Why the Pubbies Are Trying To Muzzle NPR

[Zakalwe]

@John Mace

Race, in America, is not a random variable. As you yourself admitted, cultural biases enter into career choice and likely enters into preparedness. Additionally, Affirmative Action programs make efforts to cast a wider net for minority applicants, so one might expect to catch more unqualified applicants in that wider net. At any rate, there are a number of factors that come into play regarding race, and those factors could easily make race not a random variable in many instances.

Well, surprise, surprise. We completely agree on something!

My position is that we should be looking into those factors and determining what, if anything, can and/or should be done to make race as much of a random factor as possible, without lowering standards and without set asides or quotas.

[Evil_Captor]

@Liberal

Brought in? I thought President Clinton appointed Tomlinson to the CPB board, and that the CPB elected him as Chairman. Yep, that’s right.

Yes. Good nitpick. You’re right. Perhaps you have some evidence that Clinton used him as a hatchetman to promote his centrist agenda? Fact is, Tomlinson is acting as a hatchetman, promoting the Republican agenda WRT NPR. Unless you have some ancillary facts, you get a Nitpick Award and nothing else.

[Harborwolf]

@Bricker

What about those numbers? They indicate an overwhelming pool of non-minority applicants. How does that compel “not enough” as a conclusion?

Suppose there were NO minority applicants. Zero. How would that imply “not enough?”

“Not enough” says that we need to change the results so that there ARE enough.

How, precisely, do those numbers – how would even a ZERO number for minority applicants – be fairly described as “not enough?”

This is the best you can do? You’re still stuck on “not enough?”

Look, I’ll say that “not enough” is a bad choice of words because it relies upon the listeners judgement. If it had a qualifying phrase, we wouldn’t be here right now circling round and round ad nauseum. It still is not the rock solid proof of liberal bias that you want it to be. In fact, it’s proof of nothing but poor writing.

Dear god Bricker, find something else. This is starting to border on parody.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Harborwolf

Dear god Bricker, find something else. This is starting to border on parody.

Yes, this thread is a train wreck. I would still like to see some more cites than just this one (stunningly not enough affirmative action). I again humbly request some cites of a NPR journalist or host advoacting against the flat tax, abortion, or strict constructionism. Not to be combative but for my own enlightenment.

@Bricker

I had a partial transcript that was compiled by someone else. I relied on it without checking the source directly.

I am assuming (not necessarily correctly) that all of your examples are from this one source. Can you link to the source so I can validate or disprove their claims for my own personal benefit?

[treis]

@John Mace

I don’t expect anything. I’m not biased.

How does an expectation equal bias? If 100 black pople flipped a coin 100 times each and it landed heads 4% of the time thats a stunningly low number. If assuming that there is no inherent difference in blacks constitutes a bias then consider me biased.

@Bricker

Is there an inherent flaw in white people that hinders them in becoming qualified for the NBA, or an inherent attribute in black people that makes them more able to become qualified for the NBA? If the answer is no then we expect that the number of qualified NBA players should be similar for both races.

We should and I would estimate that the number is somewhere between 1/3-1/6 of what we expect. That is a suprisingly low number but I don’t see what your point is here.

[Harborwolf]

@Eyer8

I am assuming (not necessarily correctly) that all of your examples are from this one source. Can you link to the source so I can validate or disprove their claims for my own personal benefit?

There’s a link to the audio in one of my posts, maybe back on page one.

[Bricker]

@light strand

I propose that NPR is biased in favor of the Right, as this morning I heard a very favorable story on Bill Frist.

Bricker your arguments are ridiculous. There are hundreds of stories on NPR every single week, and you have literally picked a single word (“stunningly”) out of a story years old and pointed to it as evidence of bias. Then you have the absolute nerve to accuse others here of weak arguments.

If this is the best you can do, than I’m pretty sure that I can firmly attest to the lack of bias in NPR broadcasts.

I heard that story this morning, too. Three people interviewed for the story had negative things to say about Frist. The whole story was about how he had an uphill climb in South Carolina ahead of him, and how people in South Carolina didn’t know too much about him, and how the failure to kill the filibuster option hurt him – with a grudging concession from one interviewee that the results were not as bad as he expected.

