NationStates Jolt Archive

The Democrats are showing their true colors (especially regarding censorship).

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3pbs.htm
DEM CONGRESSMEN: CONSERVATIVE VOICES ON PBS MAY BE ILLEGAL

Two congressional Democrats called Wednesday for an investigation into recent activities by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, suggesting that efforts by the Republican chairman of the private nonprofit to add more conservative programs onto PBS may violate federal law.

In a letter released Wednesday evening, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., and Rep. John D. Dingell, D-Mich., asked CPB Inspector General Kenneth A. Konz to investigate the contracting, hiring and policies of the corporation, which distributes federal funds to public television stations. Both congressmen are ranking Democrats on committees that have oversight of public television.

They called recent actions taken by CPB Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson ``disturbing'' and ``extremely troubling.''

A CPB spokesman could not be reached for comment. But in a recent interview with the LOS ANGELES TIMES, Tomlinson defended his efforts to expand conservative perspectives on PBS, saying he merely wants to increase the network's audience.

Developing...
Shouldn't the PUBLIC airwaves reflect the values/opinions/demographics of the PUBLIC?

Discuss.

The Democrats are showing their true colors (especially regarding censorship).

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3pbs.htm

Shouldn't the PUBLIC airwaves reflect the values/opinions/demographics of the PUBLIC?

Discuss.
Which might be why they are trying to stop people from loading airwaves with a certain viewpoint :confused:

Which might be why they are trying to stop people from loading airwaves with a certain viewpoint :confused:
PBS is already loaded to the hilt with liberal viewpoints. What the CBP chairman wants to do is equalize the monopoly of liberal views by adding conservative views as well. What's wrong with that? Why would it be illegal?

Shouldn't the PUBLIC airwaves reflect the values/opinions/demographics of the PUBLIC?
But in a recent interview with the LOS ANGELES TIMES, Tomlinson defended his efforts to expand conservative perspectives on PBS, saying he merely wants to increase the network's audience.


Public broadcasting should not have to worry about expanding its audience. Public broadcasting should be able to be free of spin, equal-coverage and not have to worry about political agendas within its own ranks and on its airwaves.

Once again, the side trying to exert influence is claiming it's trying to "rescue freedom of speech" from the influence of the other side. I'll leave it up to you to decide which side is which.

i love your twisting of "suggesting that efforts by the Republican chairman of the private nonprofit to add more conservative programs onto PBS may violate federal law." into "Democrats: "Conservatives have no place on the public airwaves.""

PBS is already loaded to the hilt with liberal viewpoints. What the CBP chairman wants to do is equalize the monopoly of liberal views by adding conservative views as well. What's wrong with that? Why would it be illegal?
I don't know why it would be illegal, since I lack a background in federal broadcast and funding regulations, but somehow I doubt they are just making that up. If you found a source besides Drudge :p maybe they would tell you the whole story.

And liberal viewpoints? According to who? Just because you call it liberal doesn't make it so.

Public broadcasting should be able to be free of spin, equal-coverage and not have to worry about political agendas within its own ranks and on its airwaves.
That would be the ideal situation, yet the current programming of the CPB is rife with liberal viewpoint. It is decidedly one-sided. Democrats in Congress are saying that trying to inject a different (balancing) viewpoint would possibly violate federal law.

Talk about spin...

That would be the ideal situation, yet the current programming of the CPB is rife with liberal viewpoint. It is decidedly one-sided. Democrats in Congress are saying that trying to inject a different (balancing) viewpoint would possibly violate federal law.

Talk about spin...
are you sure the law wouldnt prohibit the chairman using the station to forward his own views, and that would be what they are complaining about?

of course...that would make too much sense

The Democrats are showing their true colors (especially regarding censorship).

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3pbs.htm

Shouldn't the PUBLIC airwaves reflect the values/opinions/demographics of the PUBLIC?

Discuss.

Your title is cute, but has nothing at all to do with what is being said here.

The public airwaves should report things. Their hiring practices should not have anything at all to do with partisanship. Thus "hire a certain amount of conservative pundits" is no different than "hire a certain amount of {insert ethnicity here}.

Conservative from you (not a specific "you" but a general "you") is not nessicarily conservative. Likewise, Liberal from you is not nessicarily liberal. Public radio should be completely free of bias (well, as much as one can be free of bias) as it is public. I personally consider public radio to be relatively unbiased as it stands now, and should do its best to remain so.

Their hiring practices should not have anything at all to do with partisanship. Thus "hire a certain amount of conservative pundits" is no different than "hire a certain amount of {insert ethnicity here}.
Ahhhhhhhhh... but that's exactly what the "fairness doctrine" proports to do...by federally mandating that conservative talk radio have equal time for liberal viewpoints.

Too bad they can't/won't apply the same standards to liberally-biased public television.

:headbang:

The Democrats are showing their true colors (especially regarding censorship).

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3pbs.htm

Shouldn't the PUBLIC airwaves reflect the values/opinions/demographics of the PUBLIC?

Discuss.


Hey! Thats the same problem I am having right here on this forum! Every time I speak about something conservative I am either immediatley attacked for stating my opinion....or even get deleted! (yes I HAVE been deleted before for a conservative thread) Its just way out of hand!

Your title is cute, but has nothing at all to do with what is being said here.

The public airwaves should report things. Their hiring practices should not have anything at all to do with partisanship. Thus "hire a certain amount of conservative pundits" is no different than "hire a certain amount of {insert ethnicity here}.

Even Bill Moyers admits that CPB shows are intentionally of a liberal bias, and are not intended to be balanced.

NPR has decent news coverage, but they do select and spin stories for an effect - a liberal bias effect.

I think it's telling, however, that FoxNews is so popular, while public broadcasting has to beg for money and be subsidized by the government.

The fact that Air America just isn't making any headway is also telling. It's probably being strangled by public radio.

I believe that the government should not be in the business of public broadcasting at all. No matter what you broadcast, someone is going to be able to say, truthfully, that the story is biased. No sense in the government doing that.

Conservative from you (not a specific "you" but a general "you") is not nessicarily conservative. Likewise, Liberal from you is not nessicarily liberal. Public radio should be completely free of bias (well, as much as one can be free of bias) as it is public. I personally consider public radio to be relatively unbiased as it stands now, and should do its best to remain so.
You consider NPR unbiased?!?!?!?!?!?

*busts out laughing uncontrollably*

Even Bill Moyers admits that CPB shows are intentionally of a liberal bias, and are not intended to be balanced.

NPR has decent news coverage, but they do select and spin stories for an effect - a liberal bias effect.

I think it's telling, however, that FoxNews is so popular, while public broadcasting has to beg for money and be subsidized by the government.

The fact that Air America just isn't making any headway is also telling. It's probably being strangled by public radio.

I believe that the government should not be in the business of public broadcasting at all. No matter what you broadcast, someone is going to be able to say, truthfully, that the story is biased. No sense in the government doing that.
BINGO!

Ahhhhhhhhh... but that's exactly what the "fairness doctrine" proports to do...by federally mandating that conservative talk radio have equal time for liberal viewpoints.

Too bad they can't/won't apply the same standards to liberally-biased public television.

:headbang:
Nooooo.....

It does the exact opposite. By mandating that a certain viewpoint must be given X amount of time, they are using public TV as a political tool. Let the channel decide on its ownhow to report in a fair and balanced way.

