So does Vivian Schiller's resignation/force out from NPR prove or disprove that NPR does have a bias

[Mr.Moto]

@John_Mace

Do Volvos still come with factory installed PBS/NPR bumper stickers, or did that practice end when Ford bought them?

I thought they gave you the choice of either the NPR bumper sticker of the one about the Air Force having to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.

[Shodan]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Kind of tricky to be fair and objective when one party has declared war on you.

By “declare war” I assume you mean “pull their snout out of the public trough”.

Apart from that, I agree with you. NPR is not going to be fair and objective towards Republicans because Republicans want to shut off their subsidies. As I said earlier, NPR can take as anti-Republican a stance as they like - on their own dime.

As puddleglum says, I would bet the fund-raising exec could rise almost to the top at NPR because anti-Republican feeling is considered unremarkable. That is greater evidence of prejudice even than saying it on tape.

I expect this is the source of much of the media bias we see in the US, and the reason why lefties can’t see it - the attitude that of course the left-wing point of view is right - everybody in my social and professional circles says so. Sure, those peons in flyover country don’t think so, but who worries about that?

Regards,
Shodan

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Shodan

I expect this is the source of much of the media bias we see in the US, and the reason why lefties can’t see it - the attitude that of course the left-wing point of view is right - everybody in my social and professional circles says so. Sure, those peons in flyover country don’t think so, but who worries about that?

You tell me. Most of the news media bias in the US comes from the right.

[Marley23]

@Shodan

As puddleglum says, I would bet the fund-raising exec could rise almost to the top at NPR because anti-Republican feeling is considered unremarkable.

Or not relevant to his job. He criticized the Tea Party, by the way, not just Republicans. Much as the Tea Party would like us to think those are the same thing.

[Erdosain]

@Marley23

Or not relevant to his job. He criticized the Tea Party, by the way, not just Republicans. Much as the Tea Party would like us to think those are the same thing.

Seconding the not relevant part. He was a fund-raiser whose job is schmooze rich people and foundations.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Just out of curiosity, Bricker, what objectivity grade would you give CNN?

CNN is not bad. At times, I’ve seen them exhibit a conservative bias. But on balance, I think they lean liberal, about a 2.5.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Shodan

Apart from that, I agree with you. NPR is not going to be fair and objective towards Republicans because Republicans want to shut off their subsidies. As I said earlier, NPR can take as anti-Republican a stance as they like - on their own dime.

NPR receives no money directly from the government (except for some special projects). Local stations do via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Those stations then pay fees to NPR but it is up to the local stations to decide which programming to carry (and thus what they have to pay NPR).

In large markets the amount of the station’s budget from the CPB is relatively small. If republicans kill the CPB then they kill small market radio/tv stations mainly.

For some persepctive, the CPB gets a total of $420 million from the government. With that they support 1150 stations (radio and TV) and make things like Sesame Street and Nova among other programs. In 2010 the government had a $2 trillion operating cost. So, the CPB amounts to 0.021% of the budget.

So, the portion of the taxes you pay going to the CPB is 0.021% and of that only some goes to news programming…not even most. The rest supports Sesame Street and Nova and documentaries such as one on Alexander Hamilton and maintains stations in rural areas so they can get that programming.

And you have not even established an anti-republican stance from NPR. We have one exec who said not nice things but everyone has opinions. Show that NPR has been anti-republican as a corporate policy that is represented in their programming.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The only way to demonstrate bias in their news programming is to actually demonstrate bias in their news programming. It’s either there or it isn’t. Examining excutives tells you nothing. If you want to know if there’s a hair in the soup, look in the soup, don’t look at the chef.

[Evil_Captor]

Is truth at all a defense here? Tea Partiers ARE racist. Why should we castigate anyone for saying so?

[Whack-a-Mole]

This seems to fly in the face of NPR’s “liberal” bias. I recall when this happened and NPR’s Ombudsman (does any other media organization have one of those?) caught a world of shit from the left over this but didn’t budge.

