pls. delete this post… i created it with the wrong account.

I’m a big fan of NPR as much as i am of our own CBC… also accused of a liberal bias. I would like to comment, however, that acknowledging the existence of an opposing viewpoint is not the same thing as not having a bias. That kind of thinking is the same that got us the circus that was ‘crossfire’ and any number of other he said/she said perversions of public debate. Here’s one point of view! here’s another! meh.

This is probably an unfair oversimplification, but the republican value chain seems directly connected to things like ‘tradition’ or ‘virtue’. However much you may disagree with their interpretation of this… this is, in their mind, a kind of intelligence. It is not the unrealistic dreaming (again, their words) of a portion of the population unwilling to live up to the more difficult morals of the right and unable to see the economic and social realities of (pardon the sarcasm) old things good new things bad.

There are a number of cynical people on the right (and a few very, very crazy people) who are capitalizing on a weakness of the right to overpower with their own personal agendas of power. It is possible, if you can send a message broadly enough, to make it sound like it is tradition. Simply repeat. repeat. repeat. and it becomes something we have always believed.

For one side it is a debate to establish what is the proper dogma, where tradition and authority are the arbiters. For the other, the enlightenment and, lets say, philosophy are the arbiters. IMHO the idea that anyone who is not actively participating (in a closed door way) in the political process can have ANY opinion is kinda silly, regardless of ‘wingness’.

Believing that you can have an opinion, based on NPR or cnn or msnbc or FOX or any other media we have is, i think, where the mistake lies. I wont say that NPR is ‘pandering’ to your intelligence, because i believe that they are probably not being cynical in their approach (though i have no proof of this) but really… after all that listening… what do you actually know? This is the weakness of the left. If you are treated to what you think of as an intelligent discussion, you can think of yourself as informed.

It’s the closed-ness of our system that makes it broken. (in your country and in mine) Broken for the right. Broken for the left.

Yeah, sounds like you HAVE been brain washed! I would turn that radio off!!!

All apologies, but this post really gave me a good laugh. I’m trying not to be judgmental, I just wish people realized how ridiculous these petty and childish terms for their opposition are. Regressives, teabaggers, Obummer, libtards, whatever. I spot any of those words in a post, and you’re immediately written off. This is my own bias, but I can’t imagine I’m the only one. It doesn’t exactly create an environment conducive to healthy intellectual debate.

So, onto the “bias” portion of your post. I love NPR. I listen to NPR daily, on my commute, at work, and at home. I realize they have a liberal bias, and I will agree with their viewpoints on a lot of issues. The bias isn’t as dramatic as say a fox news or MSNBC, but it still exists. Reporters are human and humans have a hard time being infallibly objective. I appreciate NPR for its quality of programming and realize that I’ll agree with them on some aspects and not on others. I’m just very confused about this rapid denial that NPR could possibly have a bias! Blasphemy! They’re the only sane source out there! They have a “bias towards intelligence,” and they don’t spread those “conservative lies!”

Confirmation bias is a very hard concept to identify in one’s personal opinions. Regardless of your belief that NPR does not have any bias, would you still be in favor of public funding going to a station you believe leaned conservative? Even if conservatives were SURE that this was not the case, and this hypothetical source was the only “fair and balanced!” source? Or are you saying that only one side of the political spectrum is capable of determining bias?

*sigh*

Where do you draw the line at public funding? If conservatives believe that NPR has a liberal bias, should we allow conservatives to fund their own source from the public till? Isn’t that sort of an implementation of the Fairness Doctrine that I’ve heard a lot of pundits endorsing lately?

When you advocate public funding for any activity you are requesting that all members of society subsidize that activity. Shouldn’t all members get use out of it? Roads, courts, law enforcement, basic infrastructure, etc. If there are people who dislike, disagree with, and never listen to NPR, how can you feel comfortable compelling them to contribute? NPR doesn’t need the limited amount of funding it gets from the CPB. There are plenty of us out here who will continue to support NPR. I personally don’t feel comfortable compelling those who disagree with its content (regardless of their reasons) to fund it.

That said, the GOP is really overplaying its hand here. There are REAL budget issues to talk about and it is extremely disappointing to see them playing partisan politics and going after NPR.

I love NPR, I enjoy it’s many broadcasts. However, it is blatantly clear that NPR is a left-wing slanted station. An example of this would be a recent news report concerning the war in Iran. It stated that because of President Obama’s smart and far-sighted choices hostile situations have decreased in the area, nothing of course having to do with President Bush’s decision to have a joint coalition of JSOC over see countinuing risk evalulation and public relations. I enjoy listening to NPR but as most modern-day media it has some biast toward one wing or another. Fox news is just a centered as NPR. Also I don’t understand the need to insult a right-wing conservative because we all know a left-wing liberal fears most is a voter who thinks for him/herself as well for the good of society.

I haven’t heard the phrase “bankster” before, so I checked Urban Dictionary. I like it!

Seriously, though, I really do believe that NPR strives to be as non-biased as humanly possible. Certainly they try harder than MSNBC, Fox News, or even CNN.