CPB and Tomlinson again

[magellan01]

@Harborwolf

Are you implying that this bias in public broadcasting is in the overall selection of story choice? Do you consider the stories that NPR has chosen to run to be less newsworthy than others? Has their been a dramatic difference in the stories that public broadcasting has chosen vs. other news organizations?

I only said, or meant to say (you and I have a little trouble communicating*) that if there is going to be a panel looking for bias, that they look where that bias could theoretically exist. Off the top of my head I can think of two: within the story and in the selection of stories. Do you deny that to be true?

I don’t listen to NPR that much any more because I no longer commute, so I wouldn’t attempt to speak forcefully with such limited exposure. My overall impression is that they choose (used to choose?) a lot of stories that pointed to the plight of the third world or the underclass here and did not explore the “reasons why” as fully as I personally would have liked. So I recall some bias both within the stories and with their selection.

But as I’ve stated, I don’t think NPR is a huge problem. I don’t think we need it, I think if they’re going to exist that they have an obligation to be balanced, but it’s way down on my lists of problems.

*Just an observation. No blame inplied.

[Evil_Captor]

@magellan01

But as I’ve stated, I don’t think NPR is a huge problem. I don’t think we need it, I think if they’re going to exist that they have an obligation to be balanced, but it’s way down on my lists of problems.

I think NPR is needed because it exists in a lot of rural markets where all the local radio stations are right wing. As one poster put it: "In my town, if it weren’t for NPR I have a choice between Ultra Right Wing radio and Mega Right Wing radio. Even if NPR were a radical right wing news source – and its centrist more than anything else – it would still be a useful and necessary alternative to the overwhelming, endless babble of the Right Wing spin machine.

[magellan01]

@Evil Captor

I think NPR is needed because it exists in a lot of rural markets where all the local radio stations are right wing. As one poster put it: "In my town, if it weren’t for NPR I have a choice between Ultra Right Wing radio and Mega Right Wing radio. Even if NPR were a radical right wing news source – and its centrist more than anything else – it would still be a useful and necessary alternative to the overwhelming, endless babble of the Right Wing spin machine.

So according to your logic, you would agree that the government should also subsidize right wing radio in areas that are to the left?

[DMC]

@Bill H.

My take on that was that PBS viewers were polled to see how they rated the journalism quality of PBS, and the poll showed they were happy with it.

Your take is incorrect. According to CPB’s report to Congress (warning: PDF), it’s ALL adults, not just PBS viewers.

@CPB report

The overwhelming majority of adults in this country (80%) say that they have a favorable impression of PBS and NPR as a whole.

Just for fun, the report also states:

For example, only one-in-ten Americans (10%) would say that a per capita expenditure of $1.30 in taxpayer funds is “too much” for the government to be spending on public broadcasting. Nearly half (48%) say the amount is “too little” and roughly one-third (35%) say the amount is “about right.”

and

Even among those who believe that that PBS and/or NPR news and information programming has a liberal bias, a clear majority of this subgroup of the population (65% - 67%) still concedes that the current taxpayer expenditure on public broadcasting is “too little” or “about right.”

and even

Fewer than 20% of Republicans say that the amount of government funds that goes to public broadcasting is “too much,” and among Democrats this figures stands at only 2%.

Still have doubts about where folks stand?

[DMC]

@magellan01

So according to your logic, you would agree that the government should also subsidize right wing radio in areas that are to the left?

He actually stated that NPR was more centrist than anything else, so according to his logic, the government should subsidize centrist radio in areas that are to the left and the right. Oh, and the survey linked above also backs him up:

@CPB report

Both surveys confirm the same thing: The majority of the U.S. adult population does not believe that the news and information programming on public broadcasting is biased. The plurality of Americans indicate that there is no apparent bias one way or the other, while approximately one-in-five detect a liberal bias and approximately one-in-ten detect a conservative bias.

[Typo_Negative]

@Harborwolf

But the case could be made that NPR is more informative than the commercial news outlets. There was a study done about the media nd the iraq war (I’ll dig for it later. Sleepy wolf now) that showed that NPR listeners had far fewer misconceptions about the facts of the war in Iraq than those that listened to/watched the other sources.

Wasn’t this also true for viewers of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart?

[Liberal]

And it doesn’t necessarily extrapolate to anything else. It is possibly the case that NPR listeners are more ignorant about the economy, for example, than listeners of a less socialist outlet.

[Harborwolf]

@magellan01

I only said, or meant to say (you and I have a little trouble communicating*) that if there is going to be a panel looking for bias, that they look where that bias could theoretically exist. Off the top of my head I can think of two: within the story and in the selection of stories. Do you deny that to be true?

We’re not having a problem communicating. I’m just asking questions for purposes of clarification. It’s odd behavior for the pit I’m sure, but I thought I’d give 'er a go.

I suppose that it is theoretically possible that bias could exist in the selection of stories, but that seems like such a tremendous longshot. To prove bias along those lines, you would have to determine whether or not the stories in question are newsworthy and whether or not the stories themselves are biased.

My overall impression is that they choose (used to choose?) a lot of stories that pointed to the plight of the third world or the underclass here and did not explore the “reasons why” as fully as I personally would have liked. So I recall some bias both within the stories and with their selection.

Let’s be honest here. Nobody really cares about the plight of the priviliged now do they. I suppose they must, otherwise The O.C. wouldn’t still be on the air.

There are a couple of things to keep in mind about NPR news. Most shows run two hours. That means they could fill the time remaining past the top stories with garbage news (shark attacks, missing white girls, etc.), fluff stories like the Today Show (which grill is best for your barbecue, and Matt Lauer pretends he’s an actual reporter), or news stories that don’t get a lot of air time (newly released studies, science and technology, etc.). Thankfully NPR chooses the last option and actually gives air time to stories that don’t get covered.

To ask more questions (You think you’ve got it bad? Imagine how my mother felt when I was a kid ), what makes the stories about the third world or the underclass biased? How do you determine the political leanings of an individual news story based upon the subject matter?

[Harborwolf]

Spooje, I’m not sure if The Daily Show was included in the PIPA study or not. I do recall hearing that TDS had more informed viewers than the other outlets though. I’m kind of glad because TDS kicks much ass, but it’s also a little depressing that a half hour comedy show leaves viewers more informed than a 24 hour news network.

@Liberal

And it doesn’t necessarily extrapolate to anything else. It is possibly the case that NPR listeners are more ignorant about the economy, for example, than listeners of a less socialist outlet.

True, but it’s not much of a stretch either. It is certainly an interesting enough result to justify a more detailed study.

The bolded portion is interesting for another reason. How does one define balance? IIRC, Liberal does not feel that his views are adequately represented in the mainstream press. Is balance all sides being given equal time or just the two heavyweights? How would this be workable with regards to broadcast news?

[magellan01]

@Harborwolf

I suppose that it is theoretically possible that bias could exist in the selection of stories, but that seems like such a tremendous longshot.

I don’t think its a longshot. For instance, take the broad topic of our schools, can’t you conceive of a group of stories that, as a whole, would imply that the problem is one of funding? Or another group of stories that would point to the problem being non-financial?

Group A
“Johnny Can’t Read if Johnny Doesn’t Have a Book”
“School Class Size–the Real Class Warfare”
“Starving for an Education-the Plight of School Lunch Programs”
“Teachers: Over Valued or Under Paid?”

Group B
“The Kansas City Experiment: All the Money, None of the Results”
“Bigger Classes, Higher Scores: How the Top Ten Countries Are Leaving the U.S. Behind”
“Are Teachers UnderPaid? Or, How Much Would Having Summers and Holidays Off be Worth to You?”
“Charter Schools: the New Road to Harvard”.

The illustration above is just a quick hypothetical. But I think that even if these stories were presented in balanced way, that the overall impression left about the state of our education system would be quite different if either group was aired exclusively.

That was a long way to make a rather small point,but I don’t think, as you said, that bias by story selection is such a long shot. In fact, which group do you think would have been more likely to run on NPR?

How do you determine the political leanings of an individual news story based upon the subject matter?

Personally? I try to read and get news from both sides. I scan online sites (Huffington, Drudge, Media Matters, FrontPage, etc.) and see what the issues are, I watch C-Span, I watch the news analysis shows, then there are the NY Times, The Washington Times, and my local paper (SF Chronicle). This gives me a pretty good idea of the scope of each issue. I’m then able to determine which news outlets, or people, give a more comprehensive, balanced presentation.
Harborwolf, DMC:

He actually stated that NPR was more centrist than anything else, so according to his logic, the government should subsidize centrist radio in areas that are to the left and the right

Your missing the larger point. But okay, maybe I shold have said:
"So according to your logic, you would agree that the government should also subsidize more centrist radio (that leaning further to the right than the norm in the market) in areas that are to the left?

[Evil_Captor]

@magellan01

So according to your logic, you would agree that the government should also subsidize right wing radio in areas that are to the left?

My bad. I meant to say that "even if NPR were an ultra left wing news source, it would still be useful and necessary in balancing right wing news outlets in rural areas.

And if there were places where all the news was left wing, it would be helpful to have a federally funded right wing news source, or as is really the case with NPR, at least a centrist news source that would present an alternative POV.

[Evil_Captor]

@Liberal

And it doesn’t necessarily extrapolate to anything else. It is possibly the case that NPR listeners are more ignorant about the economy, for example, than listeners of a less socialist outlet.

“Less socialist nature.” Poison the well much?

The survey showed that NPR’s listeners run across a broad political spectrum. You got anything besides hand-waving to describe NPR’s listeners as socialist?

[Harborwolf]

magellan01, regarding your examples.

You still have not defined what makes a particular story or choice of story biased politically. Without that, it is hard to determine whether or not the station would be biased.

As for the examples, I imagine I’d hear both sooner or later. One of the things NPR does well is report on new studies that have come out. The examples that you give would likely be reported on when a study is released showing one (lack of money) or the other (money not being spent wisely). I would also hear a rational analysis from the opposing side to each issue.

