I'm VERY LIBERAL... I listen to NPR!!
That makes me very liberal because Republicans and conservatives hate NPR.
* not intended as a factual statement
= new reply since forum marked as read
when they go on conservative media and get paid to appear at conservative conferences by the Koch brothers, but if I do any of that, "it's bad".
But again, I am sure all the journalists and pundits YOU like write their articles on a napkin in a corner and never show it to anyone so as not to "self promote".
They might actually expect some policy concessions and then where would we be, eh?
or as balanced as it gets. And no commercials is a really big selling point.
Diane Riehm seems to give conservatives a much harder time than liberals, but other than that (and maybe "This American Life"
I don't hear anything that seems to be significantly biased either way.
Mistakes? Anyone can make them-- just look at the "liberal" outlets so often quoted here.
Somewhere along the line NPR was touted as "liberal" although I never remember it claiming so itself. So, every time it crosses the line and says something even mildly tolerant of rightward thought it has to be denounced. Same thing happened to John Stuart, btw, when he went off script one day.
As usual, it's best to have several trusted sources and make up your own mind-- and spend less time complaining.
That makes me very liberal because Bernie is more Liberal than 3 Democrats rolled into one. *Bernie Sanders 2016!!!!!!
* Intended as a factual statement and my most fervent hope. I don't care what the numbers are, as long as he holds the winning numbers 
Zell Miller comes to mind. 
I am whatever Bernie is.
make it true. You can say how Bernie or I will vote, that does not make it true. The fact is you really don't know. Thems the facts dear Nilla. Unless you are looking over mine or Bernies back when we vote...... You. Don't. Know. By the way, the primary isn't even close to happening. Get back to me when a politician ( or Hillary) actually announces... until then 
That's ALL you get. Nothing more.
That's hilarious "TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS to bet" who will Liz and Bernie vote for. A bet that can't be proved either way and shockingly enough no takers Most normal people consider their vote to be their business, we mostly vote by what could be called a "secret" ballot here in the US, or we mail them in. We have privacy when we vote. You won't find any suckers to take that silly bet. It can't be proved. 
You're also funny. 
its Kenny G Christmass tunes ,cutesty materialistic talk about talk and nostalgic dribble.
...when Cokie Roberts "reported" on the Bush "Charm Offensive"©
She said that, if elected, Bush would would use his "charm" to get things done in DC. 
Oh, and more Americans would rather have a beer with Bush than with Gore.
(And Bush liked to give out nicknames, too)
Ill, perhaps? In a coma? *Not intended as a factual statement, either... but hey, a thread that starts out with 
deserves a little mild in return, no?
So glad you recovered fully--but here are a few items you missed during that period:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/16/business/media/16radio.html?
But the law also assigns the corporation the responsibility of ensuring balance and objectivity in programming, a function that Mr. Tomlinson says is of paramount importance for the sustained viability and political support of public broadcasting.
About a quarter of the corporation's $400 million budget goes to radio, with most of the rest to television. NPR recently received a huge bequest from the estate of Joan B. Kroc, the widow of the founder of McDonald's, and it gets only about 1 percent of its overall funds directly from the corporation. But its member stations are far more reliant on the corporation's money, and they use a significant part of that to buy programs produced by NPR and others.
Last month, the corporation's board, which is dominated by Republicans named by President Bush, told the staff at a meeting that it should prepare to redirect the relatively modest number of grants available for radio programs away from national news, officials at the corporation and NPR said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8067-2005Apr21.html
Some observers, including people inside the Public Broadcasting Service, see these recent developments as troubling. PBS, they say, is being forced to toe a more conservative line in its programming by the Republican-dominated agency that provides about $30 million in federal funds to the Alexandria-based service.
NPR was lost a good decade ago. Most people noticed this as it was happening, and mourned the loss. Why, even here at DU, people noticed!!!! These threads, from "OLD DU" are really worth a read:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1678974
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x100761
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2312806
Plenty of people think NPR is liberal still and many of those people still listen to it.
A decade or so ago is when I largely stopped listening to them for exactly the reason you so cogently outline in your post.
because I don't listen to NPR and don't get many of his references to radio shows there. I support funding of NPR politically, but the truth is it's a generational thing - I get my information from the Internet, and it's hard for me to listen to "talk" while reading at the same time. I rarely listen to the radio at all. I think if people in my generation do listen to the radio, it would be while commuting work in their cars. However, if they take mass transit to work, they are likely to be preoccupied with their phones or iPads instead.
Anyway, I don't think NPR or the opinions its pundits and reviewers disseminates are as universal as the older generation of Democrats thinks it is...
I have a radio in a drawer for emergencies and no TV at all..
Not all of us olds are stuck totally in the past but I do get your point and thanks for replying to my OP.
I bow down to your skills at bringing them out of the woodworks! 
