Well, it’s where I get most of MY news from.
I parse meaning and context pretty well. Let us examine your statement together, shall we?
Note that you used the phrase “less socialist outlet.” Yes, it is true, even a rabidly conservative radio station can logically be described as “less socialist” than a ultra-hyper-rabidly conservative radio station. But this is poor phraseology, don’t you agree? Because of course neither station is socialist is any way that makes sense – they are both right wing, reactionary, and anti-socialist, just one is more of all that than the other.
So it would make a lot more sense to describe two conservatives stations as ‘more’ or ‘less’ conservative, wouldn’t it? Because both ARE conservative, aren’t they?
Well, now, I think you see where I am coming from. If you use the term “less socialist” to describe two groups of listeners, you are really describing two groups of socialist listeners, aren’t you?
See how easy that was?
I agree that unbiased and objective is the best route for any journalistic medium with regard to the news. We are not getting a lot of that right now, and NPR is one of the best sources of what little we are getting.
When I was a young person, Americans were horrified at the control that the Soviet government had over the newspaper Pravda. Government control meant that it was unreliable.
If you have not read the article linked to in the OP, it is short but chilling. Here are some excerpts. (Keep in mind that the current White House Administration appointed Tomlinson to his position as chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting):
Contrast that with the following:
Who says programming should reflect the political mood of the country?
Being perceived as “more trustworthy and less biased than our network news sources does not” = being "considered to be more “fair and balanced” than any news source out there. I would say that O’Reilly, Mathews, and Hannity & Colmes are all much more “balanced”.
Actually, I was not saying that at all. But now that you bring it up, yes. And it is being done–not by NPR, which is still towards the left–but by the free market: Hannity, O’Reilly, Savage, Limbaugh, etc.
Congratulations. So, am I assume that you are in favor of a ban on gay marriage in those states that voted for it overwhelmingly?
Uhhh, FAIRNESS? LOGIC? If you agree that NPR should not lean either way, and the country as a whole has moved in a particular direction, how can NPR claim to remain “neutral” without moving with the country?
By staying non-partisan. Same as it has been. Same as it hopefully will be.
I’ll bypass the restatement. I’m tired and I don’t think I could state anything clearer. I’ll simply address the problems with using story choice short or long term to determine bias.
1)First you have to prove intent. You need to show that the people behind the choice of story intentionally chose the story out of political motivations. I suppose you could stretch it to even unintentionally, but that’s weak.
2)You have to determine whether or not the stories were newsworthy, whatever that means. Basically you want to know if there was an actual cause behind the story being in the news or if it was there simply out of bias. In the case of your education examples, was there a study released on school performance? Is there a new plan for school reform or funding? That sort of thing. Is the story topical?
- You have to prove that the subject matter itself is inherently biased towards one political party or another. In some cases this is easy: abortion rights, gun control, etc. Going back to education, this is more difficult as the parties seem to flip flop on how to reform schools.
Having to state the same thing over and over again is a bit annoying. (Breathe) I know you might not agree, but NPR is NOT non-partisan. I know all about the study they conducted, but I would bet you any money, that if you walked out on the street and asked a hundred people: does NPR lean left or right, the answer is right. Actually even the study showed that!
No, it’s not weak. Who said bias had to be intentional? I would say the most reporters, like a lot of us, aren’t even aware of their biases. I think that most of us, if asked to point to where the middle is, wouldn’t point to the same spot. It’s not that were being sinister and trying to fool everyone, it’s just that the landscape differs depending on where you sit. Bias needn’t be intentional. In fact I’d say when it is the most dangerous. It’s like sailing actoss the ocean and not being aware of a current.
I don’t think you understand me. It’s NOT about any one story. You need to look at patterns over time. News stories or not, in their totality, over time, do they skew to a particular side? I’ll repeat: IT iS NOT ABOUT ANY ONE STORY.
What do you mean by prove? I don’t think you have to prove anything. As I said before, and as they are evidently doing, get a panel who can be objective, have them monitor the programming every day and measure it against the range of news that is being talked about in the media (see previous post) Meet every week or so. If, over time the totality of stories tend to skew the station one way, just correct for it. What is so damn hard about that? Unless you don’t want to correct for it?
I think the crux of our differing opinions is that I think NPR or any public station has an obligation to be fair, to NOT skew one way or the other. I think that you don’t think such an obligation exists, that as long as it’s news it’s okay. If I’m wrong, lease tell me where.
But this discussion is a perfect example of the reason why we shouldn’t fund NPR at all. Aside from not NEEDING it, I don’t want my tax dollars to go to a station that is rooting (even subtley) for a side that I am opposed to. I would guess that you and most people would say the same. So instead of us trying to find some theoretical middle and trying to stay on course, let it die. All the good stuff will be picked up by some other station. Any void created will be filled by natural market forces. Problem solved. And tax money available for port security, border security, military pay, after school programs, etc.
You didn’t actually read the pdf file I linked to, did you? The exact wording they used was “fair and balanced” in one of their questions.
You really are skipping over everything I post, aren’t you? I stated quite clearly in a follow up that getting one’s news by performing a median on two extremes is a piss-poor method of finding out what’s going on in the world. Obviously, you can continue to gather your news in that manner, but you’ll also continue to be more ignorant about the real world than those of us who strive to find actual unbiased news sources.
This is a stupid analogy, as it assumes Argumentum Ad Populum is an appropriate method of determining everything. The entire purpose of the survey Tomlinson asked for was to determine perceptions. In other words, Argumentum Ad Populum is exactly what they were looking for in this case. In fact, the title given above the survey section is “Public perceptions of public broadcasting.” Perhaps finding a more neutral source would also help you formulate more valid arguments.
By the way, until you have shown that you are actually reading cites given, you’re just wasting my time. Feel free to correct that mistake on your part.
And that means exactly jack shit. I honestly could give a flying fuck what the american public believes. There’s a good number of them that think Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Doesn’t make it true. Used to think the world was flat. Go try to sail off the edge. Peoples beliefs prove nothing.
Ah yes, the insidious bias. It just creeps its way into the news broadcast like a virus. :rolleyes: Comes up every time we get to talking about media bias and it’s really fucking patronizing. “It’s not their fault that they are biased. They can’t help themselves.” Horse hockey (which they were actually going to try if the lockout continued). I think the only reason people like to bring this line of reasoning into it is so they can look at every adjective as a sign of bias without having to actually know the politics of the reporter.
Yeah, I gotcha. Did you know if you buy a lego death star, you actually have to put it together yourself? If you want to make a case based on story choice, you first have to determine the political bias of the subject matter. You cannot just look at all of the stories and say “Oh yeah, that looks pretty liberal to me.” Why not? Because that is piss poor research and sloppy science. If you want to prove something like media bias, it is going to take work, not hand waving.
If you are trying to “prove” that a media outlet is biased, then you really are going to have to “prove” something aren’t you? If you are going to judge whether or not a news broadcast is biased based on content, you need to first determine whether or not there is a reason for the story to be there. Then you need to determine which side of the political aisle the story favors. You can’t just wave a magical fairy wand and say “tiddley tea, bias I see.” You have to put in an effort.
Your wrong. Very wrong. I think that the news has no obligation to any political wing. I think it has no obligation to bring balance to a market. The only thing that the news has an obligation to is the news. I think that Fox News and Air America and all the other partisan shit programs are the last thing we need. Instead of fixing a problem, they’re only making it worse by coddling people who cannot stand to have their political beliefs threatened and fostering distrust of the news as a whole. Got it?
Prove it. Prove that NPR is rooting for any side. You’ve already said that you don’t listen to it, so I’m going to assume that you don’t fucking know and are just believing what people tell you.
Now, in my opinion as a non-partisan and a full time crank about the news, NPR is the most reliable, most informative, least sensationalist, and most wonderfully non-biased news source out there. It is the only quality source for news in this entire fucking country (BBC news is just as good, but is out of the country so my statement is still true). Instead of trying to “fix” it, we should be trying to get more media outlets to be like it, cause the commercial ones are pure and utter shit.
magellan01: So instead of us trying to find some theoretical middle and trying to stay on course, let it die. All the good stuff will be picked up by some other station. Any void created will be filled by natural market forces. Problem solved.
This statement is very naive about how “natural market forces” work in most real-life markets, particularly media markets where there are a lot of obstacles to free competition (broadcasting licenses, media monopolies, limited airwaves availability, etc.).
The “market fundamentalists” believe that deregulation and de-subsidization automatically solves all problems and provides everything that people want, but that belief isn’t very well supported by evidence. It might be true if all markets actually operated like ideal free markets, but in real life that doesn’t happen.
magellan01: *And it is being done–not by NPR, which is still towards the left–but by the free market: Hannity, O’Reilly, Savage, Limbaugh, etc. *
Again, “free market” is at best a very exaggerated way to describe the corporate mainstream media, which is controlled by a small and shrinking number of owners in a highly managed and dictatorial way. The idea that media stars like Hannity and Savage are somehow the result of free competition on an open market, instead of carefully fostered and marketed products of a largely controlling interest within a heavily restricted market, is basically just a fantasy.
This is the essence of my problem with people who want to “fix” or “change” NPR. It’s the best news source we got. Let’s work on the crap media before we go working on NPR.
The simple fact is, the Pubbies want NPR “fixed” precisely BECAUSE it is objective and nonpartisan. They want it partisan.
As a matter of fact, I did read it. I even went to the websites of the two groups who conducted the research. I simply choose to accept it for what it is: a study. You may choose to accept it as gospel because you find comfort in it. It does not require ME to do so. If it makes you feel better to consider me ignorant, go ahead, feel better. Even though it might make me cry myself to sleep.
Yes. But when you use the findings to “prove” your point you’re still guilty of it. Let’s say three more studies came out today showing the complete opposite? Would that “prove” my point? No. Now if over the years, we have hundreds and hundreds of studies and they all showed the same thing, thatn the studies would “approach” being “proof”.
This was attached to the end of your paragraph above. You lost me.
Here’s a better idea: just don’t read my posts are respond to them. The last thing I would want is for your to waste your precious time.
Oh well, so much for democracy. Or repecting other people’s opinions and playing well with others.
No, you miss the point. The point is that the bias is not insidious, that it is innocent. And if you don’t accept that ALL of us come to the table with a bunch of biases and predujices that we are not aware of, you are ignorant of the human condition, in fact, what it means to be human? If you are still in high school, though, I forgive your naive idealism.
Some things are science. Others are art. Don’t you tink that you could view the news aired by Station X and come to a conclusion as to whether it leans one way or another? And if three or five people did it that the each of you would correct for the biases that each of you might have. Oops, I forgot, people don’t have biases. Never mind.
Why are you so hung up on “Prove”? We’re not talking about law or mathematics, we’re talking about someting soft: bias. For you to want bias to be “proven” before corrective adjustments shold be made is transparently disingenuous. You are just seeking to prevent action by mandating proof for something that you know can’t always be proven. (I guess in particularly egregious cases one could build a fairly airtight argument.) What is so hard or wrong for there to be a panel of people as bias-free as yourself monitoring the overall tenor of a station?
Thank you for reponding to my polite request to clarify your position in kind. That aside, you wrong, very wrong, because we are more in agreement here than not. I would agree with you wholeheartedly except for the fact that NPR is a public station and I believe–in other words, it is my opinion, albeit a strong one–that they are not just like any other station. They have an oblgation to not be biased. By the way, if oyu look at my previous posts you’ll see that I don’t think they are very biased. Still they have an obligation not to be, and therefore someone should be monitoring them. Do we agree on all this except whether NPR has any bias or not?
If your objection is to “rooting”, I agree, too strong a word. I’d change to “leaning to”. There you go with your “prove” thing again. (See above.) Prove to me that the person you voted for last year was the best choice. Prove to me that The Third Rock from the Sun was a funny TV show. Prove to me that your tie goes well with your shirt. Prove to me that baseball is abetter sport than basketball. Well, well, c’mon, I’m waiting… Point is we are allowed to both have opinions and act on them.
And no, as I’ve stated, I no longer listen. I stopped when my commute stopped a year ago. And since you did read my previous post did you read the part about me thinkiing that it NPR is NOT very biased. And that IT was not a very important issue with me. My argument is more philosophical. But I guess that’s not okay. Let me ask you: do you overact anytime an idea of yours is opposed by anyone in any way?
I thiink we’ll be most in agreement here. Most news sources are shit, including for me, Rush and Air America. (I admit that every now and then I like to tune in and hear how the koolaid effects either side.) I do also think that most stations would do well to emulate much of NPR, as it is more balanced than most of them. I just think that for NPR, balance is not just a good idea, but an obligation as well.
I think you make an excellent point about us not having a truly free market system. We shouldwork on that. But I do think it works pretty good. Thre was a dearth of the right wing voice in the major media and POOF, Rush was born. Then others. Now that that area is getting crowded we;ll see people fall out. There is now dearth of left talk on the radio and Air America, with smaller stations like Pacifica Radio in SF, are beginning to fill that void. If there is a market for it, the stations will come. The media companies and advertisers will make sure of it.
Even if NPR is better than all the other news sources, it is not our obligation to fix them. They can do almost whatever they want in their attempt to gain audience share. NPR is us, and the obligation it has to be unbiased falls to us.
As far as your last paragraph, isn’t it possible that Republicans want it to be unbiased on principle?
That’s the entire point you seem to be missing. A lot of us don’t want left or right talk radio, we want neutral talk radio. We want the news. We don’t want it leftified, rightified, liberalized, conservativized, transmogrified, mutated, teleported, diced, chopped, blended, mixed, pureed, or otherwise altered in any way. We just happen to think that NPR is the closest thing to that, and the study shows that the majority of Americans agree with us. While it’s true that the majority of Americans can be wrong on any given issue, you haven yet to provide any evidence that they are in this instance.
If I lived in Britain, I’d be listening to and watching BBC, but it’s not quite as ubiquitous here, so PBS/NPR are my outlets of choice.
What exactly did you find flawed about that survey? Two different firms performed the surveys to ensure that the methodology wasn’t affected by bias.
If three more studies asked the exact same questions and got completely opposite answers, someone’s integrity would be called into question. That hasn’t happened yet, so the point is moot. I’m not aware of a single study which attempted to find the same answers as this study that the CPB commissioned, but I’ll happily read any studies that you find that do make such an attempt.
Speaking as a citizen in a country which is poorly served by its news sources, I’m perfectly comfortable with saying that, in a general sort of way, NPR is not our major problem here. It is in fact the solution, and what we should be doing if we care about good news reporting is resisting attempts to change NPR, since it’s one of the few that are doing things right.
[/quote]
As far as your last paragraph, isn’t it possible that Republicans want it to be unbiased on principle?
[/QUOTE]
A) I believe that little, if any, bias exists within NPR.
B) It is possible that their motivation is a simple desire to correct what they see as bias, but it is extremely unlikely, in fact, one would have to be either incredibly naive or a Pubbie partisan to believe that is their motivation. As I am neither, I do not believe it.
At a cursory glance, their methodology looks fine. I would have like the question asked:
“If you had to pick one, would oyu say that NPR leans more to the right or to the left?”
Also, I think their use of the term “diversity” connotes only one type of diversity, ethnic. There are other types as well, the case in point being political.
Still these are niggles. My point was that a study is just that, a study. It is somehting that endeavors to give you a better look at something you can’t see with the bare eye. I don’t think that even the people who conducted the study would claim that they’ve have revealed the truth about the issue an any questions are now moot. Or that subsequent studies might also prove illuminating.
There are three points I’ve been arguing here with you and others. Two I feel strongly about, the other I don’t. (As you can see from previous posts.)
-
I do not feel strongly that NPR is in philosophical dire straits. I think they do a pretty good job, but that they lean more left than right.
-
I do feel strongly that NPR, or any public station, should not lean one way or the other. I think it should be monitored, and that over time it might need some corrections.
-
Given today’s world, I do not think a public station is necessary, and that those funds are best utilized elsewhere.
If anyone would like to continue the debate on points 2 and 3, I’m happy to do so. For those looking for a fight on point 1, please look elsewhere. Not only is my heart not in it–as I’ve state repeatedly–but the “debate” is futile. I and others perceive bias there. The study helps to show that even if it is there, it’s not too bad. Good. I would like it to be zero, others don’t not feel that necesity, which means move on to point #2. Or 3.