No. of Recommendations: 48
I have been listening to NPR when walking and running at lunch lately. Yesterday it was so bad that for the first time I almost could not listen to it. There was about a 10 - 15 minute piece on what a miserable failure the Bush Administration foreign policy was. I mean this was a hard news piece, that just went on and on about how everyone in the world hated the United States, and how the policy had not done one bit of good.

It was so one sided I was flaberghasted. I mean don't they have any concience or feel any responsibility to present all sides of a story? At least make the *pretense* of presenting all viewpoints on the topic.

Ordinarilly this would have made me angry, but do you know what? It did not. It made me amazingly calm as I figured out what was going on. The Bush Administration had just scored what could be considered an amazing foreign policy victory in the UN, passing a multi national resolution for the rebuilding of Iraq. This in conjunction with congress funding programs to rebuild Iraq and Tokyo coming on line with 10 Billion as Bush coaxed them along. It was obvious to me that PBS was dragging out everything they could find in the arsenal to trash up the day.

Furthermore, the business and economic reports follow the same sorts of manuipulation. Every piece of bad news regarding unemployment and the markets gets highlighted right up front. Any good news, such as the market's recovery since March, is casually ignored or barely mentioned.

It comes down to the depressing music that they play between pieces these days. I am willing to bet that during the Clinton Administration they played more upbeat music between the poltical pieces as they spun everything in a positive direction. Now they focus on funeral dirges as they lambaste the Bush Administration.

Now I am sure that all these things have gone on for some time, but I think that the practice has become more frequent and more intense lately. Or is it my imagination? So anyway, on to the point: what do I believe is the net effect?

I am willing to bet that this has gotten so bad and one sided, that the average middle of the road listener is beginning to see right through this. Much like their reaction to the LA Times and other liberal media outlet's last ditch attempts to trash out Arnold, John Q. Public is seeing right through this stuff, and going in the other direction. As a matter of fact something like this cost Davis/Bustamante the election; and may very well cost the democrats the election on a national level.

I think if the Democrats want to win an election by manipulating using the left leaning media, they had better remember one thing: subtlety.

Of course it's JMHO.

-reb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
<<I have been listening to NPR when walking and running at lunch lately. Yesterday it was so bad that for the first time I almost could not listen to it. There was about a 10 - 15 minute piece on what a miserable failure the Bush Administration foreign policy was. I mean this was a hard news piece, that just went on and on about how everyone in the world hated the United States, and how the policy had not done one bit of good.

It was so one sided I was flaberghasted. I mean don't they have any concience or feel any responsibility to present all sides of a story? At least make the *pretense* of presenting all viewpoints on the topic.
>>


Good post. PBS makes an effort to present a variety of points of view, but NPR does not, in my view.

But both NPR and PBS ought to be spun off to sink or swim on their own.

Aty the very least NPR should be renamed. National Left Wing Radio would be my idea for a new name!



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 33
I think if the Democrats want to win an election by manipulating using the left leaning media, they had better remember one thing: subtlety.

Of course it's JMHO.

-reb


Oh, I get it. You mean like Savage, Rush, and Gretta?

LOL!

cliff
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 23
>>>>>
Oh, I get it. You mean like Savage, Rush, and Gretta?
LOL!
cliff
>>>>>

I am unfamiliar with Gretta but I do know Savage and Rush. I understand they have a right slant. However, I do not pay for them. I *do* pay taxes to support NPR. That's what makes it particularly irksome cliff. I'd like public radio to be unbiased, and present a more balanced view of the news. That's part of the point I am trying to make.

Do you think that is unreasonable?

-reb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Do you think that is unreasonable?

No, I think it is reasonable to ask NPR to be balanced. I almost never listen to them, so I really can't comment. Is that the one that carries "Prairie Home Companion" with Garrison Keillor? I llke that one.

Sometimes one's perspective can become so biased that "balanced" can't even be recognized. What's the guy with the "No-Spin Zone"? He claims to be balanced, but he is a hard-line right-winger from my point of view. Through self-selection in one's choice of peer group, news sources, etc, it is very possible to think that everyone thinks like you do. (Not that I would ever fall into that trap!)

Just a comment.

cliff
... left-wing nut, commie-pinko, tree-hugging librul prevert.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Cliff comments:
>>>>>
ometimes one's perspective can become so biased that "balanced" can't even be recognized.
>>>>

Agree I am very right and maybe this is part of the problem. But I invite you to tune into Morning Edition Monday morning. I get the program at noon here in Germany, live broadcast. I think you will clearly understand what I mean (SP is backing me up). It's usually bad but tolerable. This time it actually made me ill to listen to it.

