I’ve heard this accusation many times before, and have responded similar to Dioin this thread that they seem non-partisan, only to be met by many an :eek:. NPR is the only radio I ever listen to, and only rarely do I ever perceive bias, and only after I put on my disco-ball hat. The bias is too weak to even register on my tin-foil model. Yet, people seem so certain of their opinions of NPR’s liberal bias, and for the life of me, I can’t see how they’re derived from their programming. Unless they’re not.
I admit, the only way I’ve ever encountered NPR is through radio. The Juan Williams thing does in fact seem inconsistent with the image of NPR I’ve cultivated. So please help me understand. Does my radar need tuning, or do the leftist waves of NPR flow through a different conduit?
Didn’t they share fundraising lists with the Democratic Party awhile ago, and got smacked down for doing so? Obviously if the same latte-drinking, beret-wearing, clove cigarette-smoking urban VW driver listens to NPR as votes commie, then it’s not unreasonable of them to cater to their audience. So it’s not that I fault them - just that they ought not be publicly funded is all.
I go to an ultra-liberal church, and we have a program where members who would like to donate to NPR can pool their money with other members and give to NPR in the name of the church. In return, our local NPR station mentions us on the air from time to time. It’s really the only advertising we do.
I’m not sure the text of NPR programs supports political liberalism, though the social mores of the creative types they choose to profile certainly seem like they’d fit right in with the Green Party. The fact remains that if my Unitarian brothers and sisters go out of their way to actively support something, it’s probably more likely to appeal to the Socialist Workers Party than the John Birch Society.
I think accusing NPR of being biased is truly a real-world case of the Colbert joke “facts have a well-known liberal bias.” Some people are just so blindly right-wing that a non-partisan source is going to seem liberal to them.
I know a few intelligent conservatives (including my father in law) who are regular NPR listeners, and conservative callers sure seem to get through often enough.
If they’ve gained a predominantly left-leaning audience (and I admit, it seems they have), it’s probably because they respect their audience’s intelligence and let them form their own conclusions, which left-leaning people prefer in my experience; contrast with Beck, Rush, Schlessinger, Hannity, et al that many conservatives prefer.
This sums it up. Conservatives say the same exact thing about fox, and they get the same response.
Your shit doesn’t smell bad because it’s the shit you smell on a regular basis. When you walk in the bathroom after someone else has taken a plunker, of course its gonna smell funny to you.
I thought the CPB, which runs PBS, also has oversight into NPR? If not, why was the NPR president standing side by side with CPB in a show of solidarity?
And yet the OP is admitting he might be wrong and is asking for refutation or support. So why sneer at him for that?
I wonder if there’s an element of judging something by its audience. The Daily Show is in sort of the same boat as NPR; ostensibly they’re non-partisan, but because their demographics are heavily liberal, they are themselves perceived to be liberal.
I can’t think of a single instance where NPR has told me what to think. I can turn on Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Fox and Freinds, The O’Reilly Factor and find multiple instances of them telling me what to think in seconds.
I largely agree with the OP’s assertion. They do cover a lot of topics that are more likely to be of interest to liberals than conservatives, like foody trends, indie rock, minority issues etc. And some of their stories are fashioned in a way that appeals more to liberal ears, like pieces about illegal immigration told from the POV of illegal immigrants.
But even their obviously liberal hosts, like Terri Gross on Fresh Air, will regularly feature conservatives on their programs, and not in a “let’s make fun of this guy’s douchery and turn him into our bitch” kind of way (see Alan colmes). They’re allowed to have their say and often times make a good argument. And even when those hosts disagree with their conservative guests, they’ll still talk to them in a rational manner, as opposed to shouting them down ala Hannity or O’Reilly.
I certainly wouldn’t call them “ultra-liberal,” but neither would I call them bias-free; I wouldn’t call anyone that, and I’m not sure it’d be a compliment if I did.
But the part I bolded may be part of the reason for the disconnect. I have no idea what other media you consume, but if all you listen to is one source, it’s axiomatic that at some level you’re going to find the ideas and beliefs and assumptions of that source to be intuitively “normal,” especially if those ideas concord with your own to begin with.
Finally, it’s important to remember that bias is most often revealed by what someone doesn’t say: by the things their assumptions leave out, or that they think are not worth discussing to begin with.
So for example, there might be a story about Problem X, and how much money the government should spend on it, and how … with no attention given to the possibility that maybe it’s none of the government’s business at all, or at least not the federal government’s, or even that it’s not actually a problem at all. Those things were just assumed, and unless you’re listening carefully and thinking hard, those kind of assumptions fly right past. This is especially true when both of the mainstream parties agree that Washington Must Do Something.
In the same way, unconscious bias affects which stories/angles get covered, and how much. When I consume unabashedly opinionated media (on all sides), I frequently get exposed to stories and facts that other outlets don’t cover, or cover only perfunctorily.
Finally, part of the issue is that “right” and “left” are relative terms, and most people assume they’re more centrist than they really are, and that we think of our ideas/values/assumptions as “normal.” It’s easier to see bias when it goes the other way, because it seems “abnormal” – when the bias goes in your direction, it appears unremarkable (unless, of course, you’re so far removed from center that you get the objectivity of distance; thus, someone like Noam Chomsky can say that most media is left-of-center, because their distance from center is less than their distance from him.)
I do detect a slight liberal bias to NPR (although I agree with Bricker that they are probably the most balanced) and, indeed, to network news and CNN. That is as opposed to the raging conservative bias you get on Fox. But ultra-liberal? No.
According to a certain whackjob on these boards, all media sources are ultra-conservative. All.
PS If a network has a liberal audience, and does stories that relate to that audience (to get more $ during the begathons, for example), does that make them liberal?
PPS If most ‘good radio’ stories are pro-little guy, anti-business, I guess that would be thought of as liberal. So maybe the news is naturally liberal, because David vs Goliath plays out better (and liberalism is emotional, which makes for better stories than logical conservatism?)
I consume lots of different news sources, including more Fox News than is healthy, and perceive little in the way of liberal bias on NPR’s straight news shows (Morning Edition, All Things Considered, Weekend Edition). Some of the talk shows are more tilted - Diane Rehm is certainly a liberal, although she generally has very strong conservative guests on. Marketplace is pretty much straight business news, and they balance the left/right commentators pretty well, IMO.
I think much of the perception stems from the fact that they’ve had some rather famous liberal commentators over the years (Daniel Schorr perhaps being one of the famouser).
One of the things that makes it hard to even quantify is the lack of strongly held opinions in general on these shows. The lack of shouting, grandstanding, and outright politicking makes any bias far less perceptible than Fox News/MSBC, even on the commentary shows.