I think it's telling, however, that FoxNews is so popular, while public broadcasting has to beg for money and be subsidized by the government.

The fact that Air America just isn't making any headway is also telling. It's probably being strangled by public radio.

Fox News is popular because it is sensationalist. This has nothing to do with it being conservative, and everything to do with it being owned by Rupert Murdoch. Air America is failing because it sucks and is boring, not because its liberal.

The Democrats are showing their true colors (especially regarding censorship).

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3pbs.htm

Shouldn't the PUBLIC airwaves reflect the values/opinions/demographics of the PUBLIC?

Discuss.


Uhhhhhhh... no?

Deomcrat's tax dollars pay for the programs too. The bias should be towards good programing, not anything even remotely polititcally biased. We have Rush Limbaugh and Fox news for that.

I don't believe the government should be funding public broadcasting.
At all.

No matter what you broadcast, if it has even a hint of opinion in it, someone can and will say that the government is sponsoring bias.

Since there's not enough time to get everyone's viewpoint on the air, we should stop funding public broadcasting.

To me, it's like funding a church with government funds.

Either that, or restrict public broadcasting to things that can be certified as completely inert from a political perspective:

The weather report, read in a dull and boring fashion by a computer generated voice, is a good example.

Fox News is popular because it is sensationalist. This has nothing to do with it being conservative, and everything to do with it being owned by Rupert Murdoch. Air America is failing because it sucks and is boring, not because its liberal.
Wrong. People tend to gravitate towards something/someone that represents their viewpoints. You could even chalk it up to "people listening to what they want to hear." However inane, it would account for the rising popularity of conservative television and the lack of popularity of liberal radio.

EDIT: Although I will agree with you about Air America. We got out own affiliate down here not too long ago. I forced myself to listen for a whole day and was just amazed at the ammount of open hatemongering and boring programming. And I mean seriously boring...as in I nodded off in the middle of Al Franken's show.

With that said... your argument does not hold up. Some of the programming on Air America is just as 'sensationalistic' as Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity...yet people just aren't listening.

Wrong. People tend to gravitate towards something/someone that represents their viewpoints. You could even chalk it up to "people listening to what they want to hear." However inane, it would account for the rising popularity of conservative television and the lack of popularity of liberal radio.
People gravitate to what keeps their attention. Why do you think tabloid magazines are so popular and PBS is not? Somehow I doubt politics come much into play.

I don't believe the government should be funding public broadcasting.
At all.

No matter what you broadcast, if it has even a hint of opinion in it, someone can and will say that the government is sponsoring bias.

Since there's not enough time to get everyone's viewpoint on the air, we should stop funding public broadcasting.

To me, it's like funding a church with government funds.

Either that, or restrict public broadcasting to things that can be certified as completely inert from a political perspective:

The weather report, read in a dull and boring fashion by a computer generated voice, is a good example.

Yes, things will never be bias free. (I think PBS funding is good, although it shoulden't be our top priority) But what we have here is the leadership saying, "make our party look good". That reeks of Communism, and propoganda typical of dictatorships.

People gravitate to what keeps their attention. Why do you think tabloid magazines are so popular and PBS is not? Somehow I doubt politics come much into play.


Politics does come into play, but not people listining to what they want to hear. Politics comes into play to influence the listiners opinion, but, when the audience listens to who they want to, it's based on sensationilsm. People are sheep.

Politics does come into play, but not people listining to what they want to hear. Politics comes into play to influence the listiners opinion, but, when the audience listens to who they want to, it's based on sensationilsm. People are sheep.
Besides, if you are pissed off by bias, you'll change the channel.

I stopped watching CBS years ago, because it was so obvious.

And they denied it for years, and then Walter Cronkite spoke from retirement and said that yes, they were liberal, and yes, they had a political agenda. They were not unbiased observers.

Even after that, Dan Rather denied bias.

I've stopped watching network news and cable news - it's easier and faster to get a selection of varied news sources on the Web.

In addition, the Internet also makes it possible to talk to people on the other side of the world - right now. I don't have to hear news filtered through some news editors view of the world.

Could you name some examples of Biased programing on Public television & public radio?

I guess having an = disgust of the liberal pinko democrats & the right wing neo-nazi republicans I'm not really seeing the biased. NPR will go out of their way to try to get interviews with many conservitaves to attempt to get a balanced new story.

I think what is going on is their is a power struggle between the 2 parties to gain control over the unvcontroled airwaves.

Since public television is one of last things NOX Media & Turner Broadcasting can't get their Greezy mits on. They now have to try to politic their way into ruining the one american broadcast that actually still reports in a fair fashion.

Fox News loving parasites & CNN loving drones keep away from my news!

Besides, if you are pissed off by bias, you'll change the channel.

I stopped watching CBS years ago, because it was so obvious.

And they denied it for years, and then Walter Cronkite spoke from retirement and said that yes, they were liberal, and yes, they had a political agenda. They were not unbiased observers.

Even after that, Dan Rather denied bias.

I've stopped watching network news and cable news - it's easier and faster to get a selection of varied news sources on the Web.

In addition, the Internet also makes it possible to talk to people on the other side of the world - right now. I don't have to hear news filtered through some news editors view of the world.


I agree with you. But Fox has a conservative agenda too. And yes, I too like the internet for news (Wikipedia, CNN, ect).

I don't know why it would be illegal, since I lack a background in federal broadcast and funding regulations, but somehow I doubt they are just making that up. If you found a source besides Drudge :p maybe they would tell you the whole story.

And liberal viewpoints? According to who? Just because you call it liberal doesn't make it so.

It's a matter of perspective. From a certain perspective, Abby Hoffmann, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer are "Not Liberals". Of course, you would have to be significantly to the left of most Americans to believe this, but it's possible-because nobody wants to think their viewpoint is fanatically partisan, or significantly off-track from the majority of the people.

Could you name some examples of Biased programing on Public television & public radio?

I guess having an = disgust of the liberal pinko democrats & the right wing neo-nazi republicans I'm not really seeing the biased. NPR will go out of their way to try to get interviews with many conservitaves to attempt to get a balanced new story.

I think what is going on is their is a power struggle between the 2 parties to gain control over the unvcontroled airwaves.

Since public television is one of last things NOX Media & Turner Broadcasting can't get their Greezy mits on. They now have to try to politic their way into ruining the one american broadcast that actually still reports in a fair fashion.

Fox News loving parasites & CNN loving drones keep away from my news!

The Diane Rehm Show. Conservatives are rarely on her show, and if they are, it's only to bash them. She has a weekly roundup at the end of the week, and there are NO conservatives on her show.

I don't see exactly why this should come as a surprise. There are more liberals than conservatives. I figured that was obvious. And since liberals are allowed to say whatever they like, and conservatives are vehemently lectured if they state their opinions, this sort of thing will happen...again...and again...

Why the double standard, guys?

Lemme guess.

"Because we're wrong."

Every viewpoint counts, whether or not liberals like it.

The Diane Rehm Show. Conservatives are rarely on her show, and if they are, it's only to bash them. She has a weekly roundup at the end of the week, and there are NO conservatives on her show.
Can't say I have ever watched it. Perhaps Iowa does not pick that show up. what time slot is it in & what night does it play.

