-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Talk Radio Scoreboard for Major Markets: October 2014
- Thread starter Gregg.
- Start date
Just want to point out that NPR never admitted it was filled with liberals. That was the title of an article on Fox News, quoting one commentator at NPR who was stating his opinion. That's his opinion, not NPR's.
The New York Times article isn't saying NPR is liberal, but says it is badly managed. That article was written in the context of the Juan Williams story 3 years ago. But there is no criticism at all in the article about the company's reporting. In fact, the subtitle is "Strong Journalism, Weak Management."
And the Forbes article is also from three years ago, and doesn't actually study the reporting, but their connections on social media. I don't know what that is supposed to mean, but if you're going to say someone's reporting is biased or liberal, you should analyze the reporting, not social media connections.
We've discussed this point to death several times in the past, and my view is that this approach sounds an awful lot like Sen. Joe McCarthy, accusing the State Department is filled with Communists, and carrying out a very public witch hunt that didn't really benefit anyone including himself. When it comes to news and reporting, it's like anything else: You like who you like. Everything else sucks.
The New York Times article isn't saying NPR is liberal, but says it is badly managed. That article was written in the context of the Juan Williams story 3 years ago. But there is no criticism at all in the article about the company's reporting. In fact, the subtitle is "Strong Journalism, Weak Management."
And the Forbes article is also from three years ago, and doesn't actually study the reporting, but their connections on social media. I don't know what that is supposed to mean, but if you're going to say someone's reporting is biased or liberal, you should analyze the reporting, not social media connections.
We've discussed this point to death several times in the past, and my view is that this approach sounds an awful lot like Sen. Joe McCarthy, accusing the State Department is filled with Communists, and carrying out a very public witch hunt that didn't really benefit anyone including himself. When it comes to news and reporting, it's like anything else: You like who you like. Everything else sucks.
Last edited:
F
FredLeonard
Guest
What a load of BS.
Two of your "sources," are Fox News and Forbes, hardly objective.
The Forbes "study" is based on an analysis of twitter feeds, not content analysis of NPR News broadcasts. No link to study methodology is provided, so it's not possible to evaluate the "study" based on this article. However, even Forbes says NPR is "not very" liberal (in its Tweets). It's curious that Fox News is not included in this "analysis." Nor are CNN, NBC, ABC or CBS (for some reason 60 Minutes but not CBS overall).
The New York Times article is completely off topic and is about a comment an NPR fund-raiser made while wooing a potential client. The individual had no role in NPR's news operation and is not the first broadcast sales person to tell a potential client what the client wanted to hear.
Fox - "fair and balanced" - lies. NPR does not "admit" it's liberal. Ira Glass works for WBEZ, Chicago and hosts a show distributed by PRX (not NPR). Bob Garfield is free-lance host of a program produced by WNYC, New York which NPR does distribute. What Garfield "admitted" is that many progressives work at NPR. Fox leaped to the conclusion that this must mean their content is "biased." Maybe because Fox deliberately produces biased content and they assume everyone else must be equally lacking in journalistic ethics and intergrity.
I recommend you read "An Atheist in the FOXhole: A Liberal's Eight-Year Odyssey Inside the Heart of the Right-Wing Media" by Joe Muto, you really want to find out how bias works.
http://www.amazon.com/An-Atheist-FOXhole-Eight-Year-Right-Wing/dp/0142181013
Bias is now right-wingers operate and so they assume everybody else does it, too.
Two of your "sources," are Fox News and Forbes, hardly objective.
The Forbes "study" is based on an analysis of twitter feeds, not content analysis of NPR News broadcasts. No link to study methodology is provided, so it's not possible to evaluate the "study" based on this article. However, even Forbes says NPR is "not very" liberal (in its Tweets). It's curious that Fox News is not included in this "analysis." Nor are CNN, NBC, ABC or CBS (for some reason 60 Minutes but not CBS overall).
The New York Times article is completely off topic and is about a comment an NPR fund-raiser made while wooing a potential client. The individual had no role in NPR's news operation and is not the first broadcast sales person to tell a potential client what the client wanted to hear.
Fox - "fair and balanced" - lies. NPR does not "admit" it's liberal. Ira Glass works for WBEZ, Chicago and hosts a show distributed by PRX (not NPR). Bob Garfield is free-lance host of a program produced by WNYC, New York which NPR does distribute. What Garfield "admitted" is that many progressives work at NPR. Fox leaped to the conclusion that this must mean their content is "biased." Maybe because Fox deliberately produces biased content and they assume everyone else must be equally lacking in journalistic ethics and intergrity.
I recommend you read "An Atheist in the FOXhole: A Liberal's Eight-Year Odyssey Inside the Heart of the Right-Wing Media" by Joe Muto, you really want to find out how bias works.
http://www.amazon.com/An-Atheist-FOXhole-Eight-Year-Right-Wing/dp/0142181013
Bias is now right-wingers operate and so they assume everybody else does it, too.
We've discussed this point to death several times in the past, and my view is that this approach sounds an awful lot like Sen. Joe McCarthy, accusing the State Department is filled with Communists, and carrying out a very public witch hunt that didn't really benefit anyone including himself. When it comes to news and reporting, it's like anything else: You like who you like. Everything else sucks.
You do realize McCarthy was right in just about every instance, right?
