NPR's Seven Secrets of Feigning Objectivity

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:

Just for comparison, just so I can calibrate my Objectivo Meter, point me to the sources, the outlets that are truly objective... as you measure objectivity. Who are our role models.

Click to expand...

Easy! Fox News. "Fair and balanced." "We report, you decide."

umfan said:

The big difference, NPR is not objective, yet tries to portray itself as such. Most of the rest of talk radio makes no such pretense. The offensive part, NPR gets public dollars to not be objective. NPR troglodytes on one hand claim the subsidy is small, yet argue vociferously that it should never be taken away.

If NPR wants credibility, make it without the subsidy. Then it has no more obligation to be objective than any other station. That would be honest. The current state is a lie.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you. In fact, I said much the same thing several posts prior to yours.

umfan said:

NPR is not objective. Anyone who claims they are is a liar.

Click to expand...

That is an unfair statement. I know for a fact that many who claim that NPR is objective genuinely believe that to be true. They are not telling lies. They are repeating mistakes. Being wrong is very different from being a liar. For a statement to be a lie, the speaker must know it is a lie. If the speaker thinks he's telling the truth but is incorrect, then he isn't lying. He's just wrong.

Recognizing people as simply being wrong instead of calling them liars is a mark of being civil.

Avid Listener said:

I totally agree with you. In fact, I said much the same thing several posts prior to yours.



That is an unfair statement. I know for a fact that many who claim that NPR is objective genuinely believe that to be true. They are not telling lies. They are repeating mistakes. Being wrong is very different from being a liar. For a statement to be a lie, the speaker must know it is a lie. If the speaker thinks he's telling the truth but is incorrect, then he isn't lying. He's just wrong.

Recognizing people as simply being wrong instead of calling them liars is a mark of being civil.

Click to expand...

And you people who keep bashing "NPR" are NOT repeating what you hear?

People who repeat the lies they hear, without bothering to find out if the statement is true, are guilty of lying. Accessories after the fact are considered guilty of the original crime. Notice that when you right-wingers repeat a lie, you almost never say you are repeating something. Never "I heard they are biased." Never "Rush says..." Just "NPR is biased" like you know, and that makes it a lie.

The other lie is implying you actually listen to public radio - or "NPR" as you call it. Clearly, you don't.

There's plenty of room for valid criticism of NPR News programs (and the rest of the media) but to criticize without lying, you actually have to go to the trouble of listening.

Wing-nuts are notorious for their intellectual laziness. They hate to think for themselves. It's much easier to let some talk show host or preacher tell them what to think and they can just repeat the lie and think they sound smart. That's what makes them so easily led. If it sounds good, it must be true.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:

Wrong. There are probably more places of worship in this country that "pass the plate" BEFORE the sermon. Your basic Evangelical process is that at the end of the sermon there will be an invitation, an altar call, and NOTHING in those churches is more sacred, more protected than the time at the end of the sermon when people are invited to "walk the aisle".

Click to expand...

Most of the churches I have gone to have the offering before the sermon. Some have had altar calls, though there's usually not that big a response. It's more a case of "if you want to ..."

Avid,

Fair point. While I stand by my assertions regarding NPR, my characterization of those that may honestly believe it is objective were unwarranted. I aplologize.

Fred,

Regarding this statement, "Wing-nuts are notorious for their intellectual laziness. They hate to think for themselves. It's much easier to let some talk show host or preacher tell them what to think and they can just repeat the lie and think they sound smart. That's what makes them so easily led. If it sounds good, it must be true. "

I have listened to public radio, in this area they are NPR affiliates. When politics are discussed, it is not with objectivity. Do I listen regularly, no, but I have enough to make an informed analysis. I have no issue with the bias, per se, only the pretense that NPR, and it's affiliates are not biased. I would submit if there is intellectual laziness here, it is on your part. I attempted to engage you in an intelligent discussion about comments you made about climate change and you refused to address legitimate questions on the topic. I believe your response was 'Go Watch Cosmos'. If that, in your view, is representative of something other than intellectual laziness, it explains much about you.

umfan said:

Avid,

Fair point. While I stand by my assertions regarding NPR, my characterization of those that may honestly believe it is objective were unwarranted. I aplologize.

Fred,

Regarding this statement, "Wing-nuts are notorious for their intellectual laziness. They hate to think for themselves. It's much easier to let some talk show host or preacher tell them what to think and they can just repeat the lie and think they sound smart. That's what makes them so easily led. If it sounds good, it must be true. "

I have listened to public radio, in this area they are NPR affiliates. When politics are discussed, it is not with objectivity. Do I listen regularly, no, but I have enough to make an informed analysis. I have no issue with the bias, per se, only the pretense that NPR, and it's affiliates are not biased. I would submit if there is intellectual laziness here, it is on your part. I attempted to engage you in an intelligent discussion about comments you made about climate change and you refused to address legitimate questions on the topic. I believe your response was 'Go Watch Cosmos'. If that, in your view, is representative of something other than intellectual laziness, it explains much about you.

Click to expand...

Fan: I presume you are talking about WUOM. You wouldn't be caught listening to another school's public radio station.

First off, they are members - not affiliates and there is a difference. Stations control NPR, not the other way around. And as I suggested, on the WUOM weekday schedule nothing outside of morning and afternoon drive is produced by NPR.

"When politics are discussed, it is not with objectivity?" The word "discussed" suggests you are talking about talk shows, not the news magazines. None of the talk shows are produced by NPR. And you offer no specifics. Which show? What topic? How "not objective?" They interviewed somebody with a point of view? That's your idea of "not objective?" Somebody said something you didn't like? That's your idea of "not objective?" You have decided that "NPR" is not objective and you will make whatever you hear into evidence for that. Now who's not being objective?

You consider your hero Beckmann objective? Heck, he's not even objective calling football games, let alone talking politics.

I suggested you watch "Cosmos" because I thought in one episode, Neil deGrasse Tyson provided a thorough, yet easy to understand explanation of climate change, what is causing it and how it is headed (with documentation). He did a far better job explain the science than I could. I am not a science journalist. And I see no reason to re-do what he has done (with a research and production staff) when you will find some excuse for not believing it anyway.

You have made no "assertions" about "NPR." (Heck, we don't even know they are about NPR.) Assertions require evidence and you have offer none - not even an anecdote. What you offered is an assessment - based on nothing.

Here's where WUOM's weekday shows come from...
BBC World Service 7 hours
NPR 6.5 hours
WUOM, Ann Arbor - 2 hours
WBUR, Boston - 2 hours
WAMU, Washington - 2 hours
WHYY, Philadelphia - 1 hour
PRI/WGBH, Boston - 1 hour
APM/KUSC, Los Angeles - .5 hour

NPR accounts for a little over a quarter of their schedule. So, whom are you complaining about, really?

WUOM not only gets federal money, they get state money, too. So do WKAR, WDET, WCMU .... Your tax dollars at work.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:

There is a big move today toward "on line giving". I don't know if those churches that push the on-line thing aggressively keep some kind of symbolic plate-passing, or just reclaim that time for more "dancing gospel babes"

Click to expand...

You are correct about alternative methods of giving. It's increasingly common for parishioners to opt for automatic payments from their checking accounts, since so many people never use paper checks or dead presidents for much of anything. Also, in "traditional" churches, the gathering of the offering is traditionally done after the confession of faith and before the sacrament of Holy Communion. The gathering of the offering is still carried out, but that's part of the historic order of service and not something to exclude on a whim. It's not uncommon for the gathering of the offering to be followed by the presentation of the gifts, including the bread and wine for the Eucharist.

No collection in synagogues. The Torah forbids handling money on the Sabbath; another rule Christians ignore. As a result, Jews pledge each year and can pay be check or credit card. That way they have a record and can take the deduction. Jesus jumpers are sort of dumb about money. Jesus saves; Moses invests.

umfan said:

If NPR wants credibility, make it without the subsidy.

Click to expand...

Very similar to O'Reilly's challenge to Beyonce: If she wants to help young girls, she should speak out against teen pregnancy. So he creates this benchmark that she has to hit in order to be credible. Problem is she is oblivious to his challenge. But every day she doesn't do what he wants, he gets to say she's not solving the problem...a problem and a solution he's invented out of thin air that has no connection to reality.

If NPR wants credibility, it does it by doing better reporting. That's how ANY news organization gets credible. It has nothing to do with where the money comes from. Tying money to credibility is illogical. Every news organization needs money to operate. If there was a conflict of interest in the money they get, that would be one thing. But that's not what you're saying. And this whole thing about objectivity is vaguer than the FCC's indecency rules. The word the courts used about them was "capricious." I'd use the same about your use of objectivity.

TheBigA said:

Very similar to O'Reilly's challenge to Beyonce: If she wants to help young girls, she should speak out against teen pregnancy. So he creates this benchmark that she has to hit in order to be credible. Problem is she is oblivious to his challenge. But every day she doesn't do what he wants, he gets to say she's not solving the problem...a problem and a solution he's invented out of thin air that has no connection to reality.

If NPR wants credibility, it does it by doing better reporting. That's how ANY news organization gets credible. It has nothing to do with where the money comes from. Tying money to credibility is illogical. Every news organization needs money to operate. If there was a conflict of interest in the money they get, that would be one thing. But that's not what you're saying. And this whole thing about objectivity is vaguer than the FCC's indecency rules. The word the courts used about them was "capricious." I'd use the same about your use of objectivity.

Click to expand...

What's wrong with NPR's reporting? And what makes you think they lack credibility to people who actually listen?

You are responding to complaints from people so unfamiliar with public radio they don't even know ME and ATC are not talk shows. But apparently they think right-wing talk shows are news shows.

Besides, nobody else is doing news on radio.

Actually, I was referring to WDET.

Big A, when you accept public money you get to be held to a different standard. So, if NPR and Public Radio wants Public Money, put forth objective programming. Otherwise, start airing ads or hitting up the contributors for cash. Or go to a subscription model.

GRC, I find CBS News to be largely objective.

umfan said:

Big A, when you accept public money you get to be held to a different standard. So, if NPR and Public Radio wants Public Money, put forth objective programming. Otherwise, start airing ads or hitting up the contributors for cash. Or go to a subscription model.

Click to expand...

Who is to say what's "objective programming?"

It sounds like you don't understand the way the funding mechanism works. Congress holds hearings every year, the various organizations that receive public money present budgets and plans for the use of that money, and Congress decides if they should receive it. There are hundreds of similar hearings every year. Congress decides who receives public money. And for over 40 years, they have all agreed that public broadcasting is worth funding. All of this is clearly spelled out in the Public Broadcasting Act. I suggest you read it. It lays out how the funding system works, what the various entities have to do to qualify for federal funding, and what their obligations are to receive public money.

Public broadcasting is prohibited by law to air ads. The FCC is very strict about the funding announcements they can air. If a station airs any funding announcements that the FCC thinks is an ad, they get fined. So this is not a decision non-commercial broadcasters can make by themselves without changes to the law. There are lots of similar rules and laws that control what public broadcasters can do. NPR bylaws forbid it from asking listeners for money, because it would compete with member stations. Only the stations can directly ask for membership money. So NPR is prohibited from becoming a subscription radio service.

My last point to you is to keep in mind the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." So Congress can not withhold funding because it doesn't like the news being reported on public broadcasting. They can't interfere in reporting or presenting of news. To do that would be abridging the first amendment rights of the press. All of this is spelled out in the Public Broadcasting Act. A firewall was put in place to shield the programmers from political interference.

But you're right...if you take public money, you're held to a different standard. And public broadcasting has met that standard for over 40 years.