Et tu, NPR?

[Craig Roberts]

I was just listening to NPR on my way home and they were analyzing the post-debate spin. They spoke about how the initial opinions people have can be changed by the media in the days following the debate, and then they proceeded to prove their point by spinning the debate to favor Bush.

After acknowledging that most people thought Kerry won the debate, and discussing "the smirk" which sank Bush, they then provided a series of soundbites rejecting the idea that Bush did poorly. They started with some wise words from Karen Hughes, explaining why Bush's smirk was a good thing, then went to Howard Stern and Don Imus who opined that Bush didn't do as bad as everybody was saying, and then finished up with a sound byte from Rush Limbaugh insisting that Kerry's superior "style" couldn't distract people from the fact Kerry lost on substance, and substance is what really matters, not style.

So Rush gets to make this sanctimonious, hypocritical argument on NPR even though his website today has pictures making fun of Kerry's makeup and saying he was wearing pink lipstick. And this is the guy who has played "Adams Family" music while referring to Kerry as "Lurch." Yeah, Limbaugh, it's all about substance.

Why is NPR spinning this thing for Bush, when the National Review and William Kristol right away acknowledged what we all already knew: Bush did terribly.

We can argue how well Kerry did. I think he did okay. Some people think he was outstanding. What can't be debated is that Bush did horribly. He had a couple of moments when he managed to sound credible, but for most of the debate he came across as petulant and shallow.

In all the presidential debates I've seen, the candidates are always struggling against the ridiculous time limits placed on them. They are always struggling to say all the many things they want to say, to make all the complex arguments they want to make, without going over the time limit. Last night, for the first time, I saw a presidential candidate run out of things to say before his 90 seconds were up. Last night, for the first time, I saw a presidential candidate padding his comments by repeating talking points, whether they were relevant to the question or not. Last night, for the first time, I saw Jim Lehrer coaching a candidate through his rebuttal.


And the cut-away shots made Bush look childish. It was an embarassment for all Americans to see our president behaving like a spoiled brat who can't believe somebody has the audacity to criticize him.

Why is NPR doing this? I know the success of Fox News has caused CNN and other corporate news suppliers to reevaluate their business models and adjust their reporting to pander to the right-wing demographic, but shouldn't NPR be immune to this? They are publicly funded, right? Why are they joining in the spin cycle?

[kwolf68]

1. Yes public funding

People like you and me and they get money from corporations as well. I think they get govt money as well, which if true is likely tied to conditions. I was listening to music on the drive home today, but usually go NPR...had I heard Limbaugh getting play on NPR I would have called immediately.

While I don't like Mara Liason...her last two stories appeared to be balanced.

[Craig Roberts]

7. I just sent

NPR's ombudsman an email, which was essentially the text of my post above. I guess it's important to challenge them, even if it's too late.

[ClassWarrior]

11. Government has cut funding to public broadcasting...

...thanks to Newt The Serial Husband's Contract on America. That's why public radio and TV are more beholden to the conservative corporations that donate to them.

23.

[SoCalDemocrat]

2. Bush is after NPR

They've recently added conservatives to the board of NPR to try and shift the programming to the right.

If that fails they've also threatened to cut NPR's funding.

Yesterday NPR did a Debate wrap up that called it even, which is in itself a spin.

[reprehensor]

3. Slowly but surely, spinning right.

[sendero]

4. NPR has been a lost cause...

... for at least 2 years. They spin and whore with the best of them, all the while keeping their "liberal" sheen with those who are not paying attention.

Please do not give these media whores your money. If they want to be "corporate media", let the corporations pay for them.

They've seen their last cent from me, barring serious and major changes in their news content.

[MasonJar]

5. Write them or e-mail or call and rescind your support if the network

continues to go partisan. I do not watch any news anymore. I can listen to classical music instead of NPR.

[cprise]

6. NPR is a charity, not really public

As middle and lower class people lose their disposable income, charities like NPR and PBS get an increasing share of their revenue from the donations of the wealthy and corporations.

So guess who they serve?

The rest of their funds are allocated each year by politicians who, not coincidentally, rely on private corporations to stay in power. And these politicians regularly attack the NPR and PBS to keep them in line.

