them...apologize and cower.

Maybe the Old American Republic is dead with no chance of resuscitiation.

One thing is sure, now that Caeser has revealed himself/themselves, moralizing and fairness and contemplation of morality will be met with the same contempt as it was met with by the nazis and Soviets.

Not that we should sink to the level of the Busheviks, but goddamn it, maybe we should start showing some backbone to these bullies!

[Classical_Liberal]

61. She wasn't in anyway mean to O'Reilly

NO comparison between her interview style and O'Reilly's. I listened to the interview as well.

[DieboldMustDie]

13. I couldn't disagree more...

I heard that interview in its entirety, and if anyone should have apologized it's O'Reilly.

[TheWebHead]

15. more airplay = more material

she questioned franken about the Savin' it thing, but let's face it, O'Reilly is on TV 5 hours a week, and on radio another 15, so he's on the air much more often, allowing for more material to question him on than Franken... not to mention Franken doesn't preach like O'Reilly.

[IranianDemocrat]

17. I don't know about that.

It's true that O'Reilly is on more, but about the preachiness I'm not so sure. I still think that she should have been more clear on the type of interview: talking about the book or about O'reilly.

[Classical_Liberal]

62. You obviously didn't listen to the interview then

O'Reilly got ample opportunity to disguss himself and the book.

[thebigidea]

23. contemptible

the unholy combination of Goebbels and Father Coughlin... his trade will be a chapter in future propaganda texts.

his fall will be loud, drunken, pathetic.

your support is thus touching, and I'm sure laughed at in the halls of FOX.

[gottaB]

24. bollocks--that wasn't an ambush

It was a loudmouth wingnut jamming his foot in his mouth and then whining about the foot in his mouth.

You want to compare Gross's treatment of Franken to her treatment of that bully what's his name? You've got to be adult about it, and weigh all of the conditions. Gross has had Franken on as a guest many times. They have developed a good rapport. He's usually entertaining and knows how to conduct himself on the radio, at least in a way that pleases Gross and her listeners. So why shouldn't her interview with him have been a breeze? Maybe you didn't notice her asking probing questions about the politics of personal attacks because Franken was courteous, intelligent and witty in his replies. In any case it was decidedly not "the most softball interview ever." That's totally over the top.

That prevaricating nutcase, on the other hand, he came out breathing smoke and fire and insulting Gross and was just generally unpleasant. Seriously, what was his intention in being so hostile? And you say she ambushed him? She has a certain tone that she likes to present to her listeners. This nutjob was like trying to hijack her show and turn into something more akin to hate radio. Why on earth should she tolerate that? Why shouldn't she interrupt his rants? You seem to believe that just letting frothboy have his equal time would be fair--I don't--but I do know it would have represented a terrible insult to her listeners, and there is every indication that Gross sees it that way too.

[coda]

30. The thing is O'reilly has constantly ambushed people.

There are plenty of accounts of this. Has that pompous ass ever apologized....even once?

No doubt she treated Franken differently from O'reilly, but O'reilly has a history of attacking PBS, NPR and the Corp for Pubilc Broadcasting. Asking someone to give equal treatment to someone who constantly attacks them is asking them to lay down and take it, don't you think?

He lives, breathes, and indulges in Faux's version of "fair and balanced" treatment and now he plays victim. He got caught in a passel of lies, none of which he has ever owned up to and because it was Franken who happened to point them out, he never will.

****** "It's all _ too _ beau · ti · ful ." ******

[Classical_Liberal]

60. There was nothing unusual about her interview with O"Reilly

He planned it.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

7. I got flammed real bad for saying it before...

NPR has become as bad as the rest of the Whordom, it sickens me what they have become.
And still I listen. Hard to break a 30+ year habit, I guess.

[Julien Sorel]

8. She screwed up when she let him get away with the

'you didn't treat Franken this way' line. She shouldn't have let him get away with changing the topic like that -- it gave him the opening he needed. I'm still surprised NPR bent over like this, though. It just wasn't that rough of an interview, and now O'Reilly will be crowing about this for years as an example of 'liberal bias in the media.' What fucking idiots.

[FlemingsGhost]

9. Now... issue an apology to your core supporters NPR

Explain why you just shat on our shoes.

NPR no longer exists in my world. Not one more dime.

[sendero]

22. Yes!!!

If they want our money, they cannot stab us in the back. NPR had a MANDATE to be the last bastion of liberal/progressive media in the country. Many long time listeners, like frogs in a pot of water being brought slowly to a boil, have not yet caught up to the fact that NPR is now just another winger outlet, DISGUISED as being 'liberal'.

It's time for everyone to catch up and find a better use of their hard-earned money. You wouldn't pay to listen to FOX - why pay to listen to NPR?

Yes, Terry Gross and Diane Rehm and Tavis Smiley are still good shows. But like the local paper, all the progressive stuff is pushed off to the "entertainment" section, and the serious news is rife with winger bullsh*t.

Enough already.

[1gobluedem]

52. A bit of a defense...(kind of long)

Fellow DU'ers, I work for an NPR affiliate. In fact, I'm the development director, in the midst of a pledge drive right now.

You are absolutely correct in that NPR has become more moderate in recent years. Here's why. In the 1994 elections, the Democrats lost the House and Senate. One of Newt Gingrich's first plans of attack was to completely strip public broadcasting of its federal support because of its supposed 'liberal bias' and because 'everyone could get their news free from cable channels.' Only an enraged outcry from the public, including Republicans who lived in the 53% of the US that did not have cable at the time, saved public broadcasting from having its funds cut completely.

HOWEVER....the criteria for federal funding was changed by this gang. Traditionally, public radio stations were funded according to the size of their market's population. This made it possible for stations to carry more diverse programming and to take more chances in its programming, without fear of losing any federal funds or having to appeal to a broader (read: more mainstream) group of listeners.

Thanks to Newt and Co., federal funding is now partially based on audience size as determined by commercial ratings service, Arbitron. Public broadcasting was forced into much more homoginzed programming for the sake of its existence. This includes NPR. My station had to give up some great shows that only attracted small audiences in order to build audience and keep our federal funding intact. And, yes, that also means that public broadcasting, including NPR, has had to seek more corporate support to keep afloat. Does that mean corporations are driving the progamming? No. You're just hearing more of their messages. Archer, Daniels, Midland, one of NPR's biggest underwriters, had many things exposed on NPR that annoyed them beyond all belief but they didn't pull their funding.

So, I implore you, please do not give up on NPR. Instead, suport your local stations -- you can ask that your contribution not be included in their support of NPR -- and continue to work to elect DEMOCRATS who can restore funding criteria to what it used to be.

That being said, I do not agree with Jeffery Dvorkin's apology to O'Reilly. Following is Fresh Air producer Danny Miller's response to Dvorkin's questions about the interview -- something with which I do agree:

"Terry was tough on O'Reilly, not unfair. And I think O'Reilly drove the interview directly towards the conclusion he was hoping for. He was looking to butt heads. He's obviously still really steamed that the case against Franken was thrown out of court -- and came to our interview with the expressed goal of demonstrating his belief that NPR has a liberal bias, and that Fresh Air (like Franken) was out to defame him. On his own show he said: "I'll go on this program just to show you what they do, to expose what they do. Cause I knew what was going to happen... " It's pretty difficult to for an interviewer to maintain a high level of rapport with someone who wants to prove that you're out to get them.

O'Reilly is one of the most controversial and powerful broadcasters in the country -- Terry asked him about how he uses that power to pursue issues, and settle scores with his critics. Terry wouldn't have been doing her job if she didn't address that (which is why she brought up the Janet Maslin and People magazine pieces). And O'Reilly is smart enough to know it. "

Sorry this is so long!

[qb]

59. More moderate??? NPR's news is pure rehashed wire stories.

It is indistiguishable from the corporate media news. They piled on all with everyone else in telling lies about Clinton and Gore, and carrying Bush's water.

I don't get the federal funding argument. According to Lorenzo W. Milam (National Private Radio http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/07/02/npr1/index.html?pn=2)

"Two percent of NPR's budget comes from the feds, and 55 percent or so from its member stations. Most of the rest comes from corporate sponsors and foundations."

If they would cut out their over-produced, glitzy, and meaningless entertainment shows and invest in some ambitious journalistic talent, they could survive on member contributions and do much more to protect our democracy.

[1gobluedem]

63. You're entitled to your opinion..

...and I understand how you feel but it's not true that their news in rehashed wire copy. I read the wire daily and what you hear is far more than that.

I'm not saying NPR is perfect but the media would be a lot scarier without it.

If we could exist entirely on listener contributions, that would be great. But, since most people who listen to public radio do not contribute (but are the first to complain when they don't like something) that's impossible. Where else to go but to the corporate community? If it's not from the feds and not from the listeners, then where? My state cut funding to public broadcasting years ago.

And, it isn't because people aren't contributing because of a bias, perceived or not. Before the changes in federal funding only one in ten listeners were contributing too.

I can't speak for NPR directly, or other stations, but absolutely NO content on our station is influenced by any donor, individual, corporate, or even our University licensee. And I suspect it's much the same with the majority of public stations.

Don't like corporate support on public radio? Increase your individual contribution -- it's the best way.

[Atlant]

32. Some of us have been telling you (the collective "you") this...

Some of us have been telling you (the collective "you") this
for quite some time. I'd guess that NPR spent my money on
Right-Wing causes for the last ten years I was giving, so
they can certainly get their money from their new friends
now, or more likely, just die.

Atlant

[Zhade]

10. No kidding. National Petroleum Radio (as Palast call it) is a whore?

File this under 'duh'.

[Terwilliger]

12. what the fuck....I mean what the fuck????

What did NPR do wrong that they needed to apologize?? This is stupid!

[FlemingsGhost]

18. C'mon... Bill put in a few calls to his corporate friends

Ya know, the same folks who generously donate to National Public Radio, out of the goodness of their hearts.

Apparently, the NPR serfs got a little too uppity for Bill's fragile ego. He must be laughing his ass off now, though.

[not systems]

25. Clean Coal.

Maybe they threated to cut of the "Clean Coal" funding.

Or the ADM "We monoculture the world" money.

I have switched to only supporting the school and
pacifica station. Fortunatly we have three public
stations here.

[sendero]

14. ya know....

.... web sites are my game and I'm thinking more and more often about putting up an anti-NPR site. Not so much "anti" NPR but one that uses examples of their reporting and commentary to prove (what anyone who's been paying attention already knows) there is simply no basis for claiming that NPR is 'liberal', and outing their often blatant right wing bias.

Could be fun :)

[spooky3]

19. I wonder if some of the same problems

are spilling over into local outlets. WAMU in Washington DC has been in the WPost for the last several days because the employees are quite upset over changes that have been made since management was changed a few years back. While the reasons in the paper are not the same as a right wing bias at NPR (e.g., management becoming too "corporate", unaccounted for spending, lack of concern for employees), they may be related. Also, I am sure many of the real reasons are not being articulated publicly, and I am not sure that the paper would report a right wing bias. Diane Rehm has been among the few courageous whistle-blowers who tried first to get problems corrected internally, and now is speaking out to the Post.

It is extremely disappointing that management in both places appears to be so clueless and/or increasingly wingnut.

[Ilsa]

21. My pledge for next year is cancelled.

I just got my renewal in the mail. I'm going to write a letter to go with it. O'Reilly owes Gross an apology for being an asshole as long and wide as the Grand Canyon.

NPR has been bending over for repukes and corporations ever since they lost their govt. funding.

[incapsulated]

26. Wow

NPR has finally lost me.

O'Reilly is notorious for "dishing it out but can't take it". I didn't hear the interview, but if she went after him he has it coming in spades. The last fucking thing I want to hear is another wimpering, beat-puppydog apology from the left-of-center when they have the gall(!) to take these fuckers head-on, for once.

Screw NPR.

:grr:

[onebigbadwulf]

27. It's called FRESH AIR

You see by FRESH AIR it means something FRESH.

Franken has been harassed, sued, and mocked for the past 6 months STRAIGHT. Giving him a relaxed interview is FRESH AIR.

O'Reilly pounds, heckles, and scars his guests every single night. Give him the same treatment is FRESH AIR.

Terry did a fine job. And I am going to write NPR and tell them I was going to pledge until they apologized...

[sendero]

28. FRESH....

... very good point, and very true.

I'm betting Terry (Terri?) Gross is less than happy about this.

[incapsulated]

29. It's an awful betrayal, too

Terry Gross has been doing that show for ages. I would guess that she expected the station would back her up instead of stabbing her in the back.

[tom_paine]

45. RIGHT ON, INCAPSULATED!

I was thinking of donating to NPR, but hell no, not now!

With friends like these, we might as well get ready for the Heinrich A$$croft Memorial Re-Education and Re-Christianization Center in Sonora, Arizona!

[maha]

31. I'll bet Faux threatened to sue.

Couple of weeks ago I speculated that O'Reilly's obvious pathologies would compel him to demand that Faux sue NPR the way they sued Al Franken. And, good enabler that it is, Faux probably was preparing to go through with it.

[Atlant]

33. I just left voicemail for the NPR Ombudsman

1-202-513-2000 -- Ask for the Ombudsman.

Atlant

[VermontDem2004]

34. What the hell?

Gloss: I am going to read a clip from this article...

O'reilly: STOP IT! You are being too hard on me, you weren't hard on Franken, this interview is over!

*O'reilly walks out*

(Paraphrasing)

What the hell did NPR do? Ok maybe NPR was a little harder on the humble servant then Franken but I can count dozens of times O'reilly was soft on some guests but screaming "SHUT UP! SHUT UP!" "YOU VICIOUS SON OF A BITCH" to other guests.

[Mr. Jinx]

35. Contact the NPR Ombudsman by E-mail

The info can be found here:

http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/feedback.html

[redqueen]

40. I read this yesterday...

while looking for the contact number so I could complain about all their journalists somehow 'forgetting' to mention Dennis Kucinich... when I saw this on the page, it wasn't too surprising. NPR has been tilting rightward for years.

If you want to e-mail instead of call, it's '[e-mail]'

I dunno about cancelling, though. I feel like I'd be dissing Bill Moyers, who deserves a little respect, in my book. :)

[Atlant]

41. The fact that NPR (or PBS) still has a few "quality acts"...

> I dunno about cancelling, though. I feel like I'd be dissing Bill
> Moyers, who deserves a little respect, in my book. :)

The fact that NPR (or PBS) still has a few "quality acts" does not
make up for the fact that they routinely, constantly, vocally shill
for the Right Wing everywhere else during the broadcast day.

When you fund NPR, you are funding a voice that 1) supports our
enemies yet 2) Our enemies routinely use against us as an example
of government funding gone wrong.

Let NPR die. We on the left will be better off without them, either
in their role as assistants of the Right or as whipping boys of the
Right.

Daniel Schorr, Terry Gross, Peter Sagel, and Tom and Ray Magliottzi
are all smart people; they'll find other jobs and you'll still
hear there voices somewhere. But Cokie Roberts, Juan Williams,
endless Heritage Foundation "guest commentators", and their ilk
won't be being funded by your hard-earned dollars.

Atlant

[Toucano]

43. Do you realize that what you're describing represents balance?

"Daniel Schorr, Terry Gross, Peter Sagel, and Tom and Ray Magliottzi
are all smart people; they'll find other jobs and you'll still
hear there voices somewhere. But Cokie Roberts, Juan Williams,
endless Heritage Foundation "guest commentators", and their ilk
won't be being funded by your hard-earned dollars."


Just because I don't agree with someone, doesn't mean they should be silenced. I actually think a forum for opposing ideas is a service to democracy. I'll gladly continue to fund that both with my tax dollars and my annual contribution.

I only hope Terry doesn't apologize because she did nothing inappropriate in that interview.

[Atlant]

47. Fuck Balance. And NO, NPR IS NOT BALANCED!

You know, I uised to continue to give money to NPR even
as progressive voice after progressive voice was taken
off the air to satisfy their ever-more-strident Right Wing
critics.

I used to think, "Oh well, they're still balanced".

And then, one day, some combination of Juan/Cokie/Linda/
the rest of the Reich Wing gang convinced me that any notions
I had of them being balanced were notions that were just
hanging around from a decade or more ago.

Nowadays, NPR is so scared of the Right Wing that there's
nothing resembling balance on it any more, except, as someone
previously put it, in the "entertainment" programming.

So to Hell with them.

Nowadays, I want to support progressive voices, not "balanced"
voices. While we're busy worrying about "balance", the Right
Wing is busy sticking knives in us; they don't seem to worry
about such niceties as "balance".

Atlant

[redqueen]

49. Yes, but... :)

I think of it this way... the whole reason they've started to lean toward the right is because congress cut off their public funding. They then turned to pandering more to corporate clients for money.

I listen to them all the time, and I keep wondering if we listeners donated more, would they still go for more money, and try and be balanced? Maybe so, but here in Texas, they're far and away my only refuge on the radio at least.

I wish there were a left wing radio I could send money to instead. I'd do it in a heartbeat. But there isn't, so I support the best I can get, which is (sadly) NPR.

Studs Terkel even rips Bill Moyers for slanting a piece, so there's no illusion in my mind that any of these people are saints. But like I said, it's the best I can get here, and I'll be damned if I want to listen to pop radio or right wing ranting in my car. I could turn it off, but then I'd have nothing to distract me from all the SUV's around me, and all the BUSH/CHENEY or THESE COLORS DON'T RUN stickers, and probably lose my mind. ;)

[Atlant]

53. Send your money to Pacifica.

http://www.pacifica.org/

Or give it to candidates who support the return of "The Fairness
Doctrine".

I'm sure other DUers can make other suggestions.

Atlant

[tinanator]

74. bingo!

damn straight.

[Toucano]

51. Well now you're just being inconsistent.

"Daniel Schorr, Terry Gross, Peter Sagel, and Tom and Ray Magliottzi"

Becomes

"...there's nothing resembling balance on it any more, except, as someone previously put it, in the "entertainment" programming."

Your first post described voices from the left and voices from the right. That is balance. Then you say "fuck balance".

If you want an Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh of the left, more power to you. I'll listen to their ideas as well.

But to insist that NPR is right-leaning because it presents opposing views is erroneous.

Have you examined the PIPA report? http://www.pipa.org/

If they're such right-wingers, how do you explain the results of the survey?

[Atlant]

55. Oh Boy.

Oh Boy. Daniel Schorr once a week represents balance for the other
dozens of hours of slanted news, ehh? (Note that all the other
names I cite are really on the "entertainment" side of the house.)

Well, as you wish.

I have no intention of supporting NPR again any time in the
forceable future.

Atlant

[Toucano]

56. That's fine.

I don't begin to tell you how to spend your money. Especially in a Republican economy :)

But Daniel Schorr commentaries have aired on:

10/2
10/4
10/7 (2)
10/8
10/11
10/12
10/13
10/15
10/18
10/19
10/20
10/22
And today. That's just October 2003.

That's hardly once a week and almost every day. I just object to the characterization that NPR is right-wing because it is never substantiated by fact.

The reliance on corporate funding is problematic, but I've pointed out before that NPR and PBS have been more critical of ADM (for instance) than any other media outlet.

I will continue to support and defend NPR and PBS because they represent a sane and rational voice in the mass media. This apology is, however, wrong and cowardly.

[1gobluedem]

57. Thanks..

...for continuing your support. As we tell our listeners at my station when we pitch "...can you imagine if there were NO NPR and you had to rely only on commercial and cable news sources?"

Now that is frightening.

And, as I said above, I may work for an NPR affiliate but I do not support the ombudsman's apology. It was unwarranted.

[Ficus]

42. I guess I don't

know many bad things about NPR. Perhaps you all could enlighten me a bit more.

But I did read an interesting article that was about the following report: (I'm sure many of you have seen this)

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

It basically says that if you listen to PBS or NPR you will get better and more accurate news than by listening to any other major news source. (FOX rated worst, of course) I believe that it was judged by viewer's misperceptions of Iraq war news.

Frequency of misperception that links to al qaeda have been found:

BUSH Supporters
Fox Viewers - 78%
PBS/NPR - 50%

Democratic Supporters
Fox Viewers - 48%
PBS/NPR - 0%

Looks like being a Democrat who listens to NPR isn't all bad...

:dem: :dem:

[Az]

46. The trouble stems from a couple of facts

For a long time NPR has represented a fairly liberal voice on the air waves. They eventually realised that they were not portraying a conservative voice to balance their liberal voice. To this end they have made deliberate attempts to provide air time to more conservative views.

The problem comes from the fact that they are not very good at balancing. Part of the problem comes from the fact that liberals take an open approach to the news. They present a honest appraisal of what is going on and then try to work to make the situation better. Thus an informed public is necissary to be able to discern the problems that need to be fixed. A conservative instead attempts to spin the information to create the message they desire. It is in this area that NPR fails as it gives too much license to its conservative commentators and guest speakers to spin the message.

