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.
Nina is way beyond her days of being attractive enough to have that appeal.
But, wanting to put a hit on Bush is also her legacy;
Colbert King, Washington Post editorial writer: “The other thing about Boykin, he got it wrong. He said God put George Bush in the White House. The Supreme Court did it.” Totenberg: “The Supreme Court put George Bush in the White House.” Charles Krauthammer, syndicated columnist, joked: “It was 5,000 yentas in Palm Beach who couldn’t read the ballot. If that was not an act of providence, nothing is.” Gordon Peterson, host: “By the way, he was showing pictures of Somalia, Mogadishu and there’s a black mark in the sky and he said 'these are demons who controlled this thing.’” Totenberg: “Well, I hope he’s not long for this world because you can imagine-” Several voices reacted in unison, drowning her out, including Peterson: “You putting a hit out on this guy or what?”
I don't get this. I love NPR, but many of my conservative friends think that it is left biased. I am not naive enough to believe that media is always straight down the middle, but I don't find NPR being that partial. Heck, they are funded by the Cato Institute, which is a pro-capitalist, libertarian institution.
There news features seem pretty open to all interpretations, and how can their artistic programming (jazz programming, Thistle and Shamrock, etc.) even be considered political at all? Any thoughts?
The most common phrase I hear on NPR is "Oh, I agree" as the liberal host, the liberal guest, and the liberal caller all are in agreement with each other.
When they have a discussion where NPR attempts to provide opinions from both the left and right, the person who supposedly represents the views on the right is some liberal journalist from the Boston Globe, LA Times, or some other liberal rag, or a liberal college or university. Just being a liberal journalist who covers Republican politics, does not make you an expert on the views and policies from the Republicans or conservatives. It usually just makes you a biased liberal.
Next time you hear a Republican or a Constitutional conservative being interviewed, listen to how the NPR hosts conduct it. It's usually very thorough, with the host not putting up with someone spewing talking points and propaganda. The host asks good follow-up questions when their guest makes an assertion, or relates statistics or facts, or appears to be spouting talking points. The host's follows up these by asking the guest to provide sources, explain and justify their positions on the issues.
However, when it's a liberal democrat making assertions of fact, or spewing talking points and propaganda, the host just says "uh huh" and the conversation simply moves along with a challenge for the assertions.
It is so frustrating to hear a lib spew erroneous assumptions of fact, or spew liberal talking points and urban myths, and hear them go completely unchallenged by the NPR host. I think it's because the hosts believe the same liberal crap as their liberal guests, which is why they never challenge them.
A Republican on NPR with a straw man argument is immediately challenged, but dems can trot out as many straw men, straw dogs, and red herrings as they like.
It's like the old parody of Larry King interviewing Ken Star and James Carville. In the very first question Starr is asked, Carville interrupts him and claims Starr is nothing but a space alien. Instead of King challenging Carvile to back up his claim, he turns to Starr with a sad tone of rebuke, and says "Ken Starr, are you really a space alien?" Carville makes more hilarious accusations, and King presses Starr to answer those as well. Of course Starr never gets a word out before he's interrupted by both King and Carville.
For the same reasons I think that the sky is blue.
I actually like NPR, but it is OBVIOUSLY and COMPLETELY LEFT WING. I am sorry,but the fact that you do not appreciate that fact suggests that you are standing far left- in which case everything is relatively conservative to you (including NPR).
They definitely have their entrenched liberal beliefs. Don't even call into NPR and offer an opinion that questions whether human-induced CO2 is resulting in catastrophic global warming, or you'll get shouted down by both the host and their guest.
NPR is not a discussion about ideas, per se, it's a discussion designed only to reaffirm the views, opinions and ideas held by the left. If you dare offer a differing opinion or question their views, you will suffer a sharp rebuke, and challenged to provide proof. Oh, and any proof will be illegitimated and scoffed at.
When it comes to politics and ideology, NPR hosts know what they know, and anything else that challenges that is dismissed as kooky and right-wing, fringe extremism.
I would say it is center or center left, but it does a great job of bringing up good news every day, and a number of the interviewers (Diane Reim, Neil Conan, etc. ) are very good.
I think it goes without saying that any journalist who works for NPR is more likely to be an idealist than a person heavily motivated by money, so probably leans left. That said, I think the journalistic integrity of NPR, and the desire to include a variety of news sources, are exemplary. Anyone who dismisses NPR is doing themselves a real disservice.
The most common phrase I hear on NPR is "Oh, I agree" as the liberal host, the liberal guest, and the liberal caller all are in agreement with each other.
When they have a discussion where NPR attempts to provide opinions from both the left and right, the person who supposedly represents the views on the right is some liberal journalist from the Boston Globe, LA Times, or some other liberal rag, or a liberal college or university. Just being a liberal journalist who covers Republican politics, does not make you an expert on the views and policies from the Republicans or conservatives. It usually just makes you a biased liberal.
Next time you hear a Republican or a Constitutional conservative being interviewed, listen to how the NPR hosts conduct it. It's usually very thorough, with the host not putting up with someone spewing talking points and propaganda. The host asks good follow-up questions when their guest makes an assertion, or relates statistics or facts, or appears to be spouting talking points. The host's follows up these by asking the guest to provide sources, explain and justify their positions on the issues.
However, when it's a liberal democrat making assertions of fact, or spewing talking points and propaganda, the host just says "uh huh" and the conversation simply moves along with a challenge for the assertions.
It is so frustrating to hear a lib spew erroneous assumptions of fact, or spew liberal talking points and urban myths, and hear them go completely unchallenged by the NPR host. I think it's because the hosts believe the same liberal crap as their liberal guests, which is why they never challenge them.
A Republican on NPR with a straw man argument is immediately challenged, but dems can trot out as many straw men, straw dogs, and red herrings as they like.
It's like the old parody of Larry King interviewing Ken Star and James Carville. In the very first question Starr is asked, Carville interrupts him and claims Starr is nothing but a space alien. Instead of King challenging Carvile to back up his claim, he turns to Starr with a sad tone of rebuke, and says "Ken Starr, are you really a space alien?" Carville makes more hilarious accusations, and King presses Starr to answer those as well. Of course Starr never gets a word out before he's interrupted by both King and Carville.
I have no doubt this occurs sometimes. But as a long-term listener, I have heard liberals get grilled too. It also depends upon the interviewer. For example, I get the feeling Terry Gross is somewhat biased, but Diane Reim is great.
Next time you hear a Republican or a Constitutional conservative being interviewed, listen to how the NPR hosts conduct it. It's usually very thorough, with the host not putting up with someone spewing talking points and propaganda. The host asks good follow-up questions when their guest makes an assertion, or relates statistics or facts, or appears to be spouting talking points. The host's follows up these by asking the guest to provide sources, explain and justify their positions on the issues.
However, when it's a liberal democrat making assertions of fact, or spewing talking points and propaganda, the host just says "uh huh" and the conversation simply moves along with a challenge for the assertions.
It is so frustrating to hear a lib spew erroneous assumptions of fact, or spew liberal talking points and urban myths, and hear them go completely unchallenged by the NPR host. I think it's because the hosts believe the same liberal crap as their liberal guests, which is why they never challenge them.
Well said. I enjoy NPR and spend the majority of my radio time listening to them or Bloomberg radio. But they do preach to the choir, which is why most liberals don't understand why conservatives feel the way they do about NPR. I have friends who are passionately liberal but get get annoyed when you point it out to them...they think they are squarely middle of the road and don't appreciate the liberal label while having no trouble labeling me a tea-bagger for trying to discuss any aspect of Obama's presidency.
NPR is so far on the left that it must be at end of the left. I am a active listener of NPR but sometimes it affects my driving.
On Diane Rehm show, they often talk about illegal immigration. There's not one word about them being illegal here. They kept using "undocumented immigrants" or just "immigrants." They kept talking about how terrible their life is on and on and on, and why we should give them citizenship. There's not one single counter argument.
I don't know how much further on the left they can be.
I think it goes without saying that any journalist who works for NPR is more likely to be an idealist than a person heavily motivated by money, so probably leans left.
Fortunately, just because you say "it goes without saying" does not make it true.
It goes without saying that any journalist who works for NPR is more likely to lean left with or without money.
NPR is so far on the left that it must be at end of the left. I am a active listener of NPR but sometimes it affects my driving.
On Diane Rehm show, they often talk about illegal immigration. There's not one word about them being illegal here. They kept using "undocumented immigrants" or just "immigrants." They kept talking about how terrible their life is on and on and on, and why we should give them citizenship. There's not one single counter argument.
I don't know how much further on the left they can be.
I can't listen to her. she talks so painfully slowly that I keep wanting to finish her sentences for her.
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.
