Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Watchdog group report (NPR is no liberal station)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
kstewart33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:07 AM
Original message
Watchdog group report (NPR is no liberal station)
Edited on Tue May-25-04 11:30 AM by kstewart33
Here's an eye opener from Newsday:

Watchdog group report

BY PETER GOODMAN
STAFF WRITER

May 25, 2004


Despite a perception that National Public Radio is politically liberal, the majority of its sources are actually Republicans and conservatives, according to a survey released today by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a left-leaning media watchdog.

"Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge," according to a report accompanying the survey, "individual Republicans were NPR's most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance." In addition, representatives of right-of-center think tanks outnumbered their leftist counterparts by more than four to one, FAIR reported.

Link: http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/ny-flnpr38181...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
1. that's a LiberaL think thank
of course they'LL defend NPR. are you trying to say biLL o'reiLLy is a Liar?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
2. No Surprise - This Is The Reason I No Longer Contribute
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cindyw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
3. I never realized how right wing NPR was until I listened to AA
Now when I listen to NPR, not only do I still think it's boring, but I can see how often they trash Kerry for one and how often they repeat the right wing rhetoric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
4. NPR was playing Bush commercials a few weeks ago.
I couldn't believe it. They did it in a framework of treating it as 'news' that Bush had released new commercials, but instead of just reporting that, they played most if not all of the ads.

They have yet to do the same for Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rastignac5 Donating Member (128 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
38. They played them to criticize them
The piece was about the negative ads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #38
50. Do you think FauxNews will play one of Kerry's?
Sorry, but if it was criticism, it was awfully muted compared to the message the commercial delivered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhereIsMyFreedom Donating Member (605 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
5. Now I wish FAIR would
do a study on reporting in general to counter the lies that Pew is spewing. That way we would have a counter study to quote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
27. Pew isn't lying. They just aren't telling the whole story.
They say most reporters are liberal. Yeah? Any well-educated group of people with an average salary of about 23K dollars will probably start wondering about the inequities in society and will vote Democratic.

But that doesn't change the fact that the reporters don't edit and publish the product of their labor, and that most publishers and editors are more conservative than the average American, and most new sources are now parts of corporate conglomerates with very obvious agendas.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhereIsMyFreedom Donating Member (605 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #27
42. I take a more encompassing view of lying
They use that partial view to deliberately mislead people into thinking something false. I call that lying even if they didn't come right out and say it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 04:54 AM
Response to Reply #27
94. That's not even the Pew story -- they tried to spin it that way, but can't
> They say most reporters are liberal.

Pew claimed that most (50-60%) newsroom employees described themselves as "moderates". Something like 25% of respondants described themselves as liberal, 13% as conservative. Far from displaying a liberal dominanace in the newsroom, this could be construed to show that conservatives are twice as likely to claim to be moderates as liberals. Hell, Bill OhReally could describe himself as a moderate, that doesn't mean he's not a rabid wingnut.

> Any well-educated group of people... will vote Democratic.

This also misses the point. The Democratic party is hardly a bastion of hardline liberalism these days. A survey from about 10 years ago pointed out that over half the reporters were registered Democrats. One simply can't infer that (a)the reporters were therefore liberal, or (b)they allowed their political affiliation to skew their reporting. When I worked as a system administrator, I didn't crack down on the home directories of people I knew to be republican nutcases. I did my job in an unbiased manner. Presumably, the vast majority of reporters, Democrat or republican, attempt to do their jobs as well, perhaps even bending over backwards to be fair to the point of softballing on their political opposition.

> the reporters don't edit and publish the product of their labor

Now THIS is dead-on. The publishers and editors are the ones with real content control and it wouldn't surprise me one bit to learn that their decisions are made in accordance with that which prolongs their corporate careers.

> most new(s) sources are now parts of corporate conglomerates with very obvious agendas.

The simple fact that #1 Defense Contractor GE owns NBC should freak anybody out. Unfortunately, it does not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
31. You mean like this?
Edited on Tue May-25-04 12:34 PM by JHB
http://www.fair.org/ff2000.html

Surveys of working journalists have found that they experience pressure from powerful interests, outside and inside the news business, to push some stories and ignore others, and to shape or slant news content. The sources of pressure include the government, which enlists media to support its actions and policies; corporate advertisers who may demand favorable treatment for their industries and products; and media owners themselves, who can use their outlets to support their increasingly various business and political interests.

In a 2000 Pew Center for the People & the Press poll of 287 reporters, editors and news executives, about one-third of respondents said that news that would "hurt the financial interests" of the media organization or an advertiser goes unreported. Forty-one percent said they themselves have avoided stories, or softened their tone, to benefit their media company's interests. Among investigative reporters, a majority (61 percent) thought that corporate owners exert at least a fair amount of influence on news decisions.

One-third of the local TV news directors surveyed by the Project on Excellence in Journalism in 2000 indicated that they had been pressured to avoid negative stories about advertisers, or to do positive ones. And in a 1997 survey of investigative reporters and editors at TV stations published by FAIR, nearly three-quarters of the respondents reported that advertisers had "tried to influence the content" of news at their stations. Sixty percent said that advertisers had attempted to kill stories. Fifty-six percent had felt pressure from within the station to produce news stories to please advertisers.

Of course there are many sorts of pressure on journalists, including the need to tell stories in a splashy, ratings-grabbing way; but the pressures we document here are more direct and nefarious. Practically every working journalist has heard war stories about the articles that were killed or never written, or, more chillingly, of careers cut short for "making trouble," or stepping on the wrong toes. But few accounts exist of these instances of influence, when journalists are thwarted in their attempt to report (in the phrase made famous by Adolph S. Ochs) "without fear or favor."


---more---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhereIsMyFreedom Donating Member (605 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #31
40. Hey yeah, exactly like that
Thanks. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #31
74. snip- "making trouble," -unsnip
That says a lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annak110 Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
6. NPR became National Corporate Radio in the early 80's, its staff
was turned around and, I've alway thought, those who were considered most "liberal" were shunted to the weekend shows, fired, or left on their own. Some of these weekenders were eventually co-opted. FAIR is wonderful of course, but those of us who have been around a long time saw the early change and expected it because, way back there, the major funding for programs was changed from "Public" to "Corporate"


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #6
20. I don't think...
... they were really co-opted in full until the late 90s.

But I guess everyone has a different cut-off point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annak110 Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. Yes, back then I was calling Senators and Representatives to ask
them to restore the Constitutionally mandated balance of power and to stop their support both in troops and weaponry to kill people and dissent in Central America in the service of the Pope's war on Liberation Theology.

At the time NCR was doing its best to emulate T.V. news with its constant struggle to keep Ronnie Raygun in the spotlight as the "teflon president" as was the Democratically controlled Congress. Many of the people I contacted are still in office and they still resist the urge to equalize the power of the three branches of government.

A major problem today is that we have, as then, no effective Congress and the Supremes aren't and NCR is as guilty as all other "news" outlets. Also, even if your local outlets have "fund raisers" all the time, the real money to fund NCR comes from Corporations and has done since the 80's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilber_Stool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
7. We lost it.
Because a bunch of lazy tight fisted liberals couldn't send them 20 bucks a year. Serves us right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #7
18. I contributed annually..
... and sometimes generously up until 2002.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
28. It's Americans who can't afford to donate anything who lost the most and
had the biggest interest in having a media outlet which was willing to tell the truth about the world.

That's why things like this should be funded by progressive taxation and not the munificence of people who are wealthier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. Yup
That's it exactly.

We (taxpayers) should fund a national radio service without support from the likes of Archer Daniels Midland, one that would not have to succumb to corporate pressure.

CBC, BBC, Deutsche Welle, Radio Netherlands all seem to be much better and less biased than NPR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #33
45. God, send this one to Jerry Falwel (sp)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
utopian Donating Member (815 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
8. Tell me something I don't know
NPR has been hacking for Bush since 9/11, especially on Talk of the Nation and that newish mid-day "News Magazine"--I forget the name. I can't even listen anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pollock Donating Member (152 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
55. You mean that joint production with the Slate conservatives?
more nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #8
89. Oh, since the Gulf War at least
I know people who stopped contributing to NPR after its rah-rah coverage of the 1991 Guld War.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philostopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
9. Yeah, and if anybody thinks the real reason Bob Edwards
got shuffled off to Buffalo is that he's too old, I've got some swampland in Florida I'd like you to consider. Even the commentators toe the line, now.

What do you expect when people like Shell Petroleum and Archer-Daniels-Midland are the primary underwriters of the shows? Naturally they 'vet' the stories to make sure they don't unsettle the rabble about the corporation's concerns. If they did, the underwriting would go *poof*!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
90. I once heard a talk by a former NPR reporter
who said that she had prepared a story highly critical of Reaganomics and that it was spiked at the request of Piper Jaffray.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. NPR is coopted. It has been perverted by Republican and right wing
telephone campaigns and propaganda, and has bent (to the point of breaking) to the pressure. Other than some weekend talk shows, it is a liability to the cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. Screw the stupid 10 second ads...
... listen to the content.

Yes, they are about as balanced as Fox News.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnfound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #10
22. Two red herrings; real meat is classism/corporatism &foreign policy
Thee media's reputation as liberal has been built on social issues. The rulers of the world care little about social issues. They care about foreign policy and about keeping power concentrated, based on wealth.

But US foreign policy is always noble or at least benign -- never self-interested or corrupt or militaristic -- and they've ignored challenges to free trade agreements etc as much as any other media. They parrot Pentagon press releases as well as any others, also.

While Pacifica listeners knew that the Niger tubes & yellow cake stories were lies BEFORE last-year's State of the Union address, NPR listeners learned that they were 'mistakes' only 6 or 8 months later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnOneillsMemory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
11. Yup. Heritage Foundation people give essays all the time.
If Nat'l Petroleum Radio were covering the Nazi holocaust now, we'd hear Cokie Roberts opining thusly:

"Democrats say the trains full of people are headed for camps with large ovens while Republicans say this is another urban planning issue. Obviously, partisan politics are in play and we'll just wait and see who has the better TV ads to reach swing voters."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
13. Please edit your subject line
Subject line should title of article you're linking to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kstewart33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Done
I added the statement in parentheses because otherwise people would have not a clue about what the story is about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Thanks!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
14. NPR = "New Prostitutes for Republicans"
Here is another eye-opening report about that "librul" organization...

I Was Almost A Stooge For National Plutocrat Radio

By Barry Crimmins, BarryCrimmins.com

On Tuesday afternoon (2/18/03), I got a phone call from a representative of the National Public Radio show On Point. She told me she got my name from a friend of mine. She asked if I could do a brief piece on the burgeoning field of aspirants for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination for a portion of the show called Radio Diaries.

Because I am a professional and only torch bridges when absolutely necessary, I refrained from telling her that I didn't need to have my time wasted by NPR. Again. More often than not, when NPR producers have asked me to write essays for them, they have decided not to use them. Almost always this was because I didn't come in with exactly what was in their mind's ear. A few year's ago I recorded several commentaries at an Ohio NPR affiliate. They never ran. I was never paid for writing and performing them. I never received expenses for a few rather long round-trips to do the work. Eventually it was explained to me that the audio essays didn't run because I sounded too professional to give the commentary the authentic "regular person" feel they desired. You see, as a long-time performer, I knew how to sell what I said. They didn't think I sounded organic enough. And so they brought in other people who were easier to train to seem like they were themselves.

On Point, a show that airs in a few dozen markets, emanates from WBUR in Boston. I gained renown as a political satirist in that town. I have written for the Boston Phoenix for years. I have friends in the arts, academia, the media and the progressive political community. I also know my share of cabdrivers, bartenders, ticket-scalpers, construction workers and municipal employees. I have received numerous awards for my community activism. I started the first full-time comedy club in the Boston area in 1979. It is often referred to as the "fabled Ding Ho." A lot of very talented people started their careers at that club. The first film at the Boston Film Festival next month will be Fran Solimita's When Stand-up Stood Out. It's about the early days of stand-up in the Hub. Word has it I show up a few times. If you do a Google search under the term "political satirist," at least as of this morning, my website is the first place that is suggested.I do not present this immodest collection of fact for purposes of vanity but instead to expose the ineptitude of NPR.

As ever, they approached me as if I were an unknown fledgling in need of guidance. Within the first thirty seconds of the call I knew two things: this woman had no idea who I was and what she wanted me to say on the radio was utter pap.

Two years into the court-appointed Bush administration's destruction of our way of life and the first call I received from NPR was a request to belittle Democrats. Ostensibly they wanted me to make fun of the fact that the field of candidates had grown very quickly in recent weeks. That's right; NPR was soliciting me to satirize democracy for showing signs of vibrancy. And so this young producer tried to steer me that way. She started by mentioning the size of the Democratic field and then asked, "Do you think any of them has the stature to take on George W. Bush?"

I said, "My dog Lloyd has the stature to take on Bush." But then I allowed, "Of course, I raised him myself."

We went back and forth and I said I could run down the field for her. She reminded me twice that the game I was to bag was of the Democratic variety. I said I'd put something together for her. I requested a list of candidates in case I'd overlooked someone. She sent the Dem roster and the next morning, I wrote the piece. They had my script by midday Wednesday. I was supposed to tape it Thursday. I figured if I got it in early, we could sort out any difficulties with time to spare. Like I said, I'm a professional.

(more)
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/9754/index.php



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
82. HA! That's a pretty good piece.
I especially enjoyed the "fundraising" section at the end.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
16. It's nice to be vindicated...
... by a real research organization :)

I knew over a year ago that NPR had gone to the dark side. I guess they figured that is where the money is.

A pox on every one of their transmitters :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
21. i knew it!
and have watched the demise of pbs in this direction as well. hasn't anyone notices all of the religious programming coming from pbs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #21
91. My first red flag with respect to PBS was
the increase in the number of Nova programs having to do with military hardware and tactics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bif Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
23. Anyone hear the segment on Army Recruiting last week?
Talk about a plug for the Armed Forces. I think they devoted about 20 minutes or so to the topic. I couldn't believe my ears.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jburton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. Yep, it was almost half an hour!
I have NEVER heard a segment that long before on All Things Considered. And this was on the 5pm news time, not a "feature" program.

Unbelievable!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
icymist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
25. The day I heard "Brought to you by Walmart" was the day....
I bought a good little short band receiver. That was a few years back. I've always considered Walmart to be the anti-Christ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
26. Since starting here at DU I've had more resistance to me pointing out this
fact that NPR does have a conservative tilt than I've gotten to almost anything else I've regularly posted.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #26
77. Well, now we've been vindicated...
"National Over-privileged Caucasian Radio, formerly National Plutocrat Radio, is member-supported -- just like a country club."

"This is NOCR, we wouldnt know a working person if he or she knocked on our back door. "

"Upon receipt of your gift of $500, we will send you an official pair of authentic NOCR kneepads, just like the ones our reporters at the Pentagon and White House use! "

Yeah, let us know if you want the "Cokie Deep-Throat" or the "Mara trilling-tongue" model. Or the macho cammy "Juan" model....

Barry pegged 'em dead-center. Wonder if he catches as much shit over calling National PUTSCH Radio donors "Volvo-driving Latte suckers" as I do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
central scrutinizer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
30. they originally lost me back at Gulf War I
With their breathless gushing about "surgical strikes" and "smart bombs" and general after general spouting the Pentagon line. It was butt kissing of the worst order. I occasionally went back in the 1990's, but then during the WTO protests in Seattle, I left again, never to go back. I remember one show on the protests, where the reporter ON THE SCENE kept trying to point out that the vast majority of protestors were a peaceful and orderly mixture of activists and union members, young and old. She was repeatedly shouted down by the host in the DC studios: " what about the broken windows at Starbucks, aren't they starting fires in dumpsters, throwing rocks." The reporter tried several times to balance the report, but the host would have none of it. Fuck you, asshole, I said to the radio. Click.

National Poodle Radio
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
32. I fought the truth for a long time....
Edited on Tue May-25-04 12:46 PM by higher class
but it's true...

there are a few things positive to say....

They do develop stories that don't always have a political bent - like Science Friday.

They still carry Garrison Keillor.

They carry Ira Glass and David Sedaris.

They carry Shamrock and Thistle and two other music related programs that are excellent.

There new religion program with Krista Tippett (sp?) is excellent.

When they cover a proceeding that is also on TV - they don't editorialize during the proceeding like they do on TV. It's just the facts and a post-commentator that is often moderately credible is E J Dionne - he seems to behave better on radio then he has from time to time on TV.

Their sound is less piercing then AM radio.

Letting Bob Edwards go was a travesty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
34. NPR's top two executives are former CIA agents.
CEO and the VP worked for the CIA running radio propaganda stations in Europe.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceProgProsp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #34
53. You might need to update your information.
I think one of the quit about a year ago.

But I'm not sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #53
86. I will check on the VP
But I know for sure that Kevin Klose is still there as CEO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
35. I thought that was the case with NPR..
.. I think people assume, because of it's earlier reputatation, and the fact that they have stories with global or social interest, that they are left-leaning. Some guy at my husband's job chided him about listening to NPR, because "it's so left-wing!". My husband never talks politics at work, but noticed the fellow had Bush/CHeney stickers on his car, and NRA, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PROGRESSIVE1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
36. No suprise here!!! I have never been much of a fan of NPR to begin....
with. They are shameless in their whoring for DAS REPUGLIKLANSMEN!!!

:puke:

I would LOVE to see President John Kerry DECOMISSION NPR!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulfcoastliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
37. Sad but True
They have not been very subtle with their parade of Heritage foundation guest analysts and did anyone hear the "evangelical voters" report bu Steve Inskeep this morning? I suspect Inskeep is a hard-core Mormon based on his bio at npr.org. It's beginning to show. Bob Edwards was fired for giving a private speech critical of the Bush* administration and Michael Powells FCC. NPR still has some good points but not much. I'll agree with the poster who mentioned Garrison Keillor. He is the bomb! I just love A Prairie Home Companion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CShine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
39. EVERYONE NEEDS TO STOP BEING DEFENSIVE ABOUT MEDIA BIAS
Edited on Tue May-25-04 01:55 PM by CShine
Media bias is protected by the 1st amendment. Right-wingers who bitch about bias need to get a grip on that one. I am sick to death of seeing articles that play into the right-wingers' hands and try to say it's not really liberal bias, as though that's something to be avoided fer chrissakes.

MEDIA BIAS IS GOOD! HAVING YER OWN DAMN OPINION IS GOOD!

Anytime I see right-wingers bitching about media bias I ask them what their problem is with the 1st amendment. That shuts them up fast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceProgProsp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #39
54. The most dangerous kind of media bias:
When the media doesn't wear their bias on their sleeves.

Fox is probably the least dangerous since their bias is obvious.

NPR is the worst because they carefully cultivate an audience that probably tends to vote Democratic if left alone, and then fills their heads with crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PROGRESSIVE1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #54
57. I have been a strong believer that Faux is not really doing much....
damage to us, but it is CNN and their very neatly hidden bias.
The same does go for NPR too.

With Faux, we all know where they stand and their audience is primarily right wing Anti-American bigots!

They are horrible!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #39
62. I want unbiased reporting, WITHOUT
Edited on Tue May-25-04 03:11 PM by Jen6
a right or left slant. Bias belongs in editorials, not in investive journalism.People need to be able to make up their minds on an issue by being given the facts and nothing more-that's the way it used to be. There are no more Walter Cronkites out there now (nobody knew his political preferences until he retired)!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceProgProsp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #62
92. I don't mind bias, so long as it is clear.
If we had a state owned media, at least you'd know it was biased in favor of the state.

If there were an NRA channel, I'd have no problem, because you'd know the NRA owned them.

if you had a labor-owned media source, at least you'd know it was owned by labour.

As it is, we have no major media owned by anything on the left of the spectrum, and the major media does the bidding of the right wing but tries to hide their biases.

Most Americans have no appreciation of how compromised NPR and the networks are. They don't have a clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Suspicious Donating Member (780 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
41. Defining "liberal"....
I think this particular question, posed to Robert McChesney by David Barsamian during an interview (February, 2000), and the answer, explain the common misperception of NPR as "liberal".

The fact of the matter is, NPR's loyalties lie with the upper middle class and corporate interests. As McChesney points out, "theyre not in sympathy with the political and economic interests of the bottom 50 percent of this country."

NPR's reporters and commentators can be as "liberal" as they want on any given social issue - it does not negate the fact that NPR is beholden to corporate interests, which makes them as unreliable as the rest of the corporate media.


Q: One popular notion is that NPR, to a greater extent than PBS, is somehow liberal. Is there any evidence for that?

A: In the narrow confines of American mainstream politics, traditionally the sort of people who work at NPR would be considered liberals. The way we define liberal is crucial, because the whole thing is loaded as to how you define these terms. A liberal or conservative is often defined on the basis of social issues. Take flag burning. Should you have a constitutional amendment against it? Do you think there should be mandatory school prayer? Should there be drug testing? What do you think of affirmative action? These sorts of issues are a litmus test of whether one is a liberal or conservative. By the measure of social issues, its fair to say that a significant chunk of the NPR employees and on-air staff are probably in favor of not having mandatory state prayer. Theyre probably in favor of gay rights and lesbian rights, or more open-minded about it. But I think thats not the best measure to understand the core politics. The crucial politics of government, affairs of state, resource allocations, making wars, military budgets, environmental issues, the research shows that the so-called liberals at NPR often have almost identical politics to conservatives. Theyre pro-business. Theyre anti-regulation of business, for the most part. Theyre not interested in progressive taxation. Theyre not in sympathy with the political and economic interests of the bottom 50 percent of this country. Theyre having a turf war with their fellow members of the upper middle class. Thats the whole strength of the right-wing critique. When you isolate the left as being the upper middle class that wants to go to Harvard and Yale and lord it over everyone else, that resonates with a lot of people. Thats a legitimate critique. Thats a scary group of people. When that becomes defined as the left in our society, were in trouble, because thats not the left. That has nothing to do with the historic notion of left.


http://www.zmag.org/Zmag/articles/feb2000MCCHESNEY.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
43. Well, it *is* kinda fun lately...
tuning in the morning before work and listening to Cokie Roberts moan and wail about how badly things are going for the "president". That is immensely enjoyable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abelenkpe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
44. no kidding
I've felt the people at NPR were a bunch of administration appeasers for quite some time. That's why I listen to KPFK instead. NPR has turned me off for a long time now. A bunch of conservatives (who call themselves independents, hah!) at work always refer to the fact that they listen to NPR as a sign they listen to both sides of each story. What a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPZenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #44
61. NPR's Money
NPR does not receive money directly from the Federal government. Instead, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, corporations, and individuals provide funding to individual stations, and those stations decide how much NPR programming they want to buy.

The vast majority of the funding comes from individual contributions, foundations and corporate sponsorships. I believe most of the individual contributions come from moderate to liberal upper middle income people. At times, I am concerned when a corporation pays for lots of sponsorships at about the same time they are the subject of investigations of illegal activities.

If NPR is doing its job, then both liberals and conservatives should be complaining about it. IF NPR is not making someone mad, then they are not trying hard enough - and would be avoiding controversy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPZenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
46. The Speech that Got Bob Edwards Fired???
NPR management has still not given listeners a clear rationale for why they fired Bob Edwards from the morning anchor position that he held for many years. Was Edwards fired for making the following speech last year????

http://savebob.uncomplicated.net/nuke/html/modules.php?...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rastignac5 Donating Member (128 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. NPR isn't going to give the real reason for the firing because
it's a private personnel issue. But they fired him because Edwards had become a poor anchor who could hardly communicate with his field reporters anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. Actually, Edwards was one of the best interviewers available in any media.
He had mastered asking short, pointed questions that allowed the field reporters to develop the story but it was directed subtly in the way that he wanted.

I don't know how else to put this, but your post is simply wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rastignac5 Donating Member (128 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #51
63. NPR took to having reporters prerecord their stories
because they couldn't trust Edwards to interact with the reporter live.

He used to be great- but he lost it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. That's unadulterated bullshit.
Edited on Tue May-25-04 03:22 PM by Shakespeare
Live exchanges with reporters were never cut back--and there's plenty of examples in the audio archives on NPR's site (right up to Edwards' last day). Not only was Edwards a great anchor, but he had the arbitron numbers to back him up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rastignac5 Donating Member (128 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. No its not
I used to work for a public radio station. We noticed the scaleback in live exchanges in 2000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. Oh? Which station?
The archives on npr.org indicate otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rastignac5 Donating Member (128 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
47. I'm surprised by the hostility to NPR in this forum
NPR has never claimed to be liberal or leftist or anything other than balanced. If most of tehir exterior sources are conservative leaning, that's because most of their interior sources are liberal leaning.