Often times what conservatives decry as liberal news is simply telling the truth. When it is reported that bodies are being shipped home from Iraq every day that is a liberal media assault. If the news does not fit the biases and spin that the right desires to put forward they see it as the liberal elites forcing their way on the system.

NPR is still a left leaning structure. In fact if you listen to some of the weekend news/entertainment shows the left leaning nature of many of its commentators really come out. There seems to be a natural draw with extolling the truth for people with progressive/liberal ideals. Conervatives develop along more exclusive lines. Thus the news outlets are quite overridden with liberals. However as they are owned by corporate conservatives the path of carreer advancement belongs to those conservatives that find themself in the industry. Thus you have an industry that is largely liberal but is vocally represented and governed by conservatives.

[Catherine Vincent]

50. Take it from someone who has never heard of Terry Gross

or have never listed to the show Fresh. I listed via a link here at DU. That interview was going smoothly, imo. There was no ambush? O'Reilly needs to take a chill pill. He said on the beginning of the interview that he would give NPR a chance but apparently he figures NPR as a liberal show.

NPR executives are idiots for apologizing to that blowhard.

[Junkdrawer]

54. And they call the French surrender monkeys...

I read the Ombudsman report on this a while ago. NPR has changed from a idealistic organization to a meal ticket for its celebrity hosts. When ANY conservative says "Jump!", NPR says "How high?".

[gauguin57]

58. when I donate to NPR. ..

... I'm donating for the programming -- Morning Edition, ATC, This American Life, Fresh Air, Prairie Home Companion -- NOT for the ombudsman. I'm sure the news staff is seething about this apology. The ombudsman is not part of the news staff, but a liaison between the company and the public.

As far as I'm concerned, Terri Gross is hit and miss. When she loves someone, you can tell by the questions she asks (and her giggling). When she doesn't, she gets pissy and repeats herself. So I can take her or leave her some days. But that O'Reilly walkout smacked so much of being STAGED so Billy would have a topic to turn blue in the face over on that night's Factor.

SO ... are we going to boycott one of the last news voices out there that's still somewhat independent ... that isn't tied into the dross that the cable news channels have become? That still manages to cover the news in greater depth than the 90 seconds with sound bites that the networks call "In Depth"?

Just because the ombudsman apologizes doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. NPR makes mistakes, sure. But they're better than the vast majority of broadcast news outlets.

60 Minutes. Nightline. NPR. PBS (News Hour, Charlie Rose and Washington Week in Review). Broadcast-wise, without these, we are lost.

[Junkdrawer]

65. It's not just Terry Gross, it's a pattern that goes back several years...

Just today I turned on my car radio and, no exaggeration, I couldn't tell if I was listening to NPR or a guest host on Rush Limbaugh. I had to look at the display. It was a friendly interview of Laura Ingraham and her new book "Shut Up and Sing, How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the UN are Subverting America".

I used to give my $60/year regularly. My house is still full of NPR coffee cups. I stopped a year or so back and I'll resume when I start hearing the kind of news reporting I think deserves my support.

[Mr. Jinx]

64. I just talked to Ombudsman Dvorkin

While I was listening to the Malloy replay this morning, I heard about the apology and sent off an e-mail to Mr. Dvorkin. But while I was listening to the replay, a caller gave the phone number for NPR so I made a note of it. Since I'm working today I took a break, walked outside with my cell phone, and called up NPR. After working my way through several menus, I found the option to leave a message to leave a message for the ombudsman and pressed the button.

"This is Jeffrey Dvorkin."

I was taken aback at first, but I composed myself and told him about how I felt about the apology. He said that it wasn't an apology but just the way that Mr. O'Reilly has decided to spin it. I said, "okay". Then he said that he was glad that he wasn't the ombudsman for Fox. I laughed a little.

But then I came to my point. Regardless of journalistic standards and practices (as Mr. Dvorkin had noted), I said that Ms. Gross turned Mr. O'Reilly's own interviewing tactics against him and he balked. He did not have any compunction about telling people to "shut up" who has a differing viewpoint on his own show, much less let someone else get the last word. Mr. Dvorkin agreed, but he said that Ms. Gross may have gone too far with the way she inteviewed O'Reilly. In return, I said that Mr. O'Reilly was not one to show any decency with his own guests.

Mr. Dvorkin thanked for what I had to say, I thanked him for his time, and I hung up. It may not have been much, but I feel better about being able to give my opinion, especially to the big cheese.

[Classical_Liberal]

66. I listened to the interview, and she wasn't doing an O'Rielly on O'Rielly

She never told him to shut up. She never interrupted him. She did give him several minutes to discuss his book.

[Mr. Jinx]

68. True,she didn't

I heard the interview, too. Ms. Gross conducted a professional interview in every sense of the word. However, Mr. O'Reilly reacted in such a way toward the end of it (mildly paranoid, very condescending, slightly rabid, and highly unprofessional) that caused me to have much less respect for him than the half sliver I had in the beginning. And the fact that Mr. O'Reilly wasn't in control of the affair probably burned him even more. Ms. Gross was like a journalist while Mr. O'Reilly was a spurned bully- he just played himself.

[Retrograde]

67. Are PBS/NPR still relevant?

Once upon a time, PBS played a very important role in providing an alternative to network television and radio. Then came the cable and internet revolutions....

IMHO, PBS has not kept up with the times and its core audience. They like to say "If not PBS, then who?". Where I live I get 3 PBS television stations and at least 2 radio ones. Let's see: what does PBS offer that I can't get elsewhere. News and analysis with a different perspective - I can listen to streaming audio of BBC, Radio Netherlands, Deutsche Welle and lots more on line. Thoughtful dramas - HBO, Showtime, A&E (sometimes) got that covered. Documentaries - the various History and Discovery channels do that. Warmed-over British comedies - BBC America takes care of that. Interviews - I think one of the local commercial AM (gasp!) radio stations does a better job on the whole (ok, I'll admit this is an unusual area). Old movies - AMC, Turner and Fox movies, among others. Cooking shows - the Food Channel. Lawrence Welk reruns - ok, no one else shows that.

Aha, I hear you say - these are all cable channels, and therefore only available to people who pay a premium. Precisely, I reply: this is the audience that PBS wants, people with disposable income who can afford to pay for extended entertainment choices. PBS isn't the only game in town anymore. And it's certainly not the best.

I do send money to a local college radio station because I like what they do. I do not send money to any of the local PBS affiliates because I don't like what they do.

linda, the only person in the US who finds Car Talk screamingly unfunny and annoying

[Toucano]

69. Wow!

Those are the talking points of a Republican Congressman! And Bill O'Reilly for that matter.

Is the Discovery Channel airing Frontline's "Truth, War, and Consequences"?

Has the History Channel done anything about the unanswered 9/11 questions or the systematic installation of state sponsored religion?

Please watch the Frontline piece here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/

Then tell me if you don't think your commerical options have failed to fulfull their role as the fourth branch of government.

[Retrograde]

70. now, now

"Those are the talking points of a Republican Congressman! And Bill O'Reilly for that matter."

Just because you disagree with me is no reason to start with the name-calling :-). I do not understand why one can not maintain one's liberal credentials and still think PBS as it exists today is a bad investment.

I'll concede you Frontline - that's an hour a week, maybe two? (I was expecting to someone bring up "Live from Lincoln Center" or the ad infinitum repeats of The Three Tenors or Riverdance first.) For in-depth analysis, I tend to go with print - I find that NYT, LATimes, Guardian (and when I'm feeling ambitious, Le Monde) do better in general.

linda

[Toucano]

71. Actually...

I was careful not to call anyone a name. I simply pointed out that the argument (read message) is the same as that put forth by Republicans and O'Reilly (messenger).

I appreciate your effort to keep me on track, but I don't think I actually strayed across the line. :)

Regarding your preferred print media, I agree. They are excellent choices. But I don't think a lot of people in the low lands of South Carolina, for example, have ready access to major newspapers. But they do have televisions and the one station they can all get off the air, free of charge, is PBS (although they call it SCETV). All they have to do is push a button and WAMMO! Diverse opinions. Right in their own living room.

It’s like that all over the country. Many small town rags are very selective in the AP stories they choose to run, and real news can easily be lost behind a fundamentalist editors choices.

Is PBS relevant? Yes, now more than ever.

[AmericanErrorist]

72. You can't give to "NPR"

You can only give to your local station. Before deciding to give or not give consider NPR programming as a part of the many programs the the station gives to you on a daily basis. The question you should ask is:

"Does my punlic radio/TV station offer enough quality programs to for me to give money to it?'