NPR's Seven Secrets of Feigning Objectivity

Interesting column from Forbes ("the capitalist tool"). Somebody tried to post this link in the NPR ombudsman's comment section but it was taken down "awaiting moderation" (just a link for Pete's sake). Speaking of "feigning objectivity:" It's curious that this column directs his criticism at NPR only but does not deal with Fox.

Check it out.
www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2014/07/08/nprs-seven-secrets-of-feigning-objectivity/

Is it not possible to critique NPR without having to mention Fox? If the article is about NPR then what would mentioning Fox bring to it? I'm sure there are plenty of critical articles about Fox news.

Excellent story. I fully expect it to be bashed here.

Jim: The story starts with a reference to Fox and then goes on to focus exclusively on NPR as "feigning objectivity." Feigning objectivity is a common practice and not limited to NPR or Fox but it sounds like the writer is also doing his own feigning.

SMG: A whole week and no bashing.

One additional secret they left out. Inoculation. It's an old trick, Aristotle included it in his "Rhetoric." The side the NPR person supports goes second. Give the other side first (with or without sound bite from an expert, spokesperson, or guy in a diner) followed by "but." Then shoot it down at greater length and with even more sound bites if possible.

NPR receives direct Government support. Fox does not. NPR should have to be objective because of their subsidy. NPR shouldn;t be given the option. Not to say they shouldn't be able to air commentary, but it should be prefaced as such and it rarely, if ever is. A very good article. Surprised you shared it, Fred.

umfan said:

NPR receives direct Government support.

Click to expand...

No they don't. It's an indirect appropriation. The government appropriation goes either to the stations, who use it to buy programming from either NPR or other suppliers. Or it goes to the Corporation For Public Broadcasting, who then decides where the money goes and for what. Also, all commentary IS prefaced as such, and those who express it are referred to on air as Commentators.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:

If we really want to be objective in this discussion, get us a copy of the corporate tax return for FOX and let's see how much "corporate subsidy" FOX gets from the Federal government in the way of tax breaks, loopholes and exemptions.

Click to expand...

Don't stop there. Any time you see a commercial for drunk driving or seat belts, those are paid ads from the government. Lots of other agencies buy ad time on radio and TV.

umfan said:

NPR receives direct Government support. Fox does not. NPR should have to be objective because of their subsidy. NPR shouldn;t be given the option. Not to say they shouldn't be able to air commentary, but it should be prefaced as such and it rarely, if ever is. A very good article. Surprised you shared it, Fred.

Click to expand...

As others have pointed out, NPR does not get money from the government. Stations, like WUOM, do. They may or may not use that money to buy shows from NPR... or APM, PRI, Pacifica, PRX or anybody else. Since government money goes into the station's general fund, hard to say where each dollar goes.

You really should get past the NPR-is-liberal and liberals-love-NPR BS. NPR's mission is to be diverse, not to be objective. I do not object to Fox having a point of view (which they do). I object to them having a point of view AND claiming to be "fair and balanced" (which they are not). NPR also has a point of view and they are even more hypocritical in denying it. That's why I posted there article.

Objectivity is a fairly recent invention in journalism and a load of crap. People don't want it. People want agreement and confirmation. If they get it, labeled as objectivity, they are happy. If they get it labeled as THE TRUTH (like talk radio), they are still happy. Objectivity was invented when newspapers realized if they called themselves "objective" instead of having partisan attachments (as newspapers once did) they could sell papers to more people and thereby sell more ads. When newspapers became monopolies in most cities, they pushed the idea of objectivity even harder. But newspapers, ironically, had more credibility when they were partisan.

I give Fox credit. Ailes and his people know what they are doing. NPR is so steeped in their own culture of political correctness and victimization, they don't.

I hope to surprise you again.

Go Green.

FakeLiberal (same number of letters) shows his true colors again.

FredLeonard said:

I give Fox credit. Ailes and his people know what they are doing. NPR is so steeped in their own culture of political correctness and victimization, they don't.

Click to expand...

You bring up a good point: Everything you see on Fox News is choreographed by Roger Ailes. There is no equivalent at NPR. No man behind the curtain. No one writing the talking points. No one conducting the orchestra. They had a head of news, but she just resigned. They have gone through a series of CEOs, and a new one just took the job last month. He's not going to get involved in programming. He's a financial guy. So these are two very different operations.

TheBigA said:

Don't stop there. Any time you see a commercial for drunk driving or seat belts, those are paid ads from the government. Lots of other agencies buy ad time on radio and TV.

Click to expand...

When did PSAs become something that stations receive money for airing?

unitron said:

When did PSAs become something that stations receive money for airing?

Click to expand...

They're no longer PSAs. The Department of Transportation has been buying advertising time on TV and radio for over ten years. HHS bought spots for the ACA. I'm not kidding. Millions of taxpayer dollars going to commercial broadcasters. Here's a press release. Note that it's $8.5 million in advertising just for their one week distracted driving campaign:

http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Pr...+Driving+Enforcement+and+Advertising+Campaign

Add to that all the money stations get for political ads. Not from the government, per se, but from the people who run the government.

Plus the license they get for free.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:

Until we are all blue-in-the-face we have discussed in various threads here over and over and over that the subsidy received from government by NPR is small, small, small.

Click to expand...

Getting only a small amount of public money is like being a little bit pregnant. Once an organization gets any money from the government, things are different.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:

Let's talk about who the "Good Guys" are on the objectivity list. ABC News? Wall Street Journal? The New York Times? USA Today? Salem Broadcasting? The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette? Maybe the weekly paper in Dahlonega, Ga.

Tell me who the role models of objectivity are.

Click to expand...

Why does there need to be any sort of "role models of objectivity"? The only media entities that need to be scrupulously objective and unbiased are those who are directly subsidised, even if only to a small degree, by the public. Indirect subsidies, such as being delivered by boys riding bicycles over public roads, don't count. Direct subsidies, such as what public broadcasting gets, do count.

If the subsidies are so small that they don't matter, then let the various acronymed participants in public media simply do without them! But, if they are large enough that the entities cannot succeed without them, then they matter enough that those who received them must present all the points of view of all the members of the public whose tax money is paying for them.

Incidentally, these seven secrets:

1) Topic Selection
2) Guest Selection
3) Framing
4) Questions Asked
5) Questions Not Asked
6) Editing
7) Civility

Include all of the accusations I've made over the past several months about public broadcasting's bias.

This paragraph from the article deserves a separate post.

Civility

This is key to making the prior six techniques work. It is why people with different points of view tune in to NPR. It is also why right-wing talk radio rarely persuades anyone who isn’t already in agreement and why MSNBC’s ratings are tanking. A kindly demeanor, a pleasant sense of humor, and consistent politeness will always get you much farther than shouting, rudeness, snarky comebacks, combativeness, talking over the guest, and dismissive incredulity. While it’s easy to be friendly and polite questioning a guest you agree with, it takes a high level of professionalism to maintain that demeanor with a guest who challenges the editorial line. This is where NPR excels.

I notice that a great many participants in this forum like to harp on the need for being "civil". Yet they disregard the fact that false civility is an excellent tactic for promoting your personal point of view and agenda. In short, it's as much a tool that can be used for bias as any other tool.

Avid Listener said:

Why does there need to be any sort of "role models of objectivity"? The only media entities that need to be scrupulously objective and unbiased are those who are directly subsidised, even if only to a small degree, by the public. Indirect subsidies, such as being delivered by boys riding bicycles over public roads, don't count. Direct subsidies, such as what public broadcasting gets, do count.

If the subsidies are so small that they don't matter, then let the various acronymed participants in public media simply do without them! But, if they are large enough that the entities cannot succeed without them, then they matter enough that those who received them must present all the points of view of all the members of the public whose tax money is paying for them.

Click to expand...

Who said public radio "must present all points of view?"
Who says they don't?

Direct or indirect subsidies is a distinction without a difference. First off, NPR does not get a subsidy. Local stations do. So, NPR is not bound by your requirement to "present all points view." Right-wing sources get special postage rates. Isn't that a "subsidy?" When the Kochs give money, they get a tax deduction, meaning some of the money comes back. Isn't that a subsidy?

And "points of view" does not apply to facts. Subsidy or no subsidy, creationists and climate change deniers don't get "equal time."

You clearly don't listen to public radio, yet you keep lying about it (or repeating the lies Rush told you). If you listened, you'd hear NPR bending over backwards to accommodate wing-nuts' views - IMHO a lot more than they should. However you do the math, there's a lot more corporate money than CPB money in public radio and it's clear who is paying the piper there.

Avid Listener said:

If the subsidies are so small that they don't matter, then let the various acronymed participants in public media simply do without them!

Click to expand...

Here we go again. If the small group of people opposed to the public broadcasting appropriation feel it's unjust, then they should get the Public Broadcasting Act repealed. If they don't have the votes to do it, then move on to something more important. That's really all that matters. Posts on message boards are not the same as votes in Congress. Public broadcasting receives a federal appropriation because a law was passed that requires it. The appropriation will continue to be voted on every year because of the law. None of the points you make matter because none of them are brought up during appropriations hearings.

Where I live, one of Roger Ailes' former station managers is now a public radio station manager. Not only that, he's now on NPR's board. Fox infiltrates NPR! Who'd have thunk it! When Morning Edition starts to sound like Fox and Friends, I bet we won't hear so much kvetching from the wing-nuts about "subsidies."