Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NPR definitely leans left. The nationwide reporting is left-leaning. However, the individual stations vary a lot. At my main house, the NPR station (KJZZ Phoenix) is fairly moderate. The national reporting is what it is, but the local reporting is a lot less left than other stations. In the north, KNAU is not too bad either. I like listening to each of them, and I just assume that the national NPR reporting is always going to give some favoritism to the left. But the reporting sometimes covers things, especially local or Arizona issues, that other stations don't.
At my summer house in Wisconsin, the local Wisconsin Public Radio station, is balls-to-the-wall lefty, to the point where they come off as a bunch of kooks anymore. It used to be OK, but over the past couple years it became "I hate Scott Walker Radio". Pretty much any coverage in the state, from the first frost to a bake-off, will somehow magically be turned into an anti Walker rant of some sort, either by the host, or by a caller. You can't even make stuff like this up. Honestly, even a cooking show turns into a Scott Walker rant. Here's a nice way to bake all of those apples from your trees into a beautiful fall pie! AND SCOTT WALKER THAT SOB blah blah blah. I'm not joking; it's actually really sad, because the station used to be somewhat decent. They've gone to war with Scott Walker, and in the process rid themselves of any shred of decency that they used to have.
You provided zero sources for the examples you mentioned in your first post.
And how would you know what they NEVER do if you don't listen to NPR? Hmmmm.....
I often listen to NPR on my commute or on runs. Why are you saying I don't listen to it? I clearly have said that I listen to it multiple times. Why are you posting if you don't want to discuss - to just post dogmatic responses that don't adhere to reality, but the party line?
How do I cite several radio comments over time?
If you listen, you clearly have heard them refer to Fiorina as the only GOP woman running several times. How many times have they said it for Clinton? Zero that I have heard. They have mentioned that MOST GOP candidates are still white. I have never heard them mention that ALL Democrat candidates are white...etc...
I often listen to NPR on my commute or on runs. Why are you saying I don't listen to it? I clearly have said that I listen to it multiple times. Why are you posting if you don't want to discuss - to just post dogmatic responses that don't adhere to reality, but the party line?
How do I cite several radio comments over time?
If you listen, you clearly have heard them refer to Fiorina as the only GOP woman running several times. How many times have they said it for Clinton? Zero that I have heard. They have mentioned that MOST GOP candidates are still white. I have never heard them mention that ALL Democrat candidates are white...etc...
I apologize - I thought you weren't a listener.
However, more often than not people think they hear one thing when another is actually said. Your WASP comment is just one example. Also keep in mind that people who are interviewed don't necessarily represent what NPR stands for. As other posters have pointed out, depending on where you live you are going to get a different slant from your local NPR station as well.
I think they might be pointing out that the GOP candidates are mostly white because the Republicans made a huge deal the last four years about how they were losing/lost the minority vote even more and they needed to have more diversity in their party.
Personally, I think they are very balanced and I hear about stories that are not being covered by other news outlets, and I think it's good that they don't jump to conclusions before facts like so many other news outlets. I also get my news from several sources, especially alternative media.
NPR is no more biased than FOX news. Heck, I'll go on record and say it is less biased than FOX News. At least NPR doesn't try to pawn off out and out lies as the truth.
NPR delivers breaking national and world news. Also top stories from business, politics, health, science, technology, music, arts and culture.
Mark Twain, I believe, once wrote that there are two ways of lying artfully -- telling the truth but not the whole truth, and telling the whole truth but telling it in such a manner that your audience believes you're lying. A story on NPR this morning pretty well accomplished the latter.
Using the recent snowstorms in Washington, DC as a hook, the item was titled "Get This: Warming Planet Can Mean More Snow." (Of course, titles aren't broadcast on the radio. To get the title, you have to go to the website.)
The opening line was, "With snow blanketing much of the country, the topic of global warming has become the butt of jokes." But the story wasn't really about the jokes, and it never came right out and said that the jokes were based on ignorance. In fact, the strongest statement it contained was that "For scientists who study the climate, it's all a bit much. They're trying to dig out. Most don't see a contradiction between a warming world and lots of snow."
Ummm . . . let me get this right -- the scientists have been snowed under but most of them don't see a contradiction in that? No contradiction? How about simply reporting that climate scientists have, in fact, been for years predicting increased snowfall in coastal areas? Not only does this winter not contradict climate science, it positively corroborates it! And "most"? Can anyone name three scientists who actually study the climate and who do see such a contradiction??
And that opening to the story was no aberation. After soft-pedaling through the substance, the reporter ended with the following: "In [a warming] climate, you will have more frequent extreme events, heat waves and so on, but again, none of those individual events is proof itself that climate is changing," [a weather blogger] says. Climate scientists say they can't prove any single weather event is due to climate change. Thus, they say, Hurricane Katrina or the heat wave in Vancouver that's dogging the Winter Olympics isn't proof that climate change is happening. Nor can southern and eastern snowstorms prove that it's not.
So there's the bottom line -- the memory the audience will be left with. Southern and eastern snowstorms can't prove that climate change isn't happening. Implication: it might not be, but we'll need more than a few snowstorms to seal the verdict. The whole thing reminds me of an Eddie Izzard routine where he wryly demonstrates the power of visual imagery trumping verbiage -- he makes a statement which might or might not be true, then alternates between shaking and nodding his head . . . no, I don't mean it . . . yes, I do . . no, I really don't . . .
Wry comedy is hardly one of the qualities I look for in a morning "news" program.
Why do I get the impression that what the OP is saying happened actually didn't happen. Programs like Morning Edition and Marketplace go waaaaay out their way to not seemed biased and tend not to go into editorializing. What program was OP listening to that had all of those biased statements? Was it actually a news program, or was it a guest saying something on Dian Rean or Fresh Air? If it was the latter i can almost guarantee there was a counterpoint argument from either the host or another guest.
Dian Rean especially plays devil's advocate when she interviews - although I usually turn it off when she starts taking callers, those are painful.
Mark Twain, I believe, once wrote that there are two ways of lying artfully -- telling the truth but not the whole truth, and telling the whole truth but telling it in such a manner that your audience believes you're lying. A story on NPR this morning pretty well accomplished the latter.
Using the recent snowstorms in Washington, DC as a hook, the item was titled "Get This: Warming Planet Can Mean More Snow." (Of course, titles aren't broadcast on the radio. To get the title, you have to go to the website.)
The opening line was, "With snow blanketing much of the country, the topic of global warming has become the butt of jokes." But the story wasn't really about the jokes, and it never came right out and said that the jokes were based on ignorance. In fact, the strongest statement it contained was that "For scientists who study the climate, it's all a bit much. They're trying to dig out. Most don't see a contradiction between a warming world and lots of snow."
Ummm . . . let me get this right -- the scientists have been snowed under but most of them don't see a contradiction in that? No contradiction? How about simply reporting that climate scientists have, in fact, been for years predicting increased snowfall in coastal areas? Not only does this winter not contradict climate science, it positively corroborates it! And "most"? Can anyone name three scientists who actually study the climate and who do see such a contradiction??
And that opening to the story was no aberation. After soft-pedaling through the substance, the reporter ended with the following: "In [a warming] climate, you will have more frequent extreme events, heat waves and so on, but again, none of those individual events is proof itself that climate is changing," [a weather blogger] says. Climate scientists say they can't prove any single weather event is due to climate change. Thus, they say, Hurricane Katrina or the heat wave in Vancouver that's dogging the Winter Olympics isn't proof that climate change is happening. Nor can southern and eastern snowstorms prove that it's not.
So there's the bottom line -- the memory the audience will be left with. Southern and eastern snowstorms can't prove that climate change isn't happening. Implication: it might not be, but we'll need more than a few snowstorms to seal the verdict. The whole thing reminds me of an Eddie Izzard routine where he wryly demonstrates the power of visual imagery trumping verbiage -- he makes a statement which might or might not be true, then alternates between shaking and nodding his head . . . no, I don't mean it . . . yes, I do . . no, I really don't . . .
Wry comedy is hardly one of the qualities I look for in a morning "news" program.
Assuming the quotes you referenced were true (since there is no link to NPR) they are simply pointing out the difference between weather and climate change. Yes there is hypocrisy when someone looks in their backyard and states it's cold out so there is no climate change.
So based on this supposed statement NPR is unbalanced yet you get your information from a blogger.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NPR two ways of lying artfully
