Full Version: Does NPR have a liberal bias?
I had a heated debate with one of my best friends over the holidays about whether NPR has a "liberal" bias. He adamantly believes that NPR is completely unbias. I know this is not true . . . But how could I support my belief? Now, don't get me wrong, I love NPR-- but I also know it has a bias.
I stumbled on a great piece that breaks down the evidence of liberal bias:
http://www.nprsucks.com/opinion5.htm
The article is well worth the read as it points to a lot of additional evidence of the liberal bias.
So the question for debate is simple:
Do you think that NPR has a liberal bias or not -- and how do you support your answer?
I stumbled on a great piece that breaks down the evidence of liberal bias:
QUOTE
The bias against conservatives and Republicans is the most visible, though not necessarily the most fervently held one (the pro-Palestinian bias comes to mind here). Democratic politicians and former members of the Carter and Clinton administrations are frequent guests on the shows. Conservatives on NPR are as rare as a snow flake in the midst of summer. Since the bias against Republicans is so ubiquitous, it can be easily shown:
The issues that keep Washington politicians and pundits occupied are often initiated by interest groups and so-called "think tanks." It seems that for every liberal group there is a conservative counterpart. The most influential Democratic think tank is the Brookings Institution, while the premiere think tank on the Republican side is the Heritage Foundation. When you search Google News for the two names, you find an about equal number of citations for both, with a slight advantage for the Heritage Foundation (53%). Searching for the think tanks on NPR's web site, the Heritage Foundations seems to be almost non-existent (19%). Obviously, the folks at NPR don't like to talk to fellows with conservative ideas.
The issues that keep Washington politicians and pundits occupied are often initiated by interest groups and so-called "think tanks." It seems that for every liberal group there is a conservative counterpart. The most influential Democratic think tank is the Brookings Institution, while the premiere think tank on the Republican side is the Heritage Foundation. When you search Google News for the two names, you find an about equal number of citations for both, with a slight advantage for the Heritage Foundation (53%). Searching for the think tanks on NPR's web site, the Heritage Foundations seems to be almost non-existent (19%). Obviously, the folks at NPR don't like to talk to fellows with conservative ideas.
http://www.nprsucks.com/opinion5.htm
The article is well worth the read as it points to a lot of additional evidence of the liberal bias.
So the question for debate is simple:
Do you think that NPR has a liberal bias or not -- and how do you support your answer?
Do you think that NPR has a liberal bias or not -- and how do you support your answer?
Yes, I think that NPR has a liberal bias, and good for them. NPR is more liberal than I am, but I believe that it is important to have this bias in order to balance what is heard over the airwaves. I remember hearing about the cheer that went up at the television station behind the anchorperson when it was first announced that Bill Clinton had won the Presidential election, and how it was roundly criticized.
NPR, in many cases, allows for other voices to be heard that you will not hear on network news or even on CNN. That is why it is important. Hearing different points of view broadens perspective.
Yes, I think that NPR has a liberal bias, and good for them. NPR is more liberal than I am, but I believe that it is important to have this bias in order to balance what is heard over the airwaves. I remember hearing about the cheer that went up at the television station behind the anchorperson when it was first announced that Bill Clinton had won the Presidential election, and how it was roundly criticized.
NPR, in many cases, allows for other voices to be heard that you will not hear on network news or even on CNN. That is why it is important. Hearing different points of view broadens perspective.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jan 20 2005, 09:29 AM)
Do you think that NPR has a liberal bias or not -- and how do you support your answer?
Yes, I think that NPR has a liberal bias, and good for them. NPR is more liberal than I am, but I believe that it is important to have this bias in order to balance what is heard over the airwaves. I remember hearing about the cheer that went up at the television station behind the anchorperson when it was first announced that Bill Clinton had won the Presidential election, and how it was roundly criticized.
NPR, in many cases, allows for other voices to be heard that you will not hear on network news or even on CNN. That is why it is important. Hearing different points of view broadens perspective.
Yes, I think that NPR has a liberal bias, and good for them. NPR is more liberal than I am, but I believe that it is important to have this bias in order to balance what is heard over the airwaves. I remember hearing about the cheer that went up at the television station behind the anchorperson when it was first announced that Bill Clinton had won the Presidential election, and how it was roundly criticized.
NPR, in many cases, allows for other voices to be heard that you will not hear on network news or even on CNN. That is why it is important. Hearing different points of view broadens perspective.
I agree that hearing different points of view broadens people's perspectives. But if NPR has a liberal bias is it appropriate for them to be so heavily funded with taxpayer funds? Or should we have another tax payer funded network that gives the conservative perspective primarily? And of course there are many who would argue that most news outlets (besides Fox) already present the news from a liberal perspective. The New York and LA Times of course come to mind first.
It seems to me that capitalism, with all of the commercials that typify capitalism, is more than sufficient to keep other networks like FOX NEWS afloat; therefore public funding is unnecessary.
I hate commercials. I hate continual fundraising as well. NPR comes off as the red-headed stepchild of the broadcast organizations. Should NPR be publicly funded by the taxpayers? As least as much as an unpopular war should be.
I hate commercials. I hate continual fundraising as well. NPR comes off as the red-headed stepchild of the broadcast organizations. Should NPR be publicly funded by the taxpayers? As least as much as an unpopular war should be.
Do you think that NPR has a liberal bias or not -- and how do you support your answer?
Of course it has a liberal bias. Public Radio began with University sponsored radio stations as a way of training students to become engineers, broadcasters, etc. As Congress became aware of this bias, it required the stations to begin asking listeners to support the stations. Instead of advertising, listeners are asked during twice a year fundraisers to call in their support if they want to keep hearing All Things Considered or A Prairie Home Companion. Listeners are also asked to call in and suggest other things they would like to hear. I am old enough to recall when it was completely supported by taxpayer dollars, and I actually resent the two weeks a year of requests for listener support, but...
When I was a working man, all the radios in the shop were usually tuned to Country Music in the morning, and Limbaugh's Rush to Judgement Hour in the afternoon. Apparently, between Nielsen Ratings and sales of the products that they advertised, these programs have managed to stay on the air. I eventually learned to enjoy Country Music.
I have never heard anyone call into a public radio station and say "I'm not able to find enough Country Music on the radio." or "I wish that I could hear Rush Limbaugh without commercial interruption. How much would I have to pledge?" I have called in during All Things Considered and A Prairie Home Companion to pledge my support to keep those programs on the air. Public radio is generally described as "listener supported radio" and that is how I have supported it in the past, and likely will support NPR again in the future. I put my money where my mouth is.
I suspect that if Conservatives were asked to phone in telephone support to keep the Conservative viewpoint on the air, that groups like The Heritage Foundation and The Mackinac Foundation would provide the support; but we would more likely be hearing them ask to hear Karl Rove and George W. Bush than Rush Limbaugh. Be grateful for what we have, I think it reflects market demand.
Of course it has a liberal bias. Public Radio began with University sponsored radio stations as a way of training students to become engineers, broadcasters, etc. As Congress became aware of this bias, it required the stations to begin asking listeners to support the stations. Instead of advertising, listeners are asked during twice a year fundraisers to call in their support if they want to keep hearing All Things Considered or A Prairie Home Companion. Listeners are also asked to call in and suggest other things they would like to hear. I am old enough to recall when it was completely supported by taxpayer dollars, and I actually resent the two weeks a year of requests for listener support, but...
When I was a working man, all the radios in the shop were usually tuned to Country Music in the morning, and Limbaugh's Rush to Judgement Hour in the afternoon. Apparently, between Nielsen Ratings and sales of the products that they advertised, these programs have managed to stay on the air. I eventually learned to enjoy Country Music.
I have never heard anyone call into a public radio station and say "I'm not able to find enough Country Music on the radio." or "I wish that I could hear Rush Limbaugh without commercial interruption. How much would I have to pledge?" I have called in during All Things Considered and A Prairie Home Companion to pledge my support to keep those programs on the air. Public radio is generally described as "listener supported radio" and that is how I have supported it in the past, and likely will support NPR again in the future. I put my money where my mouth is.
I suspect that if Conservatives were asked to phone in telephone support to keep the Conservative viewpoint on the air, that groups like The Heritage Foundation and The Mackinac Foundation would provide the support; but we would more likely be hearing them ask to hear Karl Rove and George W. Bush than Rush Limbaugh. Be grateful for what we have, I think it reflects market demand.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Jan 20 2005, 08:39 AM)
Do you think that NPR has a liberal bias or not -- and how do you support your answer?
First, I would say that NPR does have a liberal bias and so what? I don't know of a media organzation, public or privately funded that doesn't have some kind of demonstrable bias at one time or another. I couldn't disagree more that NPR gives short-shrift to conservatives. Particularly during the election programs such as Talk of the Nation were chock full of conservative politicians, pollsters and pundits.
Second, while there are numerous conservative organizations that monitor NPR for signs of overt liberal bias, I don't know if a site titled "NPRSucks.com" isn't guilty of a bad case of overt bias itself. At the least, you'd have to question how impartial the site is.
The idea that NPR is mostly, heavily, or entirely funded by the government has been a myth for more than two decades, so let's get that off the table right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR
NPR may be biased, however, the article cited in the opening post is certainly more openly biased than NPR is and makes several leaps of logic which aren't at all backed up by any kind of concrete source, and is done in a very unscientific way.
The reason I like NPR, but hate something like Salon, is that NPR does extremely in-depth reporting. Something I like to call "real journalism." It might be a bit yellow, but when each NPR story is over you feel like you know a heck of a lot more about whatever they're talking about.
NPR's religous model of support (user donations) while a bit shaky at first, has been working incredibly well in the past 5 years. It does however annoy me to have to hear that All Things Considered was brought to me by McDonald's or Walmart. But that's a heck of a lot better than an advertisement.
QUOTE
NPR makes some of their funding information public (http://www.npr.org/about/place/corpsupport/financials.html). According to the NPR Ombudsman (http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/011228.html), currently NPR makes just over half of its money from the fees it charges member stations to receive programming. About 2% of NPR's funding comes from bidding to government grants and programs (chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting); the remainder comes from corporate underwriting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR
NPR may be biased, however, the article cited in the opening post is certainly more openly biased than NPR is and makes several leaps of logic which aren't at all backed up by any kind of concrete source, and is done in a very unscientific way.
The reason I like NPR, but hate something like Salon, is that NPR does extremely in-depth reporting. Something I like to call "real journalism." It might be a bit yellow, but when each NPR story is over you feel like you know a heck of a lot more about whatever they're talking about.
NPR's religous model of support (user donations) while a bit shaky at first, has been working incredibly well in the past 5 years. It does however annoy me to have to hear that All Things Considered was brought to me by McDonald's or Walmart. But that's a heck of a lot better than an advertisement.
Yes, NPR has a "liberal bias", but they do stick to the facts.
Compare to FOX and FOX News, and you will not only find a much harsher bias at FOX in the opposite direction, but a much more calculated attempt to pursuade, and even decieve and lie outright. Wath the movie "Outfoxed-Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism", and you will understand exactly how.
I personally believe that everyone in America needs to see that movie.
Compare to FOX and FOX News, and you will not only find a much harsher bias at FOX in the opposite direction, but a much more calculated attempt to pursuade, and even decieve and lie outright. Wath the movie "Outfoxed-Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism", and you will understand exactly how.
I personally believe that everyone in America needs to see that movie.
Nighttimer wrote:
Of course the site in the original link has a bias itself, its very name says that NPR sucks! But so what? The link provides some concrete evidence supporting the charge that NPR has a liberal bias. I posted it because I am not interested in hearing anecdotal evidence on one side or the other but rather concrete evidence that it has a liberal or conservative bias or that it is neutral.
Smorpheus wrote:
So what does that mean? That NPR gets only 2% of its overall funding from taxpayer funds? Does any other media outlet get that level of funding?
Smorpheus wrote:
Where are the leaps of logic in what is written in the piece? Does the author's own search of think tanks in google and the NPR site need to be backed up by a concrete source? What do you mean?
Antny wrote:
The facts? I think technically both sources stick to the "facts"-- it is just a matter of spin.
QUOTE
First, I would say that NPR does have a liberal bias and so what? I don't know of a media organzation, public or privately funded that doesn't have some kind of demonstrable bias at one time or another. I couldn't disagree more that NPR gives short-shrift to conservatives. Particularly during the election programs such as Talk of the Nation were chock full of conservative politicians, pollsters and pundits.
Second, while there are numerous conservative organizations that monitor NPR for signs of overt liberal bias, I don't know if a site titled "NPRSucks.com" isn't guilty of a bad case of overt bias itself. At the least, you'd have to question how impartial the site is.
Second, while there are numerous conservative organizations that monitor NPR for signs of overt liberal bias, I don't know if a site titled "NPRSucks.com" isn't guilty of a bad case of overt bias itself. At the least, you'd have to question how impartial the site is.
Of course the site in the original link has a bias itself, its very name says that NPR sucks! But so what? The link provides some concrete evidence supporting the charge that NPR has a liberal bias. I posted it because I am not interested in hearing anecdotal evidence on one side or the other but rather concrete evidence that it has a liberal or conservative bias or that it is neutral.
Smorpheus wrote:
QUOTE
The idea that NPR is mostly, heavily, or entirely funded by the government has been a myth for more than two decades, so let's get that off the table right now.
NPR makes some of their funding information public
(http://www.npr.org/about/place/corpsupport/financials.html). According to the NPR Ombudsman (http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/011228.html), currently NPR makes just over half of its money from the fees it charges member stations to receive programming. About 2% of NPR's funding comes from bidding to government grants and programs (chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting); the remainder comes from corporate underwriting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR
NPR makes some of their funding information public
(http://www.npr.org/about/place/corpsupport/financials.html). According to the NPR Ombudsman (http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/011228.html), currently NPR makes just over half of its money from the fees it charges member stations to receive programming. About 2% of NPR's funding comes from bidding to government grants and programs (chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting); the remainder comes from corporate underwriting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR
So what does that mean? That NPR gets only 2% of its overall funding from taxpayer funds? Does any other media outlet get that level of funding?
Smorpheus wrote:
QUOTE
NPR may be biased, however, the article cited in the opening post is certainly more openly biased than NPR is and makes several leaps of logic which aren't at all backed up by any kind of concrete source, and is done in a very unscientific way
.Where are the leaps of logic in what is written in the piece? Does the author's own search of think tanks in google and the NPR site need to be backed up by a concrete source? What do you mean?
Antny wrote:
QUOTE
Yes, NPR has a "liberal bias", but they do stick to the facts.
Compare to FOX and FOX News, and you will not only find a much harsher bias at FOX in the opposite direction, but a much more calculated attempt to pursuade, and even decieve and lie outright. Wath the movie "Outfoxed-Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism", and you will understand exactly how.
I personally believe that everyone in America needs to see that movie.
Compare to FOX and FOX News, and you will not only find a much harsher bias at FOX in the opposite direction, but a much more calculated attempt to pursuade, and even decieve and lie outright. Wath the movie "Outfoxed-Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism", and you will understand exactly how.
I personally believe that everyone in America needs to see that movie.
The facts? I think technically both sources stick to the "facts"-- it is just a matter of spin.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Jan 20 2005, 10:47 AM)
So what does that mean? That NPR gets only 2% of its overall funding from taxpayer funds? Does any other media outlet get that level of funding?
Every broadcast station on public airwaves is "funded" by the fact that they don't pay for the usage of those airwaves. FCC essentially gives away this asset. The FCC also regulates the content of those using the spectrum as well as enforces broadcasts do not overlap or interfere with each other. There are a number of spectrum auctions which are run by the FCC. It's hard to give a number of the value of broadcast TV spectrum (since it's essentially given away), however I do recall PCS spectrum being auctioned back in 1997 for ~$2.5 billion for a 10 year license. Anyway, the point being is that, while PBS does get some funds from tax payer money, they are not on the same scale as the actual worth of the spectrum that broadcast networks (including PBS) uses.
Now, I'm not advocating that this policy should change, I'm just trying to add balance into the equation. Businesses use public assets without paying for them all the time: ground transport services don't pay for road use; airlines don't pay for air traffic controllers or security workers; and so on. I suppose one could argue that it's a form of socialism.
Anyway, what does all this have to do with the debate question at hand: really, nothing. How PBS gets its funding is not salient to whether or not it has a liberal bias. Now, if the debate were about whether or not PBS should get funding...
So, does PBS has a liberal bias? I'd say what it doesn't have is a sensationalistic bias. It also doesn't have a commercial bias. It is less dependent on ratings so it tends to be a bit more even keeled in temperament. It's good to have a source of news like this in the US media landscape. Generally, shows like the Lehrer New Hour do a decent job presenting the differing political perspectives on a given issue. I don't think naming something as liberal/conservative to be particularly enlightening.
Do you think that NPR has a liberal bias or not -- and how do you support your answer?
Well first off I'd say that googling for the number of mentions for various think tanks on their website (which is my assumption of what they did) is incredibly flawed and innacurate. There are any number of factors why that would be a bogus way to characterize things, the least of which - is one of them actually more news worthy?
I don't listen to NPR terribly frequently, usually just on road trips, but I can say that based on my experience this is completely false:
Just to relate a personal anecdote in the way of proof - over the Christmas holidays I was visiting family and drove from Birmingham, AL to Savannah, GA to visit Mike & Jaime in a way that I could avoid Atlanta. Once I was a little way into Georgia my choices on the radio were country music (which I can't stand), the god channel(s), and NPR. I chose NPR for obvious reasons. For about half the time I heard news, and there was no bias at all that I could detect. I would compare it to the way the BBC reported news while I was in the UK - very intellectual and not editorial. For the other half of the time there was a program on where some woman advocating banning abortion was featured and she was talking about how misguided the rest of the country was and how Mississippi was doing things right. I have heard more balanced and moderate stuff coming out of O'Reilly.
Given that I would hardly say that conservatives are as rare as summer snow flakes, this woman had almost an hour of time to lay out her position and it doesn't get much more conservative than that.
Well first off I'd say that googling for the number of mentions for various think tanks on their website (which is my assumption of what they did) is incredibly flawed and innacurate. There are any number of factors why that would be a bogus way to characterize things, the least of which - is one of them actually more news worthy?
I don't listen to NPR terribly frequently, usually just on road trips, but I can say that based on my experience this is completely false:
QUOTE
Conservatives on NPR are as rare as a snow flake in the midst of summer. Since the bias against Republicans is so ubiquitous, it can be easily shown
Just to relate a personal anecdote in the way of proof - over the Christmas holidays I was visiting family and drove from Birmingham, AL to Savannah, GA to visit Mike & Jaime in a way that I could avoid Atlanta. Once I was a little way into Georgia my choices on the radio were country music (which I can't stand), the god channel(s), and NPR. I chose NPR for obvious reasons. For about half the time I heard news, and there was no bias at all that I could detect. I would compare it to the way the BBC reported news while I was in the UK - very intellectual and not editorial. For the other half of the time there was a program on where some woman advocating banning abortion was featured and she was talking about how misguided the rest of the country was and how Mississippi was doing things right. I have heard more balanced and moderate stuff coming out of O'Reilly.
Given that I would hardly say that conservatives are as rare as summer snow flakes, this woman had almost an hour of time to lay out her position and it doesn't get much more conservative than that.
Do you think that NPR has a liberal bias or not -- and how do you support your answer?
I listened to a lot of radio on my last trip to the USA - I clocked up about 3,000 miles in two weeks, so spent a lot of time driving. I couldn't find any music stations I liked in the North West (that's no insult, there's only one or two here at home that I like, and even then I mostly listen to speech radio) so I spent a lot of time listening to speech radio, including NPR.
First off, from my British perspective (where of course I'm spoiled rotten by the BBC - surely the finest broadcasting organisation anywhere in the world?) NPR seemed closest to the BBC, specifically Radio 4, and all the other stations seemed eye-wateringly right-wing. Most of the time I found myself shouting at the radio. I even rang in to one (Sean Hannity rings a bell but I couldn't honestly remember) and got on the air, but got treated less like a member of the public with a point to make (as the BBC has always treated me on their phone-ins when I've got through) and more like a useful stooge for the presenter to do an anti-European, anti-British rant; I think I remember him saying, after he'd cut me off so I couldn't come back, something along the lines of "how can we take seriously the views of someone who lives in a monarchy?". The subject was the impending Iraq war (this was early March 2003) so I'm not sure that was relevant.
I'm sure it made good radio - I was mug enough to phone in, after all - but it was the very definition of political bias.
So, by comparison, NPR definitely has a liberal bias. After all, it behaves as if all parts of the political spectrum have a right to access it's broadcasts and get a fair hearing on them, rather than denying them access altogether on some tortured free market argument ("if the liberals want a station they can set their own one up"), or simply using them as windmills for the hosts and listeners to tilt at in their self-frothed indignation.
I've said this before, but the very idea that a the media should at least strive for political balance, fair access, and promotion of minority arts is in itself a liberal idea.
Modern free-market conservatism says that if there was a demand for a commercial liberal talk station, or speech radio station that broadcasts plays or documentaries rather than a procession of political phone-ins round-the-clock, well - that must mean that nobody wants to listen to them. Er - no. It means that people don't want to listen to a play that is interrupted by advertising every five minutes, and/or that the available penetrable market is too thinly spread across the country to be commercially viable (which is closer to the truth, more likely).
Indeed, I'd go further and say that the very idea that there is or should be a public sphere is essentially a liberal idea. It isn't liberals who are proposing the marketisation of social security, pensions, or even state education or other state or public functions, after all.
I listened to a lot of radio on my last trip to the USA - I clocked up about 3,000 miles in two weeks, so spent a lot of time driving. I couldn't find any music stations I liked in the North West (that's no insult, there's only one or two here at home that I like, and even then I mostly listen to speech radio) so I spent a lot of time listening to speech radio, including NPR.