>>>>>
Sometimes one's perspective can become so biased that "balanced" can't even be recognized. What's the guy with the "No-Spin Zone"? He claims to be balanced, but he is a hard-line right-winger from my point of view
>>>>>

Bill O'Reilly. And not so coincidentally, he is carrying on right now about this particualr issue:

http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle

-reb

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No, I think it is reasonable to ask NPR to be balanced. I almost never listen to them, so I really can't comment.

As a follow-on thought, I don't believe that each program, or each segment, should try to present all sides of an issue. Are there other programs, or another day given to the Pro-Bush POV?

cliff
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
>>>>>
As a follow-on thought, I don't believe that each program, or each segment, should try to present all sides of an issue. Are there other programs, or another day given to the Pro-Bush POV?
>>>>>

I agree if it is an opinion piece, but this piece was hard news up front. And no, I can not recall the current administration being given a fair shake, even in an opinion piece.

Listen in on the way to work and write back. I a very interested to hear your opinion.

-reb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I think if the Democrats want to win an election by manipulating using the left leaning media ...

Don't you know the newsmedia can't be biased because big corporations control them? </sarcasm>

Actually, the audience of NPR is miniscule so it's basically just the Left talking to the Left. It is annoying that we pay for it with our taxes but I figure they have to pay for all the neat tanks, jet airplanes, and other stuff that our guys play with. And you know they just hate that <grin>.

ayduda
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
As a follow-on thought, I don't believe that each program, or each segment, should try to present all sides of an issue. Are there other programs, or another day given to the Pro-Bush POV?

And yet a follow-on to the follow-on. The mainstream media don't do a very good job of presenting all sides, either. They are mostly very right-wing conservative. FOX news consists mainly of licking Bush&Co's shoes, and the other electronic media aren't much different.

The print media, such magazines as Time, U.S. News and World Report, present a relatively xenophobic, chauvinistic POV.

This is understandable, as the ones paying the freight for these sources are the industries which tend to profit from the Right-wing POV expressed. They don't want to spend their advertising dollars supporting someone who might attack their sacred empires, do they?

I enjoy picking up a local paper called Random Lengths. They show what a radical POV is, and I invite anyone who thinks the NY Times or LA Times is "liberal" to read Random Lengths.

So, maybe I am a bit glad if there is a single place which may be a bit on the other side.

I will have to tune in. NPR? Which stations in LA?

cliff
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 51
I have been listening to NPR when walking and running at lunch lately. Yesterday it was so bad that for the first time I almost could not listen to it. There was about a 10 - 15 minute piece on what a miserable failure the Bush Administration foreign policy was. I mean this was a hard news piece, that just went on and on about how everyone in the world hated the United States, and how the policy had not done one bit of good.
It was so one sided I was flaberghasted. I mean don't they have any concience or feel any responsibility to present all sides of a story? At least make the *pretense* of presenting all viewpoints on the topic.


I wasn't aware that there were differing viewpoints on this.
It's a simple fact that America's international popularity is at an all time low and that Bush has ruined all the international goodwill there was. I thought the conservative viewpoint was that that doesn't matter because we're all irrelevant, I was not aware anyone(informed) was pretending it hasn't happened.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
I wasn't aware that there were differing viewpoints on this.
It's a simple fact that America's international popularity is at an all time low and that Bush has ruined all the international goodwill there was.


God knows I stay awake half the night worrying about what the rest of world thinks of us (me). *They* can all KMA.

heh, heh™

tngirl
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
*They* can all KMA.

heh, heh™

tngirl


You wouldn't have to ask me twice.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
<God knows I stay awake half the night worrying about what the rest of world thinks of us (me). *They* can all KMA.

heh, heh™

tngirl >

And God knows why they hate us so much?! Could it by any chance be because of people with attitudes such as tngirl's?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
And God knows why they hate us so much?! Could it by any chance be because of people with attitudes such as tngirl's?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe we should try to change everyones mind. We should do what France wants us to do. Then what the Palestinians want us to do, making sure to do what N Korea wants us to do at the same time. Lets also make sure that none of these things pisses off some other country.

"I can't do what ten people tell me to do, so i guess i'll remain the same"

Otis Redding "Dock of the bay"

2828 (2) (2)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
And God knows why they hate us so much?! Could it by any chance be because of people with attitudes such as tngirl's?.

Lets also make sure that none of these things pisses off some other country

OOOoooooh, hatred is an emotion that scares the hell out of me. Guns, bombs, terrorist, OTOH, do scare me.

We need to stop handing out all that foreign aid. That's why they hate us.

tngirl

PS Besides that, I live in a little, bitty town in Mississippi, for god's sake, and my attitude doesn't affect jackdoogle.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
PS Besides that, I live in a little, bitty town in Mississippi

Hey, time for a serious question.

As a FIRE Wannabee who from time to time considers where he will live when FIRE'd, can I ask you about Mississippi.

I've never been to the state, so I have no personal experience there.

How's the overall cost of living?

How's the population?

Weather?

Housing costs?

Friendliness of the locals to outsiders and foreigners?

Condition of roads?

Crime rates?

Any information you can give would be appreciated.

Oh, let's just say I was FIRE'd today and I had about 30K a year to live on and about $110,000 in cash to buy a house. How would I do in your opinion?

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
PS Besides that, I live in a little, bitty town in Mississippi, for god's sake, and my attitude doesn't affect jackdoogle.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Shouldn't it be msgirl? And who's jackdoogle? Is that the guy that started Vanguard?

2828 (2) (3)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
*They* can all KMA.

heh, heh™

tngirl

You wouldn't have to ask me twice.


But she has two butt cheeks.

Golfwaymore
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
And God knows why they hate us so much?! Could it by any chance be because of people with attitudes such as tngirl's?

Well, I think the hatred others feel for us is grossly overstated by our silly media. After all, consider:

The Saudis sure love our oil money.
Svetlana Stalin lived here.
Sergei Khrushchev is now an American citizen and college professor. I remember watching daddy Nikita bang his shoe on the UN table and saying "we will bury you" (referring to the NOW DEFUNCT Soviet Union burying the US).

Many regimes need heavily-staffed border patrols to force their citizens to REMAIN in their countries because they want to leave so badly. We have so many people trying to ENTER our country we need a border patrol to KEEP THEM FROM ENTERING ILLEGALLY.


allocatorx
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I have been listening to NPR when walking and running at lunch lately. Yesterday it was so bad that for the first time I almost could not listen to it. There was about a 10 - 15 minute piece on what a miserable failure the Bush Administration foreign policy was. I mean this was a hard news piece, that just went on and on about how everyone in the world hated the United States, and how the policy had not done one bit of good.

It was so one sided I was flaberghasted. I mean don't they have any concience or feel any responsibility to present all sides of a story? At least make the *pretense* of presenting all viewpoints on the topic.
-REB


My best friend is a Gay Republican. I'm talking about a foaming at the mouth hard core right wing nut. One of my wife's best friend is a hard core Democrat. She is married to a Cuban. They are both Social Workers in Florida and are both staunch left of center Democrats. Whe we first started going to the Keys with friends I invited my friend John and my wife invited her Democrat friends. We all stayed at a beautiful house on Summerland Key, about 25 up the Keys from Key West.

It was a disaster! They argued and by the end of the week hated each other. They were trading barbs and muttering under their breath and I learned NEVER AGAIN try and mix left wing and right wing friends in one house on an island for a week! Our friends in Florida are actually very accepting of gays, but it was the right wing politics of my friend that they hated. He lets it be known how he feels about everything.

He owns a small meat packing company in Albany, NY and pays a fortune in taxes. He despises the liberal politics in New York and the high taxes, and everything that goes along with it. - Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ovaltine......the container is round, the mug is round, they should call it Roundtine.

2828 (2) (3)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Hey, time for a serious question.

As a FIRE Wannabee who from time to time considers where he will live when FIRE'd, can I ask you about Mississippi.


With the exception of tngirl74, it's the unshaved armpit of the earth.

Golfwaymore
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
To be honest, I'd move to Texas, if I had it to do over. Unfortunately MS was close to my parents. We have decent roads, crime rate - at least here is low (I left the tailgate on my SUV open and some young boys actually stopped and shut it at 10PM) Housing costs seem to be pretty low, but real estate taxes are high. Car tags are high, car insurance has come down. People are fairly friendly and helpful, but can be clanish. Weather is okay, it gets hot in the summer, August is usually really bad, Feb. is really cold. Some snow and ice - school lets out if a flake falls. Sales tax is 7% here but higher in larger towns. Great trash pickup - they use guys from the jail, also for cleaning along the highways. No liquor here, only beer - although they have finished putting in a bike trail all through town so they can get it designated differently and hopefully get liquor (poor Ruby Tuesdays is waiting and waiting). There's a lot of recreation - the Tennessee River is about 20 miles to the East; gambling 80 miles to the West. Lots of deer and turkey hunting. Lots of churches - especially Baptists.

And the women are all pretty.

tngirl
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
With the exception of tngirl74, it's the unshaved armpit of the earth.

