NPR is biased !

It has come to my attention(in another thread) that some people here feel as though National Public Radio(NPR) is some how biased! I do submit to you a study done by Political Science Quarterly that shows public radio(NPR) listners and (PBS)viewers have the least misconceptions about the Iraq war. It may also be worth noting that FOX viewers rated the most misconceptions. The link to this study is here:
http://www.psqonline.org/cgi-bin/99_article.cgi?byear=2003&bmonth=winter&a=02free&format=view

 

Quite true, dammit. I keep hoping they WILL become more...shall we say...AGGRESSIVE in attacking the Administration?

But they get my money every year, mostly because commercial news is too superficial in order to make room for ALL THOSE COMMERCIALS.

 

Man I hate to be the one...

I hate to be the one to point out the serious flaw in the study. Especially on a board that is heavily populated by people who inspire to be PhD's. The NPR has a very liberal audience, they believed even prior to the war that there were no WMD and/or Al Qaeda connection so they would of course believe that after the war. If WMD had been found you would have had the exact opposite, the NPR audience would have refused to believe it and the Fox gang would have. Look up confirmation bias for goodness sakes!! Doesn't make the people any smarter just reaffirms people's faith in their personal belief's. This is garbage masquerading as an academic paper.

Then they use terms like 1.2 times more likely. That sounds like a lot but it really only means 20% more....

Give me a break.....

 

Re: Man I hate to be the one...

NOw I have shown data(a whole written study in an academic journal no less ) to back up my claims. Where is your data that says NPR listeners indeed believed there were no WMD in Iraq before the war? Heck, you make statements like NPR listeners are demographically more liberal yet offer no evidence. Do you have proof of confirmation bias? I'd love to see the data! otherwise you make alot of accusations about a study and offer no proof to back up your claims.

 

Re: Re: Man I hate to be the one...

That no more an academic journal than the Academy of Sasquatch Journal would be an academic journal.

And cherrypicking data demonstrates nothing. Ask NPR devotees about Halliburton and you may soon feel you've wandered into moonbat manor.

 

Re: Re: Man I hate to be the one...

Well, you are apparently the only one uninformed about the FOX and NPR demographics but here you go:

"124% more likely to have a very liberal political outlook. "

http://www.wuot.org/h/underwriting/demographics.html

and

The experience of an NPR producer:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12756

Some views of a "non-biased" NPR columnist:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2003_June_24/ai_103603757


When funding for the CPB is reduced it is liberal groups and Congressmen who plead its cause. Maybe they do that out of the goodness of their heart?

Get with reality and learn something on research so you can recognize flaws in academic studies.......

 

Appeal to authorities, revisited:

Disinformation : 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror

 

Re: Re: Re: Man I hate to be the one...

I was unaware of NPR's demographics, Thank you. Of course, conclusions could be made about these demographics but I shall not go into that realm...Seeing that you are so astute I need not point out, the other two links would be considered antidotal evidence.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Man I hate to be the one...

The term anecdotal is inappropriate in the direct observation of an individual. I said they were his views and that was direct evidence of such. Direct observation of a supposedly bipartisan columnist spouting obvious liberal beliefs is not anecdotal. It is a direct observation of a persons beliefs and would be accepted in court as direct evidence and not heresy. The point was that this person presides over a supposedly "bipartisan" show. Yeah, right!!

Anecdotal is when someone says "I saw a bunch of people in line to by dog food so there must be a shortage of dog food". The other link was more anecdotal but it was also a direct observation rather than "she said he said", so it is pertinent........

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Man I hate to be the one...

First let me start by saying, It doesn’t matter if it will hold up in the court of law. There are many instances where the court of law, will admit things science never would…we can revisit Salem (Yes! The Witch Trials) or we could argue the bad science of lie detectors!

It is I who is misconstrued and I deeply apologize for making this whole board less intelligent by my posts!
Someone had brought up research and when I tried to measure the posts against the “research standard “they set, I just keep being told how wrong I am. It was always my understanding and that of many far more educated people then I will ever be that individual cases particularly in the social sciences are not indicative of the population as a whole. Therefore just because one person perceives something somehow (e.g. NPR has a liberal slant, I know because I worked there) it is not representative! Even case studies are often ridiculed due to the lack of quantitive results often makes them of very little use as a true representation of a population! Or atleast it was my understanding and those or people with much higher intellect and degrees than I shall ever achieve. It is obvious that some are so much more astute and has so much more education in such matters that they would be more of the authority on matters such. These are things I am completely ignorant of. How I ever made it as far as I have in my academic career I shall never know. I obviously had some really bad and mislead teachers or perhaps I was just too stupid to understand their lessons and for this I again apologize to the whole board! I shall try not to speak about things I have no background in again. It is obvious I must have no value to this board so I again apologize and in the future will try and keep my mouth shut and let the real experts here inform us! Inform us oracle!

 

Sorry

I have already informed you, No need to continue....

 

Indeed you have..I am just so estactic this board has someone with your intellect...you must have an excellent view of people so high up on your pedestal. It must be what gives you such foresight. I am sure it is a terrible burden to no matter what is said to always be right ,even if evidence points the other way. ahh..but let us not burden ourselves with such petty matters. I for one, shall hang on your every word.

 

Media

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/23/1258253

This was an interesting conversation w/Richard Miniter, author of the book you reference. This is what I like about NPR and other public media...they tend to offer both conservative and liberal journalists, politicians, etc. a voice and a well-rounded discussion of the given issues, whereas many for-profit media outlets just give you one sided, quick-as-can-be, full-on spin under the guise of journalism.

The public media also go a lot more in depth into any given phenomenon much more than the for-profit media and I don't require and stats or position papers (although there are several) to tell me this...I've witnessed it for years across their many scientific and news endeavors. Public broadcasting represents the best of journalism in this country and you are all free to disagree (again), but the public media will continue to prove you wrong by providing balance, perspective and depth you won't find in the easily corruptible private media.

 

No burden at all...

Please, you get busted for posting a weak "academic" paper that failed one of the simplest of bias tests and you want to get sarcastic? Most high schoolers ahould have been able to recognize the flaws in that paper. Grow up....

 

NPR is no different than any other

The NPR needs funding just like any other station and the government does not cover it all. They have their demographic and they are going to pander to keep the grants and donations flowing. Don't think their not-for-profit status makes them any less corruptible. Bills and salaries still need to be paid.

Face it, if Fox is on the right NPR is on the left......

 

Re: NPR is no different than any other

Hmm...I disagree with that simplistic assessment, but...to each his own.

I will listen to NPR today just to see how they cover the CIA leak/Scooter Scurries Out of Office case...it will likely be well documented and balanced. NPR did the same thing during the Whitewater/Monicagate investigation, by the way...they will continue to be much more thorough, accurate and balanced than Fox (the most powerful lies in news) could ever hope to be...the two just don't compare...except for the purposes of those who wish to reduce or destroy public media (and yes there are efforts to do so, perhaps you've joined them)...

For you to suggest that what Fox does and what NPR does is anyway comparable shows how little you understand journalism in general. Also, it's evident that you don't value the functions of the American Press and you (quite typically at this point) cannot or will not honestly address related issues...

But like I said, to each his own...

 

I've never listened to NPR and seldom watch PBS, but I do watch FOX. What people claim is right-wing bias on FOX is indeed bias, but it is not preported to be anything else. It is not sold as objective news. Shows like O'Reilly and Hannity & Colmes are not news, they are talk shows. They present OPINIONS on the news. Nobody claims they are objective. They are designed to promote debate because that's what sells. The difference with FOX is that the sides are even. For every liberal commentator there is a conservative. The conservatives are not outnumbered as they are on other networks.

FOX's "nightly" news program with Sheppard Smith is as objective as any true news program out there. The problem that I see with the networks is that reporting that is sold as objective news, is not objective. One example that I witnessed personally was the day that Rush Limbaugh admitted to being addicted to painkillers. That evening, I watched Dan Rather report, and I'm paraphrasing, "Limbaugh is addicted to the same types of drugs sold by drug trafficers". Now Limbaugh had not disclosed which or what type of drugs he used, but Rather editorialized and presented it as fact.

 

Oh! I thought FOXNews' slogan was "Fair and Balanced; We Report; You Decide" or something to that effect. That sounds to ME like a claim to objective reportage.

 

Another halftruth

The FOXNEWS channel (as it spins in the lowerleft corner of the screen) shows use the following phrases quite frequently:

"No Spin"...
"Fair and Balanced"...

There are several examples of this and I watch the channel, even the critique of the Plame/Wilson story. They are rightwing mouthpieces claiming to be news and analysis which is OK, but as a thinking citizen viewer, to deny it is just absurd.

They had this link, which was good.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173866,00.html

 

Re: Re: NPR is no different than any other

Apparently, you cannot read. If you could, you would know that what I said was if people can call Fox on the right then they would have to call the NPR on the left. Problem is, the liberals will scream all day that Fox is a right wing station then label the NPR unbiased. Sure they are...

Frankly, there isn't any doubt either of them lean to opposite sides of the political spectrum. It is a simple matter of looking at the preponderence of their reporters views on the news. Just because they also present views from the other side on a more limited basis does not mean they do not have an overall bias. Pretty simplistic to say "hey, they had a conservative on just last week, so they are fair and balanced". Give me a break.......

Spare your condensation and save it for your simplistic views. You ever been a journalist OR a public relations person? I have and have done it both in the military and in politics. I have been interviewed on the same subject from different reporters and their own political views jump out at you by the types of questions they ask. For example, someone in favor of a bill to build a road will key on the benefits. Someone against will want to know how many people will be uprooted to make way for the highway etc. Another guy wants to know who is getting the contract, know right away where his story is going.......: . Easy as pie for someone used to talking to people.

Let me make it simple for you, the majority of the world (including the majority of the listeners of both channels) think the NPR is on the left and Fox is on the right. If you don't, then you are a little naive or at best you suffer from the same confirmation bias as the guy that wrote that so called paper