I Wear Pants;534770 wrote:Do you realize who was president and what much of the country thought of him then? That couldn't have had anything to do with the "bias" could it?

The reporter's job is to report the facts, not to reflect the feelings of the population. If they're doing their jobs correctly, it doesn't matter in the slightest who the POTUS is.

fish82;535057 wrote:The reporter's job is to report the facts, not to reflect the feelings of the population. If they're doing their jobs correctly, it doesn't matter in the slightest who the POTUS is.

Yes, it is the reporter's job to report the fact.....NOT the 'facts' as they, or their left leaning news station sees the 'facts'.

And no...they are NOT doing their job correctly.

The fact that NPR is a left-wing group is bad enough; the fact that they are supreme hypocrites is even worse.

On top of that, receiving any money from the government seems to be a MASSIVE conflict of interest. News organizations are supposed to be the watchdog of the government with an unbiased stance and objectivity; taking money from someone you are supposed to have a level oversight over is absolutely ridiculous.

NPR either stands on its own, or goes by the wayside.

QuakerOats;535230 wrote:The fact that NPR is a left-wing group is bad enough; the fact that they are supreme hypocrites is even worse.

On top of that, receiving any money from the government seems to be a MASSIVE conflict of interest. News organizations are supposed to be the watchdog of the government with an unbiased stance and objectivity; taking money from someone you are supposed to have a level oversight over is absolutely ridiculous.

NPR either stands on its own, or goes by the wayside.

If what you're suggesting is true, we should be skeptical of all media. Why should we expect NBC to report fairly on issues like energy policy or General Electric Corporation, etc. when it is owned by them? Why should we expect MSNBC to report fairly on say, Apple? Why should we expect Fox News to report fairly on Myspace or Fox.

fish82;534199 wrote:I saw nothing resembling that in the UCLA study. The Harvard study did an overall measurement, and the numbers were pretty concrete. 42% of stories about liberals had a positive slant, compared with 30% for conservatives. Conversely, 5% of the stories about Dems had a negative tone, vs. 20% for the Pubs. What do you call that, if not bias?

Then you're reading the UCLA study wrong. AT best, one show on NPR, Morning edition, is more left than the average democrat...and it was barely, as opposed to say the NY Times op ed page. And, their methods of comparing think tank quotes to the congressional ratings has been called into question. And, the authors have both written for conservative think tanks. A computer scientist, who's name I forget, says their model leads to implausible psychological claims. He concludes that people praise that study because they agree ideologically and people disagree with it because they disagree ideologically....it's that simple. It ain't cut and dry...and if NPR is "liberal" it's barely and it's really not that bad because their station isn't full of commentators with opinions.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University reported that coverage on Barack Obama has been negative by everyone....I posted that in another thread months ago....

The fact is that these studies don't really prove anything and there's studies coming to opposite conclusions....And you know, I'm sure no one's going to say "You're right Boatshoes, I guess you're right...NPR isn't really a liberal institution meant to undermine real america nad traditional american values" but hey, whatever.

What's more amazing to me is how these view study's claiming a liberal bias with questionable models are thought of as unquestionable empirical gospel by conservatives but there's so many of these same people who question the overwhelming and widely endorsed empirical studies by multiple disciplines alleging the truth of anthropogenic global warming and naturalistic evolution, etc.

I'm not saying that those studies are definitively right.....I'm just marveling at the amount of evidence required for something to be accepted as fact. One or two questionable studies by guys who've worked for conservative think tanks definitively proves media bias......overwhelming amounts of literature arguing for anthropogenic global warming is evidence of a secret socialist plot to redistribute wealth to poor welfare queens through the guise of scientific fact. I mean look at Jmog...he claims "it's game set match" cus of these two study's fish quotes....but he's argued fervently against the overwhelming evidence for macroevolution accepted by a near universal amount of scientists.

And Fish, I'm not saying you believe these things....but I do disagree with you on the liberal bias of NPR....I don't believe that it's "not liberal" I suppose either....I just guess I think the journalists at NPR, and probably most news stations (even Fox gasp) are selecting what to report and doing the best they can..
What sticks out to me, whether NPR is a bastion of communist ideology, is that NPR listeners are more informed on the issues than people who watch ABC, NBC, MSNBC, etc.

fish82;535057 wrote:The reporter's job is to report the facts, not to reflect the feelings of the population. If they're doing their jobs correctly, it doesn't matter in the slightest who the POTUS is.

So no one on Fox is doing their jobs or is that okay because you agree with them?

If you want news on politics with zero bias you have to literally read the bills and proposals yourself. Because otherwise there is a bias everywhere else.


Good post BoatShoes.

fish82;535057 wrote:The reporter's job is to report the facts, not to reflect the feelings of the population. If they're doing their jobs correctly, it doesn't matter in the slightest who the POTUS is.

Why are people arguing with you? The editor's job is to provide opinion, not the reporter. Who..what...why...when...are all supposed to be in the story, nothing else. And then...the obligatory attack on Fox News and it's the only news organization that is NOT firmly planted in Left Field. Dozens of "news" organizations are biased to the Left and one is not and the problem is????? Yep...the one.

I Wear Pants;535401 wrote:So no one on Fox is doing their jobs or is that okay because you agree with them?

If you want news on politics with zero bias you have to literally read the bills and proposals yourself. Because otherwise there is a bias everywhere else.


Good post BoatShoes.

You're thinking of the talking head shows, which have about as much to do with actual news reporting as Jon Stewart. All the studies deal with straight news reporting, and thus the blocks of said news on the cable channels. Said blocks were then compared straight up with the evening news on the Big 3 and the other cable channels. The news blocks on FNC were rated some of the most even handed in the business....as was, surprisingly, MSNBC.

This isn't a winnable argument. The bias has been proven. We can debate the extent, or we can debate the effect and/or intent. That's about it.

BoatShoes;535263 wrote:Then you're reading the UCLA study wrong. AT best, one show on NPR, Morning edition, is more left than the average democrat...and it was barely, as opposed to say the NY Times op ed page. And, their methods of comparing think tank quotes to the congressional ratings has been called into question. And, the authors have both written for conservative think tanks. A computer scientist, who's name I forget, says their model leads to implausible psychological claims. He concludes that people praise that study because they agree ideologically and people disagree with it because they disagree ideologically....it's that simple. It ain't cut and dry...and if NPR is "liberal" it's barely and it's really not that bad because their station isn't full of commentators with opinions.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University reported that coverage on Barack Obama has been negative by everyone....I posted that in another thread months ago....

The fact is that these studies don't really prove anything and there's studies coming to opposite conclusions....And you know, I'm sure no one's going to say "You're right Boatshoes, I guess you're right...NPR isn't really a liberal institution meant to undermine real america nad traditional american values" but hey, whatever.

What's more amazing to me is how these view study's claiming a liberal bias with questionable models are thought of as unquestionable empirical gospel by conservatives but there's so many of these same people who question the overwhelming and widely endorsed empirical studies by multiple disciplines alleging the truth of anthropogenic global warming and naturalistic evolution, etc.

I'm not saying that those studies are definitively right.....I'm just marveling at the amount of evidence required for something to be accepted as fact. One or two questionable studies by guys who've worked for conservative think tanks definitively proves media bias......overwhelming amounts of literature arguing for anthropogenic global warming is evidence of a secret socialist plot to redistribute wealth to poor welfare queens through the guise of scientific fact. I mean look at Jmog...he claims "it's game set match" cus of these two study's fish quotes....but he's argued fervently against the overwhelming evidence for macroevolution accepted by a near universal amount of scientists.

And Fish, I'm not saying you believe these things....but I do disagree with you on the liberal bias of NPR....I don't believe that it's "not liberal" I suppose either....I just guess I think the journalists at NPR, and probably most news stations (even Fox gasp) are selecting what to report and doing the best they can..
What sticks out to me, whether NPR is a bastion of communist ideology, is that NPR listeners are more informed on the issues than people who watch ABC, NBC, MSNBC, etc.

The Harvard study was done by, well....Harvard. Not exactly a "conservative think tank," if you get my drift.

When nearly 90% of those in upper levels of media admit voting for and aligning with left-wing candidates, then there indeed exists an inherent bias which ultimately seeps into their work .......... it would be nearly impossible not to happen. That is just the way it is; we don't need studies to determine what is presented to us nightly; it is right in front of us.

fish82;535668 wrote:The Harvard study was done by, well....Harvard. Not exactly a "conservative think tank," if you get my drift.

So you mean that Harvard, an American icon of liberalism, would be biased against liberal bias in the left-leaning "mainstream" media?

NAW...you're all wrong. Anything that comes out of an Ivy League school is the gospel....well, maybe not the gospel since God no longer exists at Harvard. OK...it's the truth...at least the truth from a leftist point of view.

fish82;535668 wrote:The Harvard study was done by, well....Harvard. Not exactly a "conservative think tank," if you get my drift.

