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.
We have out grown NPR when I was little back in the 60s we had 2 TV stations we needed it. Now with Discovery, Learning, CSPAN, we no longer need the programming.
Its liberal because it starts many programs with a loaded premise such as:
"Why poor mothers with kids who's husbands are drug addicts and have left can't get baby food and cable TV in homeless shelters".
On a conservative show the piece would be "How drug addicts ruin their lives and abuse their children because of their actions".
The bleeding heart whine factor is just much louder on NPR.
Exactly. Tax payer dollars should not go to NPR. That's my personal opinion.
It's an opinion. But it concedes that we should have only corporate-owned and sponsored media wherein pressures to present news and opinion from a particular favored perspective can be applied and brought to bear. No social benefit to having at least one widely available media outlet that is free to operate outside those pressures? I doubt you're going to see 'all things considered' in the media world you envision...
We have out grown NPR when I was little back in the 60s we had 2 TV stations we needed it. Now with Discovery, Learning, CSPAN, we no longer need the programming.
Those who can be satisfied with pre-digested sound-bite news and analysis may have outgrown NPR as well as any other well-reasoned outlet. Those who place a little more value on understanding the complexities that underly even seemingly simple situations find that we have today much more of a paucity than a surplus of outlets that take on those sorts of complexities.
We have out grown NPR when I was little back in the 60s we had 2 TV stations we needed it. Now with Discovery, Learning, CSPAN, we no longer need the programming.
Eh. NPR's Jazz programming is unmatched, IMO. In New York there are some decent radio jazz stations, but where I live now, I have to rely on NPR for jazz on the radio...and it delivers! So, it's still pretty relevant in my opinion.
NPA lost their 'liberal' points with me when they aired a commentary by dinesh d'souza.
Don't get me wrong, I still love and listen to a lot of public radio, but seriously, any station that gives dinesh d'souza a platform for an editorial is not a left wing bastion in my book.
We have out grown NPR when I was little back in the 60s we had 2 TV stations we needed it. Now with Discovery, Learning, CSPAN, we no longer need the programming.
Its liberal because it starts many programs with a loaded premise such as:
"Why poor mothers with kids who's husbands are drug addicts and have left can't get baby food and cable TV in homeless shelters".
On a conservative show the piece would be "How drug addicts ruin their lives and abuse their children because of their actions".
The bleeding heart whine factor is just much louder on NPR.
__________________________________________________ ____________
This is a funny post. It contrasts a neutral sentence with a loaded one as a method of comparing conservative and liberal bias. But most amusing is this classification of the "bias" in each one. He says neutrality is "liberal" and angry classism is "conservative". If you want a "liberal" bent on this sentence you'd have to say something more like, "Why we need to improve government aid to homeless shelters". Learn your politics. It's not about bigotry vs neutrality, it's about big government vs small.
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?
Ohh I'll also add that when asked what publications or programs were beyond reproach representing the right, beholden to telling the truth beyond partisanship... they could not answer. I tried to hear them out but they were repeating FOX.
I listen to NPR (90.9 WBUR) all day almost every day while I work. I hear multiple sides of many arguments and world news you don't hear anywhere else in the mainstream media. If I watched CNN or MSNBC all day, I'd hear the same talking points over and over with no substance. On NPR you hear world class journalism. You hear intelligent questioning. You never hear talking points from the interviewers and if the guests aren't forth-coming with real answers the interviewers press them.
I think when people say NPR is liberal, they mean it is intellectual and it caters to an educated audience. If educated and intellectual = liberal, as seems to be the case, then yes I suppose it is liberal.
NPR = Intelligent Commentary = Democrat
FOX News = Talking Points and Drivel = Republicans.
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.
"Liberal" is not the same as "Neutral"
