General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNPR & Steve Inskeep are the reason why I wont donate again
Slimy bastard
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)irisblue
(32,932 posts)I heard him speaking with Pres Obama and I really wanted Inskeep to acknowledge that there was someone who could speak in full sentences. Local station is wanting money.
.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #3)
irisblue This message was self-deleted by its author.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... accurate news sources we have.
I don't want news with a liberal or conservative bias ... I want news to be as accurate as possible; the programming on NPR is a close as we get.
Not listening and not donating is your choice.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)I both listen and donate to my local station KWMU.
ksoze
(2,068 posts)LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)librechik
(30,674 posts)they have been right wing tools. I wouldn't trust them as a news source, either.
KG
(28,751 posts)in solomn tones as if they weren't the outbursts of a petulant 6th grader. mostly it was sad
Coventina
(27,064 posts)I don't need that shit on NPR.
I'm never donating again until they get biased commentators of their "news" programs.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,155 posts)a kennedy
(29,618 posts)Radio, and do contribute to them.....NOT the national NPR. Ugh.......
JudyM
(29,204 posts)They were strongly biased in favor of Clinton, both in their reporting and in their interviewing. Coloring and misstating facts that I was personally up to speed on. Not even close to neutral. Some here may feel that made it good journalism, I did not. I had to turn it off. And I used to be a donor.
I started listening again, though not as frequently, during the GE, and while they threw some light on the truth of tRump, there were far too many segments of unchallenged statements by his people. And not enough explication of Clinton's policy advantages over him.
To me, it feels like outgrowing a taste for childhood candies...