So, I guess if I want to move to Mississippi, I should plan to buy a house next to tngirl74 and to socialize with her. Since I normally do not socialize with many people, this will keep me happy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And the women are all pretty.

Now, I can believe the rest of your post, but I find this line hard to believe.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
As a FIRE Wannabee who from time to time considers where he will live when FIRE'd, can I ask you about Mississippi.
____________________________
With the exception of tngirl74, it's the unshaved armpit of the earth.


People in Alabama look down on Mississippi.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
<<And God knows why they hate us so much?! Could it by any chance be because of people with attitudes such as tngirl's?
>>


Of course not. The German and French governments and their supporters hate us because they no longer need the United States to defend them against the Soviet Union, and figure they should once again decide how the world is run.


The arabs and their hangers on hate us primarily because of our support of Israel, and because despotic governments over there are no longer safe from being tossed out.

Any other countries in particular you are curious about?



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
(I left the tailgate on my SUV open and some young boys actually stopped and shut it at 10PM)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that some kinda metaphor for something.

2828 (2) (4)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
With the exception of tngirl74, it's the unshaved armpit of the earth.

Hey now. It's not that bad. I've got cousins in GA who still live on sand roads. At least our's are paved.

Plus we got de Blues. You ain't got jack.

tngirl
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So, I guess if I want to move to Mississippi, I should plan to buy a house next to tngirl74 and to socialize with her. Since I normally do not socialize with many people, this will keep me happy.

Will you still have your handcuffs? ;-)

tngirl
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
People in Alabama look down on Mississippi.

It's just because they have higher hills.

tngirl


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
But both NPR and PBS ought to be spun off to sink or swim on their own.

Maybe that's the catch--spinning them off to make a profit or close is a conservative-leaning idea. So, of course, they back the side that butters their bread...even if they don't want to explicitly say so.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oh, let's just say I was FIRE'd today and I had about 30K a year to live on and about $110,000 in cash to buy a house. How would I do in your opinion?

If you lived in a small town, near a larger city you'd have a good life. You'd be solidly middle class. $30,000/year is what a lot of teachers in the south make. If your house was paid for ($110,000 will buy a nice 3 bedroom 2 bath house + 1 acre of land most anywhwere in the south) all the better. This is pretty much true of any place in the south. My father in law used to be a preacher in Eupora, Mississippi, which is in the North east corner. If I remember correctly it's pretty near the University of Mississippi. It's also not too far to Memphis from there. Quite a few people in the northern section of Mississippi shop and go to doctors and hospitals in Memphis, TN. - Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The mainstream media don't do a very good job of presenting all sides, either.

Sure it does. 'Course, to get all sides, ya gotta flip the channel and catch every newscast.

Recommended reading: Bias : a CBS insider exposes how the media distorts the news by Bernard Goldberg.
ILC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And the women are all pretty. - TNgrl

Now, I can believe the rest of your post, but I find this line hard to believe. - mazske


The people that settled the different areas of the country had an effect on the genes in the present population. Georgia was settled by Irish and English debtors that the English put on boats and sent over to New World. 200,000 Scotch Irish flowed through the Cumberland Gap when it opened and settled much of the south. They intermarried quite a bit with the local Cherokees, and produced a lot of children with dark hair and eyes. There is also a Spanish and French influence from Florida, Mobile, and New Orleans. This all had an effect on the size, stature, and coloration of the women in the South.

More Germans, Poles, Swedes, Italians, etc., settled up North. They tended to be larger boned people, with lighter complexions. I was born in Chicago, and have spent a lot of time in both Northern Illinois and Upstate New York, and I hate to say it, but I also believe that the women in the South are more petite and prettier. But, I'm a sucker for a petite dark haired dark eyed woman. - Art


The Riecherts @ Maynardville, TN
http://hometown.aol.com/riecherts/myhomepage/index.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 51
Recommended reading: Bias : a CBS insider exposes how the media distorts the news by Bernard Goldberg.

Recommended clap trap: "Bias": by Bernard Goldberg.

Should have been titled: "White I hate Dan Rather, and I'll say almost anything to get back at him."

Alternative title: "A mishmash of factoids, not very well researched, which explains why I didn't get a bigger job at CBS."

Taking on other media, he quotes John Chancellor of NBC:

"It's short of soap, so there are lice in hospitals. It's short of pantyhose, so women's legs go bare. It's short of snowsuits, so babies stay home in winter. Sometimes it's short of cigarettes, so millions of people stop smoking involuntarily. It drives everyone crazy. The problem isn't communism. No one even talked about communism this week. The problem is shortages."

Then Goldberg goes on to scream at Chancellor for "his absurd observation that the problem in the old Soviet Union wasn't communism, but shortages."

Just one problem. In 1991, Perestroika had been in effect for six years. People weren't talking about "communism" because it had been abandoned years earlier. They were talking about shortages because, er, there were shortages.

Oh. Would you like to know how Chancellor began that evening's broadcast?

Good evening. Wednseday, August 21, 1991. This is a day for bold print in history to be remembered and savored as the day when the power of the people in the Soviet Union proved to be greater than the power of the gray and coldblooded men who thought they could return that country to the darkness of state oppression."

Yep. Quite an endorsement of "communism" from John Chancellor, all right. Certainly worthy of being trotted out as an example of "Bias" on NBC's part.

Pfooey. Bernie Goldberg was a mediocre reporter, his book is a mish mash of crap and a bunch of "Well here's how it looked to me"

Why do you suppose Bernie Goldberg, intrepid reporter chose to put this particular episode in his book? Oops, he found it on a right-wing website, and decided to parrot it without checking the transcript because it sounded good. He wasn't even under a time deadline - and he still didn't check the transcript. Shameful!

Honest. He's got a bunch of quotes from people in newsrooms of liberal-sounding things, like the time somebody called Gary Bauer "a little nut from the Christian group." Well, there's a big deal. They also called Clinton a "dick swinging idiot", but somehow that doesn't make it into the book. Newsrooms are rough and tumble places, and you can find just about any quote you want about anybody you want from any point of view you want. There's morgue humor and foul language and worse. It's garbage to pull some to prove your point and omit all the others.

It's even more garbage to pull selective quotes out of broadcasts, particularly when the "journalism" (and I use the quotation marks advisedly) is so shoddy that you don't even bother fact-checking your own facts.

The book is a POS. Period.
 
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
NPR is biased, no doubt about it. They remind me of the people who I used to work with in the government. They also seem to reflect an attitude of people who have never really sweated in a tough job situation, had to meet a payroll as an employer or are just spoiled rich kids that got everything they ever wanted from mommy and daddy when growing up and then set out to solve the world's problems with "other people's money".

Having said that, I like to listen to it occasionally myself. I listen to the radio a lot since I commute at least 10 hours a week to and from my job and spend time on the road going to my 3 children's athletic events. Many of the programs are very informative. The political shows are usually done with at least civility, unlike a lot of talk radio - both right and left. I like to hear both sides of an issue without the callers being interupted or steered to make the host's point of view.

decath
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<snip>I think if the Democrats want to win an election by manipulating using the left leaning media, they had better remember one thing: subtlety.

Of course it's JMHO.

-reb


Oh, I get it. You mean like Savage, Rush, and Gretta?<snip>

They never claimed to be presenting news in a fair & balanced manner. They don't disguise the fact that what they say is their personal opinion on the news.That makes all the difference in the world.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thank you for taking the time to hit all those nice little details, GoofyHoofy. Absolutely no disagreement for the surface stuff, selective quoting, and whatnot. My bad for not explaining why I recommended the book. The reason I recommended Goldberg's book is that he talks about (some of) the reasons (some) folks go along with bias. IIRC, he takes what I have heard is the European approach to the news: we're all biased; it's part of being human; accept that and move on to learning how to deal with it. Personally, I think it is more important to accept that we all have our biases, to understand how and why bias occurs, than to deny we are infected with it. YMMV.
ILC
biased toward: personal responsibility, compassion for those who have less than ourselves, finding value in seemingly-valueless things (to name but 3)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
With the exception of tngirl74, it's the unshaved armpit of the earth.

Hey now. It's not that bad. I've got cousins in GA who still live on sand roads. At least our's are paved.

Plus we got de Blues. You ain't got jack.

tngirl


Your roads are only paved because of the free prison labor Mississippi exploits due to a surplus of convicts. <grin>

Actually, I have very little Georgia pride. I've lived in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia. Georgia, where I've lived the majority of my years, would not be my favorite.

The islands are the only place for me, period. Sand roads and palm trees are fine with me.

Golfwaymore
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Now I am sure that all these things have gone on for some time, but I think that the practice has become more frequent and more intense lately. Or is it my imagination?

According to this recent survey, folks whose primary news source was NPR/PBS were better informed (by a long shot) about some key issues regarding the war in Iraq than those who got their new from other sources.

Those who got most of their news from FOX were the most poorly informed, according to this study.

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

[...] LA Times and other liberal media outlet's last ditch attempts to trash out Arnold [...]

