Is NPR biased?

Great Debates
41

I’d ask this, though (and I’m asking, I’m not concluding): how often do those “conservative think tanks” refer to themselves as such, compared to what you want labeled as “liberal think tanks”?

For instance, here’s how the Heritage Foundation describes itself (from their Google blurb, as their page is not responding):

By comparison, People for the American Way’s (www.pfaw.org) mission statment does not use the word “liberal”, “leftist”, or “progressive”. Neither does the “About” page of moveon.org. Both are pretty obviously “liberal” organizations.

So what is the problem with using an organization’s own description of itself?

42

Uh, you’re WRONG.

I listen every day. They do cover the soldiers and the few things that are done by the military that are good.

On the other hand, they also cover the war from the Iraqui perspective and actually interview people from Iraq.

Further, when they have people on Talk of the Nation, the phone screeners let those who agree with the current Republican mode through just as much as those who would be considered Democrat or liberal.

This hunt for the hyper liberal bias of NPR strikes me as the FOX “News” devotees wanting their tu quoque fuel.

NPR is only the opposite of FOX in the fact that NPR actually does journalism while FOX reports what their party wants.

43

I used to deny the NPR bias, but they make it tough. They definitely report the war more negatively than positively, and I heard a show host casually refer to “the Bushies and their ilk” in a “nonbiased” news story. Not exactly a slam, but not exactly neutral.

44

That made me laugh.

45

I listen to NPR almost everyday, and I’ve heard a number of stories that include the US military’s progress. Examples gleaned from the website:

It’d be interesting to compare this with other news outlets and see the difference (note that war is an unpleasant business, and I’d be extremely suspicious if on any network, even Fox, had more good-news stories on a war than bad-news stories).

Do I think NPR is biased? I think it tries harder than any other network not to be, and that is the value of public radio. No commercially-owned network has such a obligation or as much effort directed towards removing bias.

That being said, certain shows are biased. I’d say Fresh Air is politically leaning left, while All Things Considered or Morning Edition are pretty fair.

46

Examples of balance?

After one of the presidential debates, Morning Edition went through and addressed mistatements and distortions made by BOTH candidates. Where Kerry screwed up, or slanted something, they reported it, just as they did for Bush.

More currently, they’ve been doing a weekly feature where they interview the family & friends of a serviceman recently killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. They travel to the hometown, report on the funeral, etc. You could argue this is anti-war but they have always let the family have their say when they’ve wanted to express their support of the war effort, how much their son/daughter/husband believed in what the U.S. is doing, etc.

That said, I think much of the public radio news reporting does lean left. Not in the sense of spreading propaganda or misinformation, but in the sense of pursuing stories that can be critical of the Republican congress & White House, focusing on stories of interest to those who support liberal causes, etc.

47

I agree with this and others of DoctorJ’s statements in this thread. To the best of my recollection, I have never, in more than 20 years of using NPR as one of my primary broadcast news sources, heard any NPR anchor or reporter treat an interviewee impolitely, regardless of what that person said, or cut them off (unless because the segment was running overtime). I have never heard anyone, or their views, disparaged (unlike Fox, and even the sly ways that some of the more liberal network anchors have used on occasion).

As for evidence of even-handedness, I thought the reporting on the Supreme Court decision on the CT property rights story did pretty well. I didn’t time actual comments, but it seemed to me they had more from people opposed to the decision (which pleased me to hear). And I should think that stories like the one about Afghanis uncovering and thwarting a planned assasination of the U.S. ambassador. Commentary did tend to look at the dark side, but still…

One of the things I find more relevant still is how, especially in analysis, they don’t hesitate to point out goofs by Democrats.

The local station (MS PB) is more noticeably liberal, but they aired Killen’s defense attorney at length, following the verdict.

I think Marketplace is much more liberal in its bias than NPR itself.

And I’m a moderate with libertarian leanings, and very conservative personal beliefs (which I do not believe should be imposed/forced on society at large).

48

Listening to NPR this morning, I heard one story that had potential for bias: a story on a report from the ACLU or somebody along those lines that the Justice Department is misusing the material witness laws to detain people indefinitely, holding them without any appearance before a judge and without any ability to contact a lawyer for months.

The NPR report cited various alarming cases in which Muslim immigrants to the US were held for a long time without recourse, and also gave the Justice Department a chance to rebut, but all they got was a prepared statement, so they had a prosecutor who’d been engaged in some of the Justice Department efforts in the past to say what a wonderful thing it was.

If the allegations are true, the Justice Department has CLEARLY been abusing the material witness laws in ways that ought to alarm us all, but NPR stuck to the “abused spouse” style of reporting and didn’t have the balls to make any judgement calls in this case.

49

Moving this from IMHO to Great Debates.

50

OK, just don’t move it to … Dretroit!

51

Another self-confessed NPR junkie here.

What I find interesting about NPR, and especially Terri Gross, is that while they acknowledge a certain bias, they also are not afraid to have right-leaning people come on their shows, and they always treat them with respect. At least a couple of times a month there will be a right-winger on Fresh Air and Terri never tells them to “shut up” or anything. She always gives them all the time they want to answer questions. Yeah, she may indicate she doesn’t agree with them, but she always does it in a polite way. I get a lot out of those interviews (though I often find them painful to listen to because I want to scream at some of her guest’s obvious to me mis-statements), and I’m glad she does them.

I just don’t see that happening on Fox.

So, biased? Yes. Aware of it? Yes. Striving to present both sides? Yeah, for the most part.

JOhn.

52

Ya know what’d be even worse? Moving it to Detroit. Makes Dretroit look like Miami.

And I thought Dre was a west coast rapper. It’s his protege Eminem that comes from Detroit.

53

Its the facts that are biased. One can be biased, in the sense of trying to lean towards a political point of view, and remains strictly within the facts. As mentioned before, the bias shown by Fox when presenting the urgent! news! about reports of WMD discovered in Iraq, and never managed to have the same urgency! when reporting that the reports were proven to be empty, there was always some other more urgent! news! to report.

But they weren’t lying, those were “facts”: there were reports.

I could run a totally anti-Pubbie biased news station and report nothing but facts, all day, especially lately. The DeLay scandals, the Rummy quotes (“hey, maybe another 10, 12 years, tops!”), the Cheney quotes (“death throes”, as measured in geological time), the Hoffstetter quotes (“Hey, liberals hate God, and God hates liberals, whats to know?”) and on and on and on.

Whats Fox gonna do? What have they got but Durbin, the reaction to Durbin, Michelle Malkins reaction to Durbin, Ann Coulters reaction to MM’s reaction to Durbin, and some guy blubbering about Our Heroes and their devotion to The Leader.

Its the facts that are biased, and as long as NPR insists on reporting the facts, they are gonna piss people off, and that is going to be interpreted as bias.

(Gotta report what I saw on Ironic Times:“Rove says Democrats Agents of Satan : Democrats apologize for provoking remark.”)

54

Wow. A bigger piece of circular reasoning might be out there somewhere, but I’m not sure where. Can you scratch your own back, too-- even in that one spot that most people can never quite reach themselves?

Look, bad news always gets more play than good news. Always has, always will. We don’t ever hear about the brilliant things said on the Senate floor, just the stupid things. Same thing happened when Clinton was president. The conservatives have been griping about liberal bias at NPR/PBS for long before the Republicans came to power. I don’t remember the headlines being full of champaign and roses back then-- in fact, isn’t the complaint that the press hounded Clinton to death and treats Bush with kid gloves? Or was that just bias, too?

55

NPR is biased, to be sure. It’s the Yuppie Channel. It’s got intellectually stimulating world news (the BBC!), intellectually stimulating programs (Fresh Air!), and then intellectually stimulating music (Holst!).

It even has commercials that pretend not to be commericals, but are just as long: “Fresh Air is brought to you by Cargill, providing economically sound meats in a variety of community-supporting packages. Cargill: Supporting communities and responsible agriculture since 1855.”

It’s bias is smart, therefore liberal. I listen to it every day, since the rest of radio is even worse. The froofiness and yuppiness of NPR does get on my nerves after awhile.

56

In one sense, thats true. But the amount of air time to be filled remains the same, day by day. If NPR has a liberal slant, they can satisfy their agenda without editorial comment, there isn’t a problem finding enough to talk about, if the object is to cause embarassment to the Bush administration. A quixotic goal, since they appear entirely immune to embarassment. They need simply report the news.

Fox does not have that luxury. The news not being favorable, they are stuck with reporting the reporting of the news! They are stuck with saying stuff like"Sure, X happened, but the liberals have blown it out of proportion and it was probably their fault to begin with!"

Yes, the right has pissed and moaned about PBS liberal bias for years, they also bemoaned their oppression every step of the way as they seized every lever of power within reach. They have reason now to complain about the slant of the news, but the reason is not the one they complain about.

What splendid accomplishment of the Bushiviks admin has gone woefully ignored, what triumph unreported?

Ah! Don’t you love the music of the crickets…

57

There aren’t that many influential liberal think tanks to begin with.

MoveOn has been called leftist every time I’ve heard it mentioned.

I don’t see how it’s hard to pick out. I mean, Carl Cameron is the guy who passes around fag jokes about Democrats the newsroom, and his contempt is a matter of langauge and expression. Same with Hume. The language they use to frame debates or issues is litterally stuff that could have been lifted from the Republican talking points. Their news coverage is almost the style of the Daily Show but without the humor or the self-effacing nature.

58

It wasn’t a piece of political bias, but this morning the local NPR affiliate had a five-minute piece on people waiting outside the new Ikea store for DAAAAYs before it opened. Five fucking minutes of listening to them slobbering all over Ikea’s knob. People were talking about how great Ikea is and how excited they are to have one in the Atlanta area. I thought I was listening to a damn infomercial. Aired yesterday afternoon, too. Gross. Not Terri Gross, just … gross.

59

I was thinking of making this into the OP of a new thread, in tribute to one of the boards favorite posters, but I decided to put it in the relevant thread, instead. This revisits some points made earlier, bt others. Hopwever, it seems like people didn’t give them enough time the first time round.

Why is NPR seen as biased? I think I know. Lets look at three different news stories, and see how N.P.R. covers it, v. Fox. Also, lets show how it can be perceived by someone who thinks of NPR as being biased, no matter what the proof to the contrary. Lets call this person Montressor. Nope, too obscure. At second though, lets call him Rodan.

On any one day, the likelihood is high that the following two things will happen:
The president, or people connected with him, will do something very harmful. It is not a matter of interpretation, but actually something indefensible.

Someone from the leftwing does something, which, if intestinally misinterpreted, makes him sound like a horrible person.

Just for the sake of argument, lets say the following also happens: A left-wing politician does something bad. Not as bad as it could have, had he been a more powerful member of the incumbent party, true, but still bad.

How NPR will cover things, and how things are perceived:

The president’s newest fuck up is covered. An announcer will leave it obvious that it is a fuck-up, and interview both people who interpret what this will mean for the future, and people who think it is not a fuck-up. People may, or may not call in. Due to the fact that the statement is indefensible, the vast majority of people will be liberals.

What does Rodan take from this? Either nothing, or he will think of how many other stories cover problems with the president, and think that people who talk about the liberal media are right. If he hears listens longer, he may hear the following:

A liberal politician does something bad, and it is covered. An announcer will leave it obvious that it is a bad. A person who interprets what this will mean for the future, will be interviewed. No way to have someone put a spin on it, besides the fact that it is bad, but not that bad, and no need to. After all, it really was a bad thing. Selective memories does the trick.

What does Rodan take from this? Perhaps he will see there pointing out how things aren’t that bad as some kind of defense of the pol., and be disgusted with how the are defending someone so obviously wrong.

Next up, a politician makes a true remark, which has been intentally misinterpreted by much of the media. First off, the host plays a tape of what the politician actually said, as opposed to what the media claims he said. Then, an expert will explain things further. Since much of the media is lying about things, and since an actual tape has been played, the other side of the argument has nothing to say on the matter.

What will Rodan draw from this? That N.P.R. is apologizing for something horrible that this politician did. After all, he knows what was really said, thanks to cable news.

I think it is quite obvious how the cable networks cover the same issues. So, in summery, this is another case of “It seems that I always happen to look at the clock when it says 9:11 ”

60

To the extent that any liberal think tanks exist, hardly any mainstream media organization, including N.P.R. ever bothers to cite to them, so there’s rarely ever any reason to refer to a “liberal think tank.” Conservative think tanks, on the other hand, get tonnes of media attention.

Or are you saying that the Brookings Institution is a “liberal” think tank?

If that’s the case, then I’m going to have to call “playing to the ump” again on this one.