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.
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.
My assertion is based on the results of a Pew Study that actually asked journalists what they identified themsleves as.
"Journalists" and "media" are two separate things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
And NPR reporters don;t have an obligation to their political supporters?
If NPR felt its obligation to its political supporters was more important than objectivity, NPR would change allegiances every time the Congress and/or executive office changed parties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
As far as the people that enjoy their programming they can support it themselves if they want it to continue, my tax dollars shouldn't be used for the entertainment of anyone.
OK, then, no more public money for sports stadia, public parks, arts performances, local music festivals, neighborhood playgrounds, recreation centers ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
In other words, NPR now presents flyover America with a little less of a patronizing attitude, and conservatives as something other than curious hayseeds hopelessly out of touch with all the things that really matter to the urban, ultra-liberal moral relativists who make up the majority of its content providers and production staff.
Say what? Public radio has been around since radio was available, and most notably and popularly in "flyover America".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffersondavis
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.
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.
If NPR felt its obligation to its political supporters was more important than objectivity, NPR would change allegiances every time the Congress and/or executive office changed parties.
Their supporters are Liberals, that is not going to change with who controls Congress or the WH.
Quote:
OK, then, no more public money for sports stadia, public parks, arts performances, local music festivals, neighborhood playgrounds, recreation centers ...
Firstly those things cannot be a platform for a political agenda like a broadcast radio. As for the value of each of those things I'd certainly agree with cutting all funding for sports stadiums. It just allows for exorbitant player salaries and helps line the owners pockets. Funding for local parks and other local events should be left up to the locals.
Again, though, this is a relatively recent phenomenon. It took the advent of Fox news, that scary manifestation of evil to the progressive mindset, to wake up NPR to the concept that occasionally providing a diversity of viewpoints might not only be smart policy but ethically more in line with what constitutes broadcasting for the American public.
In other words, NPR now presents flyover America with a little less of a patronizing attitude, and conservatives as something other than curious hayseeds hopelessly out of touch with all the things that really matter to the urban, ultra-liberal moral relativists who make up the majority of its content providers and production staff.
Here is a good example of their non-diversification and unashamed bias. They would NEVER use the words that you just used: "ultra-liberal" or "moral relativist". Instead, you will reliably hear: "ultra-conservative", "far right", "extreme right", "arch-conservative", but never the left's counterpart (no view is too leftist, ya know). Instead of "moral relativist" (no such thing!), you will hear generous use of the term "fundamentalist".
Say what? Public radio has been around since radio was available, and most notably and popularly in "flyover America".
From Wikipedia:
The first radio news program was broadcast August 31, 1920 by station 8MK in Detroit, Michigan, which survives today as all-news format station WWJ under ownership of the CBS network. The first college radio station began broadcasting on October 14, 1920 from Union College, Schenectady, New York under the personal call letters of Wendell King, an African-American student at the school.
The National Educational Radio Network (NERN) was a means of distributing radio programs in the United States between 1961 and 1970. With funding from the Ford Foundation, the network began broadcasting on six radio stations on April 3, 1961.[1]
National Public Radio replaced the National Educational Radio Network on February 26, 1970, following congressional passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. This act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, and established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which also created the Public Broadcasting Service in addition to NPR.
And mocking flyover America is standard fare among ALL the left-wing media, including though to a lesser degree, as I pointed out above) NPR. That some midwesterners yearn to be mocked is an indicator of loneliness, not perspicacity.
I only listen to NPR when I live in, or near a college town.
NPR locations rely hugely on listener donations. There just happen to be more donations from educated people (not always progressive folk) that see the value in supporting NPR's mission. Major cities have deeper pockets and thus more programming that they pay for. Smaller markets have a lot of "filler" material like orchestral music, music from foreign countries, etc. The larger markets can afford to produce their own talk shows in addition to the syndicated NPR programs.
This thread really has shown it--if it ain't fox news, it's Liberal Media Propoganda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffersondavis
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irishvanguard
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irishvanguard
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.
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.
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.
