When the reporter presents compelling talking points from one side and not from the other, endorsing the study as “cold, hard fact” how is she not endorsing the conclusion as well?
Listening to that complete report, does a neutral observer come away with the impression that affirmative action is good, or bad?
Don’t back out now. You misquoted. I don’t know whether it was a case of bad memory or just trying to make the reporter look bad, but you misquoted the article all the same.
As for the study, it seems pretty cut and dry to me. The method used is clear cut with no real room for fudgemanship. Do you disagree with the methods or the conclusion?
I came away with the opinion that some think it is good and some think it is bad. I thought the report portrayed both sides adequately. Clearly you differ, but since you seem to listen to npr with your mind already made up, I’m not surprised where you ended up.
Yes, he did.
Question: was that the first time Dan Rather’s bias influenced his reporting? In other words, was Dan rather so unlucky that the very first biased report was the one so easy to prove and led directly to his job loss?
It does not indicate that they are lying. It indicates that on that occasion there is a serious disconnect between their claim and reality–which is an objective observation given the “four more years” chanting.
I don’t ever recall hearing anyone identified as a “far left” OR “far right” anything on NPR. However, the U.S. population is so far canted to the right that there is no discernible “far left” any more. How can the incidence of such descriptions be “about the same” when there is no actual reality to support it? Michael Harris and Gus Hall have been dead for years and there is no spokesperson on the left who has replaced them. Grover Norquist and Pat Buchanan are interviewed or their actions reported with a certain regularity that no one on the left can match. Are you calling Nader “left”? He’s a good capitalist who just wants more regulation–certainly far from the right, but hardly a “far” left advocate by any objective standard. If this was 1940 or even 1970, we could probably find equal representation for members of the “far” left and right, but the left has been steadily shrinking to the point where there are no remaining national figures on the “far left.” And NPR is certainly not out there digging up local lefties to promote them to national prominence.
I am not arguing that NPR has no bias. I am pointing out that a couple of the examples you chose do not demonstrate the bias you claim.
That’s not an indication of bias. Drawing a conclusion on a controversial issue, or even presenting the facts such that a formerly neutral audience would draw a conclusion is not, in and of itself an indicator of bias.
If I were to report on the origin of life and speciation, and restrict myself to actual evidence, of course a neutral listener would come out the other side believing evolutionary theory. This is not because I have a Darwinian bias, but because the facts overwhelmingly support evolution over creationism. While I admit that affirmative-action, and other political issues are far less clear cut, any reporting based on facts and the truth (as the reporters and editors interpret them, they’re still human after all) are still going to occasionally draw a conclusion on issues they are reporting on, simply because the support for one side or the other is just weak.
That’s the problem with current TV media. They never draw a conclusion. They never challange the assertions of the guest speakers. They just present both sides without comment, even if one side is utter bullshit.
I’m also not so sure that even giving one side of an issue short shift, in a single segment, is so bad. If the other opinion is never given a chance, then that’s bad. But every story on that subject is not comitted to being an encyclopedic entry on the entirety of teh pros and cons.
Guilty. I had a partial transcript that was compiled by someone else. I relied on it without checking the source directly.
I disagree with the conclusion - but more than that, I disagree with the values attached to the numbers.
That’s a hard, cold fact? That there are not enough minorities applying? Enough for whom? Enough under what standard?
That’s NOT a “hard, cold fact,” is it? It’s an opinion - a value judgement about diversity and affirmative action. The numbers themselves are, I agree, “hard, cold facts.” The concept that they don’t represent a sufficient quantity is a vlue judgement. And don’t try to dodge this by saying that was the reporter quoting a study. Those are HER words, not the study’s.
Stunning? Why are they stunning? Because she wants us to be stunned?
Yes, the report did convey that some think it’s good and some think it’s bad. Where I find bias is the report conveyed that the REPORTER thought it was good.
A news report should present the story and leave the listener no clue about what the reporter’s opinion is.
How much would you like to bet me that Nina Totenberg favors affirmative action?
Ah.
Support for one side of the issue is weak. THAT’S why this is happening?
Where’s the story from NPR that invites the opposite conclusion? I could write it. If I were to write a story on AA, you can bet I’d be able to leave the reader with the impression it should halt immediately.
Why is it that we don’t see any of those aired on NPR?
I agree with you, in a sense. I believe that you, and NPR, honestly and sincerely looks at an issue like affirmative action and honestly and sincerely believes that support for the side favoring ending it is just weak.
But that’s not an objective truth, and when reporting reveals that view, it’s bias.
OK - so show me when NPR gave the other side a chance. I quoted a story for you. You find one for me that leans the other way.
It was meant as a counter response to Bricker’s post (#4) about NPR not interviewing pro-life people. Sorry if that was confusing.
[postEvil Captor]I think Air America is doing quite well, for a fledgling startup, but it remains a very narrow venue. For example, here in the Atlanta metro area there are eight Clear Channel stations with both AM and FM represented, whereas Air America is on just one AM station. And of course we have a Fox affiliate television station.
[/quote]
Well, why is that?
I think a lot of Republican lawmakers really do think there is bias on NPR. They, like most people, tend to notice when their point of view isn’t presented. And when they’re point of view **is **presented, they think that’s “normal”. Just like you seem to think much of the mainstream media is biased to the right.
Your link states that Tomlinson was a Clinton appointee to the board of the CPB. I just wanted to point that out, in case anyone missed it.
Um…what baseline are you using to say that the US population is canted to the right? Because if you use a US baseline and the majority of the folks are ‘canted right’ as you say…wouldn’t that make them centrists by OUR political standards??
I assume that you fail to see the irony of this statement in the context of your other paragraphs? Or, to put it another way…do you REALLY think that your positions on AA or other issues are the naturally correct ones that any unbiased reader will come away thinking your way? And that only biased readers will hold a contrary opinion? Really?
Why are the Pubbies trying to muzzle NPR? Well, perhaps it has to do with the ‘fact’ that NPR doesn’t portray THEIR world view…and it does it on the publics dime. They hold the whip hand atm after all. How long do you suppose Fox News would last if it were federally funded and the Democrats controlled the house, senate and held the presidency? Especially with its perceived Republican/Conservative slant on everything…and its perceived anti-Democrat stances?
If a station is going to get public funds, it should strictly maintain political neutrality…perhaps not even going into commentary and editorial but sticking with simply reporting the news in as unbiased a way as possible. Maybe the Pubbies are going after NPR because they perceive a bias (real or imagined), noticed that the public is paying for NPR (and therefore its vulnerable to the whims of politicians), and also realized that they CAN go after it…because its audience is small enough to allow them to do so (if NPR had a large enough audience they could avoid all this by becoming a left wing Fox…or a centrist Fox if you guys REALLY think it represents the centrist viewpoint). You takes the publics dime and you piss off those who hold the stick (namely the Pubbies atm) and you takes your chances.
-XT
The positives for the KofC were provided by the KofC.
Let’s back up a second and look at this. Suppose NPR had broadcast a live, unedited, uneditorialized, etc. feed from the event. Would this be a balanced view? A fair view? Certainly not. It would contain only one side of the story by definition. If a journalistic organization is charged with providing a balanced view of an event then unless the event organizers take it upon themselves to provide this balance by qualifying or rebutting their own statements(if you know of ANY such events please share, I’ve never seen/heard one) then an alternate view has to be added to keep the piece from being entirely one-sided. The only entity capable of doing that is the journalist.
It was not the journalist’s job to provide a pro-KofC viewpoint. The Knights were doing that on their own. It was the journalists job to show there was another side to the story. From there we descend into opinions on if they gave more or less weight to that side than it merited, but this would really be splitting hairs. Still, anyone wanting to do this analysis is welcome to hear the broadcast replay over the web. A starting point may be the airtime given to each viewpoint. Snippets of speeches would probably be considered “pro-KofC” while the protestor’s views would be considered “anti-KofC.” A stopwatch might be a good tool to use here. Here is the story intro
Enjoy,
Steven
Wow.
I await the day when all our citizens have above-average incomes.
Look, that’s a nonsensical position, Tom. The center exists. It’s moved, to be sure, to the right, but in US politics, there is a center, and people like Dennis Kucinich and Nancy Pelosi are on the far left of it.
I think your own bias is showing thru here, tomndebb. 
Buchanan is a social conservative and a populist who rails against “big business” almost as much as the Green Party candidates do. He is not a right wing equivalent of a left wing communist. Are you really saying that the “far left” consists only of communists or hard core socialists? If that’s true, then the “far right” would consist only of Libertarians.
I was thinking the same thing, though from a slightly different perspective. Wasn’t it Truman who was shocked to find out that half the population was of below average intellect? 
-XT
Ahhhh.
Then I’m sure if we examine NPR stories about campaign appearances Senator Kerry made, we’ll find this same approach – the journalist providing the “other side of the story?”
Find me one.
And here’s a kicker:
I was interviewed for almost ten minutes. I gave the reporter numerous answers that were very pro-Bush.
The one snippet he chose to use from me was my answer about the death penalty versus abortion, which was the one answer of mine which dinged Bush a bit, since Bush supports the death penalty.
I don’t really have a dog in this fight other than to note that, WHATEVER the leanings of NPR (which I believe is improper to designate as a monolithic entity), they provide the best, widest and most in-depth coverage of news-of-the-day in broadcast form. Losing that would be a major loss to the country.
But I do want to lay some smack on X there for his ‘audience is small’ thing. NPR does pretty well audience-wise given it’s lack of entertainment/distraction programming. The last thing I saw had them at about 25,000,000 listeners per week. That’s just under 1 in 10 of the country. And, according to an NPR press release, it’s consistently grown over the last several years above 5% annually. To mock them for having a ‘small’ audience is silly, at best. Cite
By contrast, an actual declared Bush hater, Howard Stern, has about 8 million weekly listeners. Stern wishes he could draw them in the way NPR can. Cite.
On the other side of the aisle (metaphorically speaking) let’s look at Limbaugh. I’ve found information that he gets more than 20 million listeners weekly. Cite. Admittedly a wiki cite but it’s a start.
So, in effect NPR is battling on the same level with it’s programming that Limbaugh is in terms of audience. The simple fact is that if they were a for-profit entity they’d do quite well.
And, anecdotally, let me say that during my time covering the Hill everyone, regardless of party or ideology, listened to ATC and ME. The general feeling was that it was the best way to get information out of the options available in Washington. It wouldn’t surprise me if ATC beat EVERYTHING in the DC market, ratings-wise.
With a certain dull regularity, NPR reports about Kerry supporters’ claims of Kerry as a decorated war veteran were “balanced” by Swift Boat claims about his lack of valor. Frankly, they SHOULDN’T have been doing that, since the Swift Boat claims were thoroughly debunked almost as soon as they were made (unlike the story about Bush’s AWOL status, which somehow wouldn’t debunk). But there they were, being “balanced.”
To borrow an NPR phrase, “The cold hard fact is” that if you are dependent on an entity for money, that entity can use the threat of witholding that money to force you perform as they wish.
My boss sends me a paycheck every week. If I don’t do the work I agreed to, eventually he’ll stop sending me that money. Newspapers have to sell advertising and get subscribers. If they can’t sell advertising any more, if people start to cancel their subscriptions, the newspaper either has to live with the decreased revenue or change to please the advertisers and subscribers. Private TV and radio stations rely entirely on advertising. If the advertisers aren’t happy the programming changes. And what makes advertisers happy? Ratings from the target demographic.
And so, public television. Where does public television get its money? Turns out most of it comes from private donations, but somewhere on the order of 25% of their funding comes from the federal government. What does that mean? That means that congress can threaten to cut that 25% if congress doesn’t like the job public radio is doing. As long as public television accepts public money, that public money will come with strings attached. Neccesarily! After all, we can’t just give away public money without caring what happens to it, congress would be negiligent if they just haned out money without an accounting of how that money is used.
So…public broadcasting must please congress. In a partisan environment, that means pleasing the majority party. Of course that doesn’t neccesarily mean turning NPR into a publicly funded version of the Rush Limbaugh show. But it does mean that public television, by definition, is going be neutered, that it’s going to present itself as bland, non-partisan, one-side-says-X, the other-side-says-Y, safe. “Unbiased”. But unbiased is in the eye of the beholder. Every human being has a point of view, there’s no such thing as robot reporters who just report the facts.
And so we have the latest threat to budget for public broadcasting. Of course you know and I know and the american people know that the budget isn’t actually actually going to be cut. This is just a bargaining position. “Nice public broadcasting network you got here. Be a shame if anything happened to it.” And of course, the opposition to the budget cuts always mentions Sesame Street. Won’t someone think of the Children! They’re kneecapping Big Bird! Neglecting to notice that Sesame Street is a cash cow that requires no public funding.
What this is about is a threat that public broadcasting should be unbiased…from the point of view of a Republican congressman. Now, most of us here on the SDMB are moderates, centrists, libertarians, liberals and (ahem) “progressives”. My view of what would be “unbiased” programming, and your different view of what would be unbiased programming, and Noam Chompsky’s view of what would be unbiased programming is surely going to be different from what that Republicans congressman’s view of what would be unbiased programming.
But as long as you are taking money that is disbursed by that Republican congressman, his views become disproportionately important.