Car Talk has a liberal bias?
Can anyone provide actual examples of NPR bias?
That’s the thing… They don’t just have stories about illegal immigrants from the immigrants point of view. The fact that they do gets them labeled liberal though. They cover stories from multiple angles… including the farmer’s lands the illegal immigrants are trespassing on, the law enforcement agencies arresting these folks, etc… But the fact that they even have a story from the illegal immigrant perspective is evidence enough to label them ‘liberal’ in the minds of conservatives.
This is an easy one.
All of it!
Because it is a well known fact that truth has a liberal bias (so does reality). 
I agree with this. Most of the right, especially right wing media, is so far right that anything that isn’t over there with them looks very far to the left, even if it’s really centrist.
Wow, reality really does have a liberal bias…
Do you want examples?
Nina Totenberg expressed a wish that Jesse Hlelms or one of his grandchildren would get AIDS. On the same show (Inside Washington) she expressed her wish that a general who expressed the belief that Christianity was true would be “not long for this world”. She was not fired for these remarks.
Back in 2003, on Morning Edition, the host was attempting what purported to be an analysis of Bush’s foreign policy, with three supposedly non-partisan experts.
A recent study showed that listeners to Rush Limbaugh and the O’Reilly Factor were more knowledgeable about the news than NPR listeners (cite).
NPR’s own ombudsmen have admitted there has been liberal bias at NPR -
I don’t if they are ultra-liberal, but they are certainly left of center.
Regards,
Shodan
A minor highjack perhaps, but where has Chomsky ever opined that the media is left of center? I can find two youclub clips and a line from Understanding Power where he says the opposite. He’s even said that left of center is basically a meaningless term owing to the extreme narrowness of the allowed spectrum.
You’ll just have to get it in the snarkfest tonight known as the Daily Show. Remember to wear your birkenstocks, eat that Ben and jerrys, buy from Progressive, etc
And the history of civilizations is capitalism on the way up, socialism on the way down…
Well, yeah, not that I disagree with anything they’re saying in that letter, but that’s clearly a liberal editorial position. Not that their show is very political, but they are definitely fervent environmentalists and don’t hesitate to mention it over the air. I probably agree with their politics more than their car advice these days.
See?
How did environmentalism become liberal, anyway? It seems to me that the first Environmental President was a Republican (although of course environmentalism in T. Roosevelt’s day doesn’t quite resemble environmentalism in 2010).
I can. They breathlessly reported on having found WMDs in Iraq. They have obstinately refused to use the word “torture” to describe acts committed by Americans, insisting instead to call it enhanced interrogation techniques. They called John Kerry’s Viet Nam history “controversial.”
I think NPR has a bias, but I don’t think it’s in the direction that conservatives believe it is.
I like listening to sports announcers that root for my teams. I think NPR is fair and balanced. But, they don’t root for the conservative side or the liberal side. And, I believe that is why many think they are biased.
We have become so used to journalists rooting for a viewpoint that when we listen to NPR that is close to neutral, maybe slightly left, they sound left biased.
Well, back in the day, to be liberal was to be pro-urban business; to be conservative was to be pro-agrarian. Abraham Lincoln was from the pro-business liberal mode: he made his living primarily as a legal hired gun for the Illinois Central railroad, and one of his main objections to slavery was that it fostered feudal-type plantations instead of more commercial small farms that led to the growth of more capitalist towns. Many of his most lucrative cases involved arguing for the property rights of railroads against those of large farmers. Roosevelt wasn’t too far removed from this mindset; conservation certainly came at the expense of large-scale ranchers, but Teddy ddn’t feel they were the prime movers of the economy.
As the basic aims of pro-business liberals were achieved, the party of business (then as now the Republicans) became more reactionary, seeking to defend its assets from the grasping hands of the lower classes. Railroad right-of-ways are a fait accompli; their successors, the right to pollute, are the current bone of contention. The pro-business base of the Republican party hasn’t changed, but the goals have shifted with the times.
Well, not to cause the thread to wander off course, but Teddy was hardly a Republican in the mold of today’s party (other than maybe in foreign policy). Environmentalism almost by definition values the communal rights of society to a clean and healthful environment over the individual right to pursue profits, which generally fits in better with liberal ideas than conservative.
I don’t listen to NPR, so I don’t want to comment on their bias in particular. But I do want to point out that there are several forms of bias. One is to slant news stories, presenting facts in a lopsided manner. Another is to grill one side more harshly and call them on inconsistencies, while giving the other side a pass.
But the most insidious form of bias comes simply from choosing what you deem newsworthy is a biased way. It doesn’t even have to be intentional. If you’re convinced that man is raping the planet, then stories which show environmental damage will rise higher on your news radar than stories which show man being responsible. If you’re convinced that Republicans are knuckle-dragging troglodytes, then stories of Republican idiocy will seem much more relevant and newsworthy than stories about a crazy Democrat, because obviously that person is just an outlier and not worth mentioning.
There are all kinds of examples of the liberal media completely ignoring stories long after they are big news in alternative media - but only when they are stories that cast liberals in a bad light or conservatives in a good light.
Another form of bias that liberals wouldn’t be likely to catch would be the casual repeating of memes that liberals believe are true. The reporter saying it doesn’t realize that it’s in dispute, and neither do the liberals listening. It’s just a non-partisan ‘fact’ (and facts have a well-known liberal bias, right?). They’re simply unaware of the opposing viewpoint.
For example, it’s common to read that ‘virtually all’ economists agree with the need for fiscal stimulus. It’s simply not true. Fiscal stimulus has been hotly debated by economists since day one. The Cato Institute ran a full-page ad in the NY Times containing the names of 400 economists who disagreed with the stimulus, including the majority of American economists who have won Nobel prizes.
But let’s say there was a strong consensus for fiscal stimulus. That becomes news, because it supports the liberal line. But if there is a strong consensus that minimum wages hurt employment, or that free trade is a universal good, or that high taxes impede growth, that doesn’t reach nearly the same level of newsworthiness in liberal media. Consensus only becomes of ultimate important if it is a consensus that fits the liberal world view.
Heh
I frequent a few boards that would heartily agree, and they provide examples which I of course forgot :smack:
Anyway, it’s commonly said NPR = Nice Polite Republicans 