And in other stop-the-press news, polls find the vast majority of Rush Limbaugh’s listeners think he is an accurate and unbiased source of information. :dubious:
As are you to prove it’s not. It can’t be done directly except to debate the reasons I posted.
I don’t have to prove anything. All I’ve posited in this thread is that NPR is unbiased with the proof being the ombudsmen. You stated
This being great debates and not the pit, I am calling you on it. You say fact. It is up to you to prove that it is a fact.
Or, if you prefer the shorthand version, cite?
I gave my reasoning in my post. You have not addressed what I said. If you want a bunch of bullshit cites then google “media bias” and read yourself silly. Consider that my cite. Address what I’ve said or move on.
The Republicans have won the White House and Congress, they get to decide if funds should be cut to Public Broadcasting. If the Democrats had won, they would not consider cutting spending on PBS. Why’s that?
“Because Democrats are supportive of this non-partisan media voice, the only one that explains their rational policies without bias.”
Uh huh. (Those of us not blinded by party loyalty know that politicians on both side of the aisle are… shall we say… morally pragmatic.)
“The American people are being misled by the right-wing media and the wussy mainstream media! Bush was AWOL for God’s sakes!”
:rolleyes: Dan Rather sure wasn’t scared to show forged documents right before the election. And in the previous election the media wasn’t scared to reveal Bush’s drunk driving conviction right before the election.
Oh, and thanks for thinking that the American public is dumb enough to believe right-wing spin but not left-wing spi… oops, I mean the hard facts presented by PBS.
But believe it or not, I assert that it is actually bad for the left to rely on tax-funded PBS to convey their beliefs. There is not enough feedback so they can adjust their stances on issues to suit American tastes. If the Democrats get completely taken over by Liberals, they’re never going to win any more elections… no matter how much Liberals here on this board believe their way of thinking is “the only reasonable one” and “in the center, really.” History shows that a long-time one-party government always sucks… look at California, or Mexico, or Utah, or Detroit.
Also, most people think PBS and NPR are on the left, and Rush Limbaugh and Fox are on the right. I think it’s more commendable that Fox didn’t need taxpayer money to beat CNN, and that Rush Limbaugh doesn’t pretend to be unbiased. It’s a good thing that we have sources for both right and left slanted news, but I wish NPR would not pretend that they are in the center.
-d
Air America, anyone? I suppose you’re going to tell us that the Pubbies sabotaged that network. It couldn’t be that there just wasn’t a market, coud it?
Are you claiming that Air America is having ratings problems, John Mace? 'cause I haven’t seen any numbers for the network in a spell, and am curious where you got 'em.
(I have no idea how the network is doing, but I do note the usual right-wing insta-pundits never pass an opportunity to prematurely cackle over its demise…)
What do surveys indicate about the political affiliation of the overwhelming majority of its listeners?
This is the problem with identifying bias.
I believe showing affirmative action in a positive light is an example of bias. It seems to me that most liberal listeners consider that position centrist.
I believe that urging people to travel to Cuba in violation of federal law represents a biased viewpoint. I believe that most liberal listeners would not agree.
I believe that when you talk about parental notification for minors who wish an abortion, and you use “girl” or “teen” instead of “minor” to describe them, that’s an example of bias, because it creates an impression that includes females to which the law would not apply. I believe that most liberal listeners would disagree.
I believe when Morning Edition “swing voter” John Ridley, who kept talking about how he was undecided, is revealed to have donated $500 to Democratic Presidential candidate Jerry Kerry and $500 before that to Wesley Clark, that’s an example of bias. I am not sure if even liberal listeners can swallow that one.
I believe that when Sandy Berger resigned from the Kerry campaign following revelations about his handling of classified documents, it is an example of bias to report the story without mentioning Berger’s connection to Kerry. I believe most liberal listeners saw no problem there.
Not at all. I’ve been interviewed many times, by a number of different news outlets.
Look at the language:
Clear implication: the K of C is lying in its self-description.
Look, NPR is not trying to be biased. Their reporters and ombudsman are, I believe, not consciously trying to spin stories. If you hooked 'em up to a lie detector and asked, “Are you trying to bias your reporting?” they would all answer “no” and pass with flying colors.
