Effect… Effect… Effect…
Merijeek: I’m not afraid of anything. And I would hardly say that MLK and David Duke are equidistant from center. But assuming they were, I say let people hear both sides. I think that would push people into the MLK camp faster than if Duke was kept mum. What do you have against giving opposing views a fair hearing? But the real question in my post, which you ignored, hinges on the unique status of NPR beiing a PUBLIC radio station. If taxpayers are goiing to fund it, or part of it, it shouldn’t push a single political persuasion. Would you agree with that?
It doesn’t feel like you have read the whole thread.
He expected better? Cripes, the Gummint can’t SNEEZE for only fourteen grand!
I also wish to express my regret that Tavis Smiley got the PBS andTava Smiley. Maybe he’s a better interviewer, but she has PBS interview experience from her time on WTTW’s Wild Chicago and is big bunches easier on the eyes.
That, of course, being “and not Tava Smiley.”
Yeah, when I heard he was getting a series I thought they meant her. Him, I had never heard of.
Why do you say that? (I have read it.) Is it bcause of my thread #38? I know I changed the question, but the segue seems perfectly logical, in that I was asking the original poster if he, based on his post #75 was admiting that NPR is biased. It seemed like a normal follow-up. You have more experience at thiss than I do; should I have started a new thread?
No, NPR should be objective and unbiased insofar as possibe. It should give us the facts. It should tell us when a politician is lying, if they are clearly lying, no matter where they are on the spectrum. All the other media are abused spouse types who won’t call a spade a spade, but NPR sometimes does, and since the right has been doing a LOT of lying under the Bush Admin, NPR has been taking heat for occasionally pointing out how wrong some of the things set forth as truth by the Bushies is.
That, I think, is the REAL problem the Bushies have with NPR, not anything to do with bias. Bias is just a smokescreen they are using to push their agenda onto NPR and turn it into another right wing media outlet. The Bushies under Karl Rove seek nothing less than total control of US media. Think Soviet-style control and I’m pretty sure you’ll have a good idea what they seek. I’m not saying ALL conservatives seek this, or even all Republican conservatives, but Rove and his gang most CERTAINLY seek this.
My point about the Justice Stephens’ changing political status – from “moderate conservative” appointed by a Republican to “most liberal justice on the Court” is to show just how far the cultural pendulum has swung to the right in recent decades. The pendulum has swung WILDLY to the right. The fact that NPR is getting flack from the far right for having a “liberal bias” is in fact proof that they are doing the correct thing: they are not gallivanting along wildly with the pendulum, becoming a wild-ass Fox News with one administration and Air America with the next, but are trying to stay unbiased and objective – as they should.
No, starting a new thread would be a bad thing. I say this because of post 59. I claim that you are kinda like Rodan in that example. Also, you would like more coverage of the other side of issues. I already covered why this makes no sense in most cases, as have others posters, in Why the Pubbies Are Trying To Muzzle NPR. Anyone want to summarize for magellan?
A fundemental problem with this statement is the assumption that there are only two sides to present.
Evil Captor: I think you make good points. But we’re stuck trying to define where the absolute philosophical middle is. Fact is, it’s in the eye of the belolder. I would say that the most objective/fairest view of where the middle is, is where the current culture at large defines it.
In your post you say that the country has moved right. Assuming you are correct (which I think you are) wouldn’t that mean the the middle has moved to the right, too? If so, shouldn’t NPR reflect that new middle?
Point taken. I’d say all sides, but I think news would get too fractured covering Wiccans for Jesus.
Lets say, hypothetically, we have a politician who does only bad things. The news reports on this, among other things, and offers no spin one way or another on the issues. People complain, however, and insist they not put their bias into the issue. The radio station doesn’t get it. "How can we show him in any better light, except by ignoring him? " they ask, “If we don’t talk about him, people will complain that we are ignoring important news.”
Tell me, what should they do in that situation?
I’m saying it already does. You guys on the right are like a bunch of monkeys on a trapeze, grabbing air and trying to get the pendulum farther to the right. I think you’ve about reached your limit, barring Rove’s success in turning the Pubbies into a Mexican PRI kind of party.
Congratulations on keeping the level of discourse high.
That aside, this post of yours seems to indicate that the country has moved right, but NPR has stayed in the middle to help balance things out:
Which is it? NPR is in the middle now? Or NPR is where the middle was before the country moved right? I don’t think you can have it both ways.
Thanks. It’s a gift.
NPR is in the middle now.
Oh, you already covered it? Sorry I didn’t fall in line. Just because you put forth your opinions doesn’t mean an issue has been settled. And yes, I did read your post #59. Couldn’t make musch sense of it, other than there was an attempt to shroud a very biased opinion with sober analysis.
Ok then, let me put it another way. You have been lied to. When one side has no good things going for it, then a report about what that side is doing will come out as sounding biased to those who believe what they would like to believe, or who have been suckered into believing that up is down.
It does not matter if the vast majority of the population would prefer that the news acts as yes-men to the current regime, for the press still has a duty to be unbiased.
Scott Plaid: I agree. But would you agree that NPR was not as “vigilant” of the Clinton administration? I mean, I agree with your hypothetical: if there is an evil or incompetent administration and a station’s coverage slams them 100% of the time, I don’t think that would be bias. But if half the people or so do not agree that that particular administration is evil or incompetent, I think then the station’s actions would be biased. It may be the right/responsible thing to do, but it would be biased. Would you agree with that?
So, you would retract your analysis of NPR that you offered in post? (I’m not trying to niggle or play GOTCHA here, I just want to make sure I understand your position.
Nope. When he was in the media, he was in NPR, too. However, when it began to appear that Star wasn’t the greatest person in the world, they coverd that too, as well as continuing to cover Clinton.
No, I would not agree.