• 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

Do you fill out your own tax form? Just complete a Schedule C, and you can do the exact same thing. It's called an unreimbursed business expense. No special privilege. Available to anyone who files. Look it up.

That only takes the amount of the expense off of your taxable income. If your unreimbursed business expense was, for example, $500, and you were in a 10% tax bracket (again, hypothetical numbers only!), you wouldn't save $500 on your taxes, you'd only save $50. So, that means that the business trip wasn't paid for by the taxpayers, it was only slightly subsidized.
 
Ha, ha, ha. No one in public radio has ever criticized news gathering of commercial radio.

By "public radio bunch" I mainly meant the people who listen to it. Just look at the examples here. We have people thinking that getting less than 10% of their operating budget from the feds keeps public radio news rooms from being biased. Meanwhile, I've NEVER seen any sort of local news that was biased. The few people left working as radio news reporters on the local level tend to be very serious about remaining unbiased.
 
I have worked with many radio newspeople over the years and can say without hesitation, that if any of them had a bias, they did their best to keep it at bay when putting their storie's together.

I can't think of many newpeople I've known who didn't take their job seriously and try to maintain the all-important objectivity that is preached to anyone with a journalism background.

Maybe what some are referring to, quite accurately, is the "choice" of stories that air. Their may be a tendency for stations with an ideological bent to go heavy with the stories that are most likely going to inflame their audiences. Notice I said "inflame", not "inform".

An extreme example of this is the extensive coverage of a station-sponsored gun rally by WBEN/Buffalo last year. It was a disgrace. From what I gathered, some in the news department were none too pleased.
 
Maybe what some are referring to, quite accurately, is the "choice" of stories that air. Their may be a tendency for stations with an ideological bent to go heavy with the stories that are most likely going to inflame their audiences. Notice I said "inflame", not "inform".

Go back many pages in this thread, and you'll see that is exactly what I listed as the #1 aspect of bias in the news reported on "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered".
 
Go back many pages in this thread, and you'll see that is exactly what I listed as the #1 aspect of bias in the news reported on "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered".

If that's how you judge bias, then you mean anyone who doesn't cover the typical Fox talking points is biased. And that includes the BBC and The Voice of America.

I agree, you won't see NPR cover things like Bill O'Reilly's campaign to have Beyoncé speak out against teen pregnancy. That's not news, but a Fox talking point. It's not a story covered anywhere else. But if the story is covered by major newspapers, the Associated Press, and all commercial radio networks, then it's also going to be on NPR.
 
They weren't "sales people". They were top executives. This is systematic.

They were sales people. Don't lie. In public radio, they're called "development," but they're just people who go after money, and make a commission. It's systematic of people who do that for a living. It has nothing to do with news. There is a very hard firewall between them and the news people.
 
They were sales people. Don't lie. In public radio, they're called "development," but they're just people who go after money, and make a commission. It's systematic of people who do that for a living. It has nothing to do with news. There is a very hard firewall between them and the news people.

I'm not the one lying here. You can try to deflect and diminish all you want, but I provided proof of senior executives at NPR engaging in biased and quite possibly illegal activity. If you want to start throwing around that "L" word, you're going to get yourself in a lot of trouble claiming that such bias is compartmentalized at NPR.
 
Get confronted by proof of malfeasance at NPR? Start making personal attacks. I see how it is. I don't know what connection you have to these people, but whatever it is, it makes you completely unbelievable on anything public radio related.
 
Get confronted by proof of malfeasance at NPR? Start making personal attacks.


I have no connection to them, nor did I make a personal attack. YOU'RE the one who claimed it is "possibly illegal activity." That is more of a personal attack than anything I said in response.

Obviously if it WAS "possibly illegal activity," they've had two years to investigate. This was a big story in the right wing media a couple years ago, but went absolutely nowhere. No one was charged with anything. And no one EVER made a connection between what this one guy said, and anything on the air. It's a total non-story about a stupid guy who has nothing to do with the news department. Are there biased people working at broadcasting companies in this country? Absolutely. Are they in the news departments? So far, I've seen no proof. As I've said consistently through this thread, sales people say all kinds of stupid things to close deals. But none of the things said in the video ever conveyed to anything on the air. If you have examples otherwise, post them here. Otherwise, this is a dead point.
 
I think because there is such premeditated and palpable bias in right-wing media, it is automatically assumed by those who imbibe it, that there is certainly at least as much bias in the "mainstream" media. The difference of course is that when the librul media makes a mistake based on someone's bias, they admit it and fire people. The right-wing media just acts as if it didn't happen, if not doubles down.
 
Last edited:
I think because there is such premeditated and palpable bias in right-wing media, it is automatically assumed by those who imbibe it, that there is certainly at least as much bias in the "mainstream" media. The difference of course is that when the librul media makes a mistake based on someone's bias, they admit it and fire people. The right-wing media just acts as if it didn't happen, if not doubles down.

I'm pretty sure this entire thread is an example of the mainstream media NOT admitting bias. But you're so delusional nothing would convince you.
 
I'm pretty sure this entire thread is an example of the mainstream media NOT admitting bias. But you're so delusional nothing would convince you.

Many of us enjoy good conversation. If I walk into a room and find that the number of people is not evenly divided on some topic, I may just hop in and join the group that is lacking in numbers, or lacking in talent to explain their side of the issue. Sure, I have my own opinions, but I don't run through life assuming the the universe is going to end if I don't get everyone else to agree with me... and that they all have to agree with me every day... and that they all have to agree with me today.

My friend, you are pretty trigger happy at calling people delusional.... labeling people as being in the "personal attack mode"... and generally not being much of a conversationalist.

I agree with you that "mainstream media" is biased. That is what makes them "mainstream" which is also what a large number of ourf citizens are. We have some folks who are "head-banging crazy" with liberal concepts, and we have some foks who are "head-banging crazy" with conservative concepts. But if you pay attention to the "adults in the room" when they are being interviewed by legitimate journalists, each of the political parties have tended to be run by "center right" in the case of Republicans and by "center left" in the case of Democrats.

For about the last five years we have had this really crazy situation where the Tea Party folks have given the Republican Party a very strong (and probably very temporary) extreme RIGHT direction. In the 70s as a reaction to the Vietnamese War the Democrats were under the control of an extreme LEFT direction. Just prior to that in the era when the "Cold War" was a dominant concern in our country, the John Birch Society folks brought us a very strong influence to the RIGHT as an Anti-Community movement.

You are riding your political views around the room like a motorcycle on steroids. The conversation grows into something much more rewarding and educational if all the participants treat each other with reasonable amount of self respect.

In the "respect the participants" mode- may I suggest to you that "mainstream media" is not automatically a bunch of "head banging leftists 24 hours a day, seven days a week." We call them "mainstream" because their value judgements seem to run in the same lanes of the freeway as the citizens of the nation they serve.
 
I'm pretty sure this entire thread is an example of the mainstream media NOT admitting bias. But you're so delusional nothing would convince you.

No, I'm not delusional. I admit their is individual or rogue bias that comes though here and there in the mainstream media, but there is NOT the systemic bias, the institutionalized bias, that is the force behind much of the right wing media. They specifically aim to please a niche audience of wingnuts by regularly throwing them red meat. It's painfully transparent. Denying THAT really is a demonstration of a living-in-the-bubble mentality.

You'll never, ever realize that though, for a reason.
 
No, I'm not delusional. I admit their is individual or rogue bias that comes though here and there in the mainstream media, but there is NOT the systemic bias, the institutionalized bias, that is the force behind much of the right wing media. They specifically aim to please a niche audience of wingnuts by regularly throwing them red meat. It's painfully transparent. Denying THAT really is a demonstration of a living-in-the-bubble mentality.

You'll never, ever realize that though, for a reason.

The fact that you don't realize that the exact same thing happens on the other side is what makes you delusional. It's just on TV instead of radio. Jon Stewart? Colbert? Bill Maher? That's not throwing red meat to left wing nuts?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom