Is NPR biased?

Great Debates
121

I’d agree with that. I mean, if we’re talking about a child abduction case, there aren’t two sides. But if the abductor turns out to be a murderer as well, with an IQ of 79, and he lives in a state like Texas, the reality is that it has now changed from being a pure news story to one that reflects two competing philosophies. Both of which should be fairly presented.

As a rule I’d say that those stories that genuinley have two sides need to have both sides aired. I would say that would be a quality of fair reporting, which a station is free to pursue or not. Except if they are publicly owned. If so, I do not think they should advocate one position over another (assuming, as you say, two positions exist).

I don’t expect Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken (as a journalist, not a comedian) to give both sides of an issue an equal hearing. I wish they would, in that I think it would make each of them more effective (and useful). But as parts of private enterprises, they can define themselves any way they want.

122

I’d say NPR does a very good job at this… would you agree?

123

I’d say pretty good. I’d also say they lean left. Would you agree?

124

OK, I can clear that up for you. NPR was always mainstream. The tighty righties have always considered it leftist. The noise you are hearing now is because they’ve pretty much turned network news into “abused spouse” reporting and NPR is the only national news outlet that continues to do objective, investigative reporting.

The whole country used to be more liberal, and so was NPR. The whole country has become less liberal, and so has NPR. The tighty righties perceive NPR as liberal now, just as they always did. But they never made much noise about it in the past because the network news and cable news organizations weren’t their bitches at the time. They had other fish to fry.

Now the network news and the cable news are right wing biches and the tighty righties are frying NPR. But NPR’s mainstream stance has not changed much. Maybe they have moved to the right less slowly than the populace in general, leaving them ‘mainstream left’ but they are not very far ‘mainstream left’ at all.

Is that more clear?

125

You don’t think the media have an obligation to strive for the truth? I suppose you were just fine with Soviet news reporting during the Cold War then, right?

126

I haven’t given up. There’s this thing called “real life” that sometimes calls me away from my highly underpaid work on the Straight Dope.

127

Yes it is more clear. Particularly due to the last paragraph. Thanks.

128

Of course not. My point is that in their rightful striving for the truth they shouldlook fro the truth where it is. In your example, wouldn’t it have been a good thing if the Soviets had heard the other side? And the real issue is when there are truly two sides to an issue: abortion, voucher schools, the need to go to war, etc., that a public news station has an obligation to give both sides a fair hearing. Wouldn’t you agree?

I admit that I have been focusing on the philosophical rather than the practical. In actuality I think NPR does a fairly good job. But I also think it leans left and it shouldn’t. needless to say, it shouldn’t lean right either.

129

[/QUOTE]
I haven’t given up. There’s this thing called “real life” that sometimes calls me away from my highly underpaid work on the Straight Dope.

[QUOTE]

Point taken. I’m fairly new to GD and didn’t know what to expect. Do you work for SD? What is you relationship? Undser your name it says that you are a member.

130

I haven’t given up. There’s this thing called “real life” that sometimes calls me away from my highly underpaid work on the Straight Dope.

I was kidding. My relationship with the Dope is ‘paying member.’ I get nothing in return for all my great contributions (posts) to the Straight Dope, and there are many on this board who will tell you that considering the nature of my contributions, I am grossly overpaid even at that rate.

131

No problem, all is forgiven. Now, however, you need to apologize for mispelling my name. :smiley:

Hey, don’t think I am one of those people. :eek: :slight_smile:

Yes.

Tell me. Who decides when there is more then one side to an issue? Politicians?

132

Not necessarily. I’d say the Senate is a better place to look the the the House, as some of the members can be petty (both sides). But if an issue is being discussed in the Senate, and then covered on NPR, they should cover both/all sides that are being debated.

But just because something is not being discussed in the Senate does not mean it shouldn’t be covered, and covered fairly. Look at illigal immigration. Politicians (with the exception of a very few) were mum on it for years. Now that should have been covered, and fairly. (As much as I feel there isn’t much credibility to one side.)

Maybe a good guage would be to look at what’s being covered on other news outlets. If NPR then decides to report on one of those stories it should be at least as, if not more, balanced than any other outlet. It has the responsibilities of an news organization PLUS an obligation to not be a mouthpiece for any political party.

What do you think?

133

I’d say the “they” is too vague… as I mentioned earlier, I don’t think you’ll find any credible left political bias in Morning Edition, yet you will on Fresh Air.

134

I’d basically agree. What Morning Edition covers they do a pretty good job on. But I think that the thiings they choose to cover tend to benefit the left. I could very well be wrong about this, I don’t listen that often anymore since I no longer commute.

But I think the larger point is the station itself. As an entity, leftish.

135

I think NPR has been knuckling under and leaning to the right lately. A commentary from a member of the Heritage Foundation on the drive home this afternoon, chirping happily about how the Bhutan constitution imposes responsibilities as well as rights on its citizens. I could feel the spin coming right out of the radio, like a breeze. A couple of days ago, a commentary from the Cato Institute. The reporting on news events appears to be staying on the straight and narrow, not surprising as I’m sure the staff has got to be very conscious that distant and unsympathetic eyes are staring at them.

Sad, really.

136

That’s just it: my experience with NPR might be very different from yours. Whether your local station has a bias or not is going to be hard for me to tell. Some of the nationally produced shows have bias or do not, but not all biases are in the same direction (e.g. there are a couple of shows I would say bias even as fiscally, if not socially, conservative ! :eek: ).

Fresh Air, for example, is produced out of a station in Philadelphia, Morning Edition is an NPR news production (not sure where they’re based out of… Washington DC?), Pacific Time is produced out of San Francisco, and Marketplace out of Los Angeles. Not even every NPR station will carry all these shows. I think it’s a stretch to paint them all with the same brush.
An interesting thought struck me though. All those shows are produced out of major cities, and come to think of it, most networks and other media are produced out of major cities. As we know from election after election, cities tend to be more liberal and rural areas more conservative. Could the percieved “liberal” bias in the media merely be an “urban” bias?

This might flounder in the face of the fact that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are also urban-based though. But every trend has exceptions.

137

I think that’s an astute observation. It would be interesting to see the product that might come out of Dallas or Houston. They’re cities, but not only in the south but the bible belt. I lived in Dallas for a while, and San Francisco, and New York. My impression of the overall tenor of the station though, was the same.

The more I think about your observation the more valid I think it is.

But the bottom line is that the people in charge of the station should be aware of the potential for slant and correct for it. Of course, they are city denizens, too. So we’re probably stuck with the problem of the location of the middle being dependent upon where one stands.

138

The stories I reported on were national stories, with the exception of the Ikea knob slobbering story. Wouldn’t be any local bias in the other stories because they are just rebroadcast in Atlanta.

Your point about liberal bias possibly being urban bias is a good one. Also, traditionally the media centers have been New York and LA. Not exactly conservative hotspots.

I also think that the roots of journalism tends to produce a bias. When journalism first became something like a profession in the early and middle 1900s, it was one of the few jobs that one could take as a writer without a college degree. Most journalists were high school educated people who took the job as a job, not a career. They were often from poor or middle class backgrounds. They knew what poor people went through in their daily lives, because they lived it, too. Tended to make them a little more sympathetic to the plight of the average guy than the Ivy League types that ruin … er, run … the media nowadays.

139

Produced in N.P.R. headquarters in Washington, D.C., and at N.P.R. West in Los Angeles.

It’s worth noting that, like public television stations, public radio stations do not program exclusively from one source. National Public Radio is the major source productions, but you also have Public Radio International (the former American Public Radio), and American Public Media (which is the production arm of Minnesota Public Radio). Several programs distributed by these networks are produced by others. For example, P.R.I. distributes B.B.C. radio programming. Some of N.P.R.'s programs are produced by Wisconsin Public Radio, the Canadian Broadcasting Co. and other organisations.

Many public radio shows are produced in Washington, D.C., Madison, Wis., Saint Paul, Minn., and New York, but there are plenty produced across the country –

“American Routes” is produced in New Orleans.
“Annoying Music Show,” “Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me,” “This American Life” - Chicago
“Been There/Done That,” “Justice Talking,” “Radio Times,” “World Cafe” - Philadelphia
“Brian Lehrer Show,” “On the Media,” “Radio Diaries,” “Studio 360” - New York
“Car Talk,” “The Connection,” “From the Top,” “Here and Now,” “The Infinite Mind,” “On Point,” “Only a Game,” “Says You,” “Sound and Spirit” - Boston
“Earth and Sky,” “Latino U.S.A.,” “Star Date” - Austin, Texas
“Echoes” - Chester Springs, Pa.
“Forum,” “Hearts of Space,” “Tech Nation” - San Francisco
“Jazz Set” - Newark, N.J.
“Living on Earth” - Somerville, Mass.
“Marian McPartland’s Piano Jazz” - Columbia, S.C.
“New Dimensions” - Ukiah, Calif.
“The Parents’ Journal” - Charleston, S.C.
“Pipedreams,” “A Prairie Home Companion” - Saint Paul, Minn.
“The Radio Reader” - East Lansing, Mich.
“Sunday Baroque” - Fairfield, Conn.
“Whadya Know?,” “To the Best of Our Knowledge” - Madison, Wis.
“To the Point” - Santa Monica, Calif.
“The Thistle and Shamrock” - Matthews, N.C.

Having said all this, I don’t think it’s at all relevant to the question of “bias.” People of all stripes live everyhwere in this country.

140

I’m not too sure about that. The story has to be produced by a reporter who lives somewhere, has to have an editor who lives somewhere, then it gets transmitted nationally. The people who wrote and edited the story are likely to have a bias based on wherever they happen to live (or perhaps where they were brought up): if it’s Berkeley, you might expect a liberal bias, and if it’s Dallas, you might expect a conservative bias.

Of course, even Berkeley has its conservatives and Dallas its liberals, but chances are most people in the city lean one way or the other…

Another interesting view to take on this might be listener bias:
Do people in some parts of the country percieve a media bias that is not percieved in other parts? I always find it somewhat fascinating to hear BBC reports or read The Economist’s stories on US affairs. Would someone from another part of the country see a horrible bias in the reports that I don’t see?