There are plenty of conservatives at Harvard. Chief Justice Roberts went there. BHO got his famed nod to be Law Review President because he promised not to screw over the conservative wing. Larry Summers is really a pretty conservative guy, etc.

QuakerOats;535680 wrote:When nearly 90% of those in upper levels of media admit voting for and aligning with left-wing candidates, then there indeed exists an inherent bias which ultimately seeps into their work .......... it would be nearly impossible not to happen. That is just the way it is; we don't need studies to determine what is presented to us nightly; it is right in front of us.

I bet Terrelle Pryor wishes he was running the same offense Cam Newton is. What does it matter though when he's not the one calling the plays?

Let's not seriously compare NBC, which is owned by GE or ABC (owned by Disney) to NPR. Both of those entities are funded PRIVATELY and therefore answer to advertisers (ultimately) and viewers as to whether they turn a profit and can continue.

NPR has its mouth firmly stuck on Mother Government's big tit and, without it, would be belly up (or much more limited) in a heart beat.

Big fucking difference in accountability...or lack of it.

Writerbuckeye;536716 wrote:Let's not seriously compare NBC, which is owned by GE or ABC (owned by Disney) to NPR. Both of those entities are funded PRIVATELY and therefore answer to advertisers (ultimately) and viewers as to whether they turn a profit and can continue.

I have made this very point to you before and you have denied...if this is true, your assertions that NBC or ABC are mindless liberal propaganda machines does not make any sense. If BHO is as hostile to private enterprize as you all say he is...these huge mulitnational corporations would let their news divisions elect their enemy....especially considering the greater and greater loss of profits and ratings being generated by network news divisions.

And, if NPR is so desperate for the government teet, why on earth would they spew liberal propaganda during conservative administrations when they are the hand that feeds them?

BoatShoes;536808 wrote:I have made this very point to you before and you have denied...if this is true, your assertions that NBC or ABC are mindless liberal propaganda machines does not make any sense. If BHO is as hostile to private enterprize as you all say he is...these huge mulitnational corporations would let their news divisions elect their enemy....especially considering the greater and greater loss of profits and ratings being generated by network news divisions.

And, if NPR is so desperate for the government teet, why on earth would they spew liberal propaganda during conservative administrations when they are the hand that feeds them?

I have no clue what you're rambling about. NBC, ABC and CBS, while corporate owned, are still bastions of liberal bias in reporting. They've been that way since the Nixon administration (probably earlier) and haven't changed much. Corporate doesn't give a rat's ass how the news is reported so long as the bottom line is stable. And when it isn't as stable as it should be, news organizations get cut -- but that doesn't stop those remaining from continuing to report the way they've always done so.

As NPR...just how many years since NPR was founded have the Republicans actually been in control vs. the Dems? Like it or not (I don't) NPR is also liked by enough so-called Republicans that it has stayed relatively unscathed in those few years where Republicans have had control of the budget. I'm also not familiar enough with NPR's past work to be able to say how biased they were in earlier years. I simply don't listen that often now, and never listened back when they first came on the scene (1970 as it turns out...when Dems were fully in control of the government). So they've been around 40 years...and Dems have probably been all or partially in control of Congress 30 of those years.

Right, any Republicans that support NPR are "so called". It can't be that they simply find the programming to be quality right?

The liberal bias of the media is massively overstated I believe. If you have a problem with a story or show then dispute it's facts or make arguments against it. Saying that it's just the liberal bias is a cop out that I see many use (not necessarily anyone here but in my everyday life).

I Wear Pants;536863 wrote:The liberal bias of the media is massively overstated I believe. If you have a problem with a story or show then dispute it's facts or make arguments against it. Saying that it's just the liberal bias is a cop out that I see many use (not necessarily anyone here but in my everyday life).

C'mon. C'MON!

The liberal bias in the "mainstream" media is so massively obvious it's uber-predictable and quite frankly nauseating. The only reason folks who slant left politically don't see it is because they agree with most everything being spewed by their pals in the liberal media propaganda machine.

When talk radio and Fox News appeared on the scene and began to gobble up a large chunk of market-share from (and largely ignored by) NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NPR, PBS, NY Times, etc. some of the liberals managing these left-leaning "news" organizations ran to Capitol Hill and began pressuring the Dems and some rhino Repubs to re-institute the so-called "Fairness" Doctrine because - ironically enough - they are losing that eeeeeeevil word the hypocritical leftists disdain known as PROFITABILITY.

So as usual liberals (in this case the "mainstream" media) run to the Feds for help rather than taking matters into their own hands by examining what's making Fox News and talk radio so successful. That is these groups cater to the center-right which is where many if not most Americans identify their personal political beliefs. Maybe if the "mainstream' media weren't so OBVIOUSLY to the left and actually began behaving as this nation's 4th Estate they'd regain some of that cherished market-share...ya think?

OK....I admit I've rambled too long but NEVER, NEVER tell me that "the liberal bias of the media is massively overstated." It simply isn't so.

No, it definitely is. You guys all get on here and spout and spout and spout about how evil NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, etc are and how the greatest gift to journalism is Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp holdings.

I Wear Pants;537215 wrote:No, it definitely is. You guys all get on here and spout and spout and spout about how evil NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, etc are and how the greatest gift to journalism is Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp holdings.

Yet another strrrrrrrrrretch of the truth. "Us guys" simply point out the obvious liberal bias when it occurs (a lot) but I've YET to read anyone call NBC, etc. "evil."

I also recall most OC conservatives admitting that Fox News leans right. FN may not be the greatest gift to journalism but it does give us an alternative to the obvious and overwhelming left-leaning news & views found in our so-called "mainstream" media.

Choice is always good.

Any story that doesn't agree with your views or story that shows someone on the right in a negative light is dismissed as unfair because of the "massive liberal bias". If something is untrue then call them out on it.

And I find it funny when people who constantly throw out the socialist/marxist/communist/oh my! propaganda ever complain about something being a "strrrrrrrrrrretch" of the truth.

I Wear Pants;537215 wrote:No, it definitely is. You guys all get on here and spout and spout and spout about how evil NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, etc are and how the greatest gift to journalism is Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp holdings.

Good God but you like to lie. Yes, saying people state things they don't say is a lie. No other nice way to put it.

I've NEVER called NBC or any other broadcast network evil -- and I've NEVER sung the praises of Fox or Murdoch. Never. Ever. Ever.

I guess this is your overreaction to us calling out very obvious bias when we see it repeatedly on NBC, ABC, CBS and most of the MSM. Go ahead and say it doesn't exist all you like. Anyone with common sense knows and sees differently.

My god. Why can't understand that I wasn't saying that you or anyone directly said "NBC is evil"?

It's not that there isn't a slant to the left. It's just that I don't see it as the super conspiracy as many do on here. Just like Fox isn't likely to be some conspiracy to make people conservative created by Murdoch himself (this isn't related but Murdoch really is an asshole). Fox is likely filled with Beck, and O'Reilly types because they figured out they can make money that way. I imagine it's the same for all the networks.

And just FYI I don't watch any of the networks very often and when I do I probably watch CNN the most because I usually can watch a "this is happening now, let's go to x at the scene" news show more often than the other networks which seem dominated by talking head dbags of both right and left persuasion.

I listen to NPR frequently. It is simply the best news source available to me on the commute home. What impresses me the most is their professionalism. When mistakes are made they are corrected on the air. Reader feedback is often read over the air and there is seldom any comment about the feedback even when it is critical of their coverage. When listening to several recent stories about political races I have noticed a trends to include reactions from both candidates and/or reactions from both republican and democratic voters. I realize this is no sense of the word scientific evidence and my own bias probably skews what I process and understand.

NPR appears to be aware of the specter of media bias and has a position whose responsibility is to help NPR maintain its own standards. The position is called NPR Ombudsman and the position's mandate can viewed at this link http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6407004.

All that being said I do scratch my head at the Juan Williams firing.

analogkid;537527 wrote:I listen to NPR frequently. It is simply the best news source available to me on the commute home. What impresses me the most is their professionalism. When mistakes are made they are corrected on the air. Reader feedback is often read over the air and there is seldom any comment about the feedback even when it is critical of their coverage. When listening to several recent stories about political races I have noticed a trends to include reactions from both candidates and/or reactions from both republican and democratic voters. I realize this is no sense of the word scientific evidence and my own bias probably skews what I process and understand.

NPR appears to be aware of the specter of media bias and has a position whose responsibility is to help NPR maintain its own standards. The position is called NPR Ombudsman and the position's mandate can viewed at this link http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6407004.

All that being said I do scratch my head at the Juan Williams firing.

Well said, pretty much sums up how i feel.

The Juan Williams firing was absolutely ridiculous, but, for the most part, NPR does a fine job, and is a pretty good source for the news, all things considered.