• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

CBS needs to drop talk on 1210 WPHT

flybynight said:
Between this comment and the "falling strawmen" comment, you've summed up the entire Sean Hannity show.

Don't be surprised when "avid listener"s of those shows find those tactics completely normal and reasonable in actual, everyday conversation.
Click to expand...

Your comment about Hannity is why I never listen to his show. I would also point out that this thread isn't about the specific political issues that public radio stations or commercial news/talk stations are biased towards. Such digressions end up in "Take it Outside". Therefore, here in this particular forum and thread, refusing to get drawn into debating political issues is simply properly following the rules.
 
Wimmmex said:
Might I ask where you came up with this number? I am a big NPR listener, and I don't hear much immigration coverage.
Click to expand...

NPR has a major initiative to cover Immigration issues. They received several major foundation grants to endow reporters, establish blogs, and air numerous radio series and documentaries on the subject. It's not restricted to immigration over the US southern border, but also covers immigration from former Soviet block countries, Africa, and the Middle East. If you search NPR.org, you'll see a long list of reports they've done on the subject.
 
TheBigA said:
NPR has a major initiative to cover Immigration issues. They received several major foundation grants to endow reporters, establish blogs, and air numerous radio series and documentaries on the subject. It's not restricted to immigration over the US southern border, but also covers immigration from former Soviet block countries, Africa, and the Middle East. If you search NPR.org, you'll see a long list of reports they've done on the subject.
Click to expand...

"A long list"...is not 15% Was that an estimate on your part?

Blogs, website, web audio, etc.... I just don't hear it on the air.
 
Wimmmex said:
"A long list"...is not 15% Was that an estimate on your part?
Click to expand...

It was an educated estimate. Are you holding me to exact numbers? I can get them if you like. I know who to call. But it will be pretty close to 15. Would it make any difference to you?
 
Wimmmex said:
Well, you stated it like a fact...and, like I said, I just don't hear it.

Well, I'd have to trust that you are getting the correct answer, and relaying it. ;-)
Click to expand...

NPR got millions of dollars in grant money to cover immigration. The primary outlet for that coverage is on the air. The web stuff is just for support. The real money went for on the air reporting in their daily shows. They have a lot of similar initiatives. Education is another. How much education reporting do you hear?
 
TheBigA said:
NPR got millions of dollars in grant money to cover immigration. The primary outlet for that coverage is on the air. The web stuff is just for support. The real money went for on the air reporting in their daily shows. They have a lot of similar initiatives. Education is another. How much education reporting do you hear?
Click to expand...

Just referring to the problem of illegal aliens invading the US in violation of our laws as being about "immigration" demonstrates bias.

Disclaimer: I'm not debating the pros and cons of US policy towards legal immigrants and/or illegal aliens. This is not the forum for such a discussion. That is simply an illustration to demonstrate a point that arose in the course of this discussion. Had someone referred to those who sell illegal drugs as "unlicensed pharmacists", then that also would have been a good illustration to demonstrate the point. The fact that NPR consistently uses terms taken straight from the rhetoric of one side in a matter of public controversy demonstrates their bias, just as the use of terms taken straight from the rhetoric of the opposing side demonstrates the bias of private sector news/talk hosts.
 
Avid Listener said:
The fact that NPR consistently uses terms taken straight from the rhetoric of one side in a matter of public controversy demonstrates their bias, just as the use of terms taken straight from the rhetoric of the opposing side demonstrates the bias of private sector news/talk hosts.
Click to expand...

As I've said before, NPR is very careful about the terminology they use. The fact that they avoid the rhetoric you prefer doesn't mean they're taking the other side. Do you have specific examples?

The issue of immigration is bigger than the example you've given, and NPR has spent a lot of time and money covering the broader issue of immigration. I think the record is very clear about it. If you or anyone else has a problem, NPR has an ombudsman who will listen to your complaint and respond.
 
Avid Listener said:
Yes, when they refer to illegal aliens as "immigrants". That's bias. Wasn't that clear?
Click to expand...

Webster's definition of immigrant doesn't deal with the legal or illegal aspect: "immigrant (ˈɪmɪɡrənt) —n: 1. a. Compare emigrant a person who comes to a country in order to settle there"
 
Avid Listener said:
Yes, when they refer to illegal aliens as "immigrants". That's bias. Wasn't that clear?
Click to expand...

Immigration to the US can be "with papers" or "without papers" but the act of moving residency from one country to another is "immigration", plain and simple. Until laws were passed, mostly in the 1920's to regulate immigration, all immigrants* were, de facto, legal.

The NPR usage of the term "immigrant" is correct. They distinguish between the status of immigrants by saying "documented" and "undocumented" which is one of the several legally and politically correct ways to make the difference clear.

* With the exception of the nasty legislation restricting Chinese emigrants from coming here, passed in the late 1800's.
 
DavidEduardo said:


Immigration to the US can be "with papers" or "without papers" but the act of moving residency from one country to another is "immigration", plain and simple. Until laws were passed, mostly in the 1920's to regulate immigration, all immigrants* were, de facto, legal.

The NPR usage of the term "immigrant" is correct. They distinguish between the status of immigrants by saying "documented" and "undocumented" which is one of the several legally and politically correct ways to make the difference clear.

* With the exception of the nasty legislation restricting Chinese emigrants from coming here, passed in the late 1800's.
Click to expand...

Is "illegal immigrant" acceptable?
 
TheBigA said:
Maybe. You should read his blog. It's very good.
Click to expand...

I have. It's the equivalent of a referee in a pro wrestling match. Today's lead story is about how NPR should stop using the term Redskins for the NFL team. Yeah, really unbiased there.


Answering selected questions to maintain an illusion of neutrality is hardly a real discussion of NPR's bias. It goes back to the old joke about NPR not being biased, just ask NPR.

Of course it's also unfair to leave APM and other public radio out of this. I just use NPR as the example, but it's all the same.
 
Last edited:
Small Market Guy said:
Is "illegal immigrant" acceptable?
Click to expand...

My family is Hispanic, and all are citizens or legal immigrants. But we find the term "illegal" to be a bit harsh and prefer "undocumented".

As I write this, the noon news on KESQ, my local ABC affiliate, has just referred to "undocumented immigrants" in a story; the market is 52% Hispanic and this appears to be the term they use in their internal style book.

While, strictly speaking, an undocumented immigrant is here illegally, the case most often made is that the laws that were broken have not been enforced for the last three decades. In that context, when I drive at 75 on I-10 nobody calls me an "illegal driver" or a criminal since the police tolerate that 10 MPH excess over the speed limit.

Naturally, the "deport them all" crowd will object. As will the "open border" lunatics. You can't please all of the people all of the time.
 
Last edited:
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom