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.
[/QUOTE]
I agree that NPR is far from our major problem. But there are some problems that rise up higher than they normally would due to the principle involved. Does it really “matter” if a few hundred votes get lost or a few hundred people are steered away from the polls in a state that results in a landslide for a candidate. No. But we understand that there is something about problems like that are offensive and go to undermine the philosophical underpinnings of our country. They also, on a visceral level offend our sense of fair play. So I think our obligation to “monitor” NPR is just that, an obligation, in the moral sense.
We pretty much agree on A. As far as B, I accept that you don’t believe it. We just see it differently. But I think their motives are irrelevant. You do the right thing because it is the right thing, even if your opponents would think it to be a good thing for their own reason–pure or warped. Wouldn’t you agree with that?
I accept that you do not see the need to change NPR because there is no bias. But would you agree that it should be monitored? So we can be sure that it stays as fair as you think it now is?
As someone who is generally speaking opposed to war, I don’t want my tax dollars buying bullets to kill people. Why should my tax dollars go to something that I am opposed to? Why not let the free market take care of wars? Certainly free-market organizations like Executive Outcomes will fill the void. Right?
Right?
I agree that it shouldn’t lean one way or the other. If by monitor, you mean that the current party in power should attempt to swing it more in their direction (which is what is currently being attempted) then no. If you mean neutral by keeping the government out of its content, then yes. I no more want the next Democratic administration to be involved in its content than I do the current administration. In other words, I think 2 is currently being met pretty effectively.
Completely disagree. It’s become quite obvious to me that a large portion of the market wants their news to repeat what they want to hear. While there is a subset of the population who wants completely unfiltered news, the subset is small enough in some areas to make a radio station tailored to them economically unfeasible. Satellite radio might eventually make such a station worthwhile, as the technology is completely different, thus allowing smaller niche markets to be more profitable than with the traditional radio stations, where listener radius issues prevent the profitability.
I personally don’t think the big 3 and CNN lean either left or right, but they do lean in that direction which makes money. If sensationalism makes money, they’ll sensationalize. If kissing butt of the current administration makes them money, they’ll pucker up. If fighting against the current administration makes them money, they put on boxing gloves. I want a news outlet that is not beholden to the government, but also not to a corporate parent, a sponsor, nor anyone else for that matter.
The neutrality that I seek is not to say that I think they need to provide all viewpoints on all topics. For example, when the planes crashed into the two towers on 9/11, many news channels reeled in horror at what happened. I don’t expect a neutral channel to broadcast the side of the terrorists under those circumstances, just to balance out the reporting. I just want accurate, timely news, with no editorial slant added. Opinions are for editorials, not for news.
I would not agree. National defense is one of the few things that the governement should and is obligated to do. Mind, I do not say “only”.
From the Declariation of Independence:
“…We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that
they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.–That to “secure” these
Rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”
From the U.S. Constitution:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, “provide for the common defence”,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and
our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
America…”
“To secure the rights” and “provide for common defence” are there in our founding documents. We can certainly argue whether or not we should have our governement provide other services, but most are open to debate. You could argue that is there obligation to ensure a free press, and I would agree. Just not that we are required to pay for it.
And the dissemination of news “information” is not just another item that some of us might be opposed to. The main purpose of the first amendment is to ensure that the press, in general, had the ability to criticize the government. If you agree with that, wouldn’t you agree that there would be a conflict of interest if they’re expected to criticize the very group that funds them? This makes more sense than even the speration of church and state.
Also, why should your tax dollars go to give voice to a political persuassion that you don’t agree with? I don’t think I can think of anything more un-American.
I agree. The party in power shouldn’t be able to swing it one way or another. And I don’t think that’s what is being done, unless suggesting that a committee monitor NPR is action. By I separate the two acts. One is setting up a committee. The other is monitoring, which might lead to taking action one way or another. I think the committee should be apolitical. Failing that, bipartisan. I persoanlly think that five people would be better than three, but that’s just another opinion.