Can't say I have ever watched it. Perhaps Iowa does not pick that show up. what time slot is it in & what night does it play.
It's on National Public Radio every morning from 10 to 12 (Monday through Friday).

It's on National Public Radio every morning from 10 to 12 (Monday through Friday).
Reminds of that oh so liberal PBS show with Tucker Carlson (http://www.pbs.org/tuckercarlson/).

Because he's so liberal, right?

Reminds of that oh so liberal PBS show with Tucker Carlson (http://www.pbs.org/tuckercarlson/).

Because he's so liberal, right?

Diane Rehm says she's a liberal. I'm taking her word for it. She also makes no secret of her hatred for conservatives. If you're a Republican dumb enough to show up for her, you're going to be attacked and not given a chance to respond.

I don't see exactly why this should come as a surprise. There are more liberals than conservatives. I figured that was obvious.
Actually, by demographics, there are more conservatives than liberals. Liberals just tend to scream louder. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease."

Actually, by demographics, there are more conservatives than liberals. Liberals just tend to scream louder. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease."

Perhaps you're right. It just seems like liberals attack from every direction.

haha That'd be a funny home movie.

"When Liberals Attack"

Diane Rehm says she's a liberal. I'm taking her word for it. She also makes no secret of her hatred for conservatives. If you're a Republican dumb enough to show up for her, you're going to be attacked and not given a chance to respond.
I don't know who she is, and I don't really care either. The only point I'm trying to make is that public television is hardly the seething pot of liberalism you seem to think it is.

I don't see exactly why this should come as a surprise. There are more liberals than conservatives. I figured that was obvious. And since liberals are allowed to say whatever they like, and conservatives are vehemently lectured if they state their opinions, this sort of thing will happen...again...and again...

Why the double standard, guys?

Lemme guess.

"Because we're wrong."

Every viewpoint counts, whether or not liberals like it.
Their are more moderates out thier then anything who tire of the spin.
I would wager threir are an = number of conservitives & liberals out their. Otherwise the last 2 elections would not have been to close.
Local funding supports public broadcasting & that funding helps decide in part what is broadcast. If more conservatives opened their wallets & donated to public Broadcasting you would see a shift more in their favor just like with any government organization.
You just want to mandate it without having to pay for it. I find that terrible.
How many of you griping pledged to Public Television or Radio this year?

Their are more moderates out thier then anything who tire of the spin.
I would wager threir are an = number of conservitives & liberals out their. Otherwise the last 2 elections would not have been to close.
Local funding supports public broadcasting & that funding helps decide in part what is broadcast. If more conservatives opened their wallets & donated to public Broadcasting you would see a shift more in their favor just like with any government organization.
You just want to mandate it without having to pay for it. I find that terrible.
How many of you griping pledged to Public Television or Radio this year?

So...tell me if I've missed something...liberals donate more than conservatives do to PBS?

Could you name some examples of Biased programing on Public television & public radio?

I guess having an = disgust of the liberal pinko democrats & the right wing neo-nazi republicans I'm not really seeing the biased. NPR will go out of their way to try to get interviews with many conservitaves to attempt to get a balanced new story.

I think what is going on is their is a power struggle between the 2 parties to gain control over the unvcontroled airwaves.

Since public television is one of last things NOX Media & Turner Broadcasting can't get their Greezy mits on. They now have to try to politic their way into ruining the one american broadcast that actually still reports in a fair fashion.

Fox News loving parasites & CNN loving drones keep away from my news!
Bill Moyers is as biased as it gets. The real issue is why should the government fund public broadcasting?

Liberals on the radio have a history of trying to be impartial and professional. Conservatives on the radio have a history of distortion, propaganda and making harmful, slanderousl accusations against our nation's leaders. If a reporter for NPR happened to vote for Bush, that's not a problem, but the government should not be footing the bill for another Rush Limbaugh.

Liberals on the radio have a history of trying to be impartial and professional. Conservatives on the radio have a history of distortion, propaganda and making harmful, slanderousl accusations against our nation's leaders. If a reporter for NPR happened to vote for Bush, that's not a problem, but the government should not be footing the bill for another Rush Limbaugh.

Oh please, get off your high horse. There are as many distorted liberals as there are conservatives. They'll say anything to make people hate a Republican.

If more conservatives opened their wallets & donated to public Broadcasting you would see a shift more in their favor just like with any government organization.
Wrong. That's putting the cart before the horse.
How many of you griping pledged to Public Television or Radio this year?
See my statement above. I refuse to donate to Public Television for the simple reason that they don't represent my point of view.

See my statement above. I refuse to donate to Public Television for the simple reason that they don't represent my point of view.
Then they never will.

Liberals on the radio have a history of trying to be impartial and professional. Conservatives on the radio have a history of distortion, propaganda and making harmful, slanderousl accusations against our nation's leaders.
That is the most crack-addled thing I've heard on the NS forums. You get a gold star. *lmao*

Then they never will.
Heck, I'd be happier with completely unbiased programming. I'd even donate to that.

But, that will never happen...the unbaised part, I mean.

I don't know who she is, and I don't really care either. The only point I'm trying to make is that public television is hardly the seething pot of liberalism you seem to think it is.
I've met a lot of the staff and reporters from National Public Radio - I've been to lunch with many of them (I used to work around the corner from their building), and I've been to a few parties where some of them were present.

They are unmistakably, unabashedly, and quite vocally liberal, and make no secret of it. They laugh because their inside joke is that no Republicans work for NPR - only Democrats, and then only those who are not "moderates". They have a passion for bringing their political beliefs to life at work.

So...tell me if I've missed something...liberals donate more than conservatives do to PBS?
Sure do. About 75% more in the studies I have seen & the U of I school of communications.
The largest ammounts donated are by people within the education system. As we all know the teachers union has educators locked & sewn up into the Democratic party like most labor unions. Democrats tend to be more liberal therefore more liberals donate as viewiers like you!

I've met a lot of the staff and reporters from National Public Radio - I've been to lunch with many of them (I used to work around the corner from their building), and I've been to a few parties where some of them were present.

They are unmistakably, unabashedly, and quite vocally liberal, and make no secret of it. They laugh because their inside joke is that no Republicans work for NPR - only Democrats, and then only those who are not "moderates". They have a passion for bringing their political beliefs to life at work.
The article was on PBS not NPR.

sheeeeeeeeeeeyit

NPR and PBS are very balanced. They have liberal views yes, but they also have conservative views. On the news stories, they work hard not to put spin on it.

It's funny that conservatives complain that balanced reports are actually liberal just because their view is not the only one being reported and other sides are looked at as well.

oh well, whine on you crazy diamonds.

The article was on PBS not NPR.
Like there's any real difference other than media format. :rolleyes:

Like there's any real difference other than media format. :rolleyes:
That was my point, there is.

That was my point, there is.
They both fall under the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I'm sure that the efforts to balance out the tilt will focus on NPR as well.

That is the most crack-addled thing I've heard on the NS forums. You get a gold star. *lmao*

Avyually very accurate: Clinton was a major one remember all the slander, attacks, and propaganda against Clinton? I mean people still talk badly about him. More so his wife beause she could be a President.

Liberals (i use term loosely because very few people are really one, usually just a moderate) only attacked in 20 years mostly Bush jr. Much less compared to Clinton bashing. Even Conservatives bashed Bush realizing his faults sometimes.

