Better late than never, NPR

For over a year, conservatives have been complaining about an instance of bias on NPR that took place in January of 2002. They linked the Traditional Values Coalition to the anthrax attacks, although there was no basis for so doing. A few days after the comment was made, NPR admitted that bringing TVC into the anthrax story was “inappropriate”, but they didn’t apologize. The Traditional Values Coalition and other conservative groups continued to complain about it. E.g., at a Congressoinal hearing last July:

Well NPR finally apologized yesterday. From NPR’s web site:

I wonder what took NPR so long. Or, perhaps, I should wonder what finally moved them to issue an apology.

“linked all Christians to domestic terrorist activities.”
Um… no.

“They linked the Traditional Values Coalition to the anthrax attacks”
Cite? How exactly were they linked?

They weren’t. That is the point.

The original story was removed from the archive but there is a reference to a retraction on Jan. 30, 2002:

There were two corrections related to the story, but no trace of the original story:

and the one listed by december.

I don’t really see the purpose of the second correction, which basically repeats the first which ran eight days after the story.

What I mean is, in what way did NPR link them to the attacks?

I haven’t heard, but I assume it was because the TVC doesn’t really like Daschle.

“In a story broadcast on Morning Edition on Jan. 22, 2002, National Public Radio said it had called the Traditional Values Coalition to ask if that group had been contacted by the FBI, investigating the mailing of anthrax to Senate offices.”

Right there in the OP. Kinda hard to miss, y’know.

NPR didn’t overtly state that TVC was related to the attacks, but they did state that they has asked TVC if they were being investigated. Because they said they weren’t, and because the FBI never said they were investigating them, and because there was presumably no other evidence in NPR’s posession, it was journalistically innapropriate and irresponsible to mention the conversation at all (and probably to have asked TVC to begin with).

The thing I’m wondering is why they picked TVC to (wrongly) link to the anthrax attacks? I wish they would not have purged the offending story from their archive.

http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:i-0aPXdDOS0C:www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/020314.html+tvc+npr+anthrax&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

That would be a cache of the reply from the ombudsman of NPR. It contains some of the info about the story and it’s whys and wherefores.

NPR evidently admitted they screwed up right after the story ran. But they didn’t apologize.

I think it isn’t as big an issue as it seems. The reporter for NPR was wrong. NPR said so right after it happened. Don’t construe it to be NPR policy.

Correction: please don’t misconstrue the situation.

But then december’s liberal bashing would just be partisan bullshit. :eek:

And don’t misunderestimate NPR’s maliciousness of intent. You’re either behind the conservatives or against America. We’re at war against terrorism, remember? :rolleyes

Anyone else find it amusing that the TVC whined to congress and didn’t get lawyers? Probably because of that damn liberal bias all the lawyers ahve. Getting all uppity over freedoms and what not.

I think the apology went a bit farther than the first correction. The first correction merely said that NPR agreed with TVC’s complaint. The apology made it clear that NPR believed they did wrong, regardless of whether TVC complained or not.

I agree that there’s not much difference. The reason I found this apology noteworthy is the timing. Why did NPR put out this apology now, over a year after the offending broadcast?

So, rather than wondering what prompted the recent apology, you pretend that there had never been a retraction and make one more inane, inaccurate, anti-“liberal” whine.

Why am I not surprised?

You are not surprised because your failure to read the OP makes the world seem a mysterious place filled with inanity and inaccuracy. :wink:

The third sentence of the OP says:

The OP ends by asking:

However, you acted as though, under attack from TVC, NPR simply uttered a Rush-like “have it your way” statement. In fact, they expressly modified the story to remove the offensive question, noted that it had been removed because it was inappropriate, and then added a second declaration to their Corrections page in which they reiterated that it was a violation of NPR policy.

Your title “Better late than never” implied that no previous action had been taken.

tomndebb, you overlooked the OP and made a false accusation. That’s not the end of the world. Why make it worse by making further uncited incorrect accusations? Would it not be wiser to take a leaf from NPR and just apologize?