The problem is that there are certain issues which, to their minds, there is a resaonable, obvious, common-sense centrist position. Abortion fits into that category. It’s not biased to talk about abortion rights as obvious and natural and good. It’s not biased to describe abortion opponents as far-right conservatives and NOT describe abortion-rights supporters as far-left liberals.
In fact, ask yourself that: when was the last time NPR described anyone as far-right conservative" and when was the last time they described anyone as “far-left
liberal?” You’d think there’d be about the same… yet it doesn’t happen. Because the people holding the opinions on the left are not “far left” - they are sensible and moderate.
And most of the readers of this post believe that as well.
Morning Edition, April 1, 2003, Nina Totenberg reporting on the affirmative action programs at Michigan:
That’s my cite contribution to 7-8.
Where’s the NPR story that reports on the value of stopping affirmative action? It doesn’t exist. Because affirmative action, in some form, is a sensible, centrist idea, and supporting it is not biased. Right?
This is it then, Magiver. This is the proof that all media is biased: two vague sentences concerning the subject matter?
You are going to need to clarify this a good deal before I’ll buy that media bias is a fact. It looks to me as if you are saying that because the news media is covering the news, then it is biased because the news is inherently biased.
Which part is the biased part of the news? Sports? The little feel good story at the end about the cocker spaniel who taught a family a valuable lesson? I bet it’s the weather. Partly cloudy indeed. Must be encoded liberal speak regarding their views on the administration. Crafty bastards.
Moving right along to those that provided something of value…
John Mace, I don’t know what the cite of yours was supposed to say, but all I saw was
Seems pretty nonbiased to me. Bland as lightly toasted white bread with a glass of skim on the side. Did I miss an audio link or a transcript?
Bricker, your opinions on the news represents your bias, not NPRs. Just because they present the issues doesn’t mean that they are liberal or conservative. It means the issues are newsworthy.
Next up is the April 1, 2003 story on affirmative action. Link containing the audio here.
The statement that you seem to be quoting starts at 5:27 and ends at about 6:00. Here’s the full statement.
You left out quite a bit there Bricker. There was a study presented as evidence at the statement did not come from the reporter, but from the schools.
I don’t accept the premise that it even possible for a thinking human (or group of thinking humans) to provide news objectively and unbiased.
That’s certainly one way of looking at it, but I wouldn’t call anyone working for tv news a thinking human.
I also don’t think that your statement can be used as a broad proof that all news is biased.
Sure, it was close. But you’re one of the people who insist that context matters, tomndebb, so an examination of the context here would be in order, wouldn’t it?
Catholics used to be a reliable Democratic voting bloc, but this hasn’t been strictly true for an awfully long time. Since about 1972, Catholic votes have tracked pretty closely with those of the popular vote as a whole, becoming something of a bellweather.
Bush lost the Catholic vote in 2000 slightly, 47% to Gore’s 50%. In 2004, he was able to improve his polling with Catholics to 52%. That’s a five point gain against a candidate who was himself Catholic. And in a race with Catholics comprising 26% of the electorate, this was a huge shift. It was almost seismic in its implications. Bush would not have won had he not improved among Catholics.
So Bush is doing pretty well among Catholics, far better than that figure you quoted indicates. The shift in the Catholic vote shows that.
Never mind. I found a link to the audio portion. The link is at the top if anyone wants to listen to it now. I’ll listen to it in a little while. Breakfast calls and all.
I don’t really think PBS listeners are the left-wing rabble you imagine them to be.
Your mischaracterization of my argument is so broad that it hardly constitutes an argument. I’ll give you half a point for attempted response, however.
OK, Rather screwed up. And paid for it. What terrible fate befell Robert Novak for outing a covert CIA agent? A whole lot of nothing, IIRC. And I do. The fact that there are biased journalists on both sides of the spectrum proves nothing about the bias or lack of it of the whole thing.
Here is the crux of your problem, the part boldfaced. Should read “most conservative people think.”
Actually, I think Air America is doing quite well, for a fledgling startup, but it remains a very narrow venue. For example, here in the Atlanta metro area there are eight Clear Channel stations with both AM and FM represented, whereas Air America is on just one AM station. And of course we have a Fox affiliate television station.
NPR has affiliate stations throughout the state, in rural as well as urban areas. That’s the real problem with NPR, from the Pubbie POV. This noise about bias is just a smokescreen raised in an attempt to transform NPR into part of the Pubbie media machine.