That was a positive story?!? A negative story would have Frist collecting human scalps as a hobby, I guess.

[light_strand]

Holy cow! You sure did hear a different story than I did.

I heard, how even the guy who thought the filibuster compromise was bad, decided that it might not be. I heard how six of the seven judges in being filibustered were approved after the compromise. I also recall how Frist was going to do medical charity work or heart transplants after this term.

I’m actually going to have to listen to it again, because I thought it was terribly flattering for a guy who basically has the Senate falling about his ears right now.

[light_strand]

Ok; having listened to it again, and trying to put on my conservative glasses, I can only say that I see it a little, but only if you consider someone saying that he doesn’t particularly sparkle on the stump as being insulting.

Not one Democrat was interviewed. Hell not one centrist was interviewed.

Three people interviewed for the story had negative things to say about Frist.

I could only heard three people total and one was Frist himself. I could be wrong, but I think they identified the three as: The leader of the State GOP, one “Conservative, Evangelical” activist, and Frist.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Harborwolf

There’s a link to the audio in one of my posts, maybe back on page one.

Nope Harborwolf, I am talking about the source that Bricker is using to make his claims of bias not the audio for Nina’s report on affirmative action which I have already listened to.

Explicitly: From post 4 of this thread:

@Bricker

1. Has there ever been an NPR host who spoke in favor of making abortion illegal?

2. Has there ever been an NPR host who spoke in favor of abortion rights?

3. Has there ever been an NPR host who spoke in favor of a flat tax?

4. Has there ever been an NPR host who spoke against a flat tax?

5. Has there ever been an NPR host who spoke in favor of strict constructionism?

6. Has there ever been an NPR host who spoke in favor of the “living Constitution?”

7. Has there ever been an NPR host who spoke in favor of stopping affirmative action programs?

8. Has there ever been an NPR host who spoke in favor of continuing affirmative action programs?

I believe that the answer to the even-numbered questions is “yes.” Cites upon request.

Emphasis added by me.

Then in post 46 of this thread Bricker responds to you charge of misquoting Nina:

@Bricker

@Harborwolf

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.

Guilty. I had a partial transcript that was compiled by someone else. I relied on it without checking the source directly.

What I am after here is the “partial transcript that was compiled by someone else” that Bricker is using to make his charges. Either that or I would like the cites he said he would provide on request regarging NPR hosts supporting abortion, opposing the flat tax, or supporting the “living Constitution”.

[John_Mace]

@treis

How does an expectation equal bias? If 100 black pople flipped a coin 100 times each and it landed heads 4% of the time thats a stunningly low number. If assuming that there is no inherent difference in blacks constitutes a bias then consider me biased.

But the coin toss would be random event.

How do expectations create bias? Read the story about Piltdown Man.

Two aspects aided the survival of the hoax for forty years. It satisfied European expectations that the earliest humans would be found in Eurasia, and the British also wanted a “first Briton” due to national identity, leading to the dismissal of the first Frenchmen and Germans the French and Germans already had (see neanderthals). Professional jealousy kept the faked skull and jaw securely locked away from public gaze. The discoverers were well respected, the skull matched expectations (brain development before the jaw) and it was a well-executed forgery for its time. Even though it was quickly shown to be out of place and was relegated to the status of an unimportant curiosity, it was not dismissed as a forgery.

[Liberal]

@Evil Captor

Yes. Good nitpick. You’re right. Perhaps you have some evidence that Clinton used him as a hatchetman to promote his centrist agenda? Fact is, Tomlinson is acting as a hatchetman, promoting the Republican agenda WRT NPR. Unless you have some ancillary facts, you get a Nitpick Award and nothing else.

Frankly, that is disingenuous to the point of vulgarity. You claim that Bush “has brought in a hatchet man”, when in fact Clinton brought the man in. When you’re proven to be completely wrong, you resort to redirection of the argument, and pathetic playground taunts about picking nits. Fact is, you use the term “nitpick” twice, doubtless in hopes of recruiting a bandwagon to support you by distracting attention away from your reckless disregard for the facts. Your whole OP is a laughable screed that belongs in the Pit.

[Bricker]

@Eyer8

What I am after here is the “partial transcript that was compiled by someone else” that Bricker is using to make his charges. Either that or I would like the cites he said he would provide on request regarging NPR hosts supporting abortion, opposing the flat tax, or supporting the “living Constitution”.

My sources for those claims are the correspondent who sent me the … questionably edited Totenberg transcript. So rather then burn myself again, I’m ordering transcripts for each cite I thought I had directly from NPR. After review of those, I may withdraw or modify my other claims; I won’t charge into battle with that flawed source again.

[Harborwolf]

@Bricker

My sources for those claims are the correspondent who sent me the … questionably edited Totenberg transcript. So rather then burn myself again, I’m ordering transcripts for each cite I thought I had directly from NPR. After review of those, I may withdraw or modify my other claims; I won’t charge into battle with that flawed source again.

If you know the dates and the programs, you could use the NPR website and listen to the audio. It might be a bit quicker, Bricker.

Sorry, couldn’t resist the rhyme.

[light_strand]

@Liberal

Frankly, that is disingenuous to the point of vulgarity. You claim that Bush “has brought in a hatchet man”, when in fact Clinton brought the man in. When you’re proven to be completely wrong, you resort to redirection of the argument, and pathetic playground taunts about picking nits. Fact is, you use the term “nitpick” twice, doubtless in hopes of recruiting a bandwagon to support you by distracting attention away from your reckless disregard for the facts. Your whole OP is a laughable screed that belongs in the Pit.

Normally I could agree with you on this point, except for, the fact that Clinton brought Tomlison in was pointed out on page two of this thread. And really, Tomlison has not been an issue here.

I was, in fact, kinda waiting for it to turn in that direction, but it didn’t, so I suppose folks don’t care either way as far as this particular thread is concerned.

[Bricker]

@Harborwolf

If you know the dates and the programs, you could use the NPR website and listen to the audio. It might be a bit quicker, Bricker.

Sorry, couldn’t resist the rhyme.

But if I want to post an excerpt, I’d have to transcribe the audio…

[Harborwolf]

@Bricker

But if I want to post an excerpt, I’d have to transcribe the audio…

I didn’t say it would be easy. I just said that it would be quicker. Besides, I did it for you. I’m hurt that you won’t return the courtesy.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@Bricker

My sources for those claims are the correspondent who sent me the … questionably edited Totenberg transcript. So rather then burn myself again, I’m ordering transcripts for each cite I thought I had directly from NPR. After review of those, I may withdraw or modify my other claims; I won’t charge into battle with that flawed source again.

Thank you Bricker, I am truly curious to see these quotes. I think NPR is relatively unbiased especially compared to the rare times I tune in to network news.

On those occasions I am struck more by the sensationalism than outright bias. NPR does not seem to play this game to me, though of course YMMV.

Regarding Nina’s statement of the cold hard facts, I agree that the “not enough” comment was over the top, but I still feel that there is stunningly little bias at NPR.

[Liberal]

@light strand

Normally I could agree with you on this point, except for, the fact that Clinton brought Tomlison in was pointed out on page two of this thread. And really, Tomlison has not been an issue here.

I was, in fact, kinda waiting for it to turn in that direction, but it didn’t, so I suppose folks don’t care either way as far as this particular thread is concerned.

Yes, I saw it there. (Page 1 on my setup.)

The OP is a worthless harangue, empty of all content except for inaccuracies, pejoratives, and propagandistic rambling. It is a deliberate and calculated slaughter of reality, with more spin than a quasar. I care that, when the gentleman’s dishonesty was brought to light, he first ignored it and then dismissed a second criticism as nitpicking — a lie chosen for nothing more than its falsely perceived button-pushing impact.

Since NPR belches out similarly biased claptrap with an equal disregard for criticism and correction, good riddance to it.

[Harborwolf]

@Liberal

Since NPR belches out similarly biased claptrap with an equal disregard for criticism and correction, good riddance to it.

Evidence please, or are you unaware of the weekly corrections of their own stories that they run?