Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://nation.foxnews.com/npr/2011/03/0 ... -challenge" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is anyone up to a good challenge? Can anyone post 1) recent, 2) scientific, 3) representative, 4) unbiased studies (inasmuch as it is possible) addressing bias in major news outlets including NPR. Ultimately, I would be saddened but open to the posibility that NPR has a bias. However, I can still be smug knowing that regardless of bias reporting at NPR is more grounded in analysis in comparison to the screaming heads networks.

The first person to post links to Media Matters, Fair, Media Research Center or News Busters and gets one of these:

Just read the transcript of any Nina Totenberg broadcast.

Um, hello!

[youtube][/youtube]

biobengal wrote:Ultimately, I would be saddened but open to the posibility that NPR has a bias. However, I can still be smug knowing that regardless of bias...

Great...you admit that biased reporting allows you to remain smug.

I can show you NPR bias what I can't show you is a concerted agenda to advance the cause of a political party... and THAT is the difference between NPR and some thing like Fox. While there is bias (because there always is... objectivity isn't really possible - it's more like a goal) there isn't a formulated agenda.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:I can show you NPR bias what I can't show you is a concerted agenda to advance the cause of a political party... and THAT is the difference between NPR and some thing like Fox. While there is bias (because there always is... objectivity isn't really possible - it's more like a goal) there isn't a formulated agenda.

And while I'll agree with your basic premise, that bias you will show dangles to the left...which is not pro-GOP but is most definitely pro-Dem...

So while their intention may be "good".......

Y'all know the Corporation for Public Broadcasting controls NPR, public television, etc., right? It has 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans on its board. The chairman is a Republican.

Col Hogan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:I can show you NPR bias what I can't show you is a concerted agenda to advance the cause of a political party... and THAT is the difference between NPR and some thing like Fox. While there is bias (because there always is... objectivity isn't really possible - it's more like a goal) there isn't a formulated agenda.

And while I'll agree with your basic premise, that bias you will show dangles to the left...which is not pro-GOP but is most definitely pro-Dem...

So while their intention may be "good".......

I look at NPR like I look at the Wall St Journal or Forbes... they have a bit on an institutional bias one way or another... all in all really not that big of a deal... what Fox does is something altogether different.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:I can show you NPR bias what I can't show you is a concerted agenda to advance the cause of a political party... and THAT is the difference between NPR and some thing like Fox. While there is bias (because there always is... objectivity isn't really possible - it's more like a goal) there isn't a formulated agenda.

The issue is that tax dollars shouldn't be supporting a biased media outlet that does in fact skew to one side of the political spectrum. Fox is ad/owner (Murdoch)-funded so they can express their opinions (similar to the WashPost, MSNBC, NYTimes, WSJ, etc); NPR/CPB/PBS is govt-funded and therefore should not. If you strip out the gov funding and rely solely on donor/charity funding then fine, but my tax dollars shouldn't be supporting the broadcast of a political opinion, whether I agree with that opinion or not.

Rob Iola wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:I can show you NPR bias what I can't show you is a concerted agenda to advance the cause of a political party... and THAT is the difference between NPR and some thing like Fox. While there is bias (because there always is... objectivity isn't really possible - it's more like a goal) there isn't a formulated agenda.

The issue is that tax dollars shouldn't be supporting a biased media outlet that does in fact skew to one side of the political spectrum. Fox is ad/owner (Murdoch)-funded so they can express their opinions (similar to the WashPost, MSNBC, NYTimes, WSJ, etc); NPR/CPB/PBS is govt-funded and therefore should not. If you strip out the gov funding and rely solely on donor/charity funding then fine, but my tax dollars shouldn't be supporting the broadcast of a political opinion, whether I agree with that opinion or not.

1. it isn't broadcasting opinion as fact... that's not what is happening. it's presenting the news. it's bias shows in the stories it covers, or perhaps the angle taken by the reporter... but, if you listen to npr for any length of time, you hear conservative perspectives just as often - presented just as legitimately as liberal ones...

2. I agree on public funding... while I'd prefer for it to remain - they are almost entirely self-sustaining as it is - and should be let go - mostly because I'm sick to death of hearing about such a relative non-issue comparatively.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Y'all know the Corporation for Public Broadcasting controls NPR, public television, etc., right? It has 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans on its board. The chairman is a Republican.

...and I thought Donks were against corporate welfare.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Rob Iola wrote: The issue is that tax dollars shouldn't be supporting a biased media outlet that does in fact skew to one side of the political spectrum. Fox is ad/owner (Murdoch)-funded so they can express their opinions (similar to the WashPost, MSNBC, NYTimes, WSJ, etc); NPR/CPB/PBS is govt-funded and therefore should not. If you strip out the gov funding and rely solely on donor/charity funding then fine, but my tax dollars shouldn't be supporting the broadcast of a political opinion, whether I agree with that opinion or not.

