Air America to file for Bankruptcy - Page 2

**CingularDuality** · 10-14-2006, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evo<^|SiNz|^>

How is NPR liberal?

BTW, I understand why people have this perception. NPR covers a wide variety of things, which some people think the news media shouldn't give creedence to. NPR also has a few commentarys that I find strikingly one sided. But I was just wondering why that was your opinion. I find NPR to be about the most balanced source of news and information out there.

Well, I haven't listened to NPR in literally years, but when I did, there were at least two hosts that were constantly expounding on their anti-gun, anti-war, pro-drug, pro-abortion, anti-Bush opinions. You may or may not know that all but the first two opinions line up with my own. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of political coverage that I heard on NPR had a liberal slant to it...

Oh, and Google News is my favorite "source" of balanced news. It lets me quickly scan the headlines and read the articles from multiple sources. I understand that Google has some problems with delisting some news sources, but I still think that the more sources you have, the more likely you are to get a balanced story.

**Switchcraft** · 10-14-2006, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evo<^|SiNz|^>

How is NPR liberal?

BTW, I understand why people have this perception. NPR covers a wide variety of things, which some people think the news media shouldn't give creedence to. NPR also has a few commentarys that I find strikingly one sided. But I was just wondering why that was your opinion. I find NPR to be about the most balanced source of news and information out there.

My only issue is I quite often seem to hear people go from "reporting" to "editorializing" without acknowledging it.

Several weeks ago a "news report" said without reservation that President Bush was trying to pass a law, the purpose of which was to "legalize torture." Another "report" uncritically repeated a statement that the "Bush tax cuts" had cost our economy greatly, without explaining how they decided that, and didn't even bother talking about economic growth since then.

I don't care about the bias. I expect people will have plenty of opinions, and I'm happy to hear them. I do care about the difference between opinion and fact, and I think NPR is sorely lacking in their ability to tell the difference.

**TheFatKidDeath** · 10-15-2006, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Perhaps partisan is the wrong word. Liberal certainly is not, IMO. And that's all I offer. No study, just my experience. I didn't mean to start this debate either. I just thought your implications were quite funny.

Cing, I think you validated FAIR's study -

"That NPR harbors a liberal bias is an article of faith among many conservatives. Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR , and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support."

Some of the research in the article -

"Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress."

However, they did include the Libertarian's -

"Partisans from outside the two major parties were almost nowhere to be seen, with the exception of four Libertarian Party representatives who appeared in a single story (Morning Edition , 6/26/03)."

Kerostasis · 10-15-2006, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFatKidDeath

Cing, I think you validated FAIR's study -

"That NPR harbors a liberal bias is an article of faith among many conservatives. Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR , and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support."

Some of the research in the article -

"Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress."

However, they did include the Libertarian's -

"Partisans from outside the two major parties were almost nowhere to be seen, with the exception of four Libertarian Party representatives who appeared in a single story (Morning Edition , 6/26/03)."

In other words, you have nothing new to add, so you're going to repeat your last argument...which none of us bought that time, and none of us will buy this time.

You did read the link posted to a much better study, right below yours, right?

**TheFatKidDeath** · 10-15-2006, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

In other words, you have nothing new to add, so you're going to repeat your last argument...which none of us bought that time, and none of us will buy this time.

You did read the link posted to a much better study, right below yours, right?

"None of us" bought my argument? First, I didn't know you spoke for everyone on this thread. Second it's not my argument, I'm simply citing from a study which contradicts the common held belief that NPR is a liberal radio network.

Why is the the UCLA study a more convincing argument? Please explain.

Kerostasis · 10-15-2006, 03:57 PM

Alright, perhaps it was a bit presumptuous of me to speak for everyone.

But the UCLA study is far more convincing because they post their methods. I took some time to read their methods. Knowing a fair amount about statistics and sampling myself, I find their methods highly effective, and FAIRs methods lacking, to say the least.

The UCLA study is presented as a research paper. Your study is presented as a news story. Take a guess which is more convincing.

----------------
Edit: Let me jump right to the most revealing quote from the UCLA study. Its a long quote, but valuable, because it goes right to the heart of why this study is more accurate than yours.

[7] One of the most novel features of the Lott-Hasset paper is that to define unbiased, it constructs a baseline that can vary with exogenous factors. In contrast, some studies define unbiased simply as some sort of version of “presenting both sides of the story.” To see why the latter notion is inappropriate, suppose that a newspaper devoted just as many stories describing the economy under President Clinton as good as it did describing the economy as bad. By the latter notion this newspaper is unbiased. However, by Lott and Hasset’s notion the newspaper is unbiased only if the economy under Clinton was average. If instead it was better than average, Lott and Hasset (as many would recognize as appropriate, including us) would judge the newspaper to have a conservative bias. Like Lott and Hasset, our notion of bias also varies with exogenous factors. For instance, suppose after a series of events liberal (conservative) think tanks gain more respect and credibility (say, because they were better at predicting those events), which causes moderates in Congress to cite them more frequently. By our notion, for a news outlet to remain unbiased, it also must cite the liberal (conservative) think tanks more frequently. The only other paper of which we are aware that also constructs a baseline that controls for exogenous events is Tim Groeling and Samuel Kernell’s (1998) study of presidential approval. These researchers examine the extent to which media outlets report increases and decreases in the president’s approval, while controlling for the actual increases and decreases in approval (whether reported by the media or not). The focus of the paper, however, is on whether news outlets have a bias toward reporting good or bad news, not on any liberal or conservative bias,

**CingularDuality** · 10-15-2006, 06:37 PM

I don't think that I have a problem with their actual news reports, it's the snide comments made by their hosts that bother me. Like the opposite of Rush Limbaugh. Rush has factual reports on his show, but his opinions often drive me nuts, mostly because they permeate the entire show and there's no way to avoid them. Well, there is... I change the station and listen to Dave Ramsey!

Kerostasis · 10-15-2006, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I don't think that I have a problem with their actual news reports, it's the snide comments made by their hosts that bother me. Like the opposite of Rush Limbaugh. Rush has factual reports on his show, but his opinions often drive me nuts, mostly because they permeate the entire show and there's no way to avoid them. Well, there is... I change the station and listen to Dave Ramsey!

Exactly! A news station's bias is determined just as much by their interpretations and spins on the news as it is on which news stories they present, and who they have as guests is only a distant third at best. Making TFKD's "more republican guests then democratic guests" study kind of pointless.

That said, I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with liberal news stations offering liberal-slanted news. Likewise conservative news outlets offering conservative slanted news (e.g. Rush Limbaugh) are fine too. My only complaint is that most liberal news outlets will vehemently deny having a slant, and try to pretend they are politically neutral...which is a laughable assertion for some of them. (Rathergate, anyone?)

Steeler · 10-16-2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

My only complaint is that most liberal news outlets will vehemently deny having a slant, and try to pretend they are politically neutral...which is a laughable assertion for some of them.

Fair and Balanced?

Hambergler · 10-16-2006, 09:44 PM

Whenever I tell a conservative that FOX News is partisan, they always say "what do you mean?" They truly have no idea.
I would never have thought of liberals doing the same thing with NPR. I'm stunned!!
I was flipping through yesterday and listened to 5 minutes of NPR. They were talking about the zionist fascist Bush administration and were dead serious. Whoaaaaa I can listen to some good giber gaber, but that was way over the top.

**CingularDuality** · 10-16-2006, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

Fair and Balanced?

Unlike a lot of radio shows, Fox News makes a distinction between news reporting and news analysis. Does this change the fact that they're more conservative than other news outlets? No, but it makes me like it more than NPR.

Beatnik · 10-16-2006, 11:21 PM

Uh Hambergler - npr.org has a wealth of online linkable content. I wouldn't be nearly as skeptical of your claim had you included a link to the story you heard.

And I disagree with Fox News making a distinction between reporting and analysis. Yes, there is the "News" division and the "Analysis/Partisan Drum Beating" section of O'Reilly, et al, but just watching their news shows (e.g. Brit Hume, Fox News Sunday, Fox and Friends, etc...) shows an organized/institutionalized skew to the right that trancends any standard definition of the word "bias".

NPR may have a slightly left of center perspective, but it's certainly not institutionally mandated like Fox News and at least they attempt to keep perspectives in check, like having an ombudsman, for example.

NPR is hands down my most trusted news source - yes it's at times boring but it's the single outlet I can let my skeptical guard down for more than a few minutes to hear what's going on in the world. I understand if they say things some people don't agree with, but let's not confuse that with bad journalism.

**Bisclaveret** · 10-17-2006, 12:27 AM

Wow Beatnik, did you ever listen to Savage?

I'l admit perhaps 3 years ago i found Michael "Savage" and listened to him pretty well for a couple of weeks, he seemed more in-tune to my thinking then some of the others (Rusty Humphreys, etc) but then he started going way out there. I believe the turning point was when he was talkinga bout those girls that gotkidnapped and raped and how they deserved to get raped, and they probably werent kidnapped and made that whole part of it up, because they were white trash liberals. After that he started into the whole Catholic thing (because the catholics had sent a stedrn word his way) and then the current anti-Muslim (and at times anti-jew) tangent for the past year and change.

It seems to me that he only has people call in so he can mute them after one sentence and ad homonym attack them for his pleasure. I remember one time when there was an african-american muslim who called in to discuss some misconceptions he had and instantly he was saying things like "what, was that the only book you read while you were in jail?" and worse.

The thing I think is funny is that he complains all the time on the air about how all the news media hate him and won't let him on thier shows (for good reason, his antics on that one MSNBC special had it pulled when he started spouting anti-gay rhetoric on live tv to a caller, wishing him to basically die and contract AIDS) when it's his antics that are precisely the reason he never will be.

To be honest, I don't really know what side of the political spectrum I lean on. I'd consider myself a republican, but the old republican before all the PNAC and neoconservativism started. I like some tenets of the libertarian outlook, but in my opinion, it would fail because of capitalistic practices (take away fines for not maintaining exhaust scrubbers in a factory, and what is there to pressure the company to continue maintaining it? They pocket the extra cash, the stockholders are happier because there is a sudden spike in profits, and keep the board of directors on..)

**TheFatKidDeath** · 10-17-2006, 12:34 AM

Fox News is the "Pravda" of the Republican Party. The Soviets collapsed because their leaders couldn't tell rhetoric from reality. Fox News simply provides the rhetoric.

I do like the entertainment divison of FOX however. Which is a paradox. The news programming is conservative but the entertainment is racy, trashy and vulgar, and that's just on Sunday nights! Gather up the family all you red state's, let's see what's on FOX, hey, it's Trading Spouses!

I think it's also the only network that has a convicted felon as a host of a TV program - "War Stories" - Ollie "Sell the Mullahs Weapons" North - take that NPR.

Hambergler · 10-17-2006, 01:19 AM

Sorry, I didn't hear it on line. I was driving when I heard the show. I guess that if you are liberal you can't see how liberal NPR is or visa verse with Fox news. I used to identify with liberals. I always saw liberals as kinder and more accepting. Over the last couple years my perception has changed. I feel like there is a fine line between having a stance on an issue and letting other people have thier views without trying to make them think like you. I see both sides are goosestepping at this point and I don't want any part of either. I have made it a point not to identify with any large groups of people. Who I vote for has nothing to do with what party they claim. I vote for the person. I think people who vote across the board are gimps.

News is supposed to be bipartisan. Cing may be right. As disgusting and blatant as Fox news is. NPR might be worse for trying so hard to hide it.

10-15-2006, 06:37 PM	#22 (permalink)
CingularDuality Join Date: May 2003 Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas, USA Age: 33 Posts: 16,516	Re: Air America to file for Bankruptcy I don't think that I have a problem with their actual news reports, it's the snide comments made by their hosts that bother me. Like the opposite of Rush Limbaugh. Rush has factual reports on his show, but his opinions often drive me nuts, mostly because they permeate the entire show and there's no way to avoid them. Well, there is... I change the station and listen to Dave Ramsey! __________________ Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market! Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage." TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

10-16-2006, 09:44 PM	#25 (permalink)
Hambergler Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Houston, TX Age: 33 Posts: 985	Re: Air America to file for Bankruptcy Whenever I tell a conservative that FOX News is partisan, they always say "what do you mean?" They truly have no idea. I would never have thought of liberals doing the same thing with NPR. I'm stunned!! I was flipping through yesterday and listened to 5 minutes of NPR. They were talking about the zionist fascist Bush administration and were dead serious. Whoaaaaa I can listen to some good giber gaber, but that was way over the top.