NPR is a highly professional and competent news source that makes a genuine attempt to present a balanced view of things, and I, for one, am glad that they're out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orlin2k Donating Member (43 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. I agree
NPR is one of the few independent news sources out there. If
you want well rounded news, and yes that means interviewing
Republicans and conservatives, then NPR is the place to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abelenkpe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #49
58. you're just fooling yourself
there is nothing well rounded about NPR. Did you not read post #14? I would not call requesting reporters to skew articles so that they belittle democrats as well rounded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceProgProsp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #47
52. There should be no sacred cows.
NPR certainly deserves much of the criticism I've read here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pollock Donating Member (152 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #47
56. NPR sucks.
How's that? Almost every hour they start off their news with "Today President Bush...." As in "Today Bush said America is great..."
Turning to other news stations and get better news, on the hour that is.
And that whole lie about being non-commercial is offensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abracadabra Donating Member (152 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #47
65. your "surprise" is the point of this thread-maybe you'll see
something you didn't realize eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rastignac5 Donating Member (128 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #65
72. I guess I'm surprised that everybody is acting like
the fact that NPR is not a "liberal" news source is a big surprise or secret. It appears a lot of people have swallowed the Republican propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #47
67. I have often defended NPR as a news source--it's the Edwards decision
...that I disagree with. However, I am NOT going to give them a pass on some of their more suspect "sponsors," which often amount to lengthy commercials for companies like Archer Daniels Midland.

I think it's fair to judge them by the company they keep, so to speak, and have cast a wary eye (and ear) in recent years. Just because they began as one of the best objective newscasts out there doesn't mean they get a pass on scrutiny when they start taking large chunks of cash from corporations with a vested interest in managing their image in the press.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhunt70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #47
68. I'm with ya too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pollock Donating Member (152 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. Listen to BBC radio
which actually get broadcast through some NPR stations.
I got blown away by how f-ing professional and informative BBC is compared to the lazy hack journalism at NPR.
Plus, BBC is non-commercial, unlike the liars at NPR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gbwarming Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #70
73. NPR is turning my wife against Bush*
Edited on Tue May-25-04 04:04 PM by gbwarming
Look, NPR isn't Pacifica, or whatever you whiners have decreed to be righteous, but it is available pretty much nationwide and may occasionally attract a casual rightwinger. It is FAR more centrist than any other widely available new source and generally covers national events and issues with as much depth as the BBC or CBC.

So this is my plan - continue to support NPR so that corporate sponsors do not gain more influence, AND tell them, as a supporter, when they screw up.

Edit: That wasn't directed at you Pollock - I just replied to the wrong post. I also enjoy BBC, either SWL or usually on local public radio WOUM from 9-10AM & 10PM-4AM weekdays. Cricket scores don't do much for me tho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pollock Donating Member (152 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #73
75. Fair enough.
But I can honestly say I have pretty much never learned anything from NPR. Either a news item I already read in paper(internet) or some blathering bore is on talking to some guy at a horse ranch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #70
79. Uh, don't trust the BBC feeds put on by NPR.
A few weeks ago, I was listening to "BBC 'Newshour' on NPR" and they had a segment on called "The Interview" where they were talking to a woman named Gunn who's son was in Iraq and she wasn't too happy about what he was telling her about his service there.

When I listened to the BBC on shortwave later in the day, I heard the same segment, or at least parts of it were the same segment, because what I had heard through NPR was HEAVILY edited for content. Mrs. Gunn had a LOT more to say about what she thought of Bush's war than the NPR censors let through.

Don't bother listening to Auntie Beeb on NPR, it's "stepped on".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gbwarming Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #79
83. Newshour is a 60 minute format BBC product
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/newshour/i...

PRI carries this, the regular BBC worldservice, and the PRI/WGBH/BBC 'The World'.. I get all three on WOUM, but any particular public radio station might carry any combination.

I think the BBC world service feed is uncut - judging by the cricket coverage at least. Find local BBC coverage:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/worldservice/psims/Schedul...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. I know, I didn't just discover The Beeb yesterday, y'know...
I was listening back when sending a reception report to R. Moscow would get a file opened on you.

I don't know HOW they "rubber-clocked" it to make it come out right, perhaps they get the wiggle-room with the "The BBC on NPR is made possible..." blurbs at the start, 1/2-way point and end.

So they give us uncut cricket coverage to make us believe that it's the whole banana we listen to...

If it doesn't come from the BBC transmitters in Antigua, I don't trust it.

I'd bet the feed you get through PRI has been vetted by the VOA, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
59. No shit Sherlock
Always nice to get scientific corroboration of that which we already know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
60. I was stunned by their story on the "healthy forests act"
this past weekend. According to NPR, EVERYONE is overjoyed at having all those "dangerous" trees removed from National parks. The hundreds of contractors and lumber mills participating are working as fast as they possible can so that "the fire season won't be as bad this year". Poor contractors and lumber mills! They lament that those wicked environmentalists caused the "problem" of "overgrown" forests for the past 100 years. Gee, I had no idea that before the white man got here, every forest in America was perpetually on fire! :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abracadabra Donating Member (152 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
64. NATIONAL REPUBLICAN RADIO--
NPR is really bad -

The non biased radio news source is
P R I -Public Radio International
It is carried in Los angeles on KPFK and KPFA San Francisco.
They are the real deal.
Too bad PRI it's not carried to as many local stations as NPR.

NPR uses very slick manuevering.

This is not by accident. They probably work very hard to manipulate the audience without being obvious.

The psychological tactics are not very hidden if you take a closer listen -- they bait you, then hook you with a few good points, then in the end they put you wherever they want you on the issues by having the "conservative" viewpoint win in the end.
Each and every time. --just listen and check it out for yourselves--
It's really obvioous if you're watching for it--
What they really want is for you to dismiss the issues.


I noticed it a long time ago listening to NPR (thinking that I was listening to a balanced viewpont) --I started to notice that all these "controversial" topics were being discussed with interviews of "experts" and every time, they started out pretending to expose a "wrong" either environmental, political or economic--AND EVERY SINGLE TIME the story was turned and in the end it sort of supported the conclusion that , yeah, maybe it's really not that bad, and yeah, the corporations really ARE good, and yeah, The neo cons Are doing a great job-

<>
Everything is fine and our outrage or concern over that issue really was just a little premature now wasn't it -<sarcasm>

Turn off NPR and turn ON PRI !!!
unless you want a wax with that wash (a brain wax)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulfcoastliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #64
81. Excellent!
Superb analysis of their psychological bait and switch tactics! NPR always irritates me with their little 2-bit head games. Pisses me off. Thanks for the tip on PRI. I enjoy "The World" which is PRI and coproduced with BBC. I tell my local npr affiliate it's the only program worth listening to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demosincebirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
76. Any news source
that that is truly fair and balance, the right wingers condem it, saying its nothing but a liberal mouth piece
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chicago Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
78. NPR Sucks and it has since the War began.
The only decent shows are Terry Gross and Ira Glass.

I turned it off after Air America went on...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
80. Um, how do I put this delicately...
Hey, Newsday?

DUH!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Logansquare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
84. Heard about NPR "religion" reporter Barbara Bradley Hagerty?
Her proper title would be "Opus Dei" reporter. Those of you who populate the blogosphere have already read about her blatant misrepresentations reporting on Catholics and Kerry. Recently, she did "man on the street" interviews with weekday mass-goers asking them about their opinions on Kerry. Thing was, her three anti-Kerry worshippers were ringers--they're right wing think-tank members or authors and there's no way in hell Hagerty couldn't have known who they were. Previously, she had attended a small (39 attendees) conference with one of them! NPR has been completely unashamed of this fiasco. You should read some of the snarky replies to viewer complaints from their ombudsman, Jeff Dworkin. Read more about Barbara Bradley Hagerty and NPR's coverage of religion at betterangels.blogspot.com
This was *the* straw for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GaryL Donating Member (413 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
87. I have made it a personal quest...
that all my friends cease donating to NPR. Bad enough we have to listen to commercials now, but they still whine to liberals about keeping them funded and then bite the hand that feeds them. I'm proud to say I've gotten a dozen people to stop donating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
88. Gosh, what a surprise. Not. Hardly qualifies as LBN, does it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pachamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-04 03:52 AM
Response to Original message
93. Started noticing about 3 years ago-when Bob Edwards got fired, I stopped
...listening entirely...I used to give to them regularly - never again...After hearing the likes of Richard Perle and others being interviewed and skewed as independent sources/opinions, I just couldn't stomach it anymore...Bob Edwards' firing or "reassignment" was the final straw...

NPR - National Pentagon Radio....so sad...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Nov 28th 2014, 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC