4
   

Liberal Bias in the Media (At least in Public Radio)

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2005 12:13 am
Setanta wrote:
Not my dog. You can't recall the name of the program, you can't remember the name of the host, you refer to an unnamed member of "the insurance industry," you fallaciously state that the Federal government provides flood insurance (it is a guarantor, not an insuror)--and you want that bit of vague blather to stand as an indictment of public radio in particular, and the allegedly liberal (unproven) media.

Yes, you well should yip, yip, yip, because it makes about as much sense as your silly, silly thread.


Broken your vow to not directly engage me?

What is the actual import of the fact that I do not know whether it was the morning or afternoon NPR program?

What is the import that I cannot identify the women who conducted the interview?

What is the import that you are wrong that the government doesn't actually provide flood insurance? Yes, the federal government does reinsure private fronting, but it also provides direct insurance.

Talk about a difference without distinction.

If your little puntible canine (as represented by your avatar) is not a yipper, then it is the one and only of its kind.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2005 12:25 am
Yes, Finn, I will agree with you that NPR has a liberal slant. So what? I mean, It's not like there's anyone actually listening.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2005 12:54 am
The import, which it does not surprise me you don't wish to acknowledge, is that you have nothing to offer but the typically vague, moronic conservative rant against an allegedly liberal media. Laughing at your idiocy hardly constitutes engaging you, and i would love nothing better than to see your pathetic ass attempt to punt that dog in my presence.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2005 01:31 am
kickycan wrote:
Yes, Finn, I will agree with you that NPR has a liberal slant. So what? I mean, It's not like there's anyone actually listening.


I listen to All Things Considered, it's played on ABC NewsRadio here. They also have DeutscheWelle and radio from the Netherlands and of course the BBC and other outlets.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2005 01:34 am
CBC broadcasts the Dutch radio broadcasts overnight, as well. It's always interesting, because they don't, of course, necessarily view stories as worth broadcast based upon the same criteria as the media in the U.S. They also play the ABC's overseas broadcasts, and many from other radio services. It's always good to get other viewpoints. Just listening to CBC is a refreshing change from American media.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2005 01:35 am
Punting a dog eh? I think it was Gandhi who said you can judge a society by the way it treats its animals. I've always thought that about people as well.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2005 01:42 am
The paucity of his position can be judged by what was to him the apparent necessity of attacking my avatar picture. Must have had nothing substantive to offer by way of a thesis.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2005 06:25 am
I hope no-one attacks my avatar picture. It's just a lone old tree in a ruins (place called Kanyaka in the mid-north of South Australia in case anyone is interested - has a colourful but tragic history).

She's a cute dog, looks to have a ton of personality. I would use my Lhasa Apso as an avatar but she'd probably sue for royalties Very Happy

I forgot to add that we get CBC on NewsRadio was well. They used to have a brilliant science show I listened to a lot. I was going to zip in to CBC when i was in Toronto but the array of hockey shirts in the front window spooked me.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2005 09:49 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
What the hell is "ad hominem logic;" let alone "ad hominem logic error?"

http://www.able2know.com/forums/images/avatars/gallery/male/240.gif
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2005 10:00 am
goodfielder wrote:
I forgot to add that we get CBC on NewsRadio was well. They used to have a brilliant science show I listened to a lot. I was going to zip in to CBC when i was in Toronto but the array of hockey shirts in the front window spooked me.


That science show may have been David Suzuki--first class presenter, loved his work and it showed. CBC does a good job. When i'm at my sweetiepie's house, i try to watch "The National" in the evenings on the tee-vee, if i can get it away from the home improvement and cooking shows . . .
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2005 02:35 pm
Public radio might have a liberal bias, but they are a lot longer on in-depth reporting and facts than any other news source with the possible exception of news magazines like Time or Newsweek. I listen to them and feel like I get a lot more good info.

But I would probalby cringe if I heard the exchange you mention, Finn.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2005 02:57 pm
goodfielder wrote:
I forgot to add that we get CBC on NewsRadio was well. They used to have a brilliant science show I listened to a lot. I was going to zip in to CBC when i was in Toronto but the array of hockey shirts in the front window spooked me.


probably Bob MacDonald of Quirks and Quarks

the Glenn Gould Studio in the CBC building downtown has extraordinary acoustics - worth trying to catch a concert if you're ever in Tranna again
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2005 11:13 pm
Thanks for the tip ehBeth, I'm hoping to get there in a few months, probably right in the middle of winter again. I liked it there in winter. It was unsual. I had a ride-along in 51 Division, never patrolled in snow before Very Happy

Okay grovelling apologies for the thread drift...
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2005 11:23 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Public radio might have a liberal bias, but they are a lot longer on in-depth reporting and facts than any other news source with the possible exception of news magazines like Time or Newsweek. I listen to them and feel like I get a lot more good info.