10-16-2006, 11:21 PM	#27 (permalink)
Beatnik Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Age: 33 Posts: 4,269	Re: Air America to file for Bankruptcy Uh Hambergler - npr.org has a wealth of online linkable content. I wouldn't be nearly as skeptical of your claim had you included a link to the story you heard. And I disagree with Fox News making a distinction between reporting and analysis. Yes, there is the "News" division and the "Analysis/Partisan Drum Beating" section of O'Reilly, et al, but just watching their news shows (e.g. Brit Hume, Fox News Sunday, Fox and Friends, etc...) shows an organized/institutionalized skew to the right that trancends any standard definition of the word "bias". NPR may have a slightly left of center perspective, but it's certainly not institutionally mandated like Fox News and at least they attempt to keep perspectives in check, like having an ombudsman, for example. NPR is hands down my most trusted news source - yes it's at times boring but it's the single outlet I can let my skeptical guard down for more than a few minutes to hear what's going on in the world. I understand if they say things some people don't agree with, but let's not confuse that with bad journalism. __________________ -F-Beatnik

10-17-2006, 12:27 AM	#28 (permalink)
Bisclaveret Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Camp Hill, Pennsylvania Posts: 199	Re: Air America to file for Bankruptcy Wow Beatnik, did you ever listen to Savage? I'l admit perhaps 3 years ago i found Michael "Savage" and listened to him pretty well for a couple of weeks, he seemed more in-tune to my thinking then some of the others (Rusty Humphreys, etc) but then he started going way out there. I believe the turning point was when he was talkinga bout those girls that gotkidnapped and raped and how they deserved to get raped, and they probably werent kidnapped and made that whole part of it up, because they were white trash liberals. After that he started into the whole Catholic thing (because the catholics had sent a stedrn word his way) and then the current anti-Muslim (and at times anti-jew) tangent for the past year and change. It seems to me that he only has people call in so he can mute them after one sentence and ad homonym attack them for his pleasure. I remember one time when there was an african-american muslim who called in to discuss some misconceptions he had and instantly he was saying things like "what, was that the only book you read while you were in jail?" and worse. The thing I think is funny is that he complains all the time on the air about how all the news media hate him and won't let him on thier shows (for good reason, his antics on that one MSNBC special had it pulled when he started spouting anti-gay rhetoric on live tv to a caller, wishing him to basically die and contract AIDS) when it's his antics that are precisely the reason he never will be. To be honest, I don't really know what side of the political spectrum I lean on. I'd consider myself a republican, but the old republican before all the PNAC and neoconservativism started. I like some tenets of the libertarian outlook, but in my opinion, it would fail because of capitalistic practices (take away fines for not maintaining exhaust scrubbers in a factory, and what is there to pressure the company to continue maintaining it? They pocket the extra cash, the stockholders are happier because there is a sudden spike in profits, and keep the board of directors on..) __________________

10-17-2006, 12:34 AM	#29 (permalink)
TheFatKidDeath Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Santa Monica, CA Age: 39 Posts: 2,528	Re: Air America to file for Bankruptcy Fox News is the "Pravda" of the Republican Party. The Soviets collapsed because their leaders couldn't tell rhetoric from reality. Fox News simply provides the rhetoric. I do like the entertainment divison of FOX however. Which is a paradox. The news programming is conservative but the entertainment is racy, trashy and vulgar, and that's just on Sunday nights! Gather up the family all you red state's, let's see what's on FOX, hey, it's Trading Spouses! I think it's also the only network that has a convicted felon as a host of a TV program - "War Stories" - Ollie "Sell the Mullahs Weapons" North - take that NPR. __________________ \|TG-9th\| TheFatKidDeath "Born to Party, Forced to Work." http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55640 - Check me out on The Onion http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...ssfully_avoids - I'm on the local news!

10-17-2006, 01:19 AM	#30 (permalink)
Hambergler Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Houston, TX Age: 33 Posts: 985	Re: Air America to file for Bankruptcy Sorry, I didn't hear it on line. I was driving when I heard the show. I guess that if you are liberal you can't see how liberal NPR is or visa verse with Fox news. I used to identify with liberals. I always saw liberals as kinder and more accepting. Over the last couple years my perception has changed. I feel like there is a fine line between having a stance on an issue and letting other people have thier views without trying to make them think like you. I see both sides are goosestepping at this point and I don't want any part of either. I have made it a point not to identify with any large groups of people. Who I vote for has nothing to do with what party they claim. I vote for the person. I think people who vote across the board are gimps. News is supposed to be bipartisan. Cing may be right. As disgusting and blatant as Fox news is. NPR might be worse for trying so hard to hide it.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links