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.
This thread really has shown it--if it ain't fox news, it's Liberal Media Propoganda.
I call it National Propaganda Radio to mock idiots like you. It's the furthest thing from your accusations, but don't let that stop you from emitting those guttural croaks you call sentences.
Romney is pushing attack ads at a 5:1 ratio, where Obama is pushing attack ads at a 2:1 ratio. If you are complaining that Romney is being mentioned too much for running attack ads, perhaps it's because hes' running a lot of attack ads.
Are you paying attention? The question is not the ratio of attack ads, but how NPR presents what is going on. They NEVER use the words "Obama attacked" or even "Biden attacked", when those words are being used for the other party by NPR. Are you so clueless as to think that Obama never attacks?
They are attacked by both sides and accused for being biased both ways, so I suppose that makes them balanced.
The problem with Republicans is that they always see themselves as the victim of media bias, so to them everything is "left wing MSM", unless it's right wing talk show, which throw 100% of their weight in promoting right wing view.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 08-17-2012 at 06:32 AM..
I listen to NPR daily and they are about as neutral as it gets. It's not Pacifica Radio/Democracy Now. They cover both the Democratic and Republican parties equally, delve into media bias, and cover what goes on in every corner of the world. If they had to start selling advertising, they would then have to consider whether their stories affected those who keep them on the air, which would just make them the same as any other news station.
It's definitely liberal and tax payer funded extremist propaganda which needs to have it's funding cut immediately. Around these parts it's called National Propaganda Radio. The disinformation it spews daily is rather ludicrous.
What station do you go to for objective news reporting.
For anyone who thinks NPR is unbiased, just listen to one cycle of morning news and count how many times they use the words "Romney attacked Obama" or "Ryan attacked Obama", but they will never use those words when quoting our petty, vengeful president.
Tune into PBS at 7 PM EDT tonight and you will get a good look at what objective news looks like, they present both sides of the story.
You evidently don't read your own links. Check the transcripts and count the times that they state "Romney attacks..." or "Romney accuses....", and see if they balance the report with the same words about Obama. THEY DON'T. And they make sure that they use such negative language about Romney in a lead-off, or early in a story to leave a prejudice in the mind of the listener concerning Romney. The language referring to Obama is generally, "Obama is reminding voters.....", "Obama's campaign aired an ad...." which is very watered-down, milquetoast language to paint Obama somehow as gentler, nicer. Yeah, sure.
I originally listened to the program of the second link when it was first aired. It is a perfect example of NPR's credibility problem. Thanks for proving my point.
Your point wasn't proven. I did visit the links and counted the use of the words "attack" and "accuse" and variations. I linked them to which type of ad the words were referring to. So "an attack ad by Romney" would give Romney one point, "attacks against Romney" would give Obama one point. Neutral means the words were used in general context like, "people dislike attack ads". Other refers to a discussion about former republican candidate Newt Gingrich. One use of "attack" was where a particular Obama supporter's "searing ad" that was proven inaccurate by unbiased fact checkers was "attacked vociferously" by the Romney's camp. The word was used in relation to an Obama ad (so it should go in the Obama column), but Romney's group did the attacking because of the ad's inaccuracy, so I put it in Neutral.
So is exactly ONE additional mention evidence of extreme bias? The point that is proven here is that people hear what they want to hear.
Disclaimer: I scanned through the articles quickly using my browser's search function. If you find where I've missed a word or mischaracterized the context of one example I'll fix the above numbers.
Conspiracy theory? LOL I thought at the beginning of your posts we were going to be able to have an adult discussion, guess I was wrong. I only need to listen to their programming to form my opinion. As I already posted your opinion is no better than mine.
The bottom line is this, this country is in debt up to it's eyeballs and we need priorities. NPR is like a $5 coffee, it may be nice to have in the opinion of some but when you have $20K in credit card debt it's probably a good idea to stop buying $5 coffees you don't need.
Yes play daft because you know you're conspiracy theory is running on empty because it never had fuel to begin with.
So now you decide to change your and concede the issue. And no, NPR is like that penny from an overseas bank account that you find on the ground and throw into a wish fountain. The wish fountain that non-serious people hope will make lure gullible people into thinking that they're serious about budgetary issues as they attack npr and other cultural program that are nothing but pennies in a large bank account while continuing to ignore tax deductions, rates, and defense.
Yes play daft because you know you're conspiracy theory is running on empty because it never had fuel to begin with.
So now you decide to change your and concede the issue.
The only concession here is the imaginary one you have made up in your mind.
You have formed an opinion that NPR is not bias by listening to them, correct? I have formed an opinion of their coverage that it is bias by listening to them. We have both formed an opinion the exact same way and have arrived at different conclusions, correct? If my opinion is conspiracy theory I guess yours is too isn't it?
You can disagree with my opinion just as I disagree with yours but you need respect it. To suggest it's a "conspiracy theory" quite frankly is pretty juvenile and naive.
Quote:
The wish fountain that non-serious people hope will make lure gullible people into thinking that they're serious about budgetary issues as they attack npr and other cultural program that are nothing but pennies in a large bank account while continuing to ignore tax deductions, rates, and defense.
Have you ever run a business? You need to pay attention to the small expenses just as much you do the large ones because those little expenses add up a to a lot, anyone that has successfully run a business will tell you that. While eliminating NPR's funding may not add to a up to a lot eliminating it along with other unneeded and wasteful spending will add up to a lot.
This is actually one of pet peeves, you have the local politican saying "it's just a few thousand", the state politician saying "it's just a few million" and the federal politician saying it's just a hundred million or billion...... That adds up to "Just a trillion"....
Last edited by thecoalman; 08-17-2012 at 04:39 PM..
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.