...the same "liberal media" that reported ad nauseam on Democrat Bill Clinton's dalliances with an intern? I tend to think of stuff like that as having less to do with "manipulation" of the electorate, and more to do with pandering to the public's appetite for the salacious details of the private lives of celebrities. In this regard, at least, I don't see most in the media of playing favorites.

Speck
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You're not alone if you feel NPR harbors certain biases.

The following website, devoted to bised reporting about the Middle East, recounts case after case of NPR's bias...

http://www.camera.org/

-Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
TNGIRL:
God knows I stay awake half the night worrying about what the rest of world thinks of us (me). *They* can all KMA.

I watch a Philippine channel that is based in the Philippines but rebroadcasted here. Their were massive demonstrations against Bush on his visit. Slogans saying “US = #1 terrorist.” The people are also mad that Bush bought their government in having them send Philippino troops to Iraq. The vast majority don't want any part of Bush's war.

Now when the Philipino people elect an anti US president you will worry because the Philippines has a very large museum population that is in rebellion (ie they have an army and weapons) which is a breading ground for terrorist. Instead of stopping terrorists the government might just start looking the other way instead of working closely with the US. What's you answer to that? Invade the Philippines? Sorry but we can't afford to invade the Philippines, Malaysia, Iran, Indonesia, etc. We need friends not more enemies.


Leolo
Who thinks that geleno may be right that when the next big terrorist attack comes the world will laugh and say “don't look to us for help”
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Recommended reading: Bias : a CBS insider exposes how the media distorts the news by Bernard Goldberg.

Recommended clap trap: "Bias": by Bernard Goldberg.


I also read the above book. But I draw some somewhat different conclusions about it.

Goofyhoofy informs,
Then Goldberg goes on to scream at Chancellor for "his absurd observation that the problem in the old Soviet Union wasn't communism, but shortages."

Just one problem. In 1991, Perestroika had been in effect for six years. People weren't talking about "communism" because it had been abandoned years earlier. They were talking about shortages because, er, there were shortages.


I respectfully differ with Goofy's analysis. Below, I have inserted the correct definition of Perestroika copied from the Webster's on-line dictionary.

One entry found for perestroika.
Main Entry: per•e•stroi•ka
Pronunciation: "per-&-'stroi-k&
Function: noun
Etymology: Russian perestroika, literally, restructuring

No, Goofy, communism wasn't abandoned. Perestroika, ie. restructuring, was Mr. Gorbachev's last-ditch effort to modify, and thereby SAVE communism, an ideological philosophy to which he was totally committed. Mr. Gorbachev NEVER abandoned communism; he couldn't, because it was the essence of who he really was. When it failed, he got the boot. Luckily, he was not shot, which was the standard Bolshevik reward for failure of this magnitude.


Under the communist model of governance, ie. tightly controlled central planning and distribution by the state, shortages of all types of consumer goods were chronic and unending. Economies of the Soviet satellite countries were also ruined by adherence to the rigid soviet economic model. A lack of choice and free markets is not conducive to a vibrant and successful consumer society. The Russians plowed the best of everything into their military, resulting in excellent weapons such as the Kalashnikov, Katyusha, and the T-34 tank. Unfortunately, scant resources remained after that to be allocated to the poor, beleaguered consumer.

Goofyhoofy continues,
Oh. Would you like to know how Chancellor began that evening's broadcast?
Good evening. Wednseday, August 21, 1991. This is a day for bold print in history to be remembered and savored as the day when the power of the people in the Soviet Union proved to be greater than the power of the gray and coldblooded men who thought they could return that country to the darkness of state oppression."


Well, I don't think the power of the people is really quite so evident. Mr. Putin, the current Russian leader, is, first and foremost, a creature of the state, a product of the Soviet KGB, the dreaded Soviet secret police force. Putin really has little tolerance for dissent. The rule of the party seems to have been replaced by the power of the Russian Mafia. Property rights in Russia are tenuous, at best. I am not convinced that "the power of the people" so grandiosely lauded by Mr. Chancellor squares with the realities of Russia today.

Goofyhoofy asserts,
It's garbage to pull some to prove your point and omit all the others.

Nonsense. When you are trying to prove a point, you pull what you require to support your argument. Calling Clinton names does not absolve people of being guilty of bias.

Well, maybe Mr. Goldberg didn't, as you say, "check the transcripts," but he sure got the historical facts about communism about right.

allocatorx
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
jjbklb says

"Oh, I get it. You mean like Savage, Rush, and Gretta?"

They never claimed to be presenting news in a fair & balanced manner. They don't disguise the fact that what they say is their personal opinion on the news.That makes all the difference in the world.

