NPR is not our friend

[senseandsensibility]

I was a contributor and used to listen religiously. But then a funny thing happened. I began to notice, during the run-up to the Iraq invasion, that they were not at all critical. I mean, NOT AT ALL. There was literally no difference between their coverage and the coverage of FAUX.

So, I say screw em. They're not worth expending any political capital on. Our energies are much better spent elsewhere.

[yorkiemommie1]

1. they shill for *

i'd listen to them and think, "whatthehell". then i realized i was being had.

No more!

[kiraboo]

7. I actually made my first pledge to NPR during the drive before

the run-up to war. I thought it was the right thing to do - after all, I'd been listening for years. Then I began to notice what you describe. At first I wondered if it was just me. Was I so far out there that even NPR had to look way left to see me? But time has passed and I can hear a difference in the tone taken by my once-favorite station; I'm not the one who's changed. My first pledge will be my last. I listen to Keillor on the weekend and that's it.

[VPStoltz]

2. I agree

While NPR for a long time offered much of interest, it has become as sterilized as the corporate media. NPR is afraid of being criticized if it has something truthful to say about * and the administration. Said thing is if they did keep to an ethical reporting, those pukes in congress would cut off the funding. I recommend switching to Democracy Now and Pacifica Radio. Not as much talk on our local community college station but the news and commentary is something you will not find on NPR.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Me, too.

I've contributed to them and my local public radio station for years and years, but for at least the last year, maybe more, they've been just parroting the party line, and I don't see why I should give them another damn dime. Sadly, I suspect they are intentionally sowing the seeds of their own destruction. For years NPR has been considered "liberal" (that is, neutral -- if you're not biased toward conservatives, you're "liberal"), and had a base of devoted listeners and contributors who weren't wingnut Foxbots. So when we stop contributing they can use lack of contributions as an excuse to just pull the plug, and then there will be no public radio at all. Which is just what they want.

[LuPeRcALiO]

4. same thing happened in '91.

All of a sudden it was wall-to-wall yellow ribbons with absolutely no critical reporting. Saddam was Hitler and Kuwait was the Garden of Eden.

That's the way it goes with NPR. :shrug:

[CottonBear]

5. Newt Gingrich and his gang took down NPR years ago.

You (and many of us) are just realizing this now. There are some fairly independent NPR staions that deserve our support, but, we should fund them entirely by ourselves or support AAR or Democracy Now Radio.

In conclusion, I personally say screw 'em.

[billbuckhead]

6. They never could find one good thing to say about Wes Clark

the few times they didn't ignore him entirely.

[senseandsensibility]

15. Yes

they were intimidated by Clark, and obviously did not want to give him any publicity. I think their bias against Dems is obvious, and their "coverage" of the lead up to the Iraq invasion was pure propaganda.

[autorank]

8. senseandsensibility, May the force be with you. You're on the right side!

I'm a crank on DU about two things (predictable, crumudgeon opinions that never change):

1) The Brtish Labour Party is the enemy of mankind and

2) NPR/PBS suck the big one -- GIVE NO MONEY.

You have no idea how gratified I am to find some one with some "sense" actuall shares my opinion.

:hi:

Contact the DNC and Give 'em Hell About NOT Acting on Election Fraud

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

[senseandsensibility]

13. Hi Autorank!

Don't know if I have any sense, except the common kind, but I appreciate your kind words!:hi:

[LynnTheDem]

9. Iraq pre-invasion; Fox News 80% misinformed; NPR/PBS 23% misinformed.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/100403F.shtml

[senseandsensibility]

14. I'm sure your statistics are

correct, but I think that they're more due to the educational level of NPR listeners compared to FAOX listeners, rather than the coverage. I listened to NPR RELIGIOUSLY during the run-up to the war. They were cheerleaders.

[jobycom]

10. They were assimilated sometime in the late 90s.

All the funding threats scared them.

[gumby]

11. Been ranting about NPR and my local station for years.

They have actually mainstreamed right-wing extremism. They, like the MSM present a faux 'both-sides' argument that equalizes right-wing extremism as the 'other-side' of centrism.

I mean really, how many times have you heard the Heritage Foundation (etc.)? Now, how many times have you heard a Socialist (etc.) on NPR? Huhhh?

How many times have you heard someone like George Galloway on NPR?

They are the "liberal extremists" who promote right-wing extremism. There ya go. :puke:

edit for LynnTheDem: OK, their news segments are better than most available, but their programs suck and negate their accurate "news."

[Last Lemming]

12. hold it. . .

I think we are overgeneralizing on some of these media streams--there is a lot more going on than simple sell out. NPR has produced some brave coverage recently--Ann Garrels, embedded with the Marines in the second battle of Fallugha, gave a chilling picture of the place while every one else said that it was safe for everyone to picnic there again. On The Media has very good segments--Terry Gross has done much to shed light on the religious right (and musical comedies).

And NPR has been fighting the good fight:
see:http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/25/kenneth_tomlinson_wants_pbs_to_get_foxed.php

Yes, NPR drank the Iraqi koolade but there wasn't any Corporate media that didn't. They need to have their feet held to the fire but I don't think we should abandon all hope for NPR

[lateo]

16. I noticed this on the day of 9/11...

Their entire reaction to it was completely uncritical.

[kath]

17. I noticed it during in 2000, even prior to the selection.

[warrens]

18. I am a regular listener, every night and every morning

They are evenhanded, and their more opinionated shows, like On the Media and the world affairs program in the early afternoon, are in no way cheerleaders for Bush. They're doing virtually the only even reasonably accurate reporting on the radio dial.

Plus, here we get BBC news in the evening and early in the morning. This whining about them is getting out of control. They are not equivalent to AAR nor should they be.