Watchdog group report (NPR is no liberal station)

[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-flnpr3818138may25,0,2746922.story

[sniffa]

1. that's a LiberaL think thank

of course they'LL defend NPR. are you trying to say biLL o'reiLLy is a Liar?

[mhr]

2. No Surprise - This Is The Reason I No Longer Contribute

eom

[cindyw]

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.

[denverbill]

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.

[rastignac5]

38. They played them to criticize them

The piece was about the negative ads.

[denverbill]

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.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

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.

[AP]

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.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

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.

[0rganism]

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.

[JHB]

31. You mean like this?

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---

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

40. Hey yeah, exactly like that

Thanks. :)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

74. snip- "making trouble," -unsnip

That says a lot.

[annak110]

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"

[sendero]

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.

[annak110]

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.

[Wilber_Stool]

7. We lost it.

Because a bunch of lazy tight fisted liberals couldn't send them 20 bucks a year. Serves us right.

[sendero]

18. I contributed annually..

... and sometimes generously up until 2002.

[AP]

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.

[stevedeshazer]

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.

[0007]

45. God, send this one to Jerry Falwel (sp)

[utopian]

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.

[pollock]

55. You mean that joint production with the Slate conservatives?

more nonsense.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

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.

[Philostopher]

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*!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

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.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Stranger]

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.

[sendero]

17. Screw the stupid 10 second ads...

... listen to the content.

Yes, they are about as balanced as Fox News.

[lostnfound]

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.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

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."

[Moderator]

13. Please edit your subject line

Subject line should title of article you're linking to.

[kstewart33]

15. Done

I added the statement in parentheses because otherwise people would have not a clue about what the story is about.

[Moderator]

19. Thanks!

:thumbsup:

[KansDem]

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

[Zhade]

82. HA! That's a pretty good piece.

I especially enjoyed the "fundraising" section at the end.

[sendero]

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 :)

[shanti]

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?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

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.

[bif]

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.

[jburton]

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!

[icymist]

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.

[AP]

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.

[BiggJawn]

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 wouldn’t 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?

[central scrutinizer]

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

[peacetalksforall]

32. I fought the truth for a long time....

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.

[Nlighten1]

34. NPR's top two executives are former CIA agents.

CEO and the VP worked for the CIA running radio propaganda stations in Europe.

[PeaceProgProsp]

53. You might need to update your information.

I think one of the quit about a year ago.

But I'm not sure.

[Nlighten1]

86. I will check on the VP

But I know for sure that Kevin Klose is still there as CEO.

[progressivebydesign]

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.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

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!!!

[gulfcoastliberal]

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.

[CShine]

39. EVERYONE NEEDS TO STOP BEING DEFENSIVE ABOUT MEDIA BIAS

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.

[PeaceProgProsp]

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.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

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!!!

[Lorien]

62. I want unbiased reporting, WITHOUT

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)!

[PeaceProgProsp]

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.

[Suspicious]

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, "they’re 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, it’s 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. They’re probably in favor of gay rights and lesbian rights, or more open-minded about it. But I think that’s 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. They’re pro-business. They’re anti-regulation of business, for the most part. They’re not interested in progressive taxation. They’re not in sympathy with the political and economic interests of the bottom 50 percent of this country. They’re having a turf war with their fellow members of the upper middle class. That’s 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. That’s a legitimate critique. That’s a scary group of people. When that becomes defined as the left in our society, we’re in trouble, because that’s not the left. That has nothing to do with the historic notion of left.

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

[Terran]

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.

[abelenkpe]

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.

[JPZenger]

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.

[JPZenger]

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?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=57

[rastignac5]

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.

[The Stranger]

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.

[rastignac5]

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.

[Shakespeare]

66. That's unadulterated bullshit.

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.

[rastignac5]

69. No its not

I used to work for a public radio station. We noticed the scaleback in live exchanges in 2000.

[Shakespeare]

71. Oh? Which station?

The archives on npr.org indicate otherwise.

[rastignac5]

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.

[orlin2k]

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.

[abelenkpe]

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.

[PeaceProgProsp]

52. There should be no sacred cows.

NPR certainly deserves much of the criticism I've read here.

[pollock]

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.

[abracadabra]

65. your "surprise" is the point of this thread-maybe you'll see

something you didn't realize eh?

[rastignac5]

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.

[Shakespeare]

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.

[bhunt70]

68. I'm with ya too.

[pollock]

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.

[gbwarming]

73. NPR is turning my wife against Bush*

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.

[pollock]

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.

[BiggJawn]

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".

[gbwarming]

83. Newshour is a 60 minute format BBC product

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/newshour/institutional/aboutus.shtml

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/ScheduleSDT.cgi

[BiggJawn]

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.

[tom_paine]

59. No shit Sherlock

Always nice to get scientific corroboration of that which we already know.

[Lorien]

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:

[abracadabra]

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)

[gulfcoastliberal]

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.

[demosincebirth]

76. Any news source

that that is truly fair and balance, the right wingers condem it, saying its nothing but a liberal mouth piece

[Chicago Democrat]

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...

[Zhade]

80. Um, how do I put this delicately...

Hey, Newsday?

DUH!

[Logansquare]

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.

[GaryL]

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.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

88. Gosh, what a surprise. Not. Hardly qualifies as LBN, does it.

[Pachamama]

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...