CBS needs to drop talk on 1210 WPHT

[Small Market Guy]

Except they really don't. 39% of moderates listen to NPR. That number is bigger than the 36% of the liberals who listen.

Good lord, haven't you ever heard of margin of error? You're so blinded by whatever loyalty you have to NPR that you can't see the obvious truth.

 

[TheBigA]

Good lord, haven't you ever heard of margin of error?

I have. According to the article, it's 2%. How does that address the fact that 60% of the audience isn't liberal? That's within the margin of error.

Twice as many conservatives listen to NPR vs liberals who listen to Hannity or Limbaugh. Well within margin of error.

Also, did you look at the figures for knowledge about politics? Did you compare the political knowledge of an NPR listener vs. a Limbaugh listener?

Face it...the more numbers you present, the worse your case becomes. You're better off not posting numbers.

 

[Small Market Guy]

I have. According to the article, it's 2%. How does that address the fact that 60% of the audience isn't liberal? That's within the margin of error.

Twice as many conservatives listen to NPR vs liberals who listen to Hannity or Limbaugh. Well within margin of error.

Also, did you look at the figures for knowledge about politics? Did you compare the political knowledge of an NPR listener vs. a Limbaugh listener?

Face it...the more numbers you present, the worse your case becomes. You're better off not posting numbers.

And there's the straw man. This isn't about answering questions about who the Secretary of the Interior is.

You don't honestly believe those "independents" are conservative leaning, do you?

 

[TheBigA]

You don't honestly believe those "independents" are conservative leaning, do you?

So now you're challenging the credibility of the numbers YOU presented? You've been doing right wing talk too long.

 

[Avid Listener]

But once again, the fact is that they don't. Not in terms of corporate support. Not in terms of government support. Not really in terms of listener support. As the poll posted earlier in this thread shows, the political interests of its listeners are very broad. If it WAS obviously biased, I doubt as many conservatives or moderates would listen. Why would they?

Asked and answered already. When public radio is the least objectionable program on the air, people tune it in or pop in a CD. As terribly biased as public radio's news reporting is, the other alternatives on the air are often much, much worse. Paul Klein's comments on television are even more appropriate to radio. People consume it as a commodity. Since most of what is on the radio is boring crap, people simply decide to listen to "some radio", and tune in the least objectionable programming that's on the air at the time. For many people, public radio is the least objectionable content on the air. It sucks, but the other alternative suck even worse.

But then, that's how the people running radio want it to be. Safe, bland, boring, with nothing that might make anyone change the station or turn the thing off.

Now, there are a small portion of public radio listeners who cough up money during pledge period. These are the folks who genuinely enjoy the bias of public radio's newscasts, because it reinforces their pre-existing opinions. And, there are some who might eventually find themselves subtly persuaded through repeated doses of low-level, semi-subliminal bias.

As for what effect my listening to public radio has on my opinions, I don't really "listen" to NPR. I have it on in my car when I'm on the road when "All Things Considered" is on the air. I keep the volume low, so it's really more like ambient background noise. Since they intersperse the news stories with trivial filler and cultural stuff, I might turn the volume up if something sounds vaguely interesting. Of course, when Fresh Air with Terry Gross comes on, then I turn the radio up and pay attention. I seldom listen to the radio on Saturday mornings lately, but years ago, I always looked forward to Car Talk. And on Saturday evenings, I'll listen to The Prairie Home Companion if I'm out in the car.

 

[TheBigA]

Now, there are a small portion of public radio listeners who cough up money during pledge period. These are the folks who genuinely enjoy the bias of public radio's newscasts, because it reinforces their pre-existing opinions.

Really? You have some facts to back that up? Go ahead and post them.

 

[Small Market Guy]

So now you're challenging the credibility of the numbers YOU presented? You've been doing right wing talk too long.

You really have a reading comprehension problem.

 

[TheBigA]

You really have a reading comprehension problem.

And you're making things up to prove a point.

 

[Avid Listener]

To refer everyone back to an earlier post on this subject, all anyone needs by way of proof that the NPR news/magazine shows "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered" as as biased towards one side of the political spectrum as the news/talk shows on commercial radio are biased towards the other side is to simply listen to them. Anyone who is capable of understanding the concept of bias, and who is himself capable of unbiased objectivity will see it plain as day. Anyone who cannot recognize the bias when he encounters it won't be convinced by any presentation of "proof". If your own two ears aren't good enough to hear what's there, then you just cannot be convinced of the truth.

 

[TheBigA]

To refer everyone back to an earlier post on this subject, all anyone needs by way of proof that the NPR news/magazine shows "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered" as as biased towards one side of the political spectrum as the news/talk shows on commercial radio are biased towards the other side is to simply listen to them.

Except that you say you don't. You said you just have them on in the background.

I don't really "listen" to NPR. I have it on in my car when I'm on the road when "All Things Considered" is on the air. I keep the volume low, so it's really more like ambient background noise.

So clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

They're not biased. Independent and objective organizations say they're not biased. Their audience make-up shows they're not biased. Their funding sources prove they're not biased. You can keep on saying they're biased all day, but you haven't come up with any tangible proof or examples, other than certain words that YOU feel show bias. Just saying something is biased doesn't in fact MAKE them biased.

 

[Small Market Guy]

And you're making things up to prove a point.

Let's do a little mental exercise.

Eliminate those "independents" from the polls. What would the polls look like? 40% or so of Fox News's viewers would be Republicans (conservative for the purposes of this discussion) and 43% of NPR's audience would be democrats (liberals for the purposes of the discussion.) Basically mirror images.

Now imagine that those pesky "independents" actually have beliefs of their own and aren't some mythical creature called a "moderate". Is it really a stretch to say that the "independents" that listen to NPR would be left-leaning, or that the "independents" that watch Fox News are right leaning?

Of course not. Unless you made a ridiculous statement based on your bias towards NPR and painted yourself into a corner. Which is exactly what you've done here. The only people who think that conservatives listen to NPR are people with a vested interest in promoting NPR's "lack of bias". Mainly people who are afraid that they won't get to feed at the public trough if NPR is exposed for what it is. A passive aggressive shill for the left. Just because the hosts speak in hushed tones doesn't make them impartial.

Acting like NPR isn't biased is about as honest as saying Fox News isn't biased.

 

[TheBigA]

Acting like NPR isn't biased is about as honest as saying Fox News isn't biased.

They're not the same thing. Fox mainly does talk shows with hosts who have an agenda.

NPR does news magazines with hosts that just read scripted introductions to produced pieces.

There's a very clear and obvious difference. And you can see it in the article you posted.

You want to eliminate independents because you think they're left leaning. But if you read the article you posted, it defines them very clearly. They are people who are not swayed by ideology or agendas, and 72% of NPR's listeners want news coverage that does not promote an agenda or ideology.

The only people who think NPR is biased have a vested interest in that belief: Far right ideological politicians and talk show hosts. They are the only ones. They want to bring NPR down to the same level as Fox, when it's obvious to anyone who listens that they don't do the same thing, and it's obvious from reading the article you posted that their results are very different. You can continue to read from the same right wing talking points all day, but no one else is buying what you're selling, including the Congress of the United States.

 

[Avid Listener]

Except that you say you don't. You said you just have them on in the background.

Now I keep them quietly in the background. I started doing that after I spent some time actually listening to them.

I have a pet dog who lives his entire existence aware of only one time -- now. He isn't aware of the past and has no concept of the future. All he knows is right this minute. I usually give human beings credit for understanding the difference between past and present without having to have it explained to them.

 

[TheBigA]

Human beings also say what they mean. Read what you wrote the first time. I don't see the word "now" in there anywhere. Maybe you can show me where it is.

 

[Jul]

Hannity needs to be aired live at 3 PM on 1210 again, not 9 PM. Knowing how flawed the station is, they not going to do anything about it. Let's get back to the topic people.

 

[TheBigA]

Hannity needs to be aired live at 3 PM on 1210 again, not 9 PM. Knowing how flawed the station is, they not going to do anything about it. Let's get back to the topic people.

Yep, the station is very flawed...it just had a huge ratings increase. Terrible.

 

[Avid Listener]

Hannity needs to be aired live at 3 PM on 1210 again, not 9 PM. Knowing how flawed the station is, they not going to do anything about it. Let's get back to the topic people.

Sorry, but I don't live in Philly. I cannot pick up Philly radio stations on my radio.

 

[Small Market Guy]

You want to eliminate independents because you think they're left leaning.

And the ones that watch Fox News are right leaning.

You can talk about "right wing talking points" all you want, but everything you say is the same we've heard for years. Just because Congress lacks the will to do anything about it, the American public is on to the scam. It's only a matter of time before the taxpayers stop subsidizing public media.

I suppose that leaves us at an impasse.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

And the ones that watch Fox News are right leaning.

You can talk about "right wing talking points" all you want, but everything you say is the same we've heard for years. Just because Congress lacks the will to do anything about it, the American public is on to the scam. It's only a matter of time before the taxpayers stop subsidizing public media.

I suppose that leaves us at an impasse.

I'm sorry some of the threads from two and three years back on this site are not easily accessible. I guess we are going to have to dig out the numbers all over again.

What percentage of the operating costs of PBS and NPR and all the local stations is actually paid for with taxpayer subsidies?

There are some rural area, low-population density markets where you can come up with a station budget that shows significant, measurable government funding, but people who keep stirring the conversation-pot on this topic belong to the same school-of-logic as the folks who are convinced we can balance the federal budget by eliminating government funding of eye-brow mascara for the gnats on the donkeys that people ride on the trails in The Grand Canyon.

Tell us how much money the Federal government puts into "public broadcasting" each year, and tell us what the total budget of public broadcasting is.

 

[Avid Listener]

Tell us how much money the Federal government puts into "public broadcasting" each year, and tell us what the total budget of public broadcasting is.

To many people who take the letter of the law seriously, that question is a matter of principle. In any situation where the amount of tax revenues should be given to businesses is zero, then any amount of money, no matter how much or how little, is to much. When the proper amount to be given is none, then "some" is too much.

One might say the same about the FCC's standards for "decency". Should there be a debate on whether stations should be allowed one "F-Bomb" per hour, but no more, since that's only a small amount of bad language? Should there be a debate on whether stations should be allowed one use of the "N-Word" every 12 hours? Or are those issues where any at all is too much? There's a strong case that any money for Public Broadcasting is the same as any use of the F-Bomb or N-Word.

And, I'm sure there are many people who disagree with a zero tolerance approach to both those two words I referred to as well as a zero tolerance approach to tax-payer funding.