Now occupying center stage in American politics we have … Attila the Hun, on vibes … that’s Braniac on the banjo … with Herbert Hoover on tympani …
I mean no offense when I say this, but it sounds like your source has an axe to grind. That was one heck of a hatchet job on the quote.
I’m not sure what value needs to be attached to the numbers. They seem pretty harsh. Out of 4461 students for the law schools, you had 29 black and 114 hispanic. Pretty bleak, more for our educational system, but that’s not the point. As for the “stunning” choice of words, that’s incredibly minor. Are you saying that the whole liberal media is based on choice of adjectives?
“Not enough” simply lacks clarification, which is not an indication of bias. It’s also not much of a stretch if you take the study into account. My math is a bit rusty, but when the number of blacks capable of getting into law school is less than 1%, that is pretty far from enough.
The qualities that make it the best source of news is EXACTLY what’s bugging the Pubbies. If it would turn into a Pubbie propoganda organ or an abused spouse media, the Pubbies would be happy, but they insist on going out and doing JOURNALISM. They insist on going out and GETTING THE FACTS. That’s a major pain in the ass, when your campaign strategy in part consists of generating scurrilous lies and spreading them widely enough in the media that they are mistaken for truth.
Why? What claim have I made which requires this as substantiation? Do you dispute the notion that NPR correspondents are charged with presenting a balanced view? The explicit statments in the NPR code of ethics says they are.
NPR transcripts generally aren’t freely available(except for ME coverage) and therefore not citable, so I’m not sure I could fulfil the request at all even if I felt some obligation to try. The question at issue is your contention that NPR violated their own code of journalistic ethics in their coverage of the KofC event. I have pointed out that they have a duty to provide balanced information. Usually this involves qualifying or rebutting the statements of proponents of a viewpoint. I don’t see why you take this as evidence of bias versus simple performance of their ethical obligations.
Enjoy,
Steven
Bricker, exactly how would you have liked Nina Totenberg to report that story? Radio is a medium that relies heavily (really, really heavily) on language. Would you have preferred that she use no qualifiers?
Having just listened to the entire report, I think there are a couple of things that should be pointed out. After the cold, hard, facts statement… she gave the cold, hard facts,…less than 1% black applicants, (.65% to be exact) and 3% minorities in a state that is 30% minority. Stunningly low arent’ they! However, immediately after, she states that this is not a problem in other states (she mentions TX) with larger minority populations.
Now how would you have preferred she do this? “The statistics bear out the fact that very few minorities even apply, with less than 1% black applicants, (.65% to be exact) and 3% minorities in a state that is 30% minority.” Or how about this: “The applicants are greater than 99.3% non-black, and 97% white, in a state that is only 70% white” There is really no way to spin these numbers to be an more begin than she did, which was to give the raw data.
Is commentator allowed to use the words; very, extraordinary, only, mere, etc. Is 99.3% stunningly high to you? What is stunning to you?
Was the quote accurate? If it was, then you need to consider yourself lucky (I know you don’t like that). My laboratory made the news on all four networks here (you probably heard since you’re in Dallas) and not one got it right. KERA (our local NPR station) was the only one who got it right, except for the hilarious (to us anyway) error in the transcripts where they destroy the directors name (they got it right in the first part, just not the second), and give him a totally new department. (I suppose “Dialysis” sounds like “Islet cell”). If you are afraid of being misquoted, then I suggest you not give a quote at all.
It seems to me that the NPR debate is much like the others in Conservative politics today. The mindsets, of you’re either with us, or against us. Clearly NPR isn’t with them, so it must, by axiom, be against them.
Just to add to the debate here are some NPR demographics.
This position that you and a couple of others have advanced that journalism and and should be in the service of nothing other than the next nickel or dime is really depressing. While journalism has a long history of chasing a dollar, it also has a long history of rising above the chase for a dollar to write the stories that really NEED to be written, for everyone’s good. The libertarian/conservative position that everyone is and should be a total ho-bag for money displays such a breathtaking moral lack of depth that I wonder if you guys even know what you will be missing if you get your wishes.
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
[/QUOTE]
My contention is that when they are reporting on a subject they wish to criticize, the zealously exercise their “duty” to to provide balanced information. When they are reporting on a subject they wish to promote, they do not zealously exercise that duty.
Then it should be you presenting transcripts of Kerry coverage, shouldn’t it? The more datapoints the better.
Enjoy,
Steven
And I would contend in turn that your contention is an unprovable (though not, perhaps, unsupportable) “gut feeling,” based on what you’ve heard and colored by your own biases.
We see what we desire to see, and hear what we desire to hear. Everything is colored by our own innate solipsism.
However, there is a world out there of which the U.S. is only one part and no one in serious politics in the U.S. inhabits the far left (or even much of the strong left) portion of it. You asked a question about labelling people “far” left or right. There are people who are very visible in U.S. politics on the far right (although I have never heard them described that way on NPR), but there are no people visible in U.S. politics on the far left. Claiming that Kucinich is “far left” is a demonstration of your biases.
Again, I do not claim that NPR has no bias, but the examples I addressed do not demonstrate it.
My only ‘dog in the fight’ is the fact that NPR gets a government subsidy to continue to operate. I REALLY dislike that…no matter how worthy the source. If NPR has such a loyal and wide market they should have zero problems converting to a private corporation that doesn’t need government funds to continue…and they should be wildly successful. Let go the government tit and sink or swim out there on their own and I’m completely happy with NPR. You also get the added benifit that the ‘Pubbies’ can’t do a thing about it.
And yet, they need to rely on a public subsidy to continue to operate. And Howard Stern (who I loath btw) does not. How do you account for that? With such a seemingly huge public market they should need no public subsidy to continue…and they should be wildly successful as a business…shouldn’t they be?
Just to make this point again, both of these two (I can’t stand either) are COMMERCIAL successes…i.e. they are not getting subsidies from the government to allow their programs to air. If NPR has such popular support I fail to see why it needs to be subsidized…why can’t it do what other broadcast companies do?
For a moment here, lets pretend that conservatives in the US really do believe that NPR is biased and has a liberal agenda. Doesn’t have to be true…they just have to BELIEVE its true. Now, pretend you are a conservative in the US who is also a tax payer. Some of your tax money is going to pay for what you consider a politically oriented broadcast station…who has a political orientation contrary to your own. With me so far? How would you feel? You’d be ok with it? Ok, lets turn it around then. How would you feel if a ‘centrist’ station like, oh, say Fox, was on the publics tit…if your tax dollars went to subsidize Fox News? Are you cool with that?
In reality though, as we all know, there ISN’T a conservative oriented PBS type station out there catering to the ‘centrist’ conservative types…is there? Granted, there doesn’t appearently have to be, as conservative oriented shows seem to be COMMERCIALLY successful. But How fair is it that the public must fund NPR when it doesn’t fund a conservative equivelent?? As an aside, if there WAS a conservative PBS (or even a station that I loved and that catered to XT politics only, and in spanish to boot!) I’d STILL be against said station getting public funds.
-XT
And he went out and found a protestor who also had problems with Kerry, rather than quoting someone who was entirely pro-Kerry and anti-Bush. In other words, he noted that both sides have considered opinions with some tugs against their basic instincts rather than portrying either side as mindlessly, rabidly partisan.
Really biased that is.
YMMV. To me its telling that NPR seemingly REQUIRES a subsidy to continue to operate…and that, after tieing oneself to be the governments bitch, you grouss about that same government considering cutting the food trough off when ‘the other side’ gains power. Boohoo, the Pubbis are in power now and they don’t like NPR…and because we aren’t evil capitalist pig dogs and don’t dirty ourselves with making money they can cut our funding and stifle the cry of the masses yearning to listen to a ‘centrist’ point of view.
And this is surprising…why?
As to trying to paint me with a ‘moral lack of depth’…its to laugh. I’m sure that nicely edges around the rules of personal insult enough to let you slide…and frankly if your definition of ‘moral lack of depth’ is to be good at business and actually show a profit, and your definition of being ‘moral’ is to run at a loss…well, its not such an insult to me.
-XT
Er, you left out the part where she advocated anything in particular (as opposed to simply making a factual assertion).
Is it fair to say that any time the actual facts of a case would seem, in reality, to favor an actual conclusion, then Bricker would rather the reporter not report live from the scene, (“Newsflash: God gives interview that states that fetuses don’t have souls until one month before birth.” for example.) but find facts for the other side. Should the reporter not be able to find a person, at the time willing to represent the other side, the report should then go and research the best possible way to make a case for the other side of the argument. Is that what Bricker is asking for?
I have no idea.
Do you mean “I have no idea.” as in you have no idea what you are asking for, as in, “Is that what Bricker is asking for?” or as in, you have no idea what I am saying. If so, then let me remind you of post four.
It seems to be a trend for repubs not to ask for raw facts, but for both sides of an argument to be presented. This is what I see you asking for. Sometimes, the republican side of the argument has nothin’. If, in these cases, if the reporter was to show the repub side of the argument, they would be reduced to making their claim for them, based on rhetoric, not facts.
Scott? Bricker is asserting an endorsement of a particular view, not merely the reporting of it. I can see challenging his assertion on that point, but you are changing the topic.
Funny, I always figured asking for clarification on a view expressed, or perceived to be expressed, was allowed, but if not, never mind.
The latter. I was absolutely unclear on what you were asking.
Um… If I now understand you… and I’m still not completely sure I do… then you miscast my argument. I am contending that when they report, they endorse a particular view. I haven’t said anything about “both sides of the argument” except tangentially, in the discussion with Mgtman, where he was the one to offer the rationale that the K of C story reporter took the opposing side as a way to provide balance to the story.