NPR runs conflicting stories this morning.

[intheflow]

Yeah, yeah, I know, NPR is a corporate whore, but I think these two stories run in the same half hour show just how divided even they about what's happening in America today.

Audio Links

Polls Suggest Support for Iraq War Despite Casualties
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=4224825
"Peter Feaver of Duke University talks about why overall support for the war in Iraq hasn't dwindled, despite much higher casualties than either politicians or the public expected. Feaver says Americans can accept a high human cost for a war if they think the United States will ultimately win."

Rethinking the War on Terrorism
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=4224827
"The idea of a "war on terror" has been the guiding force behind the Iraq war and much of President Bush's foreign policy. Terrorism experts are beginning to reconsider the phrase."

[MemphisTiger]

1. Maybe it's their attempt to be fair and balanced

this is more that Fox can say

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. Maybe they are trying to be balanced after we stopped giving....

them badly needed $$$$$$$$$?!?

[Buzz Clik]

3. NPR corporate whore?

If you walk away from NPR, you walk away from the last chance of truly objective news. It's your choice, but I donate twice per year, and that won't change soon.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. Some people think that anything to the right of the Daily Worker

is conservative.

[AP]

9. That's comment doesn't do justice to the very smart criticism of NPR

that has appeared at DU over the years.

[AP]

6. Just because they're the best of a bad bunch doesn't mean they're above...

...criticism.

[intheflow]

10. Please see the Demopedia entry for Public Broadcasting.

I used to work for a PBS station in the northeast, and have donated faithfully to both radio and TV stations for years, but PBS is moving right. The hard truth of this hit me last week when, on the day Conyers held the voting irregularities forum for the Congressional Judiciary Committee, Jim Lehrer reported on Ukraine and Iraqi elections but didn't say word one about our own badly flawed election system.

I have posted five articles on the Demopedia page to back up my claim.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/demopedia/index.php/Public_Broadcasting

[bhikkhu]

14. NPR has Walmart's money, they don't need mine. n/t

[mitchum]

16. Well, your twice-yearly contribution makes up for the $$$ I no longer...

give them.
NPR ARE tools

[sendero]

18. Objective news?

You really have not been paying attention.

There is nothing objective about NPR, since 911 they have been as bad as FOX, the only difference is they retain that bogus aura of "fairness" that they no longer possess.

Did you listen during the runup to the Iraq war? Did you hear voices of doubt or dissent? Very little my friend, very, very little.

I was a loyal and generous contributor to our local affiliate from 1985 until 2002. One Sunday morning they had Colin Powell on, telling outrageous lie after outrageous lie. I thought they would offer a followup questioning his pronouncements, it never came. That was the last straw. After hearing the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the National Review over and over and never hearing any liberal counterpoint or rebuttal I was already stressed. Having to listen to Powell say things that everyone knew was not true, (and that untruth has been borne out) and not hear anyone question him, well that isn't journalism, that is cheerleading for the war.

Then and there I was done with NPR. I still listen occassionally when there is nothing else, and I can say they have improved slightly in the last few months. But not near enough to get my trust back.

Is it really that much to expect there to be a truly objective news source? The only one I know of is the Christian Science Monitor, who stands head and shoulders above anything NPR ever was.

[Tsiyu]

4. Check out this Newsday Article about NPR

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpsam104077443dec10,0,2143058.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

From: NPR really blew it with Tavis Smiley...by Leah Samuel


Tavis Smiley's departure from National Public Radio will be a loss not only to blacks but also to all NPR listeners.

For its part, NPR issued a vague statement that is long on happy talk about Smiley helping to "jump start" its effort at reaching blacks.

Smiley's departing letter to local stations asserts that NPR has "failed to meaningfully reach out to a broad spectrum of Americans who would benefit from public radio." Smiley may simply have been tired of banging his head against the racial wall. He told me when I interviewed him a year ago that he was often frustrated and exhausted from doing the work involved in putting together a meaningful show five times a week, while at the same time tussling frequently with NPR over the show's tone and guests.

"The most difficult thing that I have had to do," he told me, "is fight a culture at NPR, a culture that is antithetical to the best interests of people of color." The African American Public Radio Consortium, which helped recruit Smiley four years ago, has meanwhile urged Smiley's listeners to stay with NPR. Perhaps they will, as NPR embarks on a search for a new permanent host to replace Smiley.


snip


NPR sells out. They take money from WalMart now, so what the hay...

[AP]

8. Smiley's show was trying to do some seriously but sublte liberal things...

...that are incredibly unique on NPR.

Smiley was all about economic, political and cultural power flowing downward and outward -- whether he was talking to Foreste Whitaker about a movie, Lisa Duggan about a book, or whomever...

[Tsiyu]

11. My kids and I love his show and will miss it

None of the BS, all of the substance a show like his SHOULD have.

He knows how to cut to the chase. Very few hosts do. He askes the questions I would ask.

Hopefully Mr Smiley will grace us in another format.

[AP]

15. I totally agree. Losing that show is going to seriously reduce the number

of minutes a day when there's anything worth listening to on radio or television.

[BiggJawn]

7. And they made sure that we knew Saddam was in a "spider hole"...

I heard that and thought "WTF??? Wasn't that the Bushies' cutesy term for the hole they found him in? A SPIDER hole?"

What a bunch of Hoes...

[Tsiyu]

12. When I heard a segment glorifying the personal MATERIAL effects

of dead soldiers, I lost complete respect for NPR. If they have a dole from WalMart, more power to 'em. I don't.

I struggle to get two kids through college and an orphan kid on the right track - working and doing something with himself every day rather than wallowing in depression - and we struggle just to eat.

I feel no compunction at all to send them money ( when I can find work) because I know the charming voice begging me for a pledge belongs to someone living better than I do, thanks to policies NPR tacitly promotes.

I don't know about anyone else, and won't judge the listener one way or the other, but I personally can't stomach NPR's newfound condescension.

The Stepford Journalists. A very sad state of affairs, indeed.

[BiggJawn]

17. How true...

"Stepford Journalists" that term fits perfectly. they have to keep ReTHUGlican Congress-critters happy enough to keep funding them, and it colours the quality of "reporting".

And I know for a FACT that the people who beg for my money twice a year make 2-3X what I do. I've seen the lists.

National PUTSCH Radio

[Pikku]

13. "Rethinking the War on Terrorism" was actually very interesting

It reframed the "War on Terror" by saying that maybe, just maybe, instead of fighting terror by destroying all the "evildoers" (and anyone else in the way), we should ask ourselves how we could prevent the creation of new evildoers.

A subtle way of saying that maybe we should be asking ourselves if U.S. policy is creating the threat. Instead of a military war on terror, perhaps we should be fighting a social/diplomatic war on terror.

I think that NPR airs a lot of stories that are more satisfying if you read between the lines. The poll story pissed me off, too, until I thought that the researcher didn't agree with the people, but was merely exposing the capacity of some Americans for adjusting their standards of "success" and "failure" or "moral" and "immoral" when faced with the ugly facts of war.

I certainly didn't get the impression that the researcher in the first story was condoning support for the war. Rather, he was demonstrating the power of cognitive dissonance. (some) People will adjust their tolerance for terrible things if it means they can believe that they are on the winning side.

An afterthought: NPR is really uneven in their political/war coverage. I remember how Scott Simon was practically drooling at the beginning of the Iraq war. That was sickening. And there are times that I still yell at the radio to tell the whole truth. And then there are all the fluff pieces they are broadcasting now. They aren't perfect, but radiowise, they're the best I've got in west TX at the moment.

I'm still angry about Bob Edwards, though. What were they thinking?

[sendero]

19. Sorry....

... I don't have a clue what the big deal about Bob Edwards is. He was as big a part of the ongoing problem at NPR as anyone.

I'v heard the snide sarcastic tone of his voice when making certain announcements. Since he's left, NPR has actually improved a bit. I'm not saying it has anything to do with him, but I don't know why he is so deified around here, he presided over the suckification of Morning Edition.