Excellent point. And speaking for myself, if it cold be shown that there were enough people in these isolated pockets that are effected, I could sign on. If the number was tiny (which I don’t think it is) I would vote to put those dollars elsewhere. Even so, I would do it only as long as the market couldn’t do it.
We’re not going to ba able to agree on this. In light of the actions of CBS and Newsweek, I sincerely do not see how anyone can be of that opinion. But, as I’ve said before, a lot of this–whether somehting is biased or not–matters on where your sitting.
I agree wholeheartedly. And while I may wish that for all news, I think I have a right to expect it from a public station.
“secure” I don’t know if I buy that. “common defense” right on, as long as your strictly talking about at defensive homeland-bound militia, which we’re not.
My point is that you can say “why should my taxes pay for” about anything. Anything at all. And you’re free to do that and you’re going to run into people that disagree with you on nearly every one of these. I encourage you to do as your doing and fight for getting rid of it if it’s what you really want. I suggest to you that it’s not worth your time fighting to get rid of it because it’s woefully underfunded (in my opinion…don’t ask for a cite). There are many other places to trim the budget that could result in bigger returns.
You’re making a leap there. Clearly there is a very distinct potential for conflict of interest. However potential does not always equal certainty. The answer was the de-politicization of public broadcasting which has worked just fine for, oh, the entirety of the existence of the current system. PBS and NPR are in no way comparable to Pravda. It would appear that Tomlinson wishes to make this comparison much more a reality.
There’s no proof that NPR is a voice of any political persuasion. It’s just not the voice of the Republican party and some see this as a problem.
A homeland-bound militia? I think you may be thinking of the second amendment, which goes to the right to own a gun:
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Although a standing army was frowned upon in pre-revoluitonary times, the problems encountered with fighting the revolution shed light on the need for a standing army.
The fact is, providing for the national defense is one of the most important–if not THE–obligations of the federal government. It’s akin to not liking what goes on in congress–you still have to pay for it. Because the country has to ab able to function. Siilarly, it has to be able to defend itself, and it’s interests. At home and abroad.
For the record, I’m not fighting NPR. It is not near the top of my list of thing to fight. In that we agree. But this is a debate board…
That is your OPINION, which you are entitled to. But I’m a little curious about something: to all of you who believe that NPR is unbiased, wouldn’t monitoring it just bear that out? As the study you continually point to evidently does? What are you so afraid of? I believe that, whether it is or is not right noe, that you think it is fine if it were to be a moouthpice for the left. If I’m wrong, fine, tell me why thjis great fear?
1)The only reason that I bring up point 1 is that you are using it as a reason why NPR should be cut. If something is to be fixed or cut, there needs to be a solid determination that there is a problem. You will not get a doctor to remove a limb because you think that it has gangrene. This is why I keep bringing up proof. Now if it is your personal belief that NPR is biased, you should probably listen to it more but I won’t bug you about it until you view your beliefs as a reason to enact change. Deal?
I think no news organization should lean in either direction, so we’re in agreement there. NPR is being monitored for leanings, so no problem there either. As the ombudsmen have found no signs of bias, we’re golden there as well. If only we could get our 24 hour news channels to do the same, then we would have something.
And if I may get on my soapbox a bit here, I think that political bias is the least of the problems with the media. The major problem is a bias towards sensationalism, drama, and ratings. Think of the California car chases, the summer of the shark, or the media frenzy whenever someone disappears. They want to attract viewers. This is primarily where slant comes in. They want something that will grab the viewers attention and hold it for a period of time (this soda will kill you. We’ll tell you which one after sports and weather with the fat jolly guy). They grab idiot hosts whose only talent seems to be yelling and interrupting. They oversimplify issues or state the completely obvious (NBC News "The Fleecing of America is a grand example of this). This sort of crap is why…
3)there is a need for NPR and PBS. They bow to no ratings, commercial interests, or corporations. They report on what actually is news and what is important. When they have commentators on, they actually sound like they have a brain :eek: They don’t even yell. It’s rather remarkable. When the commercial interests start getting it done in the news department and leave the drama out, then I would be happy to say that there is no need for NPR. I just don’t think that it’s going to happen anytime soon.
As for my age, I ain’t tellin’. I will say that I am a good deal away from high school though. Naive idealism plays no more of a part of my beliefs than rampant partisan paranoia plays in yours.
That’s not all opinion by the way. The part about not being the voice of the RP, yeah, opinion. But I’ve not seen the other side of this debate present ANY proof that NPR is biased and in fact, so biased that it needs to be monitored and possibly eliminated. Again, the problem with the monitoring is that it’s all politically motivated.
In a nitpicky sideline: are you saying that you believe that potential for conflict of interest makes the conflict of interest inevitable? I don’t see any other way to read your statement claiming that this is opinion on my part.
Just to be clear, if it is the case that NPR finds some mystical point of balance and every human begin agrees with that assessment, I still think it needn’t exist.
Agreement, ahhh. I wold just stipulate to that last point, I think that we may wish them to be balance, and try to effect that change through letters and viewership, but they are free to air whatever they like. I it’s WKO-Harborwolf, you’re free to have fun as you see fit.
And if I may get on my soapbox a bit here, I think that political bias is the least of the problems with the media. The major problem is a bias towards sensationalism, drama, and ratings. Think of the California car chases, the summer of the shark, or the media frenzy whenever someone disappears. They want to attract viewers. This is primarily where slant comes in. They want something that will grab the viewers attention and hold it for a period of time (this soda will kill you. We’ll tell you which one after sports and weather with the fat jolly guy). They grab idiot hosts whose only talent seems to be yelling and interrupting. They oversimplify issues or state the completely obvious (NBC News "The Fleecing of America is a grand example of this). This sort of crap is why…
On this, we agree COMPLETELY. And the worst is anything that has a hint of a natural disaster. I just give up and turn it off.
Nice. Thanks for the sense of humor. With all the batting I’ve been doing against the less enlightened masses, I needed it.
Oh Christ on a stick! The voting machine complaints, if true (and I for sure ain’t sayin’ they are true), tamper directly with the FUCKING FRANCHISE and resulted in the possible subversion of the will of the people. If you don’t think this is more important than monitoring NPR, I suggest you read your core documents again.
But I guess it’s much more important that we muzzle stories about homelessness than we investigate potentially massive voter fraud.
No. Sorry for the confusion. My comment was directed at your statement:
“It’s just not the voice of the Republican party and some see this as a problem.”
Regarding “proof”, neither side has presented proof. You might be confusing this with “evidence”. A piece of evidence (the study mentioned earlier) may be used to help you prove your case, but is not in itself proof. Please scroll north for more on this confusion/infatuation with “proof”.
I’m going to have to go earn money now, thanks for the back and forth.
That may be. But if you’re going to be holding someone’s feet to the fire asking for proof in the incontrovertible sense, then it ceases taking on it’s more colloquial definition. So the person is able to build an argument: X is true, because of A, B, and C. X being the thing one is trying to prove and A, B, and C being evidence he offers up to prove its validity.
Well, I disagree with you in a couple of places, here. First, with the idea that anyone is demanding “incontrovertable” proof, merely “more convincing” proof. Generally speaking, most posters here don’t really seem to believe in the concept of “incontrovertable proof” to begin with, and tend to point and laugh at people who do. Secondly, even if I agreed with the first part of your post, it still wouldn’t invalidate the colloquial definition of the word. This is an internet message board, not the International Forensics Championship. Any discussion here is going to be done in a laregly informal manner. Besides, you clearly understood what he was asking for, so splitting hairs over the difference between “evidence” and “proof” just makes you look like a bit of a prat.
It sounded like a nightmare that William of Ockham might have had. In the phrase “less socialist outlet”, *socialist * modifies outlet, not listener. The outlet is the broadcaster, not the person listening.