First off, from my British perspective (where of course I'm spoiled rotten by the BBC - surely the finest broadcasting organisation anywhere in the world?) NPR seemed closest to the BBC, specifically Radio 4, and all the other stations seemed eye-wateringly right-wing. Most of the time I found myself shouting at the radio. I even rang in to one (Sean Hannity rings a bell but I couldn't honestly remember) and got on the air, but got treated less like a member of the public with a point to make (as the BBC has always treated me on their phone-ins when I've got through) and more like a useful stooge for the presenter to do an anti-European, anti-British rant; I think I remember him saying, after he'd cut me off so I couldn't come back, something along the lines of "how can we take seriously the views of someone who lives in a monarchy?". The subject was the impending Iraq war (this was early March 2003) so I'm not sure that was relevant.
I'm sure it made good radio - I was mug enough to phone in, after all - but it was the very definition of political bias.
So, by comparison, NPR definitely has a liberal bias. After all, it behaves as if all parts of the political spectrum have a right to access it's broadcasts and get a fair hearing on them, rather than denying them access altogether on some tortured free market argument ("if the liberals want a station they can set their own one up"), or simply using them as windmills for the hosts and listeners to tilt at in their self-frothed indignation.
I've said this before, but the very idea that a the media should at least strive for political balance, fair access, and promotion of minority arts is in itself a liberal idea.
Modern free-market conservatism says that if there was a demand for a commercial liberal talk station, or speech radio station that broadcasts plays or documentaries rather than a procession of political phone-ins round-the-clock, well - that must mean that nobody wants to listen to them. Er - no. It means that people don't want to listen to a play that is interrupted by advertising every five minutes, and/or that the available penetrable market is too thinly spread across the country to be commercially viable (which is closer to the truth, more likely).
Indeed, I'd go further and say that the very idea that there is or should be a public sphere is essentially a liberal idea. It isn't liberals who are proposing the marketisation of social security, pensions, or even state education or other state or public functions, after all.
Do you think that NPR has a liberal bias or not -- and how do you support your answer?
Me personally? Not much bias if you're talking about programming that covers straight news. There are of course entertainment programs like APHC where jokes are made about politicians and politics, so yeah, the hosts display their own biases. However, and I have listened carefully to the presentation of news, the only bias that shows is the lack of bias.
I know arguments are built on what selections are made to cover and the order of coverage, time alloted and so forth. Eh, can't get around that sort of bias in any news outlet. But what is biased about a statement of fact without modifiers, or using standard English instead of talking head spin?
For example, is it biased to call an invasion of another country an invasion of another country? Or is it biased to call it the liberation of another country? I say the latter is much more biased than the former.
What about something like Fresh Air? O'Reilly was on that one and stormed out, claiming that Gross should seek some other profession (to put it in mild terms). Same thing happened with the Tongue Man from KISS. I see a lot of bias out there toward NPR, downright hatred of such an animal.
I won't comment on the tax tangent. It's not part of the question and should be a separate debate; however, I will say that tax support for private enterprise is nothing new to this country either and represents a much larger sum of money.
Me personally? Not much bias if you're talking about programming that covers straight news. There are of course entertainment programs like APHC where jokes are made about politicians and politics, so yeah, the hosts display their own biases. However, and I have listened carefully to the presentation of news, the only bias that shows is the lack of bias.
I know arguments are built on what selections are made to cover and the order of coverage, time alloted and so forth. Eh, can't get around that sort of bias in any news outlet. But what is biased about a statement of fact without modifiers, or using standard English instead of talking head spin?
For example, is it biased to call an invasion of another country an invasion of another country? Or is it biased to call it the liberation of another country? I say the latter is much more biased than the former.
What about something like Fresh Air? O'Reilly was on that one and stormed out, claiming that Gross should seek some other profession (to put it in mild terms). Same thing happened with the Tongue Man from KISS. I see a lot of bias out there toward NPR, downright hatred of such an animal.
I won't comment on the tax tangent. It's not part of the question and should be a separate debate; however, I will say that tax support for private enterprise is nothing new to this country either and represents a much larger sum of money.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Jan 20 2005, 10:47 AM)
So what does that mean? That NPR gets only 2% of its overall funding from taxpayer funds? Does any other media outlet get that level of funding?
You said previously that NPR is "heavily funded with taxpayer funds." I was refuting that point. Additionally, the graph cited on NPR Sucks is from 2000, why do you think he didn't use a more current graph? Maybe because the most current breakdown as I cited does not correlate with his argument?
How about this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6307293/
Bush gave 136 BILLION to corporations in Tax Breaks last year. These are corporations outsourcing jobs to India. And you're complaining about grants going towards NPR? How biased are these companies towards making a profit? What responsibility do you think they feel towards making "unbiased" decisions?
The argument that NPR has some sort of responsibility to do anything but continue providing their product because they receive a grant from the government is fallacious.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Jan 20 2005, 10:47 AM)
Where are the leaps of logic in what is written in the piece? Does the author's own search of think tanks in google and the NPR site need to be backed up by a concrete source? What do you mean?
Here's a direct example of how this argument stretches the truth and ignores the reality of NPR (if you are truly a listener, you should have some idea that this is a distortion)
QUOTE
The progressive agenda is evident from the choice of topics (the flavor of the day is gay and lesbian lifestyle, but this may change at any minute) and the kind of people interviewed for a story. Often, the "experts" hail from the same activist groups who are pressing the issue. The choice of commentators is likewise revealing. One famous example is the hiring of Mumia Abu-Jamal, cop killer and death row inmate, as analyst for All Things Considered. Books picked for sympathetic book reviews are almost exclusively penned by writers from the left fringe of their profession; attacking Israel or slandering Bush is a sure ticket to get on Fresh Air.
OK, so they use Mumia who worked for NPR and is a national figure for the anti-death penalty movement to be an "analyst" on All Things Considered. That means he is an Editorial figure who provides his opinion. How does this prove anything? If Mumia suddenly appeared on Fox News, does that make them obviously left?
All of the statements made in this paragraph are over-generalizations which the guy doesn't back-up with any evidence. "Attacking Israel or slandering Bush is a sure ticket to get on Fresh Air." Poppycock, Fresh Air covers anything and everything, let's take a look at this today's program shall we?
QUOTE
# Religion: Richard Land: Religion and Ethics
Richard Land is president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He and President Bush share the same evangelical faith.
# Politics & Society: Rev. Wallis: Sojourners and Politics
Rev. Jim Wallis is the founder of the organization Sojourners, a Christian group advocating a style of peace and justice. Wallis is editor in chief of Sojourners magazine. His new book is God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It.
http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13
Holy cow! Religous leaders! NPR must be a religous-slanted organization. And with that I've provided more evidence for my argument than the cited article does all-together.
OK, and comparing search engine hits? He in no way explains his methodology, how exactly is he determining these percentage values? This is completely unscientific, as Google and NPR's site use completely different searching/archiving technology. Additionally, all of the stories reported on NPR are in the form of a radio program. It's ridiculous to try to compare radio coverage to print coverage and not expect aborhations (even if the abhorations do coincidentally coincide with your augment!) Additionally the prevalence of either think tank's mention and signficance in the story has a drastic effect on the results.
At best this evidence is anecdotal.
Do you think that NPR has a liberal bias or not -- and how do you support your answer?
No more so than FNC has a conservative bias, which to me means not much, yet both media outlets are the well worn target of their opposition, mostly with little or no fact included. By the way, I watched Outfoxed..........interesting angle, but let's not forget the film makers had an agenda, they're not exactly spouting gospel.
I listen to NPR on occasion, and while I don't mind terribly that they get some taxpayer money, I have to giggle when I picture liberals heads exploding if FNC received the same.
I think Mumia is an awful example of comparing NPR to FNC. Aside from NPR, and Democracy Now on Pacifica, I've yet to see any media outlet that could be considered semi-mainstream, feature a convicted cop killer.
Well, Air America is having it's day in the court of public opinion. And while it's gaining in some markets, its losing in others. So for now it's a toss up. But I do fervently hope it succeeds, for if it does it will take the wind out of the sails of liberals who opine for the return of the Fairness Doctrine, which is what Julian seems to wish for when he says:
I'm not sure if demanding 'equal time' to all sides, (which in fairness and this Libertarian's opinion, there are more than two)..........to the financial detriment of some media outlets is indeed fair at all.
Not only is this irrelevant to the question for debate, it's interesting to note that the only person in the article who mentions anything about jobs going overseas, is a Kerry aide.
Hardly convincing for the over-generalization of 'These are corporations outsourcing jobs to India.'. Please..............
No more so than FNC has a conservative bias, which to me means not much, yet both media outlets are the well worn target of their opposition, mostly with little or no fact included. By the way, I watched Outfoxed..........interesting angle, but let's not forget the film makers had an agenda, they're not exactly spouting gospel.
I listen to NPR on occasion, and while I don't mind terribly that they get some taxpayer money, I have to giggle when I picture liberals heads exploding if FNC received the same.
I think Mumia is an awful example of comparing NPR to FNC. Aside from NPR, and Democracy Now on Pacifica, I've yet to see any media outlet that could be considered semi-mainstream, feature a convicted cop killer.
QUOTE
Modern free-market conservatism says that if there was a demand for a commercial liberal talk station, or speech radio station that broadcasts plays or documentaries rather than a procession of political phone-ins round-the-clock, well - that must mean that nobody wants to listen to them. Er - no. It means that people don't want to listen to a play that is interrupted by advertising every five minutes, and/or that the available penetrable market is too thinly spread across the country to be commercially viable (which is closer to the truth, more likely).
Well, Air America is having it's day in the court of public opinion. And while it's gaining in some markets, its losing in others. So for now it's a toss up. But I do fervently hope it succeeds, for if it does it will take the wind out of the sails of liberals who opine for the return of the Fairness Doctrine, which is what Julian seems to wish for when he says:
QUOTE
I've said this before, but the very idea that a the media should at least strive for political balance, fair access, and promotion of minority arts is in itself a liberal idea.
I'm not sure if demanding 'equal time' to all sides, (which in fairness and this Libertarian's opinion, there are more than two)..........to the financial detriment of some media outlets is indeed fair at all.
QUOTE
Bush gave 136 BILLION to corporations in Tax Breaks last year. These are corporations outsourcing jobs to India. And you're complaining about grants going towards NPR? How biased are these companies towards making a profit? What responsibility do you think they feel towards making "unbiased" decisions?
Not only is this irrelevant to the question for debate, it's interesting to note that the only person in the article who mentions anything about jobs going overseas, is a Kerry aide.
Hardly convincing for the over-generalization of 'These are corporations outsourcing jobs to India.'. Please..............
Smorpheus wrote:
The question for debate doesn't directly raise the issue of NPR funding. But they are getting taxpayer funds. The relevant question is whether this is appropriate if they do indeed have a liberal bias. And regardless of whether the funding is actually "heavy"-- the issue is whether other media news sources receive the same kind of funding in comparison.
Smorpheus wrote:
Who cares whether Bush supported tax breaks to corporations. No relationship to this issue. The question here is whether NPR has a liberal bias. And if it does, should it have government funding. Somebody said something implying that I didn't really listen to NPR. As you say, poppycock. I said I did -- and I do. I love NPR and I contribute to it. Could it survive without taxpayer funding? I am curious. It probably could, although liberal biased media doesn't seem to fare too well on the radio.
Smorpheus wrote:
No, your evidence is anecdotal. Pointing to a few topics discussed on NPR doesn't show much. The attempt by the author of the article to at least garner some kind of evidence for his assertion in a broad way means more. I though it was pretty interesting that NPR appears to prefer the Brookings Institute over the Heritage Foundation in a significant way. I think the author is on the right track and a fuller study should be done.
Dorntreadonme wrote:
I completely agree.
QUOTE
(my question) So what does that mean? That NPR gets only 2% of its overall funding from taxpayer funds? Does any other media outlet get that level of funding?
You said previously that NPR is "heavily funded with taxpayer funds." I was refuting that point. Additionally, the graph cited on NPR Sucks is from 2000, why do you think he didn't use a more current graph? Maybe because the most current breakdown as I cited does not correlate with his argument?
You said previously that NPR is "heavily funded with taxpayer funds." I was refuting that point. Additionally, the graph cited on NPR Sucks is from 2000, why do you think he didn't use a more current graph? Maybe because the most current breakdown as I cited does not correlate with his argument?
The question for debate doesn't directly raise the issue of NPR funding. But they are getting taxpayer funds. The relevant question is whether this is appropriate if they do indeed have a liberal bias. And regardless of whether the funding is actually "heavy"-- the issue is whether other media news sources receive the same kind of funding in comparison.
Smorpheus wrote:
QUOTE
How about this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6307293/
Bush gave 136 BILLION to corporations in Tax Breaks last year. These are corporations outsourcing jobs to India. And you're complaining about grants going towards NPR? How biased are these companies towards making a profit? What responsibility do you think they feel towards making "unbiased" decisions?
The argument that NPR has some sort of responsibility to do anything but continue providing their product because they receive a grant from the government is fallacious.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6307293/
Bush gave 136 BILLION to corporations in Tax Breaks last year. These are corporations outsourcing jobs to India. And you're complaining about grants going towards NPR? How biased are these companies towards making a profit? What responsibility do you think they feel towards making "unbiased" decisions?
The argument that NPR has some sort of responsibility to do anything but continue providing their product because they receive a grant from the government is fallacious.
Who cares whether Bush supported tax breaks to corporations. No relationship to this issue. The question here is whether NPR has a liberal bias. And if it does, should it have government funding. Somebody said something implying that I didn't really listen to NPR. As you say, poppycock. I said I did -- and I do. I love NPR and I contribute to it. Could it survive without taxpayer funding? I am curious. It probably could, although liberal biased media doesn't seem to fare too well on the radio.
Smorpheus wrote:
QUOTE
Holy cow! Religous leaders! NPR must be a religous-slanted organization. And with that I've provided more evidence for my argument than the cited article does all-together.
OK, and comparing search engine hits? He in no way explains his methodology, how exactly is he determining these percentage values? This is completely unscientific, as Google and NPR's site use completely different searching/archiving technology. Additionally, all of the stories reported on NPR are in the form of a radio program. It's ridiculous to try to compare radio coverage to print coverage and not expect aborhations (even if the abhorations do coincidentally coincide with your augment!) Additionally the prevalence of either think tank's mention and signficance in the story has a drastic effect on the results.
At best this evidence is anecdotal.
OK, and comparing search engine hits? He in no way explains his methodology, how exactly is he determining these percentage values? This is completely unscientific, as Google and NPR's site use completely different searching/archiving technology. Additionally, all of the stories reported on NPR are in the form of a radio program. It's ridiculous to try to compare radio coverage to print coverage and not expect aborhations (even if the abhorations do coincidentally coincide with your augment!) Additionally the prevalence of either think tank's mention and signficance in the story has a drastic effect on the results.
At best this evidence is anecdotal.
No, your evidence is anecdotal. Pointing to a few topics discussed on NPR doesn't show much. The attempt by the author of the article to at least garner some kind of evidence for his assertion in a broad way means more. I though it was pretty interesting that NPR appears to prefer the Brookings Institute over the Heritage Foundation in a significant way. I think the author is on the right track and a fuller study should be done.
Dorntreadonme wrote:
QUOTE
I'm not sure if demanding 'equal time' to all sides, (which in fairness and this Libertarian's opinion, there are more than two)..........to the financial detriment of some media outlets is indeed fair at all.
I completely agree.
No, NPR does not have a liberal bias.
From FAIR's study of NPR:
It should also be pointed out that the Brookings Institute is a centrist thinktank, an establishment thinktank; setting it up as a "counterpoint" to the Heritage Foundation is quite erroneous.
Also, note that this study was consucted in 1993, so the predominance of Republican sources cannot be explained by a Republican-dominated government.
FAIR study article
More (from FAIR):
In my signature, there is a very important quote from Noam Chomsky. In both Manufacturing Consent and in Propaganda and the Public Mind, he lays out a strong case for a contrived range of public opinion, where NYT represents the limit of the acceptable liberal side of the public debate (which of course is silly). David Brock raises a similar point in his book The Republican Noise Machine.
From FAIR's study of NPR:
QUOTE
Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR, and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003 study.
Partisans from outside the two major parties were almost nowhere to be seen, with the exception of four Libertarian Party representatives who appeared in a single story (Morning Edition, 6/26/03).
Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge, individual Republicans were NPR’s most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance. George Bush led all sources for the month with 36 appearances, followed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (8) and Sen. Pat Roberts (6). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Secretary of State Colin Powell, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and Iraq proconsul Paul Bremer all tied with five appearances each.
Senators Edward Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller and Max Baucus were the most frequently heard Democrats, each appearing four times. No nongovernmental source appeared more than three times. With the exception of Secretary of State Powell, all of the top 10 most frequently appearing sources were white male government officials.
Partisans from outside the two major parties were almost nowhere to be seen, with the exception of four Libertarian Party representatives who appeared in a single story (Morning Edition, 6/26/03).
Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge, individual Republicans were NPR’s most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance. George Bush led all sources for the month with 36 appearances, followed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (8) and Sen. Pat Roberts (6). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Secretary of State Colin Powell, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and Iraq proconsul Paul Bremer all tied with five appearances each.
Senators Edward Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller and Max Baucus were the most frequently heard Democrats, each appearing four times. No nongovernmental source appeared more than three times. With the exception of Secretary of State Powell, all of the top 10 most frequently appearing sources were white male government officials.
It should also be pointed out that the Brookings Institute is a centrist thinktank, an establishment thinktank; setting it up as a "counterpoint" to the Heritage Foundation is quite erroneous.
Also, note that this study was consucted in 1993, so the predominance of Republican sources cannot be explained by a Republican-dominated government.
FAIR study article
More (from FAIR):
QUOTE
FAIR's study recorded every on-air source quoted in June 2003 on four National Public Radio news shows: All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Weekend Edition Saturday and Weekend Edition Sunday. ... Altogether, the study counted 2,334 quoted sources, featured in 804 stories."
The findings on news coverage debunk the persistent claims that NPR is a liberal network. "Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR, and FAIR's latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources -- including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants -- Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent)."
The new results are in line with a previous FAIR study, released in 1993. Back then, the Republican tilt in sourcing was also pronounced: "A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress."
The findings on news coverage debunk the persistent claims that NPR is a liberal network. "Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR, and FAIR's latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources -- including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants -- Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent)."
The new results are in line with a previous FAIR study, released in 1993. Back then, the Republican tilt in sourcing was also pronounced: "A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress."
In my signature, there is a very important quote from Noam Chomsky. In both Manufacturing Consent and in Propaganda and the Public Mind, he lays out a strong case for a contrived range of public opinion, where NYT represents the limit of the acceptable liberal side of the public debate (which of course is silly). David Brock raises a similar point in his book The Republican Noise Machine.
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Jan 20 2005, 07:58 PM)
No, NPR does not have a liberal bias.
From FAIR's study of NPR:
It should also be pointed out that the Brookings Institute is a centrist thinktank, an establishment thinktank; setting it up as a "counterpoint" to the Heritage Foundation is quite erroneous.
Also, note that this study was consucted in 1993, so the predominance of Republican sources cannot be explained by a Republican-dominated government.
FAIR study article
More (from FAIR):
In my signature, there is a very important quote from Noam Chomsky. In both Manufacturing Consent and in Propaganda and the Public Mind, he lays out a strong case for a contrived range of public opinion, where NYT represents the limit of the acceptable liberal side of the public debate (which of course is silly). David Brock raises a similar point in his book The Republican Noise Machine.
From FAIR's study of NPR:
QUOTE
Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR, and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003 study.
Partisans from outside the two major parties were almost nowhere to be seen, with the exception of four Libertarian Party representatives who appeared in a single story (Morning Edition, 6/26/03).
Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge, individual Republicans were NPR’s most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance. George Bush led all sources for the month with 36 appearances, followed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (8) and Sen. Pat Roberts (6). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Secretary of State Colin Powell, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and Iraq proconsul Paul Bremer all tied with five appearances each.
Senators Edward Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller and Max Baucus were the most frequently heard Democrats, each appearing four times. No nongovernmental source appeared more than three times. With the exception of Secretary of State Powell, all of the top 10 most frequently appearing sources were white male government officials.
Partisans from outside the two major parties were almost nowhere to be seen, with the exception of four Libertarian Party representatives who appeared in a single story (Morning Edition, 6/26/03).
Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge, individual Republicans were NPR’s most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance. George Bush led all sources for the month with 36 appearances, followed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (8) and Sen. Pat Roberts (6). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Secretary of State Colin Powell, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and Iraq proconsul Paul Bremer all tied with five appearances each.
Senators Edward Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller and Max Baucus were the most frequently heard Democrats, each appearing four times. No nongovernmental source appeared more than three times. With the exception of Secretary of State Powell, all of the top 10 most frequently appearing sources were white male government officials.
It should also be pointed out that the Brookings Institute is a centrist thinktank, an establishment thinktank; setting it up as a "counterpoint" to the Heritage Foundation is quite erroneous.
Also, note that this study was consucted in 1993, so the predominance of Republican sources cannot be explained by a Republican-dominated government.
FAIR study article
More (from FAIR):
QUOTE
FAIR's study recorded every on-air source quoted in June 2003 on four National Public Radio news shows: All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Weekend Edition Saturday and Weekend Edition Sunday. ... Altogether, the study counted 2,334 quoted sources, featured in 804 stories."
The findings on news coverage debunk the persistent claims that NPR is a liberal network. "Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR, and FAIR's latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources -- including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants -- Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent)."
The new results are in line with a previous FAIR study, released in 1993. Back then, the Republican tilt in sourcing was also pronounced: "A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress."
The findings on news coverage debunk the persistent claims that NPR is a liberal network. "Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR, and FAIR's latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources -- including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants -- Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent)."
The new results are in line with a previous FAIR study, released in 1993. Back then, the Republican tilt in sourcing was also pronounced: "A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress."
In my signature, there is a very important quote from Noam Chomsky. In both Manufacturing Consent and in Propaganda and the Public Mind, he lays out a strong case for a contrived range of public opinion, where NYT represents the limit of the acceptable liberal side of the public debate (which of course is silly). David Brock raises a similar point in his book The Republican Noise Machine.
Quark-- The FAIR study mischaracterizes the Brookings institute as centrist. A quote from the piece cited in the original link:
QUOTE
It is worthwhile to note that FAIR used a method similar to the one that I was employing, only that it redefines what is left and right. The Brookings institution, for example, is considered to be centrist think tank which, if true, would make my analysis totally meaningless.
NPR's ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin, at least, seems to agree with my assessment of the Brookings institution. In a response to the FAIR study he wrote:
FAIR refers to The Brookings Institution as a "centrist" think tank. This is, in my opinion, a trickily subjective adjective. Many would consider Brookings to be a solidly liberal organization whose scholars and pundits are frequently heard on NPR.
NPR's ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin, at least, seems to agree with my assessment of the Brookings institution. In a response to the FAIR study he wrote:
FAIR refers to The Brookings Institution as a "centrist" think tank. This is, in my opinion, a trickily subjective adjective. Many would consider Brookings to be a solidly liberal organization whose scholars and pundits are frequently heard on NPR.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Jan 20 2005, 01:47 PM)
Of course the site in the original link has a bias itself, its very name says that NPR sucks! But so what?
So this. NPRSucks.com is a blog. Not a news outlet. Not a think tank. Not a formal organization that performs media criticism. It is a blog and as such it offers opinion stated as if it is fact. The blogger of this site, a Roger Rick, obviously has a serious bug up his nether regions about NPR. From reading the site it's apparent Mr. Rick has little usage for NPR, but I guess he's staked out his bit of turf by making the radio network the focus of his scorn and invective.
It's fine with me Haleyanne if you want to take as gospel the opinion of a partisan blogger who offers only one side of the story, has no apparent expertise in either journalism or media criticism and proudly flaunts his own right-wing bias. Personally, I don't take the overtly skewed views of a partisan blogger and his NPR-bashing site as particularly credible, but different strokes for different folks and all that.
QUOTE
The link provides some concrete evidence supporting the charge that NPR has a liberal bias. I posted it because I am not interested in hearing anecdotal evidence on one side or the other but rather concrete evidence that it has a liberal or conservative bias or that it is neutral.
Here's an example of Rick's "concrete evidence." Free Blacks in the US were allowed to own slaves. In fact, the average black slave owner had more slaves than its white counterpart. Obviously, for NPR slavery is particularly evil if Whites are the masters. Perhaps, this is why NPR prefers to talk about past slavery in the U.S. rather than current slavery as it is practiced in sub-Saharan Africa.
Where is the evidence to back this claim? Where is the hard fact that this flimsy opinion desperately needs to lean upon to prop it up? Where is the bona-fide "bias" on the behalf of NPR that Rick writes at length about?
Referencing as a authoritative source a website dripping in partisan bias to expose NPR's own partisan bias is like expecting the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to endorse John Kerry in 2008. Mr. Rick offers up fruit from a poisoned tree of right-wing vitriol, Haleyanne and I find it far more anecdotal than authoritative.
Perhaps you could offer your own examples of "liberal bias" by NPR and not the suspect examples provided by Roger Rick?
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Jan 20 2005, 05:59 PM)
Quark-- The FAIR study mischaracterizes the Brookings institute as centrist. A quote from the piece cited in the original link:
QUOTE
It is worthwhile to note that FAIR used a method similar to the one that I was employing, only that it redefines what is left and right. The Brookings institution, for example, is considered to be centrist think tank which, if true, would make my analysis totally meaningless.
NPR's ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin, at least, seems to agree with my assessment of the Brookings institution. In a response to the FAIR study he wrote:
FAIR refers to The Brookings Institution as a "centrist" think tank. This is, in my opinion, a trickily subjective adjective. Many would consider Brookings to be a solidly liberal organization whose scholars and pundits are frequently heard on NPR.
NPR's ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin, at least, seems to agree with my assessment of the Brookings institution. In a response to the FAIR study he wrote:
FAIR refers to The Brookings Institution as a "centrist" think tank. This is, in my opinion, a trickily subjective adjective. Many would consider Brookings to be a solidly liberal organization whose scholars and pundits are frequently heard on NPR.
Sorry to take this seemingly lightly, but frankly the idea that the Brookings Institution is "solidly liberal" as opposed to centrist is absolutely silly. This blogger says it is liberal. Good for him. He offers no evidence of this. A quantitative look at the Brookings Institution would easily refute his assertion. He claims that "many" people think it is liberal. So you repeat it as gospel. Without a shred of evidence. If you look through the Brookings Institution site, you will find a centrist outlook prevails. On the issue of Missile Defense, for example, they include articles both for and against it.
Surely they are to the left of the Heritage Foundation, but that doesn't mean they are liberal.
If you want to give this guy's article some creditability, show us how the Brookings Institution is firmly liberal. This guy's flimsy blog article is very typical of right-wing propaganda - it says the world is a certain way, so gosh, it must be so! Brock in The Republican Noise Machine details how this happens. When enough of the pundits, and enough of the media, repeat something enough times, people start to assume it is true, and don't question it. This is the originial meaning of the word "factoid," actually. Again, I refer all to the Chomsky quote in my signature. Nowhere is this more apt than when we are talking about the mainstream media, of which NPR is absolutely a part.
QUOTE(Julian)
So, by comparison, NPR definitely has a liberal bias. After all, it behaves as if all parts of the political spectrum have a right to access it's broadcasts and get a fair hearing on them, rather than denying them access altogether on some tortured free market argument ("if the liberals want a station they can set their own one up"), or simply using them as windmills for the hosts and listeners to tilt at in their self-frothed indignation.
So many posters talk about liberal radio as though it were a bad thing! It's good!
Dang, we're not talking about Communism or Socialism here. We're talking about a network where opinions are expressed that cannot be expressed anywhere else on U.S. stations. We're talking about in-depth coverage of people who don't live stereotypically conservative lives, about people who live under regimes the U.S. recognizes but are repressive.
The only reason we tend to consider NPR liberal is because of its coverage of people and issues that often put conservatives and their talking points in a bad light. So be it. (Edit: The more conservative networks and stations just edit out the news that doesn't fit comfortably into their ideology.)
From what Julian was saying, it sounds like compared to Britain's stations, NPR would be considered moderate, and it's only because so many other stations are so conservative that NPR comes off as sounding liberal.
As a liberal person, I've found NPR to be frustratingly NOT liberal. I found myself yelling at the radio many times in the lead up to the Iraq war as they touted a similar line to the mainstream corporate media -- they were only slightly to the left of those sources, but still far from liberal.
I kept hearing, even from liberals, that NPR was liberal -- but that just went against everything I felt listening to NPR. Then I saw the study from FAIR that quark mentions and it all fell into place -- the study reflected my experience of NPR.
This is part of the right spin spiral, which is actually very effective. This is how the strategy works:
Claim the media is liberal loudly and often. Do this until it is accepted as the truth, even by many of your opponenents.
As the media tries to distance themselves from this false liberal label, keep hollering about the liberal press whenever the media doesn't toe the ultra right line. The media will continue to buckle and will continue to move to the right to avoid this label.
On a good day NPR is balanced, on a bad day it leans slightly to the right. For true liberal radio, I've only found Democracy Now! to fit the description. The only other way I get "liberal" news is to visit progressive news sites on the web, such as AlterNet, Common Dreams, or The Progressive.
I kept hearing, even from liberals, that NPR was liberal -- but that just went against everything I felt listening to NPR. Then I saw the study from FAIR that quark mentions and it all fell into place -- the study reflected my experience of NPR.
This is part of the right spin spiral, which is actually very effective. This is how the strategy works:
Claim the media is liberal loudly and often. Do this until it is accepted as the truth, even by many of your opponenents.
As the media tries to distance themselves from this false liberal label, keep hollering about the liberal press whenever the media doesn't toe the ultra right line. The media will continue to buckle and will continue to move to the right to avoid this label.
On a good day NPR is balanced, on a bad day it leans slightly to the right. For true liberal radio, I've only found Democracy Now! to fit the description. The only other way I get "liberal" news is to visit progressive news sites on the web, such as AlterNet, Common Dreams, or The Progressive.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jan 21 2005, 06:00 AM)
So many posters talk about liberal radio as though it were a bad thing! It's good!
Absolutely right - that's exactly what I was getting at. "Liberal" broadcasting is the only type of radio that thinks both sides should get a fair (but not necessarily an uncritical) hearing.
QUOTE
From what Julian was saying, it sounds like compared to Britain's stations, NPR would be considered moderate, and it's only because so many other stations are so conservative that NPR comes off as sounding liberal.
Exactly - in fact, compared to the BBC's News & current affairs output, especially the Today programme on the radio (which I believe you can listen to on the net at the BBC site here) and Newsnight on TV, the interviews on NPR are rather subdued and respectful
If you've got RealPlayer, pick any John Humprheys interview with a serving cabinet minister. The government is (supposedly) Labour, i.e. leftwing i.e. liberal, yet they get given a seriously hard time most of the time. If the BBC has such a liberal bias as it's critics, here and abroad, suggest, why would they give a supposedly "liberal" government such a hard time?. (Well, for one thing, they aren't very liberal by anyone's standards) For British readers & posters, why is it that the only broadcaster in the UK that gives regular airtime to Jeremy Clarkson, Andrew Neill, Michael Portillo and Clarissa Dickson-Wright is the BBC, if their so left-wing? (Answer - only such left-wingers believe that opposition views deserve to be heard even when we diagree with them, but that's a whole other thread for a whole other board.)
There is a tradition in British public broadcasting of holding elected politicians to account - perhaps in part because recent political oppositions have been so weak at doing so.
I would pay cash money to see ANY leading US politician face a serious British interviewer like John Humphrys or Jeremy Paxman.
Even our sofa-bound pussycat-TV-star-and-menopause-housewife/student TV magazine show, Richard & Judy, managed to make Bill Clinton look more terrified than I've ever seen him in any election-campaign open forum or interview, and he coped with such frank and chellenging (for which read hostile, by US standards) quite well. George Bush would be either a nervous wreck or go apoplectic, or both - he can barely conceal his boredom and contempt when he has to shut up and listen in the cosseted, audience-selected "open forum" debates, let alone when someone in a parka shouts at him during an inaugural speech.
US politicians may be tough when it comes to fundraising or driving though their agenda, but it's easy to be tough when all dissent is managed away by men in suits (some of whom have bulges under one arm, but most of whom have clipboards there).
If that's liberalism, then I think America has far too little of it, and your democracy and public life generally would be strengthened by having more of it, not less.
I think that the root of this discussion rests on the fact that there is a big difference between a liberal bias and a liberal institution, as I've tried to illustrate with my BBC examples. NPR is unarguably a liberal institution. I think that most of the accusations of liberal bias are coming from conservatives who are not so hostile to the idea of liberal bias as they are to the idea of liberal institutions.
Nigtimer wrote:
The reason I cited the blog is that I thought it found an interesting way to support the view (that I hold) that NPR is left leaning. Maybe leaning is better than bias as a word. I agree with the premise that Brookings is far from "centrist". Many links can be criticized as partisan and I am as guilty as anyone of immediately dismissing certain links. But like I said, what I found interesting about this one is that it did point up a fact that tends to support that NPR has a left lean. Why is it that Heritage is rarely found when searching the NPR site? Aren't you curious? Or do you dismiss the Heritage foundation as partisan?
Nightimer wrote:
I agree that is a bunch of nonsense. I don't even understand what that means. But that is not what I was referring to as concrete evidence. The little tid bit of concrete evidence that I saw was the results of the comparison between google and the search of the NPR site.
Quark wrote:
So we get into a battle about bias of these organizations. It is endless. Well, the FAIR study took the Brookings Institution as centrist. I go back to the FAIR site and what do I see-- without a question a left leaning organization. Just peruse the site it is pretty obvious. How can I take their word
they are clearly left leaning and would likely then characterize Brookings as centrist.
It seems that a lot of this is based on perception, as Julian, and Paladin Elspeth suggest-- NPR only appears liberal because much of what is out there IN RADIO is right leaning. Have you ever thought that maybe the problem with the democratic party right now is that they are out of touch with what is the view of most people? If they are characterizing NPR as centrist-- then they don't have a good sense of where most people are at on the political spectrum. What is "liberal" here is "moderate" in Britain or even to the right in socialist type countries like France.
This last point raises an interesting issue that we should maybe open up to debate.
Paladin Elspeth wrote:
Why can't these opinions be expressed anywhere else on U.S. stations? Last time I checked the First Amendment still protects are freedom of expression. So why exactly is NPR the only viable outlet for such views? I actually believe that NPR does have a good market demand. If all federal funding were cut tomorrow, if I had to bet, I would bet that it would continue as strongly as ever.
QUOTE
So this. NPRSucks.com is a blog. Not a news outlet. Not a think tank. Not a formal organization that performs media criticism. It is a blogand as such it offers opinion stated as if it is. The blogger of this site, a Roger Rick, obviously has a serious bug up his nether regions about NPR. From reading the site it's apparent Mr. Rick has little usage for NPR, but I guess he's staked out his bit of turf by making the radio network the focus of his scorn and invective.
It's fine with me Haleyanne if you want to take as gospel the opinion of a partisan blogger who offers only one side of the story, has no apparent expertise in either journalism or media criticism and proudly flaunts his own right-wing bias. Personally, I don't take the overtly skewed views of a partisan blogger and his NPR-bashing site as particularly credible, but different strokes for different folks and all that.
It's fine with me Haleyanne if you want to take as gospel the opinion of a partisan blogger who offers only one side of the story, has no apparent expertise in either journalism or media criticism and proudly flaunts his own right-wing bias. Personally, I don't take the overtly skewed views of a partisan blogger and his NPR-bashing site as particularly credible, but different strokes for different folks and all that.
The reason I cited the blog is that I thought it found an interesting way to support the view (that I hold) that NPR is left leaning. Maybe leaning is better than bias as a word. I agree with the premise that Brookings is far from "centrist". Many links can be criticized as partisan and I am as guilty as anyone of immediately dismissing certain links. But like I said, what I found interesting about this one is that it did point up a fact that tends to support that NPR has a left lean. Why is it that Heritage is rarely found when searching the NPR site? Aren't you curious? Or do you dismiss the Heritage foundation as partisan?
Nightimer wrote:
QUOTE
Here's an example of Rick's "concrete evidence." "Free Blacks in the US were allowed to own slaves. In fact, the average black slave owner had more slaves than its white counterpart. Obviously, for NPR slavery is particularly evil if Whites are the masters. Perhaps, this is why NPR prefers to talk about past slavery in the U.S. rather than current slavery as it is practiced in sub-Saharan Africa."
I agree that is a bunch of nonsense. I don't even understand what that means. But that is not what I was referring to as concrete evidence. The little tid bit of concrete evidence that I saw was the results of the comparison between google and the search of the NPR site.
Quark wrote:
QUOTE
Sorry to take this seemingly lightly, but frankly the idea that the Brookings Institution is "solidly liberal" as opposed to centrist is absolutely silly. This blogger says it is liberal. Good for him. He offers no evidence of this. A quantitative look at the Brookings Institution would easily refute his assertion. He claims that "many" people think it is liberal. So you repeat it as gospel. Without a shred of evidence. If you look through the Brookings Institution site, you will find a centrist outlook prevails. On the issue of Missile Defense, for example, they include articles both for and against it.
Surely they are to the left of the Heritage Foundation, but that doesn't mean they are liberal.
Surely they are to the left of the Heritage Foundation, but that doesn't mean they are liberal.
So we get into a battle about bias of these organizations. It is endless. Well, the FAIR study took the Brookings Institution as centrist. I go back to the FAIR site and what do I see-- without a question a left leaning organization. Just peruse the site it is pretty obvious. How can I take their word
they are clearly left leaning and would likely then characterize Brookings as centrist. It seems that a lot of this is based on perception, as Julian, and Paladin Elspeth suggest-- NPR only appears liberal because much of what is out there IN RADIO is right leaning. Have you ever thought that maybe the problem with the democratic party right now is that they are out of touch with what is the view of most people? If they are characterizing NPR as centrist-- then they don't have a good sense of where most people are at on the political spectrum. What is "liberal" here is "moderate" in Britain or even to the right in socialist type countries like France.
This last point raises an interesting issue that we should maybe open up to debate.
Paladin Elspeth wrote:
QUOTE
Dang, we're not talking about Communism or Socialism here. We're talking about a network where opinions are expressed that cannot be expressed anywhere else on U.S. stations. We're talking about in-depth coverage of people who don't live stereotypically conservative lives, about people who live under regimes the U.S. recognizes but are repressive.
Why can't these opinions be expressed anywhere else on U.S. stations? Last time I checked the First Amendment still protects are freedom of expression. So why exactly is NPR the only viable outlet for such views? I actually believe that NPR does have a good market demand. If all federal funding were cut tomorrow, if I had to bet, I would bet that it would continue as strongly as ever.
QUOTE
Why can't these opinions be expressed anywhere else on U.S. stations? Last time I checked the First Amendment still protects are freedom of expression. So why exactly is NPR the only viable outlet for such views? I actually believe that NPR does have a good market demand. If all federal funding were cut tomorrow, if I had to bet, I would bet that it would continue as strongly as ever.
It's because the folks who take the business plan to the bank to get their station started, or the bankers, do not see what NPR's style does in terms of producing business-growing, business-sustaining revenues. What contributes to this thinking is the seemingly constant appeals for listener contributions that take place on public broadcasting.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jan 21 2005, 09:15 AM)
QUOTE
Why can't these opinions be expressed anywhere else on U.S. stations? Last time I checked the First Amendment still protects are freedom of expression. So why exactly is NPR the only viable outlet for such views? I actually believe that NPR does have a good market demand. If all federal funding were cut tomorrow, if I had to bet, I would bet that it would continue as strongly as ever.
It's because the folks who take the business plan to the bank to get their station started, or the bankers, do not see what NPR does in terms of producing business-growing, business-sustaining revenues. What contributes to this thinking is the seemingly constant appeals for listener contributions that take place on public broadcasting.
Paladin Elspeth-- I am sorry, I still don't understand. Are you saying that lenders at banks don't see NPR as a money making venture? NPR is so established in our country I can't imagine that it would not continue to thrive if it had no federal funding. Besides, people in this thread have been pointing to how NPR doesn't really get much funding anyway. I don't know exactly how much funding they get from the government. Do you think NPR would not continue without funding?
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Jan 21 2005, 09:22 AM)
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jan 21 2005, 09:15 AM)
QUOTE
Why can't these opinions be expressed anywhere else on U.S. stations? Last time I checked the First Amendment still protects are freedom of expression. So why exactly is NPR the only viable outlet for such views? I actually believe that NPR does have a good market demand. If all federal funding were cut tomorrow, if I had to bet, I would bet that it would continue as strongly as ever.
It's because the folks who take the business plan to the bank to get their station started, or the bankers, do not see what NPR does in terms of producing business-growing, business-sustaining revenues. What contributes to this thinking is the seemingly constant appeals for listener contributions that take place on public broadcasting.
Paladin Elspeth-- I am sorry, I still don't understand. Are you saying that lenders at banks don't see NPR as a money making venture? NPR is so established in our country I can't imagine that it would not continue to thrive if it had no federal funding. Besides, people in this thread have been pointing to how NPR doesn't really get much funding anyway. I don't know exactly how much funding they get from the government. Do you think NPR would not continue without funding?
I'm not sure--this is only conjecture on my part. I know that NPR, over the years, has lost a lot of their journalists like Judy Woodruff to other networks. From the sound of things, NPR doesn't pay their staffers much, so they act as though they wouldn't survive without that funding. I have seen SNL spoofs about impoverished radio personalities that work in public radio, and this perception might be held by more than a few people.
I just don't know, hayleyanne, but there must be some plausible reason that stations with an NPR-type focus are few and far between. Maybe it's the idea that ratings are everything and that younger people would not listen.
In any case, I believe that whatever federal funds go to sustaining NPR, they are worth it.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Jan 21 2005, 07:22 AM)
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jan 21 2005, 09:15 AM)
QUOTE
Why can't these opinions be expressed anywhere else on U.S. stations? Last time I checked the First Amendment still protects are freedom of expression. So why exactly is NPR the only viable outlet for such views? I actually believe that NPR does have a good market demand. If all federal funding were cut tomorrow, if I had to bet, I would bet that it would continue as strongly as ever.
It's because the folks who take the business plan to the bank to get their station started, or the bankers, do not see what NPR does in terms of producing business-growing, business-sustaining revenues. What contributes to this thinking is the seemingly constant appeals for listener contributions that take place on public broadcasting.
Paladin Elspeth-- I am sorry, I still don't understand. Are you saying that lenders at banks don't see NPR as a money making venture? NPR is so established in our country I can't imagine that it would not continue to thrive if it had no federal funding. Besides, people in this thread have been pointing to how NPR doesn't really get much funding anyway. I don't know exactly how much funding they get from the government. Do you think NPR would not continue without funding?
Without Federal funding (let's put aside the major Kroc donation for the moment), NPR would likely have to seek more money from advertisers, which would have the same effect as with other corporate media -- it would effectively make them beholden to corporate interests, which for the most part are solidly right wing. It would make NPR basically like all the other corporate media outlets.
While I believe that NPR is NOT a liberal news source, the nation would be much better informed if it listened to NPR over the corporate media. NPR does play an important role of bringing at least a small amount of objectivism that other outlets lack. As much as I have huge problems in the stories they cover and the guests they bring on (more conservative than liberal), it's much better than most news we get.
While I believe that NPR is NOT a liberal news source, the nation would be much better informed if it listened to NPR over the corporate media.
jenreiautter, that pretty much sums up why NPR and PBS exist. Back when these things were created, we only had mainstream corporate outlets serving up pablum for the masses. Education was important back then, as this country was racing in technology and needed thinking people rather than factory automatons.
Seems that the times have changed. I guess that's why NPR is seen as being liberal, appealing to the elitist intellectuals rather than the militaristic power brokers.
jenreiautter, that pretty much sums up why NPR and PBS exist. Back when these things were created, we only had mainstream corporate outlets serving up pablum for the masses. Education was important back then, as this country was racing in technology and needed thinking people rather than factory automatons.
Seems that the times have changed. I guess that's why NPR is seen as being liberal, appealing to the elitist intellectuals rather than the militaristic power brokers.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Jan 20 2005, 08:39 AM)
So the question for debate is simple:
Do you think that NPR has a liberal bias or not -- and how do you support your answer?
Yes, NPR has a liberal bias.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbo...b20031022.shtml
Of course, Bozell has an axe to grind, but anyone who listens to the material on NPR would come to the same conclusion. This is true with respect to the stories they decide to feature (or not) and the very liberal tone of their "contributors" such as Daniel Schor and Nina Totenberg.
Last summer, I listened to a broadcast of a debate between NY Times columnist and economics prof Paul Krugman and conservative economist Lawrence Kudlow on NPR's Diane Rehm show. She CLEARLY sucked up to Krugman and berated Kudlow.
If you don't believe me, listen for yourself
http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/04/08/03.php
I find the same sort of bias on all NPR programs.
Frankly, anyone who claims that NPR doesn't have a liberal bias has a lot to prove.
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Jan 21 2005, 11:23 AM)
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Jan 20 2005, 08:39 AM)
So the question for debate is simple:
Do you think that NPR has a liberal bias or not -- and how do you support your answer?
Yes, NPR has a liberal bias.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbo...b20031022.shtml
Of course, Bozell has an axe to grind, but anyone who listens to the material on NPR would come to the same conclusion. This is true with respect to the stories they decide to feature (or not) and the very liberal tone of their "contributors" such as Daniel Schor and Nina Totenberg.
Last summer, I listened to a broadcast of a debate between NY Times columnist and economics prof Paul Krugman and conservative economist Lawrence Kudlow on NPR's Diane Rehm show. She CLEARLY sucked up to Krugman and berated Kudlow.
If you don't believe me, listen for yourself
http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/04/08/03.php
I find the same sort of bias on all NPR programs.
Frankly, anyone who claims that NPR doesn't have a liberal bias has a lot to prove.
Yes, as FAIR has aptly done. Whether FAIR is a liberal organization or not, the research they did was hard numbers, not political analysis.
Perhaps you can concoct some explanations for why NPR had more Republican sources for their program... in 1993, when We had not only a Democratic president, but a Democrat - controlled Congress?
One paragraph in Bozell's lame article stood out for me:
QUOTE
The news reports on NPR should be cause for greater public concern. Under the guise of "objective news" reporting, the left is actively advancing its political agenda. On the Oct. 17 "Morning Edition," host Bob Edwards launched into a long "news" report on the flaws of the Bush foreign policy, observing: "Overall, the policies of the United States are still very unpopular around the world. The Bush Doctrine, a preference for unilateral military action and a disdain for multinational diplomacy, is under scrutiny more than ever." The Middle East "road map" was "in tatters," Iraq and Afghanistan were "highly unstable." NPR may as well have suggested it was time for a different president.
This is his proof? Reporting the truth is now "liberal bias?" "Overall, the policies of the United States are still very unpopular around the world." This is true. "The Bush Doctrine, a preference for unilateral military action and a disdain for multinational diplomacy, is under scrutiny more than ever." Again, this is true. "The Middle East "road map" was "in tatters," Iraq and Afghanistan were "highly unstable."" Yep, true true and true.
Bozell goes on:
QUOTE
Reporter Mike Shuster was intent on driving home the theme that the Bush foreign policy may (read: we hope) one day be analyzed as an utter failure. His three primary, supposedly nonpartisan "experts" were Ivo Daalder, a member of Clinton's National Security Council; Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy adviser to the 1992 Clinton campaign; and John Mearshimer, a regular critic of Bush foreign policy who argued in Foreign Policy magazine that Iraq should have remained under "vigilant containment," which we could also describe as maintaining a murderous tyrant in power. Their controversial views and Clinton connections were not developed by NPR.
Ivo Daalder wrote a review of Rashid Khalidi's book Resurrecting Empire. While he is somewhat critical of Bush, he also writes:
QUOTE
Yet even Mr. Khalidi's own history suggests that there are plenty of indigenous causes for the region's problems, and that blame of Western intervention (be it British then or American now) often serves a convenient excuse for failing to meet the needs of the people. The "pioneering" democratic experiments, Mr. Khalidi notes, were themselves deeply flawed. Elites consistently manipulated power to their own ends.
Despite democratic experimentation, the most notable characteristic of Arab countries in the region is their commitment to a strong state. "The entire Arab world is blighted by a group of remarkably similar regimes that share several characteristics in common," Mr. Khalidi writes, "notably their stagnant political systems and the ubiquitous, brutal efficiency of the means of repression that keep their respective oligarchies safely in power to siphon off and profit from their societies' surplus."
Despite democratic experimentation, the most notable characteristic of Arab countries in the region is their commitment to a strong state. "The entire Arab world is blighted by a group of remarkably similar regimes that share several characteristics in common," Mr. Khalidi writes, "notably their stagnant political systems and the ubiquitous, brutal efficiency of the means of repression that keep their respective oligarchies safely in power to siphon off and profit from their societies' surplus."
Not exactly flaming liberal. It should also be noted that while a member of the NSC, he helped draft our Bosnia policy, which was hardly a bastion of liberal politicking.
The next fellow: Michael Mandelbaum. He wrote this in Newsday:
QUOTE
But Reagan's staunch and often-stated belief that Western values would prevail in the confrontation with communism, the major increase in the American armed forces he advocated that aggravated the Soviet Union's economic difficulties by raising the cost of the arms race with the United States, and his early recognition that Gorbachev was a different kind of Soviet leader - one with whom he could make mutually beneficial agreements - all contributed to the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the transformation - very much for the better - of international politics.
As a prophet of the triumph of the free market, Reagan shares credit with his colleague and political ally, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain. His policies of tax-cutting and reducing the governmment's regulation of business were controversial during his time in office and in retrospect not all of them seem entirely wise.
As a prophet of the triumph of the free market, Reagan shares credit with his colleague and political ally, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain. His policies of tax-cutting and reducing the governmment's regulation of business were controversial during his time in office and in retrospect not all of them seem entirely wise.
Obviously the guys a pinko-liberal!
As for John Mearshimer, he is hardly a leftist either. He is a centrist foreign policy wonk who easily falls into the "realist" school. As mentioned by the History News Network,
QUOTE
President Bush has a freer than normal hand in this regard not only because of his election victory which has already sparked calls for reconciliation in Europe but the paucity of competing visions at home. Liberal antiwar critics have excoriated the Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War in moral terms, unambiguously rejecting both the policy and the need for a war stance to fight terrorism. Bipartisan establishment figures of the realist school of thought like John Mearshimer have listed their foreign policy criticisms in detail but ultimately have argued for a return to the pre-9/11 status quo of the Clinton years. Leftists and paleoconservatives like Paul Schroeder have condemned Bush policy as a quest for " empire"; a position completely without resonance with the voting public as it is empty of practical policy solutions.
I see three centrists. But moving on...
QUOTE
Perhaps the biggest public-relations problems for NPR come when its liberal reporters hit the weekend talk-show circuit and let their opinions fly wildly. On Oct. 18, NPR legal reporter Nina Totenberg pronounced from her regular panelist perch on the TV show "Inside Washington" that General Jerry Boykin, who sermonized in Christian churches with the shocking, less-than-Unitarian message that Christianity is true and other creeds are false, should be fired.
So NPR has some liberal reporters. So what? This also seems to be the basis of the "liberal media" argument made in Bias. But these folks aren't saying these things while reporting the news, so it's a non-issue.
OK, sorry to skip around, but this caught my eye at the beginning of the article:
QUOTE
The only ones who seem not to know that the left has a massive, taxpayer-funded radio network of 700 affiliates are the liberals trying to sell investors on their own private-sector talk-radio network. A recent PBS "NewsHour" story on talk radio turned ridiculous when reporter Terence Smith allowed liberal-network booster Jon Sinton to proclaim: "Every day in America on the 45 top-rated talk radio stations, there are 310 hours of conservative talk. There is a total of five hours of talk that comes from the other side of the aisle."
Don't buy that for a minute. The key word in that sentence is "top-rated" stations. Sinton's upset that conservatives apparently dominate "top-rated" talk. That doesn't mean NPR doesn't have hundreds of hours of liberal talk shows, not to mention liberal "news" shows. It's just not "top-rated."
Don't buy that for a minute. The key word in that sentence is "top-rated" stations. Sinton's upset that conservatives apparently dominate "top-rated" talk. That doesn't mean NPR doesn't have hundreds of hours of liberal talk shows, not to mention liberal "news" shows. It's just not "top-rated."
What is this? So a liberal news radio network is starting up. That is news. They interview someone promoting it, of course the guy is plugging it. What has that got to do with anything? Bozell says they "allowed" the guy to say something. Whatever. It was standard stuff that happens at all news outlets. When they interview someone spouting the administration line, that person is also selling the administration's policies. Perhaps they shouldn't "allow" that, either.
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Jan 21 2005, 04:33 PM)
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Jan 21 2005, 11:23 AM)
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Jan 20 2005, 08:39 AM)
So the question for debate is simple:
Do you think that NPR has a liberal bias or not -- and how do you support your answer?
Yes, NPR has a liberal bias.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbo...b20031022.shtml
Of course, Bozell has an axe to grind, but anyone who listens to the material on NPR would come to the same conclusion. This is true with respect to the stories they decide to feature (or not) and the very liberal tone of their "contributors" such as Daniel Schor and Nina Totenberg.
Last summer, I listened to a broadcast of a debate between NY Times columnist and economics prof Paul Krugman and conservative economist Lawrence Kudlow on NPR's Diane Rehm show. She CLEARLY sucked up to Krugman and berated Kudlow.
If you don't believe me, listen for yourself
http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/04/08/03.php
I find the same sort of bias on all NPR programs.
Frankly, anyone who claims that NPR doesn't have a liberal bias has a lot to prove.
Yes, as FAIR has aptly done. Whether FAIR is a liberal organization or not, the research they did was hard numbers, not political analysis.
Perhaps you can concoct some explanations for why NPR had more Republican sources for their program... in 1993, when We had not only a Democratic president, but a Democrat - controlled Congress?
The fact that FAIR is a left wing organization is relevant. The subject matter that NPR covers, the issues that they give great importance, and the slant of their reporting is NOT conservative or even neutral. It's liberal. As I said, Bozell has an axe to grind, but by your logic, does that make him wrong?
FAIR quoting statistics that miss the point doesn't prove anything. Those are not "hard" numbers. They are interesting snippets of information that FAIR is attempting to drive to "prove" a false premise. If FAIR wanted to prove or disprove bias, they would analyze the content of the stories including the subject and the content of the stories, not cook up some "soft" numbers to make a point.
Just read this one where they act as apologists for Dan Rather at CBS over memogate.
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/cbs-memogate.html
This is a group with an agenda. There is nothing "fair" about FAIR.
NPR is liberal by any reasonable standard. It's not "left wing" like Pacifica Radio is. But it's not "moderate" either.