Hopefully that was clear.

Your missing the larger point. But okay, maybe I shold have said:
"So according to your logic, you would agree that the government should also subsidize more centrist radio (that leaning further to the right than the norm in the market) in areas that are to the left?

The politics of the audience should have nothing to do with which way the news leans. The news should be apolitical.

[magellan01]

@Evil Captor

My bad. I meant to say that "even if NPR were an ultra left wing news source, it would still be useful and necessary in balancing right wing news outlets in rural areas.

And if there were places where all the news was left wing, it would be helpful to have a federally funded right wing news source, or as is really the case with NPR, at least a centrist news source that would present an alternative POV.

This is the best case I’ve heard for NPR yet. Well done. We don’t agree that NPR is as balanced as it should be, but that’s a detail not fundemantal to your position. Again, I really like the way you’ve framed the hypothetical.

I wonder if the same ething couldn’t/wouldn’t be accomplished by natural market forces. Something to mull over. Hmmm…

[magellan01]

@Harborwolf

magellan01, regarding your examples.

You still have not defined what makes a particular story or choice of story biased politically. Without that, it is hard to determine whether or not the station would be biased.

I did explain it. Look to the issues/angles covered by a broad swath of the media, as well as the floors of congress and the senate, and compare the coverage. If your coverage aligns with one side, it’s not as balanced as it should/could be.

As for the examples, I imagine I’d hear both sooner or later. One of the things NPR does well is report on new studies that have come out. The examples that you give would likely be reported on when a study is released showing one (lack of money) or the other (money not being spent wisely). I would also hear a rational analysis from the opposing side to each issue.

Hopefully that was clear.

Sorry, I’m lost. Could you restate?

The politics of the audience should have nothing to do with which way the news leans. The news should be apolitical.

Absolutely. Especially if it’s dissemination is being paid for out of the public coffers.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@magellan01

I did explain it. Look to the issues/angles covered by a broad swath of the media, as well as the floors of congress and the senate, and compare the coverage. If your coverage aligns with one side, it’s not as balanced as it should/could be.

From my personal observations, I fairly often hear far-right commentators on NPR discussing issues from a highly partisan standpoint (e.g., the editor for National Review, I think, has given more than one commentary on NPR). I’ve never heard a similar commentary by the editor of Mother Jones or The Nation. The last highly-partisan commentary I heard on NPR was, I believe, on Monday: Paul Rosenzweig, from the frickin Heritage Foundation, discussed why Bush should choose an ultraconservative Supreme Court justice, not some faddish shallow justice like O’Connor.

Daniel

[magellan01]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

From my personal observations, I fairly often hear far-right commentators on NPR discussing issues from a highly partisan standpoint (e.g., the editor for National Review, I think, has given more than one commentary on NPR). I’ve never heard a similar commentary by the editor of Mother Jones or The Nation. The last highly-partisan commentary I heard on NPR was, I believe, on Monday: Paul Rosenzweig, from the frickin Heritage Foundation, discussed why Bush should choose an ultraconservative Supreme Court justice, not some faddish shallow justice like O’Connor.

Daniel

Glad to hear it. As I mentioned in an earlier post I don’t listen to NPR (or any radio) much anymore because I no longer commute. But it sounds like they’ve made an attempt to balance things out. Excellent news. And thanks for the update.

[Liberal]

@Evil Captor

The survey showed that NPR’s listeners run across a broad political spectrum. You got anything besides hand-waving to describe NPR’s listeners as socialist?

I did not describe NPR’s listeners as socialist. It’s too bad they don’t make you young’uns diagram sentences anymore.

[DMC]

@magellan01

Your missing the larger point. But okay, maybe I shold have said:
"So according to your logic, you would agree that the government should also subsidize more centrist radio (that leaning further to the right than the norm in the market) in areas that are to the left?

Which it already does. That’s the whole point of the survey above. You may or may not agree, but the majority of this country thinks that our subsidized news sources are more trustworthy and less biased than our network news sources. A small minority find PBS/NPR to have a liberal bias. An even smaller minority find them to have a conservative bias, but overall, they are considered to be more “fair and balanced” than any news source out there.

Therefore, having them be a voice of reason in any market, left or right leaning, is a good thing.

You seem to be implying that we need a voice to balance out the other voices in left leaning markets. I’m saying that that voice already exists, and is the same voice that balances out the other voices in right leaning markets. The surveys show that the majority of the population, heck, even a majority of Rebublicans, agrees with me.

[DMC]

I probably shouldn’t have used the word “balance” above when describing the position of NPR/PBS in relation to left and right leaning voices. Balance implies that it leans in the opposite direction, when I feel that it actually just sits fairly square in the middle.

Some people seem to want there to be equal parts left and right leaning news sources, perhaps to see both extremes and then assume that the median represents the truth. Personally, I’d rather ignore both of them and find an unbiased news source. I think that’s a lot more accurate method of gathering news.