Avyually very accurate: Clinton was a major one remember all the slander, attacks, and propaganda against Clinton? I mean people still talk badly about him. More so his wife beause she could be a President.

Liberals (i use term loosely because very few people are really one, usually just a moderate) only attacked in 20 years mostly Bush jr. Much less compared to Clinton bashing. Even Conservatives bashed Bush realizing his faults sometimes.
You need to reread your history. Reagan was attacked just as vehemently as Bush 43 and Clinton.

At least you pointed out one correct thing: conservatives will go after our own if we think they are wrong. Democrats tend to tow the party line no matter how grevious the problems within their own ranks.

So, what I'm getting from the title of the thread and from the first sentence "The Democrats are showing their true colors (especially regarding censorship)" is:

"All democrats are evil, freedom-stealing, greedy pigs."


Okay, okay, so you didn't put it in those exact words... but thanks a bunch. I really enjoy being first grouped, then insulted.


You could have just as easily made the title "NPR attempting to bar conservatives" and made the first sentence "Some democrats are attempting to censor based on political viewpoints." That would have been much more civil and would have made me actually want to read the rest of the thread.

You could have just as easily made the title "NPR attempting to bar conservatives" and made the first sentence "Some democrats are attempting to censor based on political viewpoints." That would have been much more civil and would have made me actually want to read the rest of the thread.
True... but it wouldn't have been as 'sensational'. ;)

So...tell me if I've missed something...liberals donate more than conservatives do to PBS?
Yes. More educators donate to public television then any other group. Since the teachers UNION! Is undoubtedly spun more liberal as most organization supported by the democrats are. I would say more liberal donate to public television & proclaim the content they would like to see with their money.
supported by viewier like you also includes content supported for you.
Money talks as we all know.

PBS shouldn't be subsidized by taxpayers money. I can see how we may have needed it 20-30 years ago when we only had three networks, but now that we have 500+ channels why do we need to partially fund them? Let them compete in the markey just like all the other networks do.

Bias is another thing. If you think Bill Moyers was anywhere near to fair, you're obviously on the left. To think that PBS is objective is like saying both sides on Crossfire are honest and not touting party lines. Juan Williams is definately not unbiased and neither are any of the other anchors at PBS.

When you start mandating programing then the press is no longer free.
You just can't do this. as much As I hate CNN & FOX News I will never ask the government to step in a regulate their programming & I expect the same respect given to the news & programming on the stations I enjoy & trust as news sources.

PBS is already loaded to the hilt with liberal viewpoints. What the CBP chairman wants to do is equalize the monopoly of liberal views by adding conservative views as well. What's wrong with that? Why would it be illegal?

But he isn't equalizing.

McNiel Leher (sp? Don't care) news used to be balanced, but now it's just Leher. Now with Bill Moyers is gone, the show itself cut down to a half an hour. Tucker Carlson, unabashadly conservative, pretending to just be a journalist.

Everything else on PBS is completly apolitical, unless you're one of those people who thinks that anything intelligent is inherently liberal.

[QUOTE=Halloccia]PBS shouldn't be subsidized by taxpayers money.
I agree what a waste of spending. It should be 100% funded by viewer donations.

okay lets get some REAL FACTS in here and not just finger pointing with no substance:

excerpt from: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1180
Liberal bias?

That NPR harbors a liberal bias is an article of faith among many conservatives. Spanning from the early ’70s, when President Richard Nixon demanded that “all funds for public broadcasting be cut” (9/23/71), through House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s similar threats in the mid-’90s, the notion that NPR leans left still endures.

News of the April launch of Air America , a new liberal talk radio network, revived the old complaint, with several conservative pundits declaring that such a thing already existed. “I have three letters for you, NPR . . . . I mean, there is liberal radio,” remarked conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan on NBC ’s Chris Matthews Show (4/4/04.) A few days earlier (4/1/04), conservative columnist Cal Thomas told Nightline , “The liberals have many outlets,” naming NPR prominently among them.

Nor is this belief confined to the right: CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer (3/31/04) seemed to repeat it as a given while questioning a liberal guest: “What about this notion that the conservatives make a fair point that there already is a liberal radio network out there, namely National Public Radio ?”

Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR , and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003 study.

Partisans from outside the two major parties were almost nowhere to be seen, with the exception of four Libertarian Party representatives who appeared in a single story (Morning Edition , 6/26/03).

Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge, individual Republicans were NPR ’s most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance. George Bush led all sources for the month with 36 appearances, followed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (8) and Sen. Pat Roberts (6). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Secretary of State Colin Powell, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and Iraq proconsul Paul Bremer all tied with five appearances each.

Senators Edward Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller and Max Baucus were the most frequently heard Democrats, each appearing four times. No nongovernmental source appeared more than three times. With the exception of Secretary of State Powell, all of the top 10 most frequently appearing sources were white male government officials.

what say you?

i also think that public radioshouldnt be subsiidized by the govt tho. i mean what the hell is that all about?

But he isn't equalizing.

McNiel Leher (sp? Don't care) news used to be balanced, but now it's just Leher. Now with Bill Moyers is gone, the show itself cut down to a half an hour. Tucker Carlson, unabashadly conservative, pretending to just be a journalist.

Everything else on PBS is completly apolitical, unless you're one of those people who thinks that anything intelligent is inherently liberal.

Yes, they would use the term "elitist" not intelligent. Maybe conservatives think themselves not that intelligent...because intelligent equals elite by them.

Other than that right on the money. That is absolutely correct. They do seem to think that so. Look at them attacking Kerry for speaking Intelligently. Saying that made him elite. Bush wasn't speakin that intelligent (simple they say) so he wan't elite.

Liberals on the radio have a history of trying to be impartial and professional. Conservatives on the radio have a history of distortion, propaganda and making harmful, slanderousl accusations against our nation's leaders. If a reporter for NPR happened to vote for Bush, that's not a problem, but the government should not be footing the bill for another Rush Limbaugh.

The difference between Limbaugh and those "impartial and professional" liberals on the radio is one major thing: Limbaugh is up front about his bias. He admits that he's a conservative... actually, he's proud of it. He is very explicit about when he is and isn't giving his opinion (opinion about 95% of the time).

I swear, you sound just like Bill Moyer's last broadcast on PBS when me casted Sean Hannity's show as "a freakshow of political pornography" "lies, distortions, half-truths". What Moyers and you seem to fail to realize is that people like Hannity, Limbaugh and all the others is that they're honest about their show being their OPINION. Oh by the way, the government is already footing the bill for the partisans at PBS. Like my last post, I think we shouldn't be subsidizing any TV network. There's already enough networks that we don't need taxpayer money funding any of them. Ever.

That is the most crack-addled thing I've heard on the NS forums. You get a gold star. *lmao*

Most reporters are intellectuals, most intellectuals are Democrats. However, there was never an accusation of liberal media bias through 50 years of "the media" until the 90s. Conservatives took the fact that most reporters were liberals, assumed that they were all preaching propaganda and not just trying to do their jobs, and countered with PURPOSELY biased reporting in favor of conservatives. Most mainstream journalists are liberals, but most of them also take journalistic integrity seriously.

okay lets get some REAL FACTS in here and not just finger pointing with no substance:

excerpt from: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1180


what say you?

There's a difference between "appearing" or having your quotes played on the air, and having your appearance be an ambush interview or your quotes then hammered by pundits when you're not around to respond.