So do I, and I feel like I get a lot of good info from Time and Newsweek although they too have a liberal bias.

Their liberal bias doesn't ruin their value, but it does, unfortunately, taint it.


But I would probalby cringe if I heard the exchange you mention, Finn.

Believe it or not, I cringe whenever I detect similar bias. It just so happens that in the news media, liberal bias is the most prominent.

0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2005 07:54 am
I'm not completely convinced that liberal bias is the most prominent bias in media today. My impression, and this is completely subjective, is that there is a slight liberal bias in a number of media outlets, but a huge conservative bias concentrated in a few media outlets. I'm not quite sure what I make of it, but over all it seems that the info I'm looking for is out there if I have the energy to dig for it. So I can't really complain. I just have to read and listen to many different sources.

My bias is that I think that the best news sources, the ones that give me the most information and the most reliable information, are usually ones considered to have "liberal bias", like NPR. I've found (and again, it's just my impression) that the outlets with the opposite bias tend to be the least reliable and the least informative.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Sep, 2005 12:05 am
Personally, it seems to me that the bias is on ratings. Public radio is one of the few places that doesn't pander to their audience, or cowtow to politicians for fear of losing future interviews.

Seriously, how many times in the last year have you seen a journalist refuse to allow someone to duck the question?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 09:11 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
I'm not completely convinced that liberal bias is the most prominent bias in media today. My impression, and this is completely subjective, is that there is a slight liberal bias in a number of media outlets, but a huge conservative bias concentrated in a few media outlets. I'm not quite sure what I make of it, but over all it seems that the info I'm looking for is out there if I have the energy to dig for it. So I can't really complain. I just have to read and listen to many different sources.

My bias is that I think that the best news sources, the ones that give me the most information and the most reliable information, are usually ones considered to have "liberal bias", like NPR. I've found (and again, it's just my impression) that the outlets with the opposite bias tend to be the least reliable and the least informative.


Well, we have different opinions.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 09:13 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Personally, it seems to me that the bias is on ratings. Public radio is one of the few places that doesn't pander to their audience, or cowtow to politicians for fear of losing future interviews.

Seriously, how many times in the last year have you seen a journalist refuse to allow someone to duck the question?


Tim Russert is usually pretty dogged and so is Chris Wallace. I'm not sure the same can be said for the mellow ones on NPR.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2005 07:55 am
I myself don't believe the media does have a political bias, only a bias towards sensationalism.

One of the things I've often wondered is, "Is this perceived bias a result of the media being biased, or the media kow-towing to a biased audience?" I myself think that the media only seems biased, because the audience itself is biased.

It makes more sense for the media to cater its news to its audience and thus make more money, than it does to cater towards either wing of the political spectrum.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2005 11:04 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
I myself don't believe the media does have a political bias, only a bias towards sensationalism.

One of the things I've often wondered is, "Is this perceived bias a result of the media being biased, or the media kow-towing to a biased audience?" I myself think that the media only seems biased, because the audience itself is biased.

It makes more sense for the media to cater its news to its audience and thus make more money, than it does to cater towards either wing of the political spectrum.


A couple of points in response

1) Many, if not most, individual journalists believe they have a calling rather than a job. They feel it is their sacred duty to present the truth to the American people. Unfortunately they don't believe that the American people can appreciate the truth without their putting the proper spin on it.

The simple fact of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of journalists describe themselves as liberals. Certainly it doesn't unerringly follow that one's personal opinions would influence one's professional judgments, but hey, we're talking about people, not sages or saints.

Interestingly, the Left seems to find it impossible that a Supreme Court Justice can seperate his or her personal beliefs from their professional judgments, but they have no problem in accepting that journalists can.

2) If the audience is so biased and the media companies are so hell bent on making money off these audiences, doesn't it follow that they would present biased news as a business strategy? Who are the right and left wings of the political spectrum if not members of the biased audience?

Here again, the Left doesn't seem to have any trouble identifying the only areas of news and entertainment where bias is actually reflected: Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's radio show, but can't detect a whif of it in such stalwart sources as The NY Times, The LA Times, ABC and CBS news, Newsweek, The Boston Globe etc etc etc.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/27/2022 at 09:20:54