NPR also does not claim to presenting news in a fair and balanced manner. You're thinking of Fox.

By the way, as for NPR being tax supported, if you wanted to know how much of your taxes go to NPR, you'd need a really powerful magnifying glass to find the few cents it costs you. Last I heard, NPR gets less than 2% of its funding from taxes. The rest comes from various private foundations and trusts and from large corporations.

crassfool
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Sometimes one's perspective can become so biased that "balanced" can't even be recognized. What's the guy with the "No-Spin Zone"? He claims to be balanced, but he is a hard-line right-winger from my point of view.

Maybe you can explain to us how you define "hard-line right-winger", try to include the top 10 issues and his stand on each of those issues.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Maybe you can explain to us how you define "hard-line right-winger", try to include the top 10 issues and his stand on each of those issues.

Nah. I don't care to listen to him that much. You go ahead. If you can't tell right-wing drivel when you hear it, then I can't help you.

cliff
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
{{The mainstream media don't do a very good job of presenting all sides, either. They are mostly very right-wing conservative. FOX news consists mainly of licking Bush&Co's shoes, and the other electronic media aren't much different.}}


Where did you get that opion from? Very few people deny that FOX is right leaning. But how can you say that they are mostly very right wing conservative. I have seen analyses where they have searched transcripts and articles. The results show that terms like right wing extermist are used far more often than the term left wing extremist. What this shows is that the media is at a left of center position since the right wing seems bigger than the left wing.

To put it into other words, if the media were at 50 and the left wing was from 1-49 and the right wing from 51-100, the terms should be used equally. But if teh media was positioned at 30, then of course teh right wing will seem bigger and get mentioned far more often.



c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
he takes what I have heard is the European approach to the news: we're all biased; it's part of being human; accept that and move on to learning how to deal with it.

Yeah, that's a nice philosophy, then he goes 200 pages using selective quotes and poorly researched materials to prove his point, that being (I guess) that everybody's favorite punching bag (the media) makes mistakes, isn't perfect, and has bias.

Big news.

Here are some of their biggest biases: they want to be "first", because nobody will tune in if you're doing a 30 minute economic analysis and the airplane just crashed. You may have all the wrong information about the airplane, about how many people were killed, about what flight it was, but everybody will keep watching because of the "wow" factor. Nobody switches over to C-SPAN for the economic analysis and says "Well, I'll tune back in tomorrow when they have all the facts about the airplane crash straightened out."

They have a bias toward advertisers because that's who pays the bills. They give generally fawning coverage to corporate America, and it is only in the most egregious scandals that it goes the other way - and those are, almost without exception, first uncovered by prosecutors in the legal system or insiders, not reporters skulking in an alleyway or (heaven forbid) going over corporate accounting records. (I'll say that "Hollywood entertainment" often portrays Big Business as the bad guy, but I'm not sure that's "media".)

They have a bias towards sensational because that's why a lot of people tune in. "All Chandra Levy all the time" is wayyy better programming than trying to explain the pros and cons of remediation of the health care system.

They have a bias for "easy to cover", which is why you see the reporter standing up in front of the campaign headquarters and never mentioning a candidate's position but informing you gravely about the polls showing that he's "lost 3 points" since last week. The "horse race" is easy, explaining a candidate's position is hard. "Embedded journalists" is easy and exciting, explaining world reaction to our involvement in Iraq is hard - and expensive - and more boring than Rat Patrol jeeps flying through the desert, which is what "embeds" give you.

They have a bias for what they can cover, because it's difficult to get those cameras in the closet while the Mayor takes a bribe. But it makes a good quote in print when the guy says "The mayor took a bribe" because in the print medium that's all you have, but it isn't nearly as interesting on TV because it's just some talking head; they'd rather show a car crash with flashing lights and ambulances rushing about.

They have a bias for action, which means two people shouting at each other instead of having a rational discussion of political alternatives.

There are lots of biases, and yes, there are the biases of the reporters themselves. To some extent it is impossible to remove all of that - but that is because the bias is also in the receiver, so different people receive the exact same report in very different ways. And some will say "Yeah, that's how it is" while others will say "See? That's biased!"

In my experience reporters - young and old, male and female, and almost without exception attempt to give a straightforward recitation of the facts, and they often fail, because there are only so many things you can include in a 90 second report (or, frankly, a 20-minute magazine piece or a 2000 word newspaper article) and by leaving something out you remove context, you omit pertinent details, you unknowingly or unwittingly emphasize that which was trivial and you overlook something which was (often in hindsight) important.