No one is saying NPR "sucks". We're saying they're biased. And it's pretty well established, despite the cries of NPR and their hardcore fans who are afraid of losing funding.
Bias is now right-wingers operate and so they assume everybody else does it, too.
At the top level of media, almost everyone DOES do it. That's the point. So enough with your "BUTFOXNEWS!" hate. That's all you ever have.
You do realize McCarthy was right in just about every instance, right?
How'd that work out for him?
No one is saying NPR "sucks". We're saying they're biased. And it's pretty well established, despite the cries of NPR and their hardcore fans who are afraid of losing funding.
Sure...lots of people have an opinion. So far, no one has any factual examples of bias. This was even discussed in Congress, and no one there could come up with a factual reason to deny funding to public broadcasting. That's why, in every year since 1967, public broadcasting has passed the House Appropriations Committee Hearings. And we all know how many liberals there are in the House.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
It makes sense. If you're right down the middle, there's no controversy.
The problem is that there is no such things as "right down the middle".
How'd that work out for him?
It meant he was right. I realize this concept might be foreign to you, as it is to many others. Some folks just cannot fathom the fact that there are people in the world who prefer to be right simply because it is the correct way to be. Not everyone thinks that as long as things "work out", it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. To some of us, being right is reward enough, in and of itself.
It's called principles. Some of us have 'em. Some people don't.
Last edited:
It's called principles. Some of us have 'em. Some people don't.
And yet his own party voted to censure him.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Come on, you all should appreciate that Joe came up with responding to being outed by yelling "left-wing media bias." His pal Tricky Dick raised to an art form. And you all continue Joe's tradition.
Yes, McCarthy was right. Far right.
"Bias: n. Anything Raven disagrees with or doesn't want to hear."
"Truth: n. Anything Raven agrees with and likes hearing."
"Fair and balanced: Adj. The truth according to Raven and nothing but the truth."
Yes, McCarthy was right. Far right.
"Bias: n. Anything Raven disagrees with or doesn't want to hear."
"Truth: n. Anything Raven agrees with and likes hearing."
"Fair and balanced: Adj. The truth according to Raven and nothing but the truth."
How'd that work out for him?
Doesn't change the fact that he was right, though.
Sure...lots of people have an opinion. So far, no one has any factual examples of bias. This was even discussed in Congress, and no one there could come up with a factual reason to deny funding to public broadcasting. That's why, in every year since 1967, public broadcasting has passed the House Appropriations Committee Hearings. And we all know how many liberals there are in the House.
Who said anything about stopping funding? Every time an example is given, an ad hominem deflection is given. There's no reason to panic. Your beloved NPR isn't going to stop getting that money that they don't really need in the first place. Entertainment for the upper middle and upper class is going to continue to be partially (even if it's only a tiny bit, that again they don't really need) subsidized by the middle class. It's ok to admit the bias. No one is going to hurt them.
Come on, you all should appreciate that Joe came up with responding to being outed by yelling "left-wing media bias." His pal Tricky Dick raised to an art form. And you all continue Joe's tradition.
Yes, McCarthy was right. Far right.
"Bias: n. Anything Raven disagrees with or doesn't want to hear."
"Truth: n. Anything Raven agrees with and likes hearing."
"Fair and balanced: Adj. The truth according to Raven and nothing but the truth."
You're certifiably insane. This Fox News obsession is unhealthy. I'd be willing to bet you have a dartboard with Bill O'Reilly's photo on it.
The problem is that there is no such things as "right down the middle".
It meant he was right. I realize this concept might be foreign to you, as it is to many others. Some folks just cannot fathom the fact that there are people in the world who prefer to be right simply because it is the correct way to be. Not everyone thinks that as long as things "work out", it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. To some of us, being right is reward enough, in and of itself.
It's called principles. Some of us have 'em. Some people don't.
McCarthy was overzealous and a bully. He made the hunt for communists about himself, and that was his downfall. Like so many other people that start something for the right reasons, he got caught up in the celebrity of the whole thing.
Doesn't change the fact that he was right, though.
He wasn't always right. And in the process he destroyed the careers of some innocent people. That's why he was censured.
It's ok to admit the bias. No one is going to hurt them.
It's also OK to admit you're wrong.
It's also OK to admit you're wrong.
Physician heal thyself.
I know this is going to be (again) dismissed, but this guy does a pretty good job of explaining EXACTLY how the bias works. Once you get over the name of the blog, it's good analysis.
http://www.nprsucks.com/index.htm
Now go ahead and tell me how no one provides examples again. Despite the fact that this guy provides hundreds of them.
Now go ahead and tell me how no one provides examples again. Despite the fact that this guy provides hundreds of them.
He provides examples that prove his point. And ignores examples that don't. That's how the game is played today.
NPR reports about 20,000 stories a year. How many examples did he provide?
He provides examples that prove his point. And ignores examples that don't. That's how the game is played today.
NPR reports about 20,000 stories a year. How many examples did he provide?
You wanted examples, I gave you examples. You're not going to believe it anyway, so I give up. Hard to kick field goals when the posts keep moving.
You wanted examples, I gave you examples. You're not going to believe it anyway, so I give up. Hard to kick field goals when the posts keep moving.
I'm simply responding to your posts. Nothing more, nothing less.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
And yet his own party voted to censure him.
So?
It says a lot about his "principles." That people who might have agreed with him didn't agree with his methods. And that's why I used him as an example earlier in this thread.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.