So guess who they serve?

Other public-service broadcasters around the world are highly insulated from commercial and political coercion. To be considered public, they must be independant in the sense that our three branches of government are independant.

The BBC, for instance, is chartered as a public corporation with the right to collect a fixed license fee for each TV that people own (no matter how cheap or expensive the TV is). So guess who they serve?

[Craig Roberts]

8. Well, this is depressing

I thought NPR was one of the last bastions of journalistic professionalism. Silly me.

[cprise]

16. Actually they are bad enough

...that many if not most NPR affiliates feel they have to carry the BBC news in order to compensate for NPR's shortcomings. And the same is true of many PBS affiliates.

Journalistic professionalism? Tell me this: Since when does NPR/PBS ever break important news stories themselves? They re-tell the stories from commercial networks in a novel way. And that makes many liberals feel good about themselves. At least until they wake up and have to start paying attention to the quality of information because people they know are dying.

They don't behave like a news network... more like a small fig leaf for an industry using public airwaves to drive commercial interests at the expense of all else.

[featherman]

9. This is one of the clearest examples of the most important

understated fact of life in the United States today. The Federal Government is ruled totally by one party and it is structured in such a way that the ruling pary sets the agenda down to the last bureaucrat. NPR suffered a purge a few years ago that completely changed it's political tilt. Long a target of the rightwing that controls the Congress, it has now been made over into "audio Fox News" after major changes in management, producers, writers, and personnel. The forced retirement of Bob Edwards was the last symbolic cleansing of the old NPR we loved and respected. Truly sad, scary, and dangerous to our democracy.

[Craig Roberts]

10. Well, let's hope it ends soon...

I guess that is the only thing to say. Of course, when all media is controlled by the ruling party, it makes such hope rather desperate.

I just hope Americans remember what they saw and don't let the media take them down the rabbit hole. But it's increasingly hard to place hope in the American public these days too.

[billbuckhead]

13. They were taken over by neocons several years ago and now are psychops

against us. Ask Bob Edwards and Garrison Keillor. And don't forget Kookie Robots pissing on the Democrats every Monday morning from a women's point of view.

NPR was the most anti-Wes Clark force on planet Earth. Imagine that.

[AP]

12. NPR ran a story about the people who "open" for the candidates on the...

...stump. So guess who opens for Bush? People who say really nasty things about Kerry. Of course, they ran out of time before they could get to Kerry's openers. So, essentially it was just an excuse to play clips of assholes saying really nasty things about Kerry.

That's what this story tonight sounds like. It's supposed to be about the media and their spinning of the message. But really, it's thinly veiled Bush propaganda. It is simply spin. It's meta-spin.

I tell you, the security mom is a creation of NPR. And this is how they do it.

[undercover_brother]

14. It is about the money

Look what happenned to CBS. They pushed a story. A portion of the story turned out to be undersubstantiated. They were suddenly under the financial gun. Viewership was threatened and advertisers would leave. The news was alterred to pander to the almighty dollar. The head guy feels the need to go public with his "endorsement" for Republicans. Another unflattering, yet true, story gets pulled until after the election.

The mass media have been so taken up with the right winged attack of a supposed "liberal media bias" that even when the Republicans have obvious problems, like the debate performance, they are afraid to pronounce what every person watching the debate knows. The President did very very poorly. Everyone knows it who watched it. You and I know it. The Republicans know it. The viewing public of the entire world knows it. The media is too fearful of financial backlashes if they call it like it like it actually is.

What kind of message does it send the world who saw this exchange of ideas on TV? What kind of message does it send to the world that this man not only became the President once, but has a strong chance of becoming a 2 term President? How are we supposed to garner respect when this is the face and voice of our nation?

Believe it or not. He is our President. He is the leader of our nation. He is, at present, making decisions which affect not just you and me, but the entire planet.

[Craig Roberts]

15. Well, so tell me

I don't watch TV much anymore, so is the Lehrer News Hour, or whatever they're calling it now, still a credible source for news and analysis? Somebody please tell me that at least they are holding onto their dignity.