It's also true that reporters are normal people; they're not brilliant scholars, and they often find as dumb a point of view on a particular issue as the people on this board do - all given the same facts. Is that "bias"? Or is it just "human nature?"

Yes, there's bias. It is not the simple-minded, intentional, personal axegrinding political viewpoint kind that Bernie Goldberg writes about. His was a money-grubbing, lowest-common-denominator boy-I'll-bet-I-can-sell-a-million kind of book.

It was a terrible disservice to its readers, who should have expected more, and expected truth - but didn't know better and got almost none.
 

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
No, Goofy, communism wasn't abandoned. Perestroika, ie. restructuring, was Mr. Gorbachev's last-ditch effort to modify, and thereby SAVE communism

Do you understand what "restructuring" is?

Perestroika

From modest beginnings at the Twenty-Seventh Party Congress in 1986, perestroika, Mikhail Gorbachev's program of economic, political, and social restructuring, became the unintended catalyst for dismantling what had taken nearly three-quarters of a century to erect: the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist totalitarian state.

The world watched in disbelief but with growing admiration as Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan, democratic governments overturned Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, Germany was reunited, the Warsaw Pact withered away, and the Cold War came to an abrupt end.

In the Soviet Union itself, however, reactions to the new policies were mixed. Reform policies rocked the foundation of entrenched traditional power bases in the party, economy, and society but did not replace them entirely. Newfound freedoms of assembly, speech, and religion, the right to strike, and multicandidate elections undermined not only the Soviet Union's authoritarian structures, but also the familiar sense of order and predictability. Long-suppressed, bitter inter-ethnic, economic, and social grievances led to clashes, strikes, and growing crime rates.

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/perest.html

Democratic governments, private ownership, private enterprise, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, the right to strike and all the rest. This was an attempt to "save" Communism? Perhaps you need a more complete dictionary; one which does more than say "Restructuring" without explaning what that entails.

Under the communist model of governance, ie. tightly controlled central planning and distribution by the state, shortages of all types of consumer goods were chronic and unending.

Yes, and that is what the "restructuring" was attempting to end. It wasn't about "political dogma", it was about "shortages", just as Chancellor said.

Well, I don't think the power of the people is really quite so evident. Mr. Putin, the current Russian leader, is, first and foremost, a creature of the state, a product of the Soviet KGB

Of course. However you have jumped ahead a decade, to a different regime at a different time with a different leader in a different political climate with a revolution going on in several of his provinces. What does this have to do with John Chancellor's statement in 1991 again?

Nonsense. When you are trying to prove a point, you pull what you require to support your argument.

Well it rather weakens your argument to selectively pull quotes out of context, omit the speaker's actual sentiment, and then accuse him of "bias" when only a couple of sentences earlier it was clear that no such "bias" existed.

However if you think this is the way to write a convincing book, join the crowd at the Ann Coulter stand.

Well, maybe Mr. Goldberg didn't, as you say, "check the transcripts," but he sure got the historical facts about communism about right.

Well, uh, no. He (and you, I guess) didn't know what or when Perestroika began, or what it attempted to do. That it failed is a side issue, particularly when you are accusing a network newsman of exhibiting "bias" because he said "it was about shortages" when it was indeed about "shortages", and particularly when only a few sentences earlier he had explained - in graphic language - the faults in that country's particular form of government which led up to the shortages.

How can you ignore such a blatant case of "bias" when he is shouting "Bias!" in order to sell his book? It's amazing, really.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
They have a bias towards sensational because that's why a lot of people tune in. "All Chandra Levy all the time" is wayyy better programming than trying to explain the pros and cons of remediation of the health care system.


I can always tell when it's a slow news day. Whenever something about Lacy Peterson makes the list of stories for Hannity and Colmes I know nothing really important happened in the world.

tutone
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I learned NEVER AGAIN try and mix left wing and right wing friends in one house on an island for a week!

...

it was the right wing politics of my friend that they hated. He lets it be known how he feels about everything.


See, that's the problem. Not that your friends weren't all voting on the same column on the ballot, but that one of them apparently couldn't play nicely with others, and probably kept throwing out barbed comments, and the others would take the bait.

Some of our best friends are very hardcore Republicans (he worked for the Reagan administration, she campaigned for Ollie North's Senate run) and yet we get along just fine because we stay away from treading on other people's sore spots. Sure, the occasional Bush joke or crack at the mess in California is appreciated, but we steer clear of really getting into it because 1) no one's going to change anyone's minds by arguing; and 2) we have too much respect for each other.

Sad that your friends didn't have enough respect for you and for each other to call a truce during a vacation.
Print the post Back To Top