They aren't REAL facts. I listen to NPR enough to know that it's not as simple as counting "appearances" or "quotes".

Besides, I've met too many reporters from NPR. They say they are definitely biased against Republicans.

uh huh - nice comeback with nothing but heresay - show me some facts from a reliable source

There's a difference between "appearing" or having your quotes played on the air, and having your appearance be an ambush interview or your quotes then hammered by pundits when you're not around to respond.

They aren't REAL facts. I listen to NPR enough to know that it's not as simple as counting "appearances" or "quotes".

Besides, I've met too many reporters from NPR. They say they are definitely biased against Republicans.
what do you do for a living whisper? I have to say you have got me curious as to how you met all these reporter. are these just the local ones to your area or are you somewhere that feeds NPR's national news?

what do you do for a living whisper? I have to say you have got me curious as to how you met all these reporter. are these just the local ones to your area or are you somewhere that feeds NPR's national news?
The NPR offices are in downtown, D.C. I used to work at an office on New York Avenue about a block from their headquarters.

Before that, I was in an office in the building that is the headquarters for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

And, my ex-wife was a flaming liberal, who gave a lot of money to WAMU (a local station). Because she gave so much, we were always at parties with these reporters.

I do contract law for a living.

uh huh - nice comeback with nothing but heresay - show me some facts from a reliable source
If I say it was fair because you were "mentioned" 10 times a day, but I didn't count the context in which you were "mentioned" or "quoted", that wouldn't be very informative, would it?

How many times did Hitler mention the Jews in his speeches?

Should we take that huge number to mean that he loved them? I bet he mentioned them more than the SS. Does that mean that Hitler loved Jews more than his beloved SS?

That's what you're saying - that Republicans are quoted, appear, or are mentioned more often on NPR. If you listened you would know that nearly every story is derogatory.

I listen everyday and I know that what you say is pure bs. but you go ahead and repeat the lie over and over because that is a good way to get people to believe it. I presented actual facts and you have shown nothing but your own opinion.


besides,
Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent) If they show the conservative view more often than they show the liberal view and have conservatives on teh show mroe often than they have liberals ont eh show then that pretty much show sthat they are not liberally biased.

give me some real facts next time and maybe what you say will ahve a little credibility.

and where in teh article I quoted does it say they got their figures by counting the number of times someone or somethign was "mentioned"

basically what I think it comes down to is that Republicans get mad about accuracy in reporting because they will inherently look bad (since their party and policies are selfish and anti-populist) unless the reports is spun toward a conservative bent.

basically what I think it comes down to is that conservatives get mad about accuracy in reporting because they will inherently look bad (since their party and policies are selfish and anti-populist) unless the reports is spun toward a conservative bent.

I don't see why the government should be funding any point of view.

And if you want to talk about accuracy in reporting, I suggest that we start with the big stories of last year where the media fell on its face trying to make Bush look bad.

We can talk about Dan Rather, and his fake memo.

I don't see why the government should be funding any point of view.

And if you want to talk about accuracy in reporting, I suggest that we start with the big stories of last year where the media fell on its face trying to make Bush look bad.

We can talk about Dan Rather, and his fake memo.

agreed, the govt. shouldnt be funding them. Never said otherwise.

I could care less about Dan Rather and his fake memo. I never watched the guy and he is not part of PBS or NPR and has no bearing in this conversation.

agreed, the govt. shouldnt be funding them. Never said otherwise.

I could care less about Dan Rather and his fake memo. I never watched the guy and he is not part of PBS or NPR and has no bearing in this conversation.

There were NPR reporters who were anxiously hoping that the memo wasn't fake. We had a running bet, and I won.

Funny on all things considered & talk of the nation they seemed to do a pretty good job of talking about both sides of the argument on Bush's military record. For being biased they certainly did not come off that way.
Also they reported when it was found to be fraudulent on those same show on just as many occasions as they talked about Bush's record

There were NPR reporters who were anxiously hoping that the memo wasn't fake. We had a running bet, and I won.


:rolleyes:

Funny on all things considered & talk of the nation they seemed to do a pretty good job of talking about both sides of the argument on Bush's military record. For being biased they certainly did not come off that way.
Also they reported when it was found to be fraudulent on those same show on just as many occasions as they talked about Bush's record

Try the Diane Rehm show. You would never know that Dan screwed up.

NPR does admit when it's wrong, but only on certain shows. Diane never apologizes for being wrong.

Funny on all things considered & talk of the nation they seemed to do a pretty good job of talking about both sides of the argument on Bush's military record. For being biased they certainly did not come off that way.
Also they reported when it was found to be fraudulent on those same show on just as many occasions as they talked about Bush's record


Yep - all sides of the story = "liberal bias" to conservatives

NPR is really good about correcting it's mistakes. They also air many letters by people who have something negative to say about their programming.

Yep - all sides of the story = "liberal bias" to conservatives

NPR is really good about correcting it's mistakes. They also air many letters by people who have something negative to say about their programming.
Once again, it depends on the show. The morning and evening news on NPR correct their mistakes and read letters.

Diane is famous for hanging up the moment she realizes that the person on the phone is even slightly conservative - they don't even get to finish a sentence.

sounds like a crappy show

never heard of it - is it on late at night? I wouldnt listen to that show

sounds like a crappy show

never heard of it - is it on late at night? I wouldnt listen to that show
The most popular NPR segment in Washington, D.C., and she's syndicated across the other NPR stations. 10 to 12 in the morning, 5 days a week.

people who listen to shows like that (diane, rush, hannity and colmes...) without considering other sources are pusposely keeping their heads up their collective rears.

Here's an example of bias by NPR.

Some time ago, when a spokesman for NRA called National Public Radio to complain about a news report in which we believed that NPR had deliberately misrepresented our views, NPR series editor Larry Abramson responded, contemptuously, "your p.r. is your problem." So be it. If NPR's misrepresentations of the views of NRA are indeed "our problem," our members will endeavor to fix it. On behalf of our 3.5 million members, their families and friends, I am here to ask you to stop using our money to pay for propaganda which is thinly disguised as news -- news which is biased, one sided, subjective, and unreliable; news which, when it comes to reporting on both the NRA and the issue of the criminal misuse of firearms, is frequently false and unfailingly flavored with unmasked hostility to law abiding firearms owners.

First let me clarify one point. The NRA has not come here to speak in favor of censorship. In fact, I was the recipient of the 1990 H.L. Mencken Award for the best editorial in the nation in the previous year in defense of the First Amendment. I had written an op-ed piece which was published in the Washington Post on July 17, 1989, opposing the attempt to amend the Constitution in order to punish flag burners. I supported the right of people to burn our flag, even though I earned two Purple Hearts defending it.

I defended flag burners because I resolutely believe in the right of every American to speak his mind. However, this right has a corollary, which is every bit as sacred: no American should be compelled to support a creed, or belief, or partisan doctrine with which he disagrees. You cannot have one without the other.

In 1967 Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act. Taxpayers were told that public broadcasting was needed in order to provide quality programming that would serve an "unserved or underserved" market. By design, the elites gained control of this creature from the start, then, once inside the castle, using the ruse of "insulation from political interference," they pulled up the drawbridge and left the rest of America outside. We are still out here, and they are still inside. Congress funded it with our money, but they explicitly protected the recipients from any need for accountability to us.

This lack of accountability leaves several questions unanswered. First: why is public broadcasting not subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)? Second: why is there no public bidding on public broadcasting contracts? Third: Congress sets the salaries of those who work for the taxpayers in the government, but who sets the salaries of those who work for the public in public broadcasting? Fourth: why aren't members of public broadcasting stations, like the members of the NRA, permitted to vote on the management of their station? Fifth: why aren't public broadcasters, like commercial broadcasters, required to maintain a correspondence file for public inspection? Sixth: when a show makes money, like the Civil War series, and "Sesame Street," where does the money go? We can't answer any of these questions because there is no accountability. In fact, Ervin Duggan, CEO of the Public Broadcasting System, was openly contemptuous of accountability when he recently urged that we take steps to insulate the management of public broadcasting from ". . . the political vagaries and ideological whims of the appropriations process."

Public broadcasting represents the political, cultural, and spiritual values of a tiny minority who think of themselves as elite and sophisticated. They think that they are divinely appointed to enlighten the rest of us. As they strive to carry out this mission, on its airways one can see, or hear, a vast array of colorful characters: dyspeptic misanthropes telling us what they don't like about normal Americans; disgruntled victims; peevish purveyors of assorted reforms, and every other species of hectoring crank that can possibly be found fighting in the trenches of the culture war. Their message is propaganda. Let me give you some examples.

As a Viet-Nam veteran, I remember the thirteen part series on the Viet-Nam war. This series won an award: it was named "Film of the Year" by the newspaper Quan Doi Nhan Dan. This is the newspaper of the enemy North Viet-Namese Army, in case you wonder whether the series was biased. When Accuracy in Media produced a series to set the record straight, they were resisted at every turn by public broadcasting. Many news organizations, which cherish their reputations for honest reporting, would hesitate to be so one sided. But public broadcasting is unique. It is funded, and protected, by the government. It serves a peculiar audience which does not seem to place a high premium on literal accuracy in news reporting.

The NRA has experienced this first hand. In December of 1989 NPR conducted an editorial essay, masked as a "news feature," in support of gun control. In one broadcast NPR reporter Nina Totenberg said "(t)here may be a lively debate about whether the Constitution confers on individuals the right to bear arms, but that debate is not going on in America's courts, its law schools, or its scholarly legal journals. Indeed, even the National Rifle Association could not recommend for this broadcast a single constitutional law professor who would defend the Second Amendment as conferring on individuals the right to bear arms."

No debate in America's scholarly legal journals? An informal survey of the literature suggests that no less than 28 law journal articles supporting the thesis that the Second Amendment protects an individual right appeared between 1960 and 1989; this includes the American Bar Association Journal. No Constitutional law professors who support this view? Hardly. In December 1989, the very month in which Miss Totenberg made this broadcast, University of Texas Professor Sanford Levinson, a distinguished constitutional scholar, had published an article in the Yale Law Review entitled "The Embarrassing Second Amendment." In the article, Professor Levinson says that the right protected (not "conferred", as she would have it), is an individual right. So on these counts, at least, she was demonstrably, flat out, wrong. Give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe America's premier legal reporter just hadn't visited a reasonably well equipped law library to review the Periodical Guide to Legal Literature, or had not seen the Yale Law Review when she made the broadcast.

What about the National Rifle Association and the names of the legal scholars? This is a different story. When asked for the names of scholars, NRA spokeswoman Debbie Nauser gave Miss Totenberg the names of three (3) -- count them -- scholars. There is no room for doubt here. In the words of Josiah Royce, the reporter had "willfully misplaced her ontological predicates."

More recently, the CrimeStrike Division of NRA, following the murders of several Korean-American merchants in the District of Columbia, met with a group of these merchants to discuss some legislation which we had proposed for D.C. Following this meeting, during an NPR news magazine and documentary broadcast, an NPR commentator, Bebe Moore Campbell, gave a harangue against the NRA for having attended the meeting. She said that we had gone there to tell Korean merchants that blacks are criminals. She said that our initials should stand for the "Negro Removal Association." She said that we wanted sixteen year old boys to carry Uzis because the gun would probably be used to kill a black person.

This is not responsible editorializing, let alone news; it is vicious libel. The NRA had been formed in 1871 by former officers in the Union Army, men who had fought to end slavery. The first signature on our charter, and the first president of NRA, was Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who had been forced to stand by and watch the men of his division slaughtered during the battle of Sharpsburg, the battle which induced Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Gen. Ulysses Grant and Gen. Phil Sheridan also served as presidents of the NRA. Unlike any other social organization in the country in 1871, African Americans were never excluded from membership in the NRA. An African American member of our Board of Directors, after this broadcast, came to me and told me that as a young boy growing up in the District of Columbia, the only place he could go, where he was always welcomed regardless of his race, was a rifle club run by the NRA. Civil rights leader Roy Innis is also on our Board of Directors. In fact, the meeting with Korean American merchants had been arranged by black NRA members in the District of Columbia, and one black NRA member participated in the presentation.

We have asked every one of the hundreds of NPR member stations for an opportunity to give an adequate response to this scurrilous attack. One, and only one, gave us this right. This is an abuse of the public trust. However, it does serve to help prove our point. Public Broadcasting is designed, by those who run it, to serve as the ever flowing fountain of venom, serving the insatiable desire of the cultural elites to have someone to hate. As America was the arsenal of democracy during two world wars, public broadcasting serves as the arsenal of dyspepsia in the culture war. It is wrong to ask us to pay so that others may tell the world how much they hate us.

The original act required balance and fairness, but this was ignored until 1992. The congress, fed up with the lack of balance and fairness, tried to strengthen this requirement. This, too, was ignored. The message should be clear: public broadcasting is broken and cannot be fixed.

For many years the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enforced a "Fairness Doctrine" which required broadcasters to provide balance and fairness on controversial issues. The FCC abolished the doctrine in 1986. It took this step after it had conducted an extensive study in which it determined that there were so many broadcast outlets that the variety alone would assure that diverse points of view would be presented to the public.

If the FCC is correct, then the market is no longer "unserved or underserved." If that is true, then there is no longer any need, if there ever was, for public broadcasting. It may be that commercial stations won't produce the sort of programs that public broadcasting produces. If so, the cultural elites should have to dig down a little deeper to support the culture war, although they should no longer expect us to subsidize them from the Federal Treasury, or let them deduct it from their income taxes.

It would be unfair for me to close without noting a broadcast which I heard last night. NPR reported on a vote by the Fresno, California, City Council, on whether to require the issuance of concealed weapons carry permits to any citizen who is not disqualified. The report was straight forward. There were no sarcastic intonations by the reporter. There were no selected quotes predicting terror in the streets. In fact, the story was reported as objectively as one might hope. There was one minor inaccuracy: the reporter said that the passage of the proposal would have made Fresno the most liberal jurisdiction in the country in issuing concealed weapons permits. The fact is, at least eighteen states are more liberal, and there is one state that does not restrict the concealed carry of weapons. However, given the tone of the report, I recognize that inadvertent inaccuracy is not dishonesty. Frankly, if public broadcasting had made this change in the manner in which it treats the issue years ago, if it had started reporting on us without the hostility and barely masked hatred, we might not be here today. There is, after all, nothing more fundamental to our common American culture than a belief in a second chance, a new beginning.

