94-yr old CFI

Ya just gotta love NPR... ;-)

Pleased to hear you say that, Jay. Most of my conservative friends
hate it, won't listen to it, because (they say) it's "liberal."

vince norris

Ya just gotta love NPR... ;-)

Pleased to hear you say that, Jay. Most of my conservative friends
hate it, won't listen to it, because (they say) it's "liberal."

Not for nothing is it known as National Partisan Radio.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote:
Ya just gotta love NPR... ;-)

Pleased to hear you say that, Jay. Most of my
conservative friends hate it, won't listen to it,
because (they say) it's "liberal."

Not for nothing is it known as National Partisan Radio.

As a person who considers himself neither conservative nor liberal, by
the current American definitions of the words, I find that NPR makes
more effort than any other news source to provide balanced, in-depth
coverage. It certainly takes more care to be accurate than the shrieking
sensation-mongers at CNN, Fox, NBC, etc.

Right wing charges of partisanship are hard to support in light of the
fact that NPR frequently uses commentary from sources to the right of
center, e.g. The Wall Street Journal, U. S. News and World Report, The
American Enterprise Institute and The Cato Institute, just to name a
few.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 07:46:47 -0600, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

Right wing charges of partisanship are hard to support in light of the
fact that NPR frequently uses commentary from sources to the right of
center, e.g. The Wall Street Journal, U. S. News and World Report, The
American Enterprise Institute and The Cato Institute, just to name a
few.

In the hourly news summaries, the form of an NPR story during the
Clinton years seemed to start with some exposition, usually something
the Republican Congress was starting up, followed by some in-depth
analysis why whatever it was was desperately wrong. I've spot-checked
them since 2000; they appear to not have changed their approach to
reporting.

The in-depth reporting, if it's human interest or pure exposition, is
usually excellent. In-depth political reporting suffers from the same
stuff that has plagued some newspapers: The slant is in the way the
piece is organized and edited, not in the material the reporter
gathered. The right gets its say, but is made to look the fool anyway.

Like all news media outlets, they too have unquestioned premises. One
of them is that Democrats are Better.

Rob

"Rob Perkins" wrote:
The right gets its say, but is made to look the fool anyway.

I simply don't hear that, and I listen for it.

Like all news media outlets, they too have unquestioned premises. One
of them is that Democrats are Better.

Might that not be in the ear of the listener?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:16:36 -0600, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

"Rob Perkins" wrote:
The right gets its say, but is made to look the fool anyway.

I simply don't hear that, and I listen for it.

You might not find it unless you triangulate with other news outlets.

Like all news media outlets, they too have unquestioned premises. One
of them is that Democrats are Better.

Might that not be in the ear of the listener?

Of course it might.

Rob

Rob Perkins wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:16:36 -0600, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

"Rob Perkins" wrote:
The right gets its say, but is made to look the fool anyway.

I simply don't hear that, and I listen for it.

You might not find it unless you triangulate with other news outlets.

Well, if you triangulate with other sources that you think are neutral
but are really partisan and you might incorrectly conclude that NPR is
partisian the opposite direction. Or, in navigational terms, make
sure your benchmarks are accurate.

It was great to hear about Evelyn. And it was something I picked up
no where else. That's why I listen to NPR. You might agree with me
that we should all be careful of believing everything we hear, from
any source. NPR at least will give me ample information about a story
and will cover a variety of subjects. Unlike most networks who just
give me at best an useless summary of a narrow range of topics or at
worst will try to tell me what to think.

Dan Luke wrote:

"Rob Perkins" wrote:
The right gets its say, but is made to look the fool anyway.

I simply don't hear that, and I listen for it.

I listen to NPR on the local outlet (WNYC). I find that slant a lot, but after
listening for a while, I've noticed that it is particularly the case with only
some of the hosts. There's one guy, for example, named Brian Lehrner who's on
in the morning and never misses a chance to take a dig at Republicans. Today,
he was on vacation or something, and his replacement did not do this. It seems
to me that most of the national segments ("Fresh Air", for example), are pretty
reasonable. There are portions of the broadcast day, however, that are taken up
by New York centric shows. I doubt these shows would be broadcast on whatever
station handles NPR in (for example) Nashville. With the exception of the BBC
feed in the morning, many of the news presentations are done by the local show
hosts.

Perhaps the slant Rob is seeing is the result of bias on the part of his local
NPR feed? In that case, you would not necessarily be hearing the same thing.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:24:11 -0500, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:

Perhaps the slant Rob is seeing is the result of bias on the part of his local
NPR feed? In that case, you would not necessarily be hearing the same thing.

My local NPR feed is Oregon Public Broadcasting these days.

Rob

I've spot-checked them since 2000;

What that probably means is that you've noticed things that support
your belief and overlooked those that don't.

Students learning to do research are cautioned about the necessity of
carefully recording every bit of evidence that contradicts their
hypothesis because of the all-too-human tendency to overlook or forget
that stuff. It's known as "selective retention."

The slant is in the way the piece is organized and edited, not in the material
the reporter gathered. The right gets its say, but is made to look the fool anyway.

As an Independent who voted for more Republicans than Democrats in the
recent election, I think that's your perception, not reality.

I suggest that you would consider NPR to be "absolutely unbiased" if
it agreed with you 100 percent of the time. That's human nature.

vince norris