2
   

Turning PBS into another propaganda tool

 
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 07:55 am
FreeDuck wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Why would ANYONE argue about a TAX PAYER FUNDED TV Station becoming un-biased?


Show that it's biased, and then we can argue.


Apparently they do since they are going out of their way to change the programming.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 08:00 am
FreeDuck wrote:
McGentrix wrote:

I am a regular NPR listener and you are wrong here. NPR has a definite liberal slant and a definite anti-Bush undertone. They are honest when it comes to reporting a pro-left point of view, but the few measly pro-right pieces you actually hear still end up having some sort of liberal bias to them.

I remember ONE interview that was actually pro-Bush regarding the elections in Iraq. I remember it clearly because it was THE FIRST TIME I HAD EVER HEARD IT! It shocked me!


And yet you heard it on NPR. The fact that you don't agree with the reporting doesn't make it biased. Maybe it makes you biased. How can a pro-right piece have liberal bias?


Yes, I heard it on NPR. After probably 1000 hours of listening, I actually heard a pro-Bush commentary.

You said "And I'll just speak up for NPR who always gives both sides a voice. "

It doesn't. Isn't that what this is about?

Quote:
Quote:
So please spare me the idea that NPR is somehow honest.


This is the one that I don't believe you can really back up. You don't agree with the reporting, it doesn't fit your view of the world. Ok. But how is that dishonest? Just show me and example of NPR's reporting (reporting, as in the news and indepth news stories) where there is dishonesty. As in lying, since that's what it means to be dishonest. What exactly is dishonest about it?


Do you listen to Diane Rehm? She might as well be suckling on Micheal Moore. Daniel Shorr? Please. Terry Gross? Complete and utter liberal.

The only honest thing on NPR is Pulse of the Planet.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 08:00 am
I wrote an article about this one.

Quote:
When Balance is Unbalanced
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 08:01 am
blatham wrote:
Making cogent argument isn't woiyo's game. Nor is reading and spending time at checking evidences and viewpoints. woiyo is a happy little fellow. Simple was good enough for grandpa and its good enough for him.


Hitting the "sauce" again?? Drunk
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 08:02 am
What's it called when a government wants total control and brooks no opposition?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 08:04 am
Good article, soz.

Embarrassed Just saw your sig line. Aw shucks.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 08:10 am
National Public Radio is properly understood, even by the media, as radio by and for liberals, not the general public. As Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz puts it, the media landscape stretches "from those who cheer Fox to those who swear by NPR."

The only ones who seem not to know that the left has a massive, taxpayer-funded radio network of 700 affiliates are the liberals trying to sell investors on their own private-sector talk-radio network. A recent PBS "NewsHour" story on talk radio turned ridiculous when reporter Terence Smith allowed liberal-network booster Jon Sinton to proclaim: "Every day in America on the 45 top-rated talk radio stations, there are 310 hours of conservative talk. There is a total of five hours of talk that comes from the other side of the aisle."

Don't buy that for a minute. The key word in that sentence is "top-rated" stations. Sinton's upset that conservatives apparently dominate "top-rated" talk. That doesn't mean NPR doesn't have hundreds of hours of liberal talk shows, not to mention liberal "news" shows. It's just not "top-rated."

Last week, NPR's own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR's talk programming. The daily program "Fresh Air with Terry Gross" -- a 60-minute talk show about the arts, literature and also politics -- airs on 378 public-radio stations across the fruited plain. Gross recently became a hot topic on journalism Web sites for first having a friendly, giggly interview with "satirist" Al Franken, promoting his obnoxious screed against conservatives on Sept. 3, and then on Oct. 8, unloading an accusatory, hostile interview on Bill O'Reilly's show. She pressed the Fox host to respond to the obnoxious attacks of Franken and other critics. Dvorkin ruled: "Unfortunately, the (O'Reilly) interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias ... by coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather than a neutral and curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the interview to develop."

The news reports on NPR should be cause for greater public concern. Under the guise of "objective news" reporting, the left is actively advancing its political agenda. On the Oct. 17 "Morning Edition," host Bob Edwards launched into a long "news" report on the flaws of the Bush foreign policy, observing: "Overall, the policies of the United States are still very unpopular around the world. The Bush Doctrine, a preference for unilateral military action and a disdain for multinational diplomacy, is under scrutiny more than ever." The Middle East "road map" was "in tatters," Iraq and Afghanistan were "highly unstable." NPR may as well have suggested it was time for a different president.

Reporter Mike Shuster was intent on driving home the theme that the Bush foreign policy may (read: we hope) one day be analyzed as an utter failure. His three primary, supposedly nonpartisan "experts" were Ivo Daalder, a member of Clinton's National Security Council; Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy adviser to the 1992 Clinton campaign; and John Mearshimer, a regular critic of Bush foreign policy who argued in Foreign Policy magazine that Iraq should have remained under "vigilant containment," which we could also describe as maintaining a murderous tyrant in power. Their controversial views and Clinton connections were not developed by NPR.

Perhaps the biggest public-relations problems for NPR come when its liberal reporters hit the weekend talk-show circuit and let their opinions fly wildly. On Oct. 18, NPR legal reporter Nina Totenberg pronounced from her regular panelist perch on the TV show "Inside Washington" that General Jerry Boykin, who sermonized in Christian churches with the shocking, less-than-Unitarian message that Christianity is true and other creeds are false, should be fired.

Well, that's not the way it came out. First, Totenberg said Boykin's remarks were "seriously bad stuff," and then she said, "I hope he's not long for this world." Host Gordon Peterson joked, "What is this, The Sopranos?" Withdrawing to damage-control mode, Totenberg said she didn't mean she hoped he would die, just that he shouldn't last long "in his job."

But it's Totenberg who ought to fear for her job with these outbreaks of hate speech. Totenberg used this very same TV show to wish in 1995 that if the "Good Lord" knew justice, Senator Jesse Helms will "get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."

It's awfully ironic that a woman who has spent 30 years saying outrageous liberal things on the taxpayer dime is now attacking a general on the grounds that there ought to be some things government officials cannot say and keep their jobs. The concern over these Boykin remarks should not be about the separation of church and state. It ought to be about the separation of National Public Radio from the state.

source
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 08:12 am
Case in point. As of October 17th, was any of this untrue?

Quote:
"Overall, the policies of the United States are still very unpopular around the world. The Bush Doctrine, a preference for unilateral military action and a disdain for multinational diplomacy, is under scrutiny more than ever." The Middle East "road map" was "in tatters," Iraq and Afghanistan were "highly unstable."
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 08:14 am
McG? You post a right-wing editorial to show that NPR is dishonest? Did you read soz's article or the one that started this thread?
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 08:18 am
They mentioned O'Reilly Laughing
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 08:37 am
McGentrix wrote:

Yes, I heard it on NPR. After probably 1000 hours of listening, I actually heard a pro-Bush commentary.


Personally, I'd be concerned if my news outlet of choice played a lot of pro-POTUS commentary -- regardless of who.

Quote:
You said "And I'll just speak up for NPR who always gives both sides a voice. "

It doesn't. Isn't that what this is about?


Yes, it is what this is about. When reporting on issues -- issues -- I have never heard them fail to present conflicting opinions. I don't know if those conflicting opinions were R vs. D, but I don't care. That's not the point.

Quote:

Do you listen to Diane Rehm? She might as well be suckling on Micheal Moore. Daniel Shorr? Please. Terry Gross? Complete and utter liberal.

The only honest thing on NPR is Pulse of the Planet.


Like I said, we're talking about the news. And even Diane Rehm and Terry Gross are nothing compared to some from the other end.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 08:41 am
But we are not comparing them Freeduck. We are discussing NPR and the claim they are balanced. It is not.

Shouldn't you be concerned when you news source has NO pro-POTUS commentary though?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 09:20 am
McGentrix wrote:
But we are not comparing them Freeduck. We are discussing NPR and the claim they are balanced. It is not.

Shouldn't you be concerned when you news source has NO pro-POTUS commentary though?


But you said that it did have pro-POTUS commentary. Just not as much as you would like.

At any rate, I am most interested in news reporting and investigating and not commentary and opinion talk shows.

But since you mentioned Diane Rehm, did you happen to catch the program about a week ago where she had a guy from the Christian Coalition on and someone else to debate him? It was a very respectful debate and he was given ample air time and a chance to respond to everything. That's what I call balance, and I've not seen it anywhere else. And that's a lot different from the shoutdowns that folks get on other networks.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 09:24 am
My mistake, it was the Family Research Council the guy was from. Here's a link: http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/05/05/11.php
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 09:42 am
blatham wrote:
Well, it's interesting to read them if for no other reason than to remind us the dangers to democracy of a poorly educated citizenry.


Laughing Blatham.....by denigrating the education of some contributors on this forum, you are violating your own stated rules of rational, reasoned debate just as Moyers violates the ethics of all professional journalists by cloaking himself as a journalist while spreading his evangelical political commentary.

Most of you have probably never viewed the Journalist's code of ethics so I provide it for your examination below:

Two of the rules below that are most often violated by journalists are:

1. * Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.

2. * Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.


Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

Seek Truth and Report It

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

* Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
* Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
* Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
* Always question sources' motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
* Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
* Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
* Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
* Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
* Never plagiarize.
* Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
* Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
* Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
* Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
* Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
* Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
* Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
* Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

Minimize Harm

Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

* Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
* Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
* Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
* Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.
* Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
* Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
* Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
* Balance a criminal suspect's fair trial rights with the public's right to be informed.

Act Independently

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:

* Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
* Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
* Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
* Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
* Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
* Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
* Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.

Be Accountable

Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

* Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
* Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
* Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
* Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
* Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of
writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of
the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months
of study and debate among the Society's members.

Sigma Delta Chi's first Code of Ethics was borrowed from the
American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926. In 1973, Sigma Delta Chi
wrote its own code, which was revised in 1984, 1987 and 1996.


Ethics Resources
Ethics Code
Ethics News
Ethics Hotline
SPJ Ethics Listserv
Other Ethics Sources
SPJ Ethics Committee
Ethics Week




For Members | For Leaders | Chapters | Missions | Join SPJ
Copyright © 1996-2005 Society of Professional Journalists. All Rights Reserved.

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center, 3909 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 Fax: 317/920-4789 contact us

Having problems with the site? E-mail us [email protected]
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 12:33 pm
blatham wrote:
Well, it's interesting to read them if for no other reason than to remind us the dangers to democracy of a poorly educated citizenry.


Blatham

I'm fairly certain you would agree that "being educated" is a relative term. You probably consider yourself well educated but in comparison with Descarte, Kant, and any other great philosophers you would rank low on the totem pole. In actuality being able to distinguish fantasy from reality merely requires years of experience watching the "con men" in television commercials extolling the merits of everything from the lasting power of Cialis to the little "bubble" men who clean your sink. You would be the first to agree that Americans, especially our stupid, ignorant "couch potatoe" children spend far too much time watching "tele" along with hours each day watching commercials. Since most of the information contained in commercials is absolute BS and since even ignorant children soon are able to sort fact from fiction, it is logical that even children are soon able to spot a lying liberal from a "common sense" conservative. In conclusion it would be safe to say that the 53 million stupid Americans who re-elected Bush are experts at recognizing bovine excrement such as that spewed by Moyers, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. Laughing Have a nice day in your classroom professor.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 01:13 pm
Quote:
Since most of the information contained in commercials is absolute BS and since even ignorant children soon are able to sort fact from fiction, it is logical that even children are soon able to spot a lying liberal from a "common sense" conservative.


What a foolish thing to say. This is categorically untrue.

Why? Because there is a direct correlation between advertising and sales. Therefore, it is far more logical to assume that there IS an impact being made by the 'liars' in 'commercials' among the population who watches them.

Your attempt to link that to politics is laughable at best.

Cycloptichon
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 01:36 pm
Cy.....wrote:

Your attempt to link that to politics is laughable at best.

Then why did you respond to it. Using your logic, that makes your response laughable. Laughing
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 06:10 pm
Quote:
blatham wrote:
Well, it's interesting to read them if for no other reason than to remind us the dangers to democracy of a poorly educated citizenry.



Quote:
Rayban wrote: Blatham.....by denigrating the education of some contributors on this forum, you are violating your own stated rules of rational, reasoned debate just as Moyers violates the ethics of all professional journalists by cloaking himself as a journalist while spreading his evangelical political commentary.

Most of you have probably never viewed the Journalist's code of ethics so I provide it for your examination below:


Thankyou for going to the trouble of posting the code. I do think it is valuable to have it close to hand. I'm not a journalist by profession (my degree is in education) and what we are doing here is, unfortunately perhaps, something rather less careful than proper journalism. But one can't fault an ideal.

Yet, look again at the sentence you've written above and your claim regarding Bill Moyers. How careful are you being with that claim? How objective are you being? For example, in what ways would Moyers be different, that is, more guilty or less guilty of violating the code points you've included, from someone like George Will? Or someone like Ann Coulter? Or Jeff Gannon? Or Novak. If you compare each of them to the code section on 'independence', red flags begin waving all over the place.

The level of partisanship in American politics is very severe right now. I'm from Canada, and the five or six Canadians here, along with quite a few folks from Australia, Britain, Europe and elsewhere find the level of partisanship in your nation quite anomolous. I think almost all of us also see it as being very destructive to your national interest.

One very negative consequence of this level of partisanship is that too many folks - far too many - come to believe they are getting appropriately or adequately educated on political issues by focusing on a narrow band of political thought coming out of their partisan community. Of course, that isn't really education, but is something more akin to indoctrination.

Democracy really does depend upon an educated citizenry. The more educated one becomes, the more confident he/she becomes that they can think for themselves and the less they depend on or trust what some authority tells them, whether that authority is a media figure, an intellectual figure, or their government.

A well-educated citizenry is better equipped to handle complexity, and this is a very complex world we live in. A well-educated citizenry will often tend to be contentious with their government, independent minded, skeptical. If you consider the sixties, for example, it was a period where the citizenry had become better educated than any previous generation. One consequence of that increase in education was a growing awareness regarding old race divisions, gender divisions, environmental issues, etc. It was also a period of much increased citizen involvement in governance...peace marches, protests, etc. For some people, this was seen as (and referred to as) a 'crisis of democracy'. But by an dictionary definition of democracy, each of these represented an increase in democratic involvement.

So, I like education a lot. I like the lack of it much less. That's the dangerous direction.

As regards my derogation of those who haven't had the opportunity or time to read or study a lot, that only happens where I infer either that they are making pretense (to themselves most of all) that they've put adequate effort into trying to understand issues, or - and this is my real pet peeve - where they've bought into simplistic partisan rhetoric and spout it here.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 06:23 pm
rayban said;
Quote:
Blatham

I'm fairly certain you would agree that "being educated" is a relative term.
I do indeed. You understand, I can never make any sort of claim that person A with a degree is a better person or citizen than person B without one. The only proper claim is that person A with a good education will be a better person and citizen, in all probability, than that same person A would be without a good education.
You probably consider yourself well educated but in comparison with Descarte, Kant, and any other great philosophers you would rank low on the totem pole.
Without question.
In actuality being able to distinguish fantasy from reality merely requires years of experience watching the "con men" in television commercials extolling the merits of everything from the lasting power of Cialis to the little "bubble" men who clean your sink. You would be the first to agree that Americans, especially our stupid, ignorant "couch potatoe" children spend far too much time watching "tele" along with hours each day watching commercials. Since most of the information contained in commercials is absolute BS and since even ignorant children soon are able to sort fact from fiction, it is logical that even children are soon able to spot a lying liberal from a "common sense" conservative.
Well, you were doing fine up until here. That is a simplistic formulation and clearly dogmatic. In your present discourse in America, unthinking simplicities such as this merely make matters worse. You are contributing to that, but many conservatives aren't.
In conclusion it would be safe to say that the 53 million stupid Americans who re-elected Bush are experts at recognizing bovine excrement such as that spewed by Moyers, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. Have a nice day in your classroom professor.
Again, you've got it wrong. My teaching was with elementary school children, but my main career was in construction. I've retired from that now, have moved to Manhattan, and I'm reading and writing. My present project, should you be interested, is a musical about the End Times. Tonight I'm working on the scene where the Angels of Death descend. I have them as bulldyke lesbians and, if the negotiations go through, they will be trained by Circle d'Soleil. What do you think?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2021 at 05:57:18