Anyone who believes that NPR is a “liberal” media outlet – and anyone who wants to understand the decay of American journalism – should read this column by NPR’s Ombudsman, Alicia C. Shepard, as she explains and justifies why NPR bars the use of the word “torture” to describe what the Bush administration did. Responding to what she calls “a slew of emails challenging NPR’s policy of using the words ‘harsh interrogation tactics’ or ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ to describe the treatment of terrorism suspects under the Bush administration,” Shepard hauls out every trite and misleading bit of journalistic conventional wisdom to dismiss listeners’ concerns and defend NPR’s Orwellian practice (as I noted recently when writing about The New York Times’ refusal to use the word “torture,” NPR’s compulsive use of Bush euphemisms has been a constant complaint of the excellent blog NPR Check).

SOURCE: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/06/22/npr

[VinylTurnip]

@Shodan

Apart from that, I agree with you. NPR is not going to be fair and objective towards Republicans because Republicans want to shut off their subsidies.

And yet, they accomplish just that: maintain a surprising level of objectivity toward Republicans who want to shut off their subsidies, who mischaracterize their reporting as far-left Marxist propaganda (well of course Fox News has to be biased; look how far the scale would tip toward NPR if it weren’t!), and who want nothing more than to eradicate objective media outlets like NPR once and for all, ensuring the total dominance of the new far-right “mainstream media” for the foreseeable future.

I frankly don’t know how they manage to remain as objective as they do.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Whack-a-Mole

This seems to fly in the face of NPR’s “liberal” bias. I recall when this happened and NPR’s Ombudsman (does any other media organization have one of those?) caught a world of shit from the left over this but didn’t budge.

NPR does have a bias, and it is to the right. That’s why I stopped listening/donating.

[Shodan]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

You tell me. Most of the news media bias in the US comes from the right.

We went thru this in a previous thread.

Tell you what - you show that most of the news media bias in the US comes from the right. Then we will know what constitutes proof, and we will not have any trouble with shifting goal posts or trying to hit a moving target.

Regards,
Shodan

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Okay. Do you own a TV?

[Lightnin]

@Shodan

We went thru this in a previous thread.

Tell you what - you show that most of the news media bias in the US comes from the right. Then we will know what constitutes proof, and we will not have any trouble with shifting goal posts or trying to hit a moving target.

Regards,
Shodan

Just curious, Shodan- using Bricker’s 1-10 rating, above, how conservative would you rank Fox News?

[furt]

@Omar_Little

NPR is either biased or they are not. The funding controversy should examine that very question. Federal funding should not fund a biased news organization.

So are they or aren’t they?

The question of NPR funding should not be tied so definitively to the question of bias. Like Bricker, I listen to NPR and generally find them fair in what they report; where there is bias it tends to be in unquestioned assumptions and in story selection.

But even if they were completely unbiased (which is impossible) and were universally seen as such (Even more impossible; some people say C-Span is biased), there’s still no reason for them to be funded by the government.

As Schiller said in the video, NPR would be better off in the long run if they’d get off the government teat. At this point, though, I suspect they’re hanging on out of sheer obstinancy.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Without some kind of public media, all we have is corporate media.

[Shodan]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Okay. Do you own a TV?

Yes.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Lightnin

Just curious, Shodan- using Bricker’s 1-10 rating, above, how conservative would you rank Fox News?

I’d like to suggest the scale be modified for clarity, with 0 being ultraliberal and 10 being ultraconservative, 5 being the ideal “unbiased”.

If I read and translate Bricker’s numbers right, he puts:

MSNBC at 1.75
CNN at 3.75
NPR at 4.75
Fox at 8.75

[Whack-a-Mole]

@furt

But even if they were completely unbiased (which is impossible) and were universally seen as such (Even more impossible; some people say C-Span is biased), there’s still no reason for them to be funded by the government.

As mentioned you then get corporate only programming which is profit driven.

Let’s see what a good, educational channel like the History Channel has on its lineup (not a complete list):

• American Pickers
• Ancient Aliens
• The Bible Code: Predicting Armageddon
• Extreme Marksmen
• Ice Road Truckers
• Monster Quest
• Nostradamus Effect
• Only in America with Larry the Cable Guy
• Pawn Stars

If we made PBS follow suit Nova would become a reality show where scientists compete to get a date.