I know, I’ve expressed this sentiment several times in the past. But it has been a little while.
During the last 2-3 days, they’ve featured interviews with Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Ken Mehlmann.
During that time, the only “prominent” Democrat that they’ve interviewed: Dick Durbin.
This morning, in talking about the Tennessee senate race, they also referred to that Jungle Fever ad produced on behalf of Corker about Harold Ford as the “controversial Ford ad.” Doesn’t calling it a Ford ad make it sound like it was done for or by Harold Ford?
I wish their funding would dry up and go away. They do more harm than good, clearly want to shift to a conservative bias, and seem to have no qualms about being part of the problem.
Fascinating, I love NPR and while I have seen them move from the left, more to the center, they hardly appear too conservative at this point. They are still very pro Social Liberties and Environment. They are usually more balanced and in depth than any other News Radio and I learn far more from them then any other news source. I am sure the Conservatives on the board will complain they are still extremely liberal and that they have only moved a small distance to the right. I think they are still to the left of the middle, but much more towards the middle then 10 years ago.
I will continue to support them for now as I have for years. Where else can I get Road Journals from China, points of view from the Arab world and detailed reports on advances in science from one source? They are still overwhelmingly the best-presented newscast I have seen or heard. I understand YMMV, but I enjoy listening to them on my long commute each day.
BTW: Who said they are supposed to have a leftist message? They are supposed to be Public Radio, not Leftist radio.
Jim {Green Moderate Republican, Socially on the liberal side}
It’s NPR. National Public Radio. It’s not supposed to lean one way or the other. I do, however, find it hilarious that many in the right have for years consider NPR to be squarely in the liberal camp and now you’re wishing NPR pack up over two DAYS worth of sporatic Republican viewpoints.
It’s hardly two DAYS worth. They’ve been a useful tool for the conservatives for some time. I just cannot remember two days where they’ve so obviously given so much airtime to interviews with the leaders of the Republican party.
They also do no investigation, which is partly what I was alluding to with the “part of the problem” bit. A decent news organization would never engage in he said/she said, but they’ve had no problem doing that. For example, they did a bit about Rush Limbaugh’s allegations re: Michael Fox yesterday that pretty much assumed Limbaugh was accurate. Wouldn’t it be incumbent upon them, if they are going to discuss the topic, to see if Fox did or did not actually go off his medication to accentuate the difficulties he has. Nor did they even bother to suggest that dyskenesia is a side effect of medications.
They’re no Fox News, but they’re also no NPR. Not anymore.
In the spirit of investigating claims, you know you should probably provide a link to let others decide on the fairness of the commentary. Here is the Link to Limbaugh, Not Fox, Has His Priorities Wrong.
Does not sound very Biased against Fox to me. It sounds anti Rush Windbag in fact. Your standards are either very high, or you heard a different report.
Is the OP saying he wishes NPR’s funding would shrivel up and die because they’re too conservative?
How many things can you count that are wrong with that?
Anyway, I still give them money. And, this morning I heard a pretty fascinating 10 minutes on Carl Sandburg. It’s not every morning you get to wake up to the sounds of “Hog butcher of the world!”
I didn’t say it was anti-Fox. I said that NPR didn’t bother to get the facts. The piece basically said “So what if Fox didn’t take his medications in order to make his symptoms look worse, people with disabilities shouldn’t have to hide.” I don’t disagree with the last bit, but I have a huge problem with simply assuming that Rush Limbaugh is telling the truth.
Why was there no mention of the possibility that the dyskenesia in the video is often a side effect of the medication? Why was there no mention of any effort to ask Fox if he did or did not take his medication? Do you disagree about the absence of these things from the piece?
A news source should do at least the basic level of checking the facts.
I’m not going to give up listening or supporting NPR. They are still far and away the closest thing to a balanced and in-depth source of news I’ve run across, but I feel for the OP. My take on it is that NPR is mainly staffed by progressives, and, as is all too typical of progressives, when people on the other side accuse them of a bias, they bend over backwards to try to prove it isn’t so. They are going out of their way to let conservatives, sometimes extremist conservatives, have their say, usually with only a moderate, or sometimes with no one to counterbalance them, as if they feel they, NPR is representing the liberal side just by asking questions at all.
I will wait until tonight when I can listen to the report. I cannot at work. Can you tell me what they did say about Fox’s illness and dyskenesia? I still think you might be setting the bar to high on them.
This was the decision made by the commentator, the author of The Disability Studies Reader and Bending Over Backwards: Essays on Disability and the Body. Other NPR reporting addressed precisely that issue.
Basically, you’re angry that a pro-progressive piece failed to address all of the possible points against Mr. Limbaugh at once.
The next time you write a post on Iraq, I’ll be sure to start a pit thread because you forgot to mention the time that George Bush landed on that aircraft carrier off of San Diego with the “Mission Accomplished” banner.
Frankly, any intelligent observer would see that for this particular commentator, making the point that Mr. Fox was indeed doing his best to control his dyskenisia and Parkinson’s symptoms would have directly undermined his point regarding the importance of not declaring that it should be the goal of all disabled people to do their best to appear an become “normal.”
I mention the bar exam because it shocks my conscious to know that you’re a lawyer.
Has it? I haven’t heard it. That piece was the only thing I have heard NPR have to say on the matter, and they didn’t bother to address the basic facts, as I have said.
No, dipshit. They gave the impression that Limbaugh’s assertion was true. Going into all that is wrong with Limbaugh is something I wouldn’t even expect a liberal station to be able to do.
To be fair, pointing out that Limbaugh is wrong is like pointing out the sky is blue. That wasn’t the point of the report though. Does it really help to know that with his meds Fox shakes a bit, and without his meds he shakes a little bit more? Either way, the guy is still afflicted with Parkinsons.
Further, any respectable journalist would see the futility in following up on Limbaughs claim. Short of asking Fox directly or subjecting him to a drug test, how can you prove he was on or off of his meds? You can’t, and anyone who gives it more than a second or two of thought will realize that Limbaugh can’t do it either. NPR doesn’t have to point that Limbaugh was talking out of his ass, do they?
uhmm… I’m just not following this complaint. As the commentator said, “When he [Fox] is having tremors, he’s actually being a real person. When he’s not, he’s just acting.”
I think you’re making mountains out of molehills. Take a deep breath and listen to Car Talk or something. It’ll all be okay.
Hentor, NPR journalists do a LOT of investigating. YOu must listen very selectively.
In any case, you missed the point of the Limbaugh/Fox report. To have focused exclusively on Fox’s medication would’ve been playing right into Limbaugh’s hands, and making the discussion about Fox’s medications, which was Limbauh’s intent. Instead, the report was–quite properly–focused on Limbaugh’s cynical misdirection and manipulation to push his own agenda. THe details of Fox’s medication are irrelevant.
Ah, what you’re seeing isn’t bias, but laziness and maybe a little stupidity on the part of NPR’s reporters. During at least two of the interviews, the reporters mentioned that the interviews were part of some “National Radio Day” event where the White House sends all its top dawgs out to a tent on the White House lawn to talk to radio reporters. NPR just carpooled a bunch of reporters and dumped the on the White House lawn for a couple of hours, and they come back with all these interviews with top admin guys. Fastneasy.
The fact that it’s just a couple of weeks before the election, well, I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.
By Hentor’s standards, we need to add the New York Times to the list of formerly progressive right-wing media organizations.
In the last few weeks they’ve run a slew of stories on the themes of “Republicans running scared”, “GOP fails to gain traction on good economic news”, “Republican candidates discard right-wing positions to save own asses” etc. etc.
All this focus on the Republican party - must mean that the Times is pro-GOP! :dubious:
NPR does feature balanced reporting on various occasions. This may be distressing to those who feel it’s their birthright to have a consistently pro-Left NPR, but it adds to NPR’s credibility.