1. it isn't broadcasting opinion as fact... that's not what is happening. it's presenting the news. it's bias shows in the stories it covers, or perhaps the angle taken by the reporter... but, if you listen to npr for any length of time, you hear conservative perspectives just as often - presented just as legitimately as liberal ones...

I like NPR, especially ATC, Marketplace (not sure if that's an NPR show), WWDTM - but to my sensitive ears it definitely skews left...

Rob Iola wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
1. it isn't broadcasting opinion as fact... that's not what is happening. it's presenting the news. it's bias shows in the stories it covers, or perhaps the angle taken by the reporter... but, if you listen to npr for any length of time, you hear conservative perspectives just as often - presented just as legitimately as liberal ones...

I like NPR, especially ATC, Marketplace (not sure if that's an NPR show), WWDTM - but to my sensitive ears it definitely skews left...

I agree - I'm a regular NPR listener, but it's definitely a left-leaning show - there's no pretense of being fair and unbiased. Maybe it's not as overt as Fox, but it's clearly there. Doesn't make it a bad listen, just means that it's a biased listen. No biggie.

Col Hogan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:I can show you NPR bias what I can't show you is a concerted agenda to advance the cause of a political party... and THAT is the difference between NPR and some thing like Fox. While there is bias (because there always is... objectivity isn't really possible - it's more like a goal) there isn't a formulated agenda.

And while I'll agree with your basic premise, that bias you will show dangles to the left...which is not pro-GOP but is most definitely pro-Dem...

So while their intention may be "good".......

Hogan, you conks are fuckheads, politically. That's an unbiased fact. I'm sure you're a decent person and you don't adhere to every one of your political party's positions, but trust me, your political party's general ideology is fucked and to a large extent darwinian and morally corrupt.

GannonFan wrote:

Rob Iola wrote: I like NPR, especially ATC, Marketplace (not sure if that's an NPR show), WWDTM - but to my sensitive ears it definitely skews left...

I agree - I'm a regular NPR listener, but it's definitely a left-leaning show - there's no pretense of being fair and unbiased. Maybe it's not as overt as Fox, but it's clearly there. Doesn't make it a bad listen, just means that it's a biased listen. No biggie.

It aint biased if what they're saying is true.

edit: wrong thread

D1B wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I agree - I'm a regular NPR listener, but it's definitely a left-leaning show - there's no pretense of being fair and unbiased. Maybe it's not as overt as Fox, but it's clearly there. Doesn't make it a bad listen, just means that it's a biased listen. No biggie.

It aint biased if what they're saying is true.

Then I must have misunderstood the part awhile back when they had a feature on the post office and why it didn't really matter how much money they lose - they could lose 10x what they were losing (and actually probably have since the timing of the feature) and it wouldn't matter. I guess someone somewhere thought that was true.

Ivytalk wrote:Just read the transcript of any Nina Totenberg broadcast.

Here is my summation of the evidence presented thus far:

$hit, you got ears, just listen.

GannonFan wrote:

D1B wrote:

It aint biased if what they're saying is true.

Then I must have misunderstood the part awhile back when they had a feature on the post office and why it didn't really matter how much money they lose - they could lose 10x what they were losing (and actually probably have since the timing of the feature) and it wouldn't matter. I guess someone somewhere thought that was true.

link please

D1B wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Then I must have misunderstood the part awhile back when they had a feature on the post office and why it didn't really matter how much money they lose - they could lose 10x what they were losing (and actually probably have since the timing of the feature) and it wouldn't matter. I guess someone somewhere thought that was true.

link please

You find it. Was about 5 years ago. I was in my car listening and then, as now, didn't have a smart phone to make the immediate annotation.

GannonFan wrote:

D1B wrote:
link please

You find it. Was about 5 years ago. I was in my car listening and then, as now, didn't have a smart phone to make the immediate annotation.

Nice! That's exactly what I would've said. I hate it when assholes do that to me. Fuck you, you find it, I got a mutherfucking job and it aint to educate you!

biobengal wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Just read the transcript of any Nina Totenberg broadcast.

Here is my summation of the evidence presented thus far:

$hit, you got ears, just listen.

Isn't that enough for you, kitty?

biobengal wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Just read the transcript of any Nina Totenberg broadcast.

Here is my summation of the evidence presented thus far:

$hit, you got ears, just listen.

[youtube][/youtube]

See if you can spin that into the ground.

However, I can still be smug knowing that regardless of bias reporting at NPR is more grounded in analysis in comparison to the screaming heads networks.

And do you have a study to support that statement?

Baldy wrote:See if you can spin that into the ground.

Funny, I heard Rush Limbaugh say just that this afternoon! Imagine that!