And here is an interesting study showing the value of NPR.
Misperceptions, The Media, and The Iraq War.
Warning, pdf file. Here’s another link if you have a pdf phobia
Thanks to our guest Sophistry and Illusion for the linkage. It would seem that NPR listeners are actually better informed than than those whe rely on other sources. That’s a good thing, right?
A good thing, yes. But it is not proven by that study. The PIPA report has been scrutinized in detail here before, mainly pre-election last year. The assertions which can be backed up by the report do not include a general statement that those who get their news from NPR/PBS are better informed in general than other outlets. It does back up an assertion that NPR/PBS listeners/viewers have a better grasp of the facts in the narrow scope of the questions asked in the survey. This means a fair number of questions about the state of the Iraq war at a point in time as well as some of the run-up to war(Iraqi involvement in 9/11, etc.).
It actually might be a stronger arguement for those claiming NPR/PBS are left-leaning to point out the survey. Most of the questions asked by PIPA show issues which would be negative for the President/conservatives. A left-leaning organization would take the time and effort to make sure people knew about the issues which damage the right. However, they may leave their audience in ignorance of issues which are damaging to the left. Odds are the FOX viewers have a decent grasp of the issues which are damaging to the left. On these points they would probably not be as uninformed as they are on questions about the war and environmental policy.
A broader study would be necessary to determine if there is a deficiency in the understanding of NPR/PBS consumers when it comes to issues about the other side of the spectrum.
Enjoy,
Steven
Not necessarily. Since the questions asked were about the facts of the war and not abject speculation, then all it proves is that, as far as the Iraq war goes, NPR was a better source of information. That it could be damaging to the administration is besides the point, especially considering the number of democrats that also voted for the war and the nations that also went into it. It is also not NPRs fault, or the lefts, that the facts of the war would be damaging to the administration.
It is also minimizing the war to say that it is simply an “issue damaging to the right.” It’s news, no matter what happens, and thusly is fair game without being just a political football.
You are right though. The study did only dicuss the issues surrounding the Iraq war. It does show just as much positive as the three words we keep dancing around show “liberal bias.”
Are they? Or is it merely the subset of the facts which are presented on NPR/PBS and asked about in the PIPA study which are damaging?
Please note that is a rhetorical question meant to be part of a Devil’s Advocate type arguement. I am simply repeating my earlier observation about the limited application of the PIPA study in a different form. If NPR/PBS has a bias against conservatives then they would report those facts more often and more clearly than facts like the number of schools repaired, number of people who voted, electricity production, oil production, number of troops who have adopted homeless Iraqi kittens, etc. The PIPA report did not ask these questions so we have no data about the factual understanding of the various news organizations consumers in that area. A bias can show up in how facts are presented(misinformation) or in which facts are presented. This is called selection bias. Selection bias would not be discernable via the PIPA study. Misinformation/Disinformation, flat out ignorance of the facts or incorrect information, would be, but the study is not broad enough to see if this misinformation extends to a more balanced portfolio of issues.
Enjoy,
Steven
I meant correction of their bias. For that effort, they would need to broadcast fascist calls to patriotism for the next thirty years.
Where do you believe their bias lies, for curiosities sake?
I assume you think that NPR is the opposite of this from your sarcasm. Do you think they are one of the 5 pillars of the blame America first crowd or something?
What is their bias and how bad is it? Are they more or less biased than MSNBC?
CNN? Fox? Do you listen to them or are you basing your charge of bias just beacuse they go against your Libertarian ideals? Was it something you read in Reason magazine?
From the passion you have exhibited in the previous two posts it is clear to me that you have given some thought to this. I am curious as to where this has led you.
Why don’t we acknowledge that we want the media to be biased? We should want the media to be biased in favor of truth, sanity, reason, & the love of justice. These are not mere matters of taste or opinion.
There is a right answer to the abortion laws issue. Unfortunately, most abortion activists, even if they know it in their heart of hearts, can’t enunciate it. Most of us honestly don’t know what it is. We know our opinions, but so what? Perhaps, if we would be honest enough with ourselves, & humble enough to get past our preconceptions, we could work toward the best solution logically.
There is a right answer to energy policy. It may not be the answer we want to hear, but the truth is the truth.
The real issue isn’t bias, but preconceptions that people don’t want to challenge. A broadcaster that is biased towards its beloved preconceptions may blind itself to the truth. But anyone wedded to his preconceptions will blind himself to the truth.
So many people scream about bias. But what many seem to want is equal time for everyone’s fool preconceptions, so they can feel good about their unexamined beliefs, instead of shining the light in dark places & not only asking hard questions, but accepting hard answers.
When someone tries to characterise a belief as “liberal” or “conservative” & decides that “liberals” must typically hold “liberal” beliefs, & “conservatives” must typically hold “conservative” beliefs, they’re avoiding the question of whether the beliefs are true.
And so many norm themselves to fit a liberal or conservative mold, swallowing whole a cobbled together (& false in the real world) party platform. Or they take anything they consciously disagree with, & identify that belief with “the other side.” I’ve done this myself, on both right & left, so many times. Humbug.
Oh, hi, Jack! Back to your topic.
This is important:
It almost restates what I said back in post #75, but you said it far better then I did. Thank you. I am glad I am not alone on seeing this as the frightening goal of many.
I really don’t give a rat’s ass about who brought Tomlinson on board, what I care about is what Tomlinson’s been doing, which is being a Pubbie hatchetman. He wouldn’t be the first bureaucrat to fuck over the principles of the one who brought him on board in order to please the one he currently works for. Not by a long shot.
As for your criticism of my OP, I set forth my opinion and so others could set forth theirs. I don’t think it’s spin at all. Hell the Pubbies have ADMITTED that they’ve had a long-range plan to gain more control of the media, dating back from the days when 'Republican" and “conservative” were curse words of a sort to many Americans. I think they’ve succeeded, if not beyond their wildest dreams, well enough to make them feel very, very comfortable. It’s a three part plan: develop a strong conservative spin machine (done); turn the mainstream media into an echo chamber for that spin machine by either buying it or attacking it for bias anytime it broadcasts anything they disagree with. That includes objective reporting that comes out with facts and truths they find inconvenient. That’s why the Pubbies are going after NPR – they have a broad audience, they do hard reporting sometimes, and that can really kill you when you lie as much as Pubbies do.
Seems sound enough to me, Liberal.
They are economic socialists and civil authoritarians.
I did not think the “not enough” comment was indicative of bias.
The topic under discussion (being reported on, if you’d rather) was “affirmative action” and so I took her comment to mean “not enough (for affirmative action programs)”.
This is not showing bias one way or the other; the comment is contextualized.
But if you believe that the very act of reporting on something shows bias, well, I can see that you would see a lean one way or the other (no matter what was said).
Speak for yourself, please, not for me. I believe NPR is (like the BBC) more independent, more honest, and less biased than any other news source, if nothing else because it is not beholden to it’s sponsors.
Do you think Nina Totenberg is in favor of affirmative action or against affirmative action? What about abortion rights? Gun control?
What if you had to bet $10,000.00 one way or the other?
Better yet, do you have a cite that proves it one way or another? Do you have a cite that proves that NPR has a liberal bias?
Agreed. Bricker, you should know better than to make blanket statements about the readers of this thread. Ornery cusses. Getting them to agree on anything is like trying to herd cats.
I have presented EVIDENCE of a liberal bias above. As for PROOF, it seems unclear what sort of evidence rises to the level of acceptable proof.
For example, in the companion thread, plenty of people offered, as proof of Fox News bias, the statement from one of its insiders, supposedly admitting to bias. But when I pointed out that such a statement also existed for CBS, and asked whether everyone considered a statement from an insider as proof of bias, the silence was deafening.
I have given examples of particular choices in words, and which quotes to use in a story, as evidence of bias. (Since I was the interviewee on an NPR story, and I know exactly what quotes I gave to the reporter, I was able to state with confidence that the report chose the least damaging, most favorable quote to Kerry from among many I gave him). That, too, has been brushed away and planed down to meaninglessness. (In fairness, several posters HAVE acknowledged that NPR has a bias, and I appreciate their honest concession).
So we’re left with a situation in which whatever evidence I can offer for NPR’s bias – which is a subtle, not an overt bias - is hand-waved away.
I invite the reader to read through this thread, and the “Fox News” thread, and ask yourself, honestly, if the same standard is being applied to arguments in both threads.
Then ask yourself why it isn’t.
And - yes, I’d happily wager $10,000 on Nina Totenberg being in favor of affirmative action. Any day.
The problem Bricker, is that you are making a large claim and have one interview (which was questionable as a form of proof) and three words (also questionable)for proof. That sort of evidence wouldn’t even pass muster in a civil trial and you know it.
And your “true tale of the insider,” which I imagine is Shodans post back on page 2, is laughable at best. It does not offer what Shodan says it does and it talks about Fresh Air, which is an interview show and as much of a news program as Larry King Live.
Now if you have better evidence, put it up so we can look at it. If you are uncomfortable with the standards of evidence required to back up a claim, stick to imho.
Has anyone noticed that $100 Million of fund cuts have been restored? Just one link, it’s on the front page of Google News if anybody wants to find others…
How many incidents are needed?