Those who attack NPR for being "conservative" tend to be far left. Compared to themselves, NPR is more conservative. But, compared to the population as a whole, it's liberal.
From the blog in the opening post:
I don't think I understood this stat and if its the supposed proof of a liberal bias then they are doing a different kind of a search. I went on NPR and put Heritage Foundation in the search engine and got 8 pages of hits. I put in Brookings Institute and I got 10 pages of hits. Personally I like NPR very much even though I don't allways appreciate their artsy fartsy programs I tend to like the low key liberal views expressed on there. There is a distictive bias but the same could be said for universities and judicial views and it would not be hard to make the case that there are.
Just to pick a topic out of the hat I tried the Philidelphia group arrested in for their protest of Outfest in October. NPR talked to both sides of the issue and I found the reporting to be refreshingly balanced. I saw no liberal bias here and if there is an expressed liberal bias at NPR I would need something more substantial then what I saw on the blog in the OP.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4458885
QUOTE
When you search Google News for the two names, you find an about equal number of citations for both, with a slight advantage for the Heritage Foundation (53%). Searching for the think tanks on NPR's web site, the Heritage Foundations seems to be almost non-existent (19%). Obviously, the folks at NPR don't like to talk to fellows with conservative ideas.
I don't think I understood this stat and if its the supposed proof of a liberal bias then they are doing a different kind of a search. I went on NPR and put Heritage Foundation in the search engine and got 8 pages of hits. I put in Brookings Institute and I got 10 pages of hits. Personally I like NPR very much even though I don't allways appreciate their artsy fartsy programs I tend to like the low key liberal views expressed on there. There is a distictive bias but the same could be said for universities and judicial views and it would not be hard to make the case that there are.
Just to pick a topic out of the hat I tried the Philidelphia group arrested in for their protest of Outfest in October. NPR talked to both sides of the issue and I found the reporting to be refreshingly balanced. I saw no liberal bias here and if there is an expressed liberal bias at NPR I would need something more substantial then what I saw on the blog in the OP.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4458885
QUOTE(phaedrus @ Jan 28 2005, 03:45 PM)
From the blog in the opening post:
I don't think I understood this stat and if its the supposed proof of a liberal bias then they are doing a different kind of a search. I went on NPR and put Heritage Foundation in the search engine and got 8 pages of hits. I put in Brookings Institute and I got 10 pages of hits. Personally I like NPR very much even though I don't allways appreciate their artsy fartsy programs I tend to like the low key liberal views expressed on there. There is a distictive bias but the same could be said for universities and judicial views and it would not be hard to make the case that there are.
Just to pick a topic out of the hat I tried the Philidelphia group arrested in for their protest of Outfest in October. NPR talked to both sides of the issue and I found the reporting to be refreshingly balanced. I saw no liberal bias here and if there is an expressed liberal bias at NPR I would need something more substantial then what I saw on the blog in the OP.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4458885
QUOTE
When you search Google News for the two names, you find an about equal number of citations for both, with a slight advantage for the Heritage Foundation (53%). Searching for the think tanks on NPR's web site, the Heritage Foundations seems to be almost non-existent (19%). Obviously, the folks at NPR don't like to talk to fellows with conservative ideas.
I don't think I understood this stat and if its the supposed proof of a liberal bias then they are doing a different kind of a search. I went on NPR and put Heritage Foundation in the search engine and got 8 pages of hits. I put in Brookings Institute and I got 10 pages of hits. Personally I like NPR very much even though I don't allways appreciate their artsy fartsy programs I tend to like the low key liberal views expressed on there. There is a distictive bias but the same could be said for universities and judicial views and it would not be hard to make the case that there are.
Just to pick a topic out of the hat I tried the Philidelphia group arrested in for their protest of Outfest in October. NPR talked to both sides of the issue and I found the reporting to be refreshingly balanced. I saw no liberal bias here and if there is an expressed liberal bias at NPR I would need something more substantial then what I saw on the blog in the OP.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4458885
I listened to the link that you provided from NPR. It was the NPR News. I don't think the "News" on NPR generally demonstrates so much bias. Like Fox, it is the the commentators and the more in depth stories where you find the liberal leaning. When they do more in depth coverage of issues, I find the two sides are ostensibly represented but if you look more carefully at the "experts" you can see the bias. Either the purportedly "conservative" side is not all that conservative. Or, if there is a true "conservative" on the specials -- it is a bible thumping extremist.
Of course it would be nice to see something more substantial than the blog. I only cited it because it provided some interesting results. I am convinced that if someone did a real study (I don't agree with the FAIR study's premise that Brookings is middle of the road--plus FAIR already has a liberal bias) they would find that NPR has a liberal leaning.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Jan 28 2005, 01:59 PM)
Of course it would be nice to see something more substantial than the blog. I only cited it because it provided some interesting results. I am convinced that if someone did a real study (I don't agree with the FAIR study's premise that Brookings is middle of the road--plus FAIR already has a liberal bias) they would find that NPR has a liberal leaning.
I am going to cite my signature:
Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs.
Communal reinforcement is the process by which a claim becomes a strong belief through repeated assertion by members of a community.
Unless you can demonstrate (1) what it means to have a liberal bias vs. some other bias vs. being "unbiased", (2) how you would measure bias and types of bias in order to make this assessment, and (3) justify why these sets of measurements are appropriate, then all you've got here is a "talking point". So far, I've seen all sorts of faulty generalizations applied. I've seen false cause fallacy and, of course, the good ol' anecdotal evidence fallacy employed. Finally, your denial of the accuracy of the FAIR study is a guilt by association fallacy. If you want to deny the validity of this study, you should deny its results and not who gathered them. If want to deny FAIR, then you will need to demonstrate why it is not a reputable source of information. Throwing labels at something does not a case make.
Logophage wrote:
I don't know Logophage, it sounds awfully complicated to me. I guess I'll go with having a "talking point" as I don't have the time or energy to produce such a study myself. But I do wish that I could find such a study coming from an organization that is not as blatantly liberal as FAIR.
QUOTE
Unless you can demonstrate (1) what it means to have a liberal bias vs. some other bias vs. being "unbiased", (2) how you would measure bias and types of bias in order to make this assessment, and (3) justify why these sets of measurements are appropriate, then all you've got here is a "talking point". So far, I've seen all sorts of faulty generalizations applied. I've seen false cause fallacy and, of course, the good ol' Anecdotal evidence fallacy employed. Finally, your denial of the accuracy of the FAIR study is a guilt by association fallacy. If you want to deny the validity of this study, you should deny its results and not who gathered them. If want to deny FAIR, then you will need to demonstrate why it is not a reputable source of information. Throwing labels at something does not a case make.
I don't know Logophage, it sounds awfully complicated to me. I guess I'll go with having a "talking point" as I don't have the time or energy to produce such a study myself. But I do wish that I could find such a study coming from an organization that is not as blatantly liberal as FAIR.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Jan 28 2005, 03:27 PM)
I don't know Logophage, it sounds awfully complicated to me. I guess I'll go with having a "talking point" as I don't have the time or energy to produce such a study myself. But I do wish that I could find such a study coming from an organization that is not as blatantly liberal as FAIR.
Then, you are basically saying. You have no proof nor do you wish to find the proof. You are implying that because something is "blatantly liberal" (whatever that means), it must therefore be wrong. If that's how you justify your position, then how do you feel about "blatantly conservative" sources? Do you discard those sources as well? Or do you happen to trust sources that confirm your bias and/or ideology?
You were the one who started this debate thread. I would think you'd be interested enough in the topic to demonstrate how you come about concluding this hypothetical liberal bias. And, believe me, I don't say this flippantly. I know folks who throw out the "conservative bias" card as well. If they cannot give good justification for their position, I am equally critical.
QUOTE(logophage @ Jan 28 2005, 08:07 PM)
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Jan 28 2005, 03:27 PM)
I don't know Logophage, it sounds awfully complicated to me. I guess I'll go with having a "talking point" as I don't have the time or energy to produce such a study myself. But I do wish that I could find such a study coming from an organization that is not as blatantly liberal as FAIR.
Then, you are basically saying. You have no proof nor do you wish to find the proof. You are implying that because something is "blatantly liberal" (whatever that means), it must therefore be wrong. If that's how you justify your position, then how do you feel about "blatantly conservative" sources? Do you discard those sources as well? Or do you happen to trust sources that confirm your bias and/or ideology?
You were the one who started this debate thread. I would think you'd be interested enough in the topic to demonstrate how you come about concluding this hypothetical liberal bias. And, believe me, I don't say this flippantly. I know folks who throw out the "conservative bias" card as well. If they cannot give good justification for their position, I am equally critical.
I feel the same way about "blatantly conservative" sources. They are what they are. The blog I cited in the original thread is "blatantly conservative". But I have said several times that I found one thing about it interesting -- the relatively few number of times that a conservative think tank was found cited on NPR. I have only recently been posting on AD-- but if you knew me you would know I am not partisan at all. I call sources as I see them. I don't defend Fox news as "fair and balanced" nor do I buy that NPR is "fair and balanced". As far as demonstrating why I think that NPR is liberal leaning-- it is really a matter of time. I can't do the study myself--like I said before. I hope to have the time to do more of a search to see if there has been other studies conducted on this question. I did a quick search and didn't come up with much more than the FAIR study and the blog site. But I was by no means completely thorough in my search. I thought others may come up with more.
I don't trust the FAIR assessment. Yes, because it strikes me as liberal. Just look at their topics covered etc. Because it is blatantly liberal does not necessarily mean it is wrong, but I am very wary of it. A cursory look at their coverage made me very skeptical.
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Jan 28 2005, 06:25 PM)
I feel the same way about "blatantly conservative" sources. They are what they are. The blog I cited in the original thread is "blatantly conservative". But I have said several times that I found one thing about it interesting -- the relatively few number of times that a conservative think tank was found cited on NPR. I have only recently been posting on AD-- but if you knew me you would know I am not partisan at all. I call sources as I see them. I don't defend Fox news as "fair and balanced" nor do I buy that NPR is "fair and balanced". As far as demonstrating why I think that NPR is liberal leaning-- it is really a matter of time. I can't do the study myself--like I said before. I hope to have the time to do more of a search to see if there has been other studies conducted on this question. I did a quick search and didn't come up with much more than the FAIR study and the blog site. But I was by no means completely thorough in my search. I thought others may come up with more.
I don't trust the FAIR assessment. Yes, because it strikes me as liberal. Just look at their topics covered etc. Because it is blatantly liberal does not necessarily mean it is wrong, but I am very wary of it. A cursory look at their coverage made me very skeptical.
I don't trust the FAIR assessment. Yes, because it strikes me as liberal. Just look at their topics covered etc. Because it is blatantly liberal does not necessarily mean it is wrong, but I am very wary of it. A cursory look at their coverage made me very skeptical.
Cool. It looks like we're on the same page then. However, assuming that FAIR is "liberal" and "biased", then don't you think FAIR would argue that NPR is just that as well? Afterall, FAIR wouldn't consider liberal bias to be bad, right (again assuming FAIR is both of those)? It seems more likely that "liberal" sources would be better at authenticating what is liberal and what is not liberal than conservative sources. Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily the correct litmus.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.