CingularDuality

Man, I could've wrote that. I used to really identify with his ideas on the importance of culture, but now, well, he's just a raving loon... I sometimes wonder if it's just an act to boost ratings, but he seems so sincere. I change the channel when he comes on now, that's how much I can't stand him.
FYI, I'm pretty sure that all of his convictions were overturned...

Text in bold quoted for truth.

And I don't have so much of a problem with the Libertarians capitalistic views as I do their exclusion of border protection as a basic form of defending our nation. I think that industrial regulation plays a part in protecting our nation, too, though.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Beatnik

Let me correct this. News is supposed to be non-partisan.

And I wouldn't agree that NPR tries to "hide" any allegations of bias. From the aforementioned ombudsman, whose position was created to address this type of issue listeners may have with NPR's reporting:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4712584

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4717847

__________________

Hambergler

Lets not set our hopes too high. ROFL

Steeler

I hate to break it to you, Bisclaveret, but if you're a moderate Republican with a strong libertarian streak, but you recognize some of the flaws in a total free market and the value of a managed economy... you might be a Democrat.

__________________

Kerostasis

As cool as that would be, its very unlikely to happen in our lifetimes. Be realistic here. What news reporter is not going to have at least a subconscious bias of his own, which at the least will color how he sees a news story before he ever gets around to deciding how to write it?

I'll take bi-partisan over a failed attempt at non-partisan any day.

__________________

Beatnik

I think you're both confusing the terms "partisan" with "bias". I'd define the term "partisan" as almost exclusively promoting or favoring one party at the expense of the other(s). That is not the same thing as having a bias which favors the underdog, or questions authority (regardless of which political party is currently in power), etc. The "liberal bias" you speak of, particularly at NPR, does not in my experience qualify as "partisan", however it does qualify as a bias to some degree.

On the other hand, from what I've seen, programs Fox News is extremely partisan in their treatment of both parties. This is a significant difference.

That being said, I'd definitely favor a failed, but closely managed, attempt to be non-partisan over the straight stenographic reportation of each parties talking points, a la Crossfire or other "right (republican) vs. left (democrat)" political theater, any day.

__________________

Kerostasis

You might be a Lieberman Democrat. Of course, thats not saying much, since Lieberman has been thrown overboard by his own party, and is being forced to run as an independant this year. You certainly don't sound like one of the ultra-leftists represented by people such as Nancy Pelosi, Democratic nominee for Speaker of the House. Mainstream Liberalism is clearly not for you.

However, mainstream Conservatism doesn't quite suit you either. So you are probably one of those American people who are ill-served by a strict 2-party system, and would appreciate having a viable 3rd or 4th choice. The dirty little secret is, people like you are probably in the majority, but its in the best interests of BOTH parties to make sure you don't get a choice in the matter.

__________________

Hambergler

Tomato=Tamato I will say this: NPR is the yin to Fox News yang, one would be less visible without the other. What ever side you favor I suggest you come over to the dark side and see what the bad spy is doing once in a while, to gain a broader perspective on your own team.

El_Gringo_Grande

I agree with Cing and Bisclaveret that Savage used to be interesting and then turned lunatic. Even now there are lucid periods but it doesn't take long for the squirrel poop to start smelling.

The same goes for many of the other "conservative" talk radio. And Fox news. Within all the crap they spew there are many very good arguments/ideas.. but it is like searching for diamonds.

But with NPR most of the news is pretty good. Yea, a stupid comment from one of the hosts is uttered from time to time. But the depth you get from the news is beyond anything outside Frontline.

Now there is some complete crap on NPR. Those nauseating commentaries by "everyday people" or that stupid russian (or whatever he is). And there is a show that covers native American issues that I can't stand to listen to.

But there are other shows like "Car Talk", "Waite Wait don't tell me", "Talk of the nation, Science Friday", "Zorba Paster On Your Health" and others. Now I don't see how they could be called liberal. Most of them are apolitical and provide information that is hard to find in other places.

Some of the pieces/programs do focus on the underprivileged/ underdog/ subcultures. I really can't see how focusing on something odd, weird or different shows bias.

__________________
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

Kerostasis

I can agree with you here. A lot of whats on NPR isn't political in nature at all...like car shows. I listen to Car Talk myself occasionally, and thats a fine show. You have to be pretty far gone before you start injecting political bias into a show about car maintenance. (Although I've seen some people who could manage it...)

On the other hand, NPR also has news shows that DO cover political issues. And when they do that, they can't help but show a little of their bias. (Depending on the guest, it might be more than a "little", although I can't claim to have heard any of those total kooks you guys are talking about myself.) But I don't complain about them much, because on the whole they are still more balanced then places like CBS and NBC.

For anyone who wants to take issue with that last statement, I have one word for you: Rathergate.

__________________

Beatnik

Couldn't disagree more.

bias - a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation

partisan -
- a fervent and even militant proponent of something
- devoted to a cause or party
- enthusiast: an ardent and enthusiastic supporter of some person or activity

Clearly, very different meanings between the two words.

I visit the dark side way more than I would like to. One is good journalism, one is bad journalism. One makes a deliberate and conscientious effort to present accurate context and gather a diverse set of perspectives on important issues, the other does not. One challenges its audience, the other tells them precisely what they want to hear. They couldn't be more opposed, on many significant levels. NPR may be (slightly) biased; Fox News is patently partisan and biased.

And, for the record Gringo, his name is Andrei Codrescieu and he's Romanian. He's a poet that lives in New Orleans.

__________________

CingularDuality

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about... There'll be a discussion about a car and gas mileage and then, BAM!, someone makes a flip comment about the car not being affected by "President Bush raising the cost of gas".

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Steeler

Partisan conservatives are going to horde pieces of Dan Rather's corpse like gold nuggets. Whenever the discussion of media bias arises, just point to Rather's singular ill-considered broadcast as the standard for all reporting everywhere. "SEE?! SEE?! We don caught us a librul! They's all in it together!"

__________________

CingularDuality

I look at it like I look at Monicagate. I don't think that President Clinton was the first President to, ummm, take liberties in the White House. But he was the first to get caught and have it go public.

I certainly don't think that Rather was the first news reporter to have a liberal bias and to run made up stories about a campaigning politician. But he was the first to get caught in such a way that it couldn't be covered up or explained away.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Kerostasis

Rathergate wasn't simply a botched reporting job (although it was that too). It demonstrated a clear disregard for honesty when there was a possibility of political gain. Thats not something that happens overnight, thats something that taints your general credibility as a reporter. Sure, most of the people involved left CBS shortly after, but what about all the broadcasts they made for years before Rathergate? Are you going to tell me none of those carried the same slant? The same people were making them, with the same pre-conceived political biases. The only difference is, this time we had proof.

CBS simply has no credibility.

__________________