But I am afraid that is now past. Before the vicious attack by the NPR commentator, Bebe Moore Campbell, our members asked why this institution was hostile toward us. After that incident, they began asking whether there is room for such a thing in a constitutional republic. Information is power. Congress recognized this when it created a public institution, then attempted to insulated it from the influence of elected officials. But information is still power, and if that power, in a public institution, be placed beyond the control of the public, then this power can be wielded by those who are not accountable to the public from whom they derive that power. Power which can be abused will be abused. The abuse of this power, by an institution whose access to public funds makes it unaccountable in the marketplace, and whose insulation from elected officials makes it unaccountable in the voting booth, cannot be avoided.

A public institution which has no warrant in the Constitution, and which cannot be prevented from abusing public power, is an institution which ought not to exist. If ever there were a time for public broadcasting, it is past. On behalf of 3.5 million members of the National Rifle Association, their families and friends, I ask you to pull the plug.

The Democrats are showing their true colors (especially regarding censorship).
Shows how authoritarian they really are.

Try the Diane Rehm show. You would never know that Dan screwed up.

NPR does admit when it's wrong, but only on certain shows. Diane never apologizes for being wrong.
Well I guess I know who to request my funding does not go to.
Thanks for the info.

*Mega snip*

too much to read - couldnt you have just shown the relevant part?

I did however find the two lines that showed what was said on NPR (Something I find to be reprehensible), that angered teh NRA. I didn't find what show this was said on though. I wasn't familiar with the name of the person who said it. Do you know? It doesnt sound like a news item but more of a commentary piece.

I will often hear commentary pieces from both sides of the isle on NPR btw. Many that I do not agree with. I still find their actual news programs to be about as balanced as you can get.

too much to read - couldnt you have just shown the relevant part?

I did however find the two lines that showed what was said on NPR (Something I find to be reprehensible), that angered teh NRA. I didn't find what show this was said on though. I wasn't familiar with the name of the person who said it. Do you know? It doesnt sound like a news item but more of a commentary piece.
Sworn testimony before Congress.

I don't know if this has been said already, but I have class in a few minutes and no time to read the whole thread.

I think the issue of what PBS should be is being ignored. PBS ought to be the one place on the nation's airwaves free of talking heads and punditry, be it conservative or liberal. PBS should have programmes that report the news and current events, present educational material, and air culturally significant programmes without any sort of slant, one way or the other.

When I turn to a certain programme for news or facts, I do not do it because I want to hear an opinion or some kind of commentary that someone tells me is important. I can form my own opinions. If the lack of commentary makes PBS boring, so be it. At least it will have some dignity, unlike some of the other shit flying across the airwaves.

I deplore any effort to inject any type of viewpoint into PBS.

To tell the truth, NPR doesn't have nearly as much effect as its opponents think.

At the time that testimony was given, there were only 18 states with liberalized concealed carry of firearms.

Despite the continuum of anti-gun stories from NPR (and I've heard quite a few), now there are 35 states with liberalized concealed carry of firearms.

I guess their reporting wasn't reaching anyone.

Fox News is popular because it is sensationalist. This has nothing to do with it being conservative, and everything to do with it being owned by Rupert Murdoch. Air America is failing because it sucks and is boring, not because its liberal.
actually its doing excellently. it started off a little rough and had a sort of financial scandal. but its doing better than youd think. the first ratings they got back were much better than what they expected and now advertisers are really putting their stuff on Air America. there was a whole documentary on the begginings of it.

I guess it's a good thing my busy time at work is in the morning & I don't have time to listen to NPR then although I have never heard this woman on my NPR feed even when I am off.
I don't think she represents the interests of most Iowans which is probably why.
Education & farming probably don't come up all that often Esp farming is she is out of DC.
In Iowa Public Television & Radio seem to have a more moderate spin because we are comprised of very moderate people. The rational hard working majority do not want to see a lot of change in their daily lives & that bleed through to our public television & radio here.
I trust my local sources & their ability to choose the programing that I can relate to a appreciate.

Sworn testimony before Congress.

so it's a big long winded speech to congress because some commentary on NPR hurt his feelbads. boo hoo - like I said I agree that public broadcasters should not get govt funds. This one persons comment on teh air does not make the whole of NPR a liberal station nore does it make it mostly liberal.

and does it say which program this chick talked shit about the NRA on? I couldnt find it.

actually its doing excellently. it started off a little rough and had a sort of financial scandal. but its doing better than youd think. the first ratings they got back were much better than what they expected and now advertisers are really putting their stuff on Air America. there was a whole documentary on the begginings of it.
The latest radio ratings are in, and they show continued bad news for Air America, the liberal talk-radio network featuring Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Janeane Garofolo, and others.

While it is difficult to pinpoint Air America's ratings nationally — it is on the air in about 50 stations across the country, and has been on some of them for just the last few months — it is possible to measure the network's performance in the nation's number-one market, New York City.

The new Arbitron ratings for Winter 2005, which covers January, February, and March, show that WLIB, the station which carries Air America in New York, won a 1.2-percent share of all listeners 12 years and older. That is down one tenth of one point from the station's 1.3 percent share in Winter 2004, the last period when it aired its old format of Caribbean music and talk.

Air America debuted on March 31, 2004. In the network's first quarter on the air, Spring of 2004, which covered April, May, and June, Air America won a 1.3-percent share of the market audience. That number rose slightly to 1.4 percent in the Summer 2004 July/August/September period, and fell back to 1.2 percent in the Fall 2004 October/November/December period, where it remains today.

Those numbers are, again, for all listeners 12 years and older. Air America executives, however, often point to the network's performance among listeners 25 to 54 years of age, the preferred demographic target for radio advertisers. But in that area, too, Air America is struggling.

Between the hours of 10 A.M. and 3 P.M., the period that includes Al Franken's program, Air America drew a 1.4-percent share of the New York audience aged 25 to 54 in Winter 2005. That number is the latest in a nearly year-long decline. In Spring of 2004, Air America's first quarter on the air, it drew a 2.2-percent share of the audience. That rose to 2.3 percent in the Summer of 2004, then fell to 1.6 percent in the Fall of 2004, and is now 1.4 percent — Air America's lowest-ever quarterly rating in that time and demographic slot.

The ratings also show WABC radio, which airs Rush Limbaugh, consistently beating Air America in New York City even though Franken had at one time claimed to be beating the conservative host there. In the 10 a.m. to 3 P.M. period in the Winter of 2005, WABC (and Limbaugh) won 2.7 percent of the audience to Air America's 1.4 percent. In Spring 2004, WABC beat Air America 2.7 percent to 2.2 percent. In Summer 2004, WABC won 2.7 percent to 2.3 percent. In Fall 2004, WABC won 3.6 percent to 1.6 percent.

That last number surprised some observers because it showed Air America faltering in October and November 2004, the period when the presidential election was reaching its finish and political passions were presumably at their highest. But even then, Air America's decline continued. And now, it has fallen even farther.

That last number surprised some observers because it showed Air America faltering in October and November 2004, the period when the presidential election was reaching its finish and political passions were presumably at their highest. But even then, Air America's decline continued. And now, it has fallen even farther.

I'd like to know where you're quoting it from because I've heard these numbers quoted right from the network's begining. I.E. you're plagarising out of date material.

Al Franken did NOT claim to beat Limbaugh, he claimed to beat O'Reilly in the 18-54 market. The only one that matters. Of course they lost viewers in November, the election ended at the begining of November. Even they themselves said "ya, we'll probably see a dip in our ratings after the election. But their listenership has increased since.

And if they're listnership is so paltry then why are they adding new affiliates so consistently? Including 3 affiliates owned by the conservative Clearchannel.

okay lets get some REAL FACTS in here and not just finger pointing with no substance:

excerpt from: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1180


what say you?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20031022.shtml
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1919999&columnId=2781901
www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040601.asp click on number 4
I say that.

Now, what say you?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20031022.shtml
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1919999&columnId=2781901
www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040601.asp click on number 4
I say that.

Now, what say you?


could you please quote your information? i dont have time to read a bunch of opinion articles and try to pick out your point.

Even Bill Moyers admits that CPB shows are intentionally of a liberal bias, and are not intended to be balanced.

NPR has decent news coverage, but they do select and spin stories for an effect - a liberal bias effect.

I think it's telling, however, that FoxNews is so popular, while public broadcasting has to beg for money and be subsidized by the government.

The fact that Air America just isn't making any headway is also telling. It's probably being strangled by public radio.

I believe that the government should not be in the business of public broadcasting at all. No matter what you broadcast, someone is going to be able to say, truthfully, that the story is biased. No sense in the government doing that.
NPR isn't publically funded anymore, now it is all member supported.

(EG WHYY is completely funded by its members)

could you please quote your information? i dont have time to read a bunch of opinion articles and try to pick out your point.
lol.... people quote information, and get asked for proof, I post "proof" and get asked to quote information. When will I learn....

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...b20031022.shtml
Last week, NPR's own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR's talk programming. The daily program "Fresh Air with Terry Gross" -- a 60-minute talk show about the arts, literature and also politics -- airs on 378 public-radio stations across the fruited plain. Gross recently became a hot topic on journalism Web sites for first having a friendly, giggly interview with "satirist" Al Franken, promoting his obnoxious screed against conservatives on Sept. 3, and then on Oct. 8, unloading an accusatory, hostile interview on Bill O'Reilly's show. She pressed the Fox host to respond to the obnoxious attacks of Franken and other critics. Dvorkin ruled: "Unfortunately, the (O'Reilly) interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias ... by coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather than a neutral and curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the interview to develop."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/...olumnId=2781901
More Pessimistic

Overall, the poll shows that journalists are more pessimistic than ever about the state of the profession. Their confidence in their management is low and their fears are high about the commercial pressures on journalism.

This is a study that is bound to have some serious consequences for American journalism in large measure because of one aspect of the poll: the political leanings of the journalists who responded to the survey.

Confirmation for Conservatives

It found that a majority of American journalists say they are liberals. Not surprisingly this has been grist for conservatives because it confirms the impression that journalists are overwhelmingly liberal compared to the public in general.



http://www.mediaresearch.org/cybera...cyb20040601.asp
NPR’s Juan Williams doesn’t see any liberal bias in the media and, damning with faint praise, insisted: “I think the New York Times is mainstream American journalism.” Williams made his remarks during a Fox News Sunday panel segment devoted to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press survey which found that amongst national media outlet reporters, editors, producers and executives, five times more, 34 percent, identified themselves as liberal than the piddling 7 percent who called themselves conservative. Williams, a senior correspondent at NPR and a former Washington Post reporter, countered that somehow advertisers prevent any liberal bias: “When they ask the advertisers who determine what gets on TV and what gets in the papers, guess what? They're conservatives.”

.

And liberal viewpoints? According to who? Just because you call it liberal doesn't make it so.
This guy is a genius Dude run for President I'd vote for you and as long as the christans dont have there way maybe we could ahve a leader that actually represtents America's Interests and not just the American Christian's Intrests.

ok this is what I get from what you quoted:

quote 1: Gross aparently admits having a liberal bias by not attacking Al Franken like the writer would have liked.

quote 2: Journalists are more liberal than conservative. whoopity doo. I've heard this as well (although no proof is given beyond a poll - do you take all polls as absolute fact?). This doesnt mean that their bias is being pushed in their reports and says nothign about NPR specifically that I can see.

quote 3: someone from NPR doesnt see all teh extreeme liberal bias in the mainstream media like most conservatives like to spout over and over and over. that makes NPR liberal?

I listen to NPR and I look for balanced reporting. They do a damn good job with showing as many sides of the story as they can.

As we have talked about earlier in the thread, yes there are liberal viewpoints being presented on NPR, but there are also conservative views espoused.

Is there a liberal bias in the media, period?

ok this is what I get from what you quoted:

quote 1: Gross aparently admits having a liberal bias by not attacking Al Franken like the writer would have liked.

quote 2: Journalists are more liberal than conservative. whoopity doo. I've heard this as well (although no proof is given beyond a poll - do you take all polls as absolute fact?). This doesnt mean that their bias is being pushed in their reports and says nothign about NPR specifically that I can see.

quote 3: someone from NPR doesnt see all teh extreeme liberal bias in the mainstream media like most conservatives like to spout over and over and over. that makes NPR liberal?

I listen to NPR and I look for balanced reporting. They do a damn good job with showing as many sides of the story as they can.

As we have talked about earlier in the thread, yes there are liberal viewpoints being presented on NPR, but there are also conservative views espoused.
Guess you just missed it.... points 1 and 2 are from NPR's own ombudsman... he's admitting to a liberal bias in NPR.

Point 3
Undeterred, Williams plowed on: “Well, let me tell you, when they ask who owns, when they ask the advertisers who determine what gets on TV and what gets in the papers, guess what? They're conservatives. So they are setting the tone. They're hiring the reporters. And believe me, they're muting any of the so-called liberal -- where is this radical liberalism that we see on TV? I don't see it.”
Hume: “I don't think there's a lot-”
Williams: “Do you think the New York Times is a radically liberal institution?”
Hume: “I don't think The New York Times is radically liberal. I think the New York Times is liberal.”
Williams: “Liberal?”
Hume: “Liberal.”
Williams: “I think the New York Times is mainstream American journalism.”
Hume: “Well, it may be mainstream American journalism, it's a very wide mainstream we have in this country, Juan. But if you are asking the question does it tilt right or left, it unmistakably tilts left.”
Williams: “No, I think it should tilt in a way that would challenge authority.”
Hume: “Ah, here we go. Ah, yes.”
Williams: “You don't think journalism should, in fact, challenge-”
Hume: “Ah, the romance of journalism, to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. To challenge authority, speak truth to power.”
Williams: “Is that wrong, Brit?”
Kristol interjected the key point: “They should challenge liberal authority.”
Williams: “They should challenge all authority.”
Kristol: “I agree, but they only challenge those conservatives who occasionally find themselves in positions of authority.”

Williams embodies the very problem of bias. He assumes he’s mainstream when he’s really a liberal who doesn’t see any liberal bias and so is befuddled by the complaint.

The Democrats are showing their true colors (especially regarding censorship).

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3pbs.htm

Shouldn't the PUBLIC airwaves reflect the values/opinions/demographics of the PUBLIC?

Discuss.
Because obvously they speek for all of us :rolleyes: and who exactly are "The Democrats" :rolleyes: