Has the time come to boycott NPR because it misrepresents reality?

[billbuckhead]

We need to let it go. No more pledges. Last night I was going to post this but decided not to but tonite on Majority Report they started to go down this road as well. NPR is controlled by corporations and has turned into psychops against what liberals stand for and what is reality. NPR is actually more dangerous to us than Faux and CNN combined.

[UpsideDownFlag]

1. more dangerous than fox and CNN combined?

i'm disinclined to believe that.

[Nikepallas]

2. Yes, I have become disappointed with the news reporting.

[yorgatron]

3. i stopped listening a couple of months ago

a little too much corporate sponsorship for my taste.

[politicaholic]

4. Boycott because it's boring, not because it's not biased enough for you.

I mean, come on, they pretty much delve into a subject as fairly and unbiased as they can to the point where listening to a story come to fruition is like sitting and watching a piece of fruit on the tree come to...fruition...

Don't be a moron, donate to NPR or the last old time news source is out.

[intheflow]

9. Donate to Pacifica or Democracy Now!

They're really the last of the old time news sources.

[Digit]

11. They WERE the last of the old time news.

It became so bad that I could no longer listen to them.
It has become apparent that they are no longer unbiased.
They are full fledged RW sponsors.

[intheflow]

13. Pacifica and Democracy Now! don't support the RW.

Did you mean NPR is a RW sponsor?

[msgadget]

5. Nope,

I listened to To the Point and The World today and didn't find anything amiss. I caught a little of Talk of the Nation and it didn't ring any warning bells either.

I don't like their corporate sponsors and I hated the way they reacted right after the elections to the voter fraud issues but, overall, I'm still a fan.

Check out these clips from The World today (on the page click first on Textile Mexico report and then China union interview ):http://www.theworld.org/latesteditions/12/20041207.shtml
I don't hear this kind of story elsewhere.

Edit: must use spellcheck in the future!

[SmokingJacket]

6. It totally breaks my heart...

but I've stopped listening to them.

I first heard them almost twenty years ago. Carl Castle used to wake me up on my alarm clock. I TRUSTED them, for frigging years.

Their news is trash, now. Really. Once in a while there's a decent commentary or a good show -- but the news on All Things Considered and Morning Edition are tripe. Pure TRIPE. A few incomplete, very-careful-not-to-be-liberally-biased stories, and filler. THAT's IT.

WAAAAAAAH!

There's no one left to trust!!!

No more donations! If they go off the air now, what do we lose? Another lukewarm voice for Bushco.

Buh-bye.

It makes me so sad.

[intheflow]

7. NPR has driven me to AAR.

AAR drives me crazy (Except Randi, I like her). Most shows are as opinionated as Rush. I hate the commercal BS. But at least they're based in the same reality that I am.

Unlike NPR which thinks it considers all things, but ignores all progressive politics in the United States. :grr:

[Crunchy Frog]

8. I stopped listening to it, when we got AAR here.

I just switched stations on my car radio, which is where I do almost all of my radio listening. I've never been inclined to be a contributor because I've been noticing the bias and the shoddy news reporting for a long time.

My mother and sister are both former contributors. They both stopped in the aftermath of the primaries, on the basis of NPR's coverage, or lack thereof, of the Clark campaign, (I come from a family of Clarkies, and we all noticed it).

It's been my contention for a long time that NPR is run by conservatives, but primarily aimed at a liberal audience, and it's main purpose is to shape the perceptions and opinions of liberal America in a way that serves RW and corporate interests.

[BrklynLiberal]

10. When NPR Fails You, Who You Gonna' Call? Not the Ombudsman

http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2004/11/when-npr-fails-you-who-you-gonna-call.html
THIS IS THE LINK YOU WANT TO CLICK ON!!!
Wednesday, November 24, 2004

When NPR Fails You, Who You Gonna' Call? Not the Ombudsman
An e-mail came in on from a very angry reader asking me to address an incident re: NPR.
The incident aired on NPR during the program Morning Edition. Juan Williams had attempted to explain a statement of John Kerry's. Listeners were not pleased with Williams' attempt. So Robert Kagan (MY EDITORIAL COMMENT ADDED HERE. Kagan's wife works for Cheney!!!!) was brought on Morning Edition on October 7th to provide "a little clarification" regarding Kerry's statement. (You can find a summary of this at Media Matters: http://mediamatters.org/items/200410070006). (In a nut shell, Williams referred to Kerry's "global test" as "global consent.")

I missed Juan Williams' attempt at an explanation but I did catch Kagan's on October 7th and I remember my mouth dropping as he was introduced. Kagan writes an op-ed for The Washington Post and, as noted in his introduction by Renee Montagen, he's also a senior associate with Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

That's what listeners were told. But Kagan also brings what appears to be a conflict of interest which Montagen didn't inform the listeners of. (This conflict of interest is why my jaw dropped as he was introduced, I'll get to it in a moment.)

The person who e-mailed this site advised that Jeffrey A. Dvorkin (NPR ombudsman) had addressed this issue in a column. Here is the section of Dvorkin's column (October 21, 2004) on Kagan:

Immediately after this correction, Morning Edition compounded its initial error -- or so many thought -- by airing an interview with Robert Kagan. Some listeners consider Kagan, a senior associate for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a "hawk" on Iraq.
Even though Mr. Kagan's specific remarks to Renee Montagne were, in my opinion, non-controversial, the very fact that he was asked to comment on Kerry's position was seen as a neutering of the correction of Juan Williams' statement.
Alex Pritchard from Fairbanks, Alaska, writes:
I was amazed to hear your story "clarifying" Juan Williams's earlier error regarding John Kerry's use of a global test. Your follow-up story went on to describe what the two candidates might do if we knew a foreign government posed a serious threat to the U.S. -- this is not what is in question. The pertinent question is did Iraq pose a serious threat that justified a preemptive attack?
<snip>

[Sapphocrat]

12. Three little words: Barbara Bradley Hagerty

I wouldn't say NPR is worse than Faux and CNN combined, but I certainly don't trust it anymore.

Here's a good blog post that sums it up, and provides links that will shock and sadden anyone who hasn't heard the story yet:

http://betterangels.blogspot.com/2004/05/ballad-of-barbara-bradley-hagerty.html

[billbuckhead]

15. NPR is more dangerous than Faux and CNN combined because

it has a strong liberal brand identity but is openly run by a CIA operative and funded by corporate America. When Walmart is your sponser, when ADM is your sponser, when GE is your sponser, how can you criticize them?

The strong liberal brand identity of NPR is used time and time again to enshrine falsehoods in the conciousness of it's listeners. It might not be as blantant as Fox or official house organ as CNN but many regular NPR listeners know it's there maybe once a day they tell the big lie so good it's beyond fake, it's the new fake imperialcorporaterealpolitik BS to Nth exteme and you want to smash your dashboard. Some old time conspiracy theorists have long called it (N)ational(P)etroleum(R)adio and they certainly lived up this moniker in the 2nd Iraq war.

When Garrison Keillor leaves, so will I.

[Sapphocrat]

19. You got me there...

True -- the only thing more dangerous than a wolf is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[progmom]

20. I don't understand.

Would you prefer that their religion correspondent not have a background in religion?

[Sapphocrat]

21. Don't twist my words.

Did you read the blog post and the related links?

The point is that Hagerty is as far from being "objective" as any member of the Radical Religious Right can be.

Go read the page at the link I posted, and click at least one of the Atrios links there. And then consider just how much trust you can afford a "reporter" who openly admits to using her profession as an excuse to evangelize, and who advises fellow Christian "journalists" to "set themselves apart from their secular colleagues."

"When you or I as Christ-followers go to work each day, we have to perform our jobs in a fundamentally different way from other people because our employer is Christ and everything we do has to be run through the filter of this question: How does Jesus Christ view my performance?" -- Barbara Bradley Hagerty

If nothing else, you should extremely concerned that Hagerty appears to be another lackey for the powerful Christian Reconstructionist Howard Ahmanson.

[StopThief]

14. Absolutely!!!

As a matter of fact, it should be a law that people are only allowed to get any of their information from the Democratic Underground. Any other source of information should be banned.

[hatrack]

16. I do still listen, but with lots and lots of grains of salt

The worst of all is Monday AM, when we and the rest of the planet are subjected to Hokey Roberts' political "analysis" and "insights". :puke:, :puke: and :puke: again!

[MessiahRp]

17. Adding to this discussion...

Read Media Matters account of NPR in response to Tweety trying to pass it off as the Liberal equivalent to a Right Wing opinion page...

Eyeopening...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200412060008

Rp

[billbuckhead]

18. Hell, I forgot about that study. How many Monday mornings KookieRobots

tells the biggest and most important lie of the newsday by framing an argument just right to soccer moms.