Oddly enough, I am listening to Boston NPR right now and the Emily Rooney show is discussing NPR’s extreme liberal bias and the implications of it. The guests are being pretty candid in their criticism of NPR in that regard. I guess it is a credit to NPR that they are willing put something on like that about themselves.
I’m not surprised in the least that NPR would buy into the right -wing frame on any issue, even NPR itself.
By that qualification, even Obama is non-partisan.
See, this is why I get all my news from The Onion.
If you would prefer (as I certainly do) to read the ombudsman’s own full comments rather than a spin job by Brent Bozell, the link is here.
Shodan was kind enough to provide a seemingly damning excerpt:
Neither Shodan nor Bozell saw fit to include the following sentence:
The ombudsman’s comments are critical, but not quite the slam-dunk evidence of liberal bias that **Shodan **and Bozell attempt to portray. Dvorkin sums up with the following:
In other words: you know the guy’s a windbag who’s not interested in a good-faith discussion, and NPR cheapens the discourse by giving him a venue for his grandstanding.
And of course, it goes without saying that Bill O’fucking Reilly suddenly playing the delicate flower that wilts in the very presence of pointed questioning—from an intimidating pitbull the likes of Terry Gross, no less— is simply too rich to be believed.
The problem with that second question is that it isn’t a clean yes/no question. It depends on how you define “mosque” (there will be a prayer area in the cultural center) and how you define “ground zero” (the actual WTC premises? the debris area? a radius of X yards?). I can see well-informed people answering the question they think you’re asking rather than the question you think you’re asking.
:rolleyes:Both sides want it to sound like it’s only the other side that lies through editing. It’s common practice for conservative and liberal alike. You’ve never watched a Michael Moore “documentary”?
In every city I’ve lived in the NPR station is so far left I have set it on the farthest right button on the car radio to try to achieve some balance.
I appreciate everyone’s efforts to explain this crap, but this thread only adds to the mystery.
Many people who dismiss Fox don’t do so because they’re first-hand witnesses to Fox being biased. They do so because some other source compiled a case against them. It could be the Daily Show, MSNBC, or whatever. It’s possible that Fox’ bias is so transparent that anyone who watches for any amount of time just knows, but I doubt it. I think it’s subtle enough that, working independently, you’d have to dedicate more effort than most people are willing to, in order to come up with the convictions people seem to have.
The same is true with NPR, I’m sure. You’d have to devote more effort to identify the bias than most people are willing to. There must be some other source for the convictions anti-NPR people have. NPR is totally off the radar of the likes of Beck and Limbaugh. Some crap like the Juan Williams thing goes down and it’s like NPR liberalism was a given all along.
It’s the same way with everyone else in the world. NPR is off the radar, something happens (like, I mention NPR) and their liberalism is a given. Is this a case of a mental shortcut in a totally random direction?
You and Emily Rooney need to stop messing with my brain. Like gravity and the color of the sky, I figured I’m pretty well in touch with things that are considered common sense. When people say this, it’s like they’re talking about the yellow sky like it’s totally normal.
You can move through life pretending that everything is exactly equal, but anyone who stops to think about it for a second should question whether something like that is possible. I think that imagining perfect symmetry is delusional.
In any event, if you want to resort to the world of entertainment, I’m sure there would be a very unbalanced list. I was thinking more of “news” stories like James O’Keefe’s ACORN videos and the thing with Shirley Sherrod.
Are you claiming that there is an equality in intent and/or result when it comes to both sides?
I have been at times in my life pretty far right Republican. I find no evidence of huge bias on the part of NPR.
Firing Juan Williams was probably not as much an example of PC thinking as fear. Anymore, if anyone associated with a broadcaster says something that can be reasonably critiqued, the broadcaster takes big hits. He was fired more because NPR didn’t want to be involved in a scandal than because he said something offensive.
What in the world is offensive to anyone if I say I worry if I see muslims? I am admitting a fault on MY part. I am not suggesting that the reason for my fear is justified, but merely admitting that I have what might be an irrational fear. What is offensive about that?
Juan Williams, in my opinion, while across the spectrum somewhat from my own beliefs, is pretty moderate and an example of a thoughtful and respectful moderate. I wish all of the networks had people as balanced as he.
That part is true. Around here NPR is at 88.5 on the FM dial - you can’t spin the thing much further left than that.
Cite please.
It became liberal when environmentalism became anathema to conservatives.
The CATO institute used to be reputable, I can’t believe that there are that many reputable economists who didn’t think that a keynesian response to the recession was a good idea. They might have disagreed witht he stimulus in teh same way that liberals disagree withhealth care reform (as passed) btu paul Krugman disagreed with tehs timulus package as well, he thought it was too small. But before i get ahead of myself:
Cite please.
I don’t thnk Der Trihs can see center fropm where he’s standing (we need folks like that but lets not pretend he’s mainstream).
The problem with calling FOX News and MSNBC as ragingly biased either way, is that the majority of their programming is editorial news shows and not just news reporting. Editorial shows are intended to be biased…they are editorializing. A lot of NPR is editorial as well. We have very little fact based news reporting in the media any more.
I agree, its hard to see glaring partisanship on the news programs.
Most of the aprtisanship you see is on their news “shows” liek Glenn beck and Fox and friends. They are not really that partisan when they cover sports, weather and traffic.
I don’t listen to NPR because I prefer CSPAN but do they have shows like Glenn beck and Fox and Friends?
Just wanted to mention that on CSPAN the lunatic political entertainment seems to be covered by Washington Journal.
Racists, anti-Semites, religious nutjobs, anti-religious nutjobs, goldbugs, Objectivists, Paulites, Communists, rabid partisans of any stripe, and the occasional prank caller will all show up most mornings. Frankly they make the callers of any sponsored political talk show look reasonable by comparison.
Near as I can tell, Totenberg’s comments were in response to Helm’s actions at the time opposing federal funding of AIDS research. http://www.aegis.com/news/ap/1995/AP950702.html