House Votes To Defund NPR

[Burgold]

And the award for worst analogy in the history of the interwebs goes to.....

I think the issue here is that the GOP (more specifically the TP'ers) ran on cutting spending, but what they're cutting is more along the lines of your morning coffee than the mortgage on the lake house you can't afford.

Actually, I think you're taking it too far. The GOP isn't cutting the morning coffee, but the price of a single packet of artificial sweetner that might go in that coffee.

[Larry]

And the award for worst analogy in the history of the interwebs goes to.....

I think the issue here is that the GOP (more specifically the TP'ers) ran on cutting spending, but what they're cutting is more along the lines of your morning coffee than the mortgage on the lake house you can't afford.

Rotten analogy, yourself.

What's going on here is "Hey, the crisis I've been deliberately manufacturing for the last 30 years has finally gotten big enough for the voters to complain about it. Here's my chance to use that crisis to do what I've always wanted to do, anyway, for political reasons."

Folks, this isn't a budget cutting move. This is a Republican Agenda move.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Rotten analogy, yourself.

What's going on here is "Hey, the crisis I've been deliberately manufacturing for the last 30 years has finally gotten big enough for the voters to complain about it. Here's my chance to use that crisis to do what I've always wanted to do, anyway, for political reasons."

Folks, this isn't a budget cutting move. This is a Republican Agenda move.

Bingo, give this man a prize. This is exactly what's going on here, and it's more and more the politics of distraction and political slight of hand, "Pay no attention to the huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the two wars that we keep funneling your money too instead, look at the EVILS of NPR wooohoooooooo look at what they are doing eating up all these government funds....wooooooooo they are what is bankrupting our country....wooooooooohooooooo....be afraid of them...."

[NavyDave]

More, worldwide, the BBC is considered one of the best and purest news agencies around and it is a government entity, but it's not just news. So we should have our own State TV to mimic the Euros since competition in the market place isn't fair though the same talking points and content is identical not only on NPR but NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and MSNBC to the point that talk radio makes it a point to record them back to back to show how lockstep they are in putting out the same message?

Sesame Street, Masterpiece Theater, American Masters, and a whole bevy of shows on NPR and PBS all perform a public service and enrich us through education, knowledge, and serves to preserve some of the great performers of our time. Where else do you see Ella Fitzgerald singing followed by seven day documentaries on baseball or the Civil War? The funding of these documentaries, shows, and specials is what sets PBS and NPR apart... and for less than the cost to make a single major motion picture, you get tens of thousands stories and 365 days of programming.

Sesame Street can still be profitable on kids channels like ABCFamily, Nickalodeon or Disney if not picked up by local TV like CW Civil War Documentaries can be moved to the History channel or the Military Channel. Ella Fitzgerald can be found on BET Jazz or the Ovation Channel and the A & E. Bravo and Speed Channel I'm sure would compete for the rest

Think how many children have benefited from the educational programming alone on PBS.

So its for the kids? I learned more from Schoolhouse rock. Who doesn't remember Conjunction junction or its elementary in between saturday morning cartoons

[Bang]

Actually, I think you're taking it too far. The GOP isn't cutting the morning coffee, but the price of a single packet of artificial sweetner that might go in that coffee.

And it helps that the left likes that packet of sweetener. If the right enjoyed that sweetener, it would not be up for cuts.

They can claim all they want about trying to be responsible, but they don't cut their golden fleeces, they propose to cut programs that supposedly benefit their opponents.

More examples of bull**** politics. No real help, no real differences. Just bull**** to keep angry people angry and score points on the power play.

~Bang

[DRSmith]

Why do you think the agenda has been going after NPR Planned Parenthood and other non issues for the economy

[NavyDave]

it costs approx. 400k a day for the AirCraft Carrier to sit off the coast of Japan? (no idea)

Some things are worth it, some things are not.

Those in Japan are seen as life and death.

http://www.10news.com/news/27162523/detail.html

SAN DIEGO -- The San Diego-based aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan and seven other Navy ships headed for earthquake-ravaged Japan to help with relief efforts.

"People are in trouble and frequently countries look to us for assistance," Capt. Jeff Breslau, speaking from Hawaii for Pacific Fleet, told The San Diego Union-Tribune. "It's second nature for us when there is a crisis to switch to that mindset."

Along with three members of the Reagan Carrier Strike Group, the Essex, Harpers Ferry, Germantown, Tortuga and Blue Ridge are traveling to the disaster site, Breslau said.

Naval personnel may help with logistics, moving people and supplies, medical assistance, creating communications systems, search-and-rescue operations and building shelters.

They may also help provide fresh water. Watermakers aboard the Reagan can produce up to 400,000 gallons of water daily, Breslau said.

---------- Post added March-19th-2011 at 02:39 PM ----------

And the award for worst analogy in the history of the interwebs goes to.....

I think the issue here is that the GOP (more specifically the TP'ers) ran on cutting spending, but what they're cutting is more along the lines of your morning coffee than the mortgage on the lake house you can't afford.

Yeah lets forget that the Dems still control the Senate and the white house. If what they are cutting is so miniscule why are liberals having a cow about it?

I see nothing wrong with eliminating the small stuff while also planning to address the big stuff including entitlements, Fraud, Waste and abuse in areas that can be more efficient, as well as defense spending.

[allannis]

I tend to fall in the middle, and conservative on most issues, but this one is crap.

NPR and its ilk accounts for a pack of chicklets in terms of annual spending.

The US spends more on the Smithsonian. Twice as much, if I'm not mistaken.

How about some real solutions instead of pretending that shaving off a hair is going to make us clean cut.

Its because the Smithsonian does not lean to the left or the right politicaly, while NPR seems to lean to the left.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Its because the Smithsonian does not lean to the left or the right politicaly, while NPR seems to lean to the left.

That's crap. Faux News and the Tightie Righties have convinced their audience that any news that disagrees with their point of view and their pre-established narrative is Left leaning, as such they've created an environment where they can immediately cast ad hominem attacks on any news source that disagrees with them as being Leftist, when all it really means it that it disagrees with their version of the world.

[Burgold]

Its because the Smithsonian does not lean to the left or the right politicaly, while NPR seems to lean to the left.

Interestingly enough, we had a thread a while back where people were challenged to present left leaning stories provided any "liberal" news source including NPR. Given that the mainstream media produces hundreds of thousands of stories each day and I didn't give them any time restrictions, I thought that would be child's play. I mean even by pure random chance there were bound to be examples. Even if there were no liberal reporters in existance with that kind of sample size you'd think something would slip through, wouldn't you? I think there were five examples that people agreed were decent examples of bias. The thread was over 500 posts long and that thread has been in operation for over a year and has been brought back to life pretty frequently.

People say NPR is liberal. They have a heck of a hard time saying why or offering proof using actual news reports.

[allannis]

That's crap. Faux News and the Tightie Righties have convinced their audience that any news that disagrees with their point of view and their pre-established narrative is Left leaning, as such they've created an environment where they can immediately cast ad hominem attacks on any news source that disagrees with them as being Leftist, when all it really means it that it disagrees with their version of the world.

I thought news was news, not something that needs to be agreed upon. you prove my point with your statement. If NPR is leaning left or right in a way that is not even, then it should not be funded by the government.

[mardi gras skin]

People say NPR is liberal. They have a heck of a hard time saying why or offering proof using actual news reports.

The people who work at NPR are overwhelmingly liberal. Would that be an accurate statement Burg?

[Burgold]

I thought news was news, not something that needs to be agreed upon. you prove my point with your statement. If NPR is leaning left or right in a way that is not even, then it should not be funded by the government.

This point makes no sense. Are you saying if someone lies and you refute the lie with facts then you are biased?

For what it's worth, news can never just be news, esp. breaking news because not all the facts are ever known and not all the perspectives can be immediately analyzed. That doesn't mean that every effort to be thorough, objective, balanced, and fair can't be made, but you should be aware that even the best news reporting is limited by time, resources, and accessibility to sources.

---------- Post added March-19th-2011 at 08:35 PM ----------

The people who work at NPR are overwhelmingly liberal. Would that be an accurate statement Burg?

Well, the development guy that Schefter forced out through his deceptive editing was a Republican :halo:

I'd say in my experience that is more true than not. I think that there are more reporters who would self identify as liberals then conservatives. I don't think that necessarily means that the institution's work is liberally biased though. I know they go through great lengths to try not to be.

[grego]

not sure why NPR haters would have a problem with government funded news.

trust us.

sincerely,

the government

if its so good, it will survive on its own.

[allannis]

Interestingly enough, we had a thread a while back where people were challenged to present left leaning stories provided any "liberal" news source including NPR. Given that the mainstream media produces hundreds of thousands of stories each day and I didn't give them any time restrictions, I thought that would be child's play. I mean even by pure random chance there were bound to be examples. Even if there were no liberal reporters in existance with that kind of sample size you'd think something would slip through, wouldn't you? I think there were five examples that people agreed were decent examples of bias. The thread was over 500 posts long and that thread has been in operation for over a year and has been brought back to life pretty frequently.

People say NPR is liberal. They have a heck of a hard time saying why or offering proof using actual news reports.

If you and I could listen to NPR together, I could point out examples daily, the only example I have now is the other night they were discussing the remarks made by NPR employee to a potential contributer that were left leaning and caught on tape. out of a panel of four only one described himself as conservative, and was given very little time to remark on the subject. Its the subject matter chosen, and the veiw from which its reported . Some would say FOX leans to the right for the same reason.

[mardi gras skin]

I'd say in my experience that is more true than not. I think that there are more reporters who would self identify as liberals then conservatives. I don't think that necessarily means that the institution's work is liberally biased though. I know they go through great lengths to try not to be.

What you're describing is evident in the final product. NPR feels very much like a bunch of liberals doing everything they can to be fair. And when people say that NPR is biased, this is what they're picking up on. They're right. NPR is biased. Not by intent but by composition.

[allannis]

This point makes no sense. Are you saying if someone lies and you refute the lie with facts then you are biased?

For what it's worth, news can never just be news, esp. breaking news because not all the facts are ever known and not all the perspectives can be immediately analyzed. That doesn't mean that every effort to be thorough, objective, balanced, and fair can't be made, but you should be aware that even the best news reporting is limited by time, resources, and accessibility to sources.

---------- Post added March-19th-2011 at 08:35 PM ----------

Well, the development guy that Schefter forced out through his deceptive editing was a Republican :halo:

I'd say in my experience that is more true than not. I think that there are more reporters who would self identify as liberals then conservatives. I don't think that necessarily means that the institution's work is liberally biased though. I know they go through great lengths to try not to be.

Who lied ? you seem biased, and there is nothing wrong with that, you have your right to your opinion, just not government funded without equal time. By the way I never said wether i leaned to the right or left, I listen to NPR and i'll pony up.

[Burgold]

If you and I could listen to NPR together, I could point out examples daily, the only example I have now is the other night they were discussing the remarks made by NPR employee to a potential contributer that were left leaning and caught on tape. out of a panel of four only one described himself as conservative, and was given very little time to remark on the subject. Its the subject matter chosen, and the veiw from which its reported . Some would say FOX leans to the right for the same reason.

You are aware of the problems with that tape, right? The fact that it was edited to a degree that it was closer to a work of fiction than anything else. That statements were pasted in out of order, statements defending FOX and conservatives were removed, etc. Laughs were inserted where there was no laughter. Concerns were cut out.

Now, I have my own biases towards NPR. I've worked with NPR and a number of different NPR stations for six years so I have a much greater inside view on how they work, what stories are chosen and what measures are taken to try to eliminate bias. There is a huge difference between NPR and FOX and I know this because I've made friends at the National Press Club who work at FOX and I also know how they develop their stories and how they choose to tell them. The difference is quite sad in reality.

One of the things I really noticed in the Overt and Conscious thread is the impact of listener bias. This actually goes both ways. When a liberal listener hears a FOX story their ears perk and they hear the strains of nefarious scheming. Sometimes they imagine bias stories that have none. Conservatives are guilty of the same thing when listening to other broadcasters. They imagine what's not there. The big difference is that FOX and conservative media has been caught literally hundreds of times not biasing, but outright lying or consciously reporting information that they know isn't true. From the benign like labeling a Republican under scandal with a D (not once, but many times) to flipping data to show a more positive result, to providing disproven data just to make someone look bad.

Anyway, I know I'm not likely to convince you. People generally have their minds well made up on this subject, but take an honest listen... and if you do find these NPR stories daily please post them into the Overt thread. Every NPR story is archived online. It's not hard.

---------- Post added March-19th-2011 at 09:08 PM ----------

Ah, you are unaware. Here ya go... even Glenn Beck was denouncing the edit hack job.

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/off-mic/item/15325-glenn-beck-defender-of-npr

It was widely covered.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-npr-20110316,0,451923.story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/14/AR2011031403881.html

[allannis]

You are aware of the problems with that tape, right? The fact that it was edited to a degree that it was closer to a work of fiction than anything else. That statements were pasted in out of order, statements defending FOX and conservatives were removed, etc. Laughs were inserted where there was no laughter. Concerns were cut out.

Now, I have my own biases towards NPR. I've worked with NPR and a number of different NPR stations for six years so I have a much greater inside view on how they work, what stories are chosen and what measures are taken to try to eliminate bias. There is a huge difference between NPR and FOX and I know this because I've made friends at the National Press Club who work at FOX and I also know how they develop their stories and how they choose to tell them. The difference is quite sad in reality.

One of the things I really noticed in the Overt and Conscious thread is the impact of listener bias. This actually goes both ways. When a liberal listener hears a FOX story their ears perk and they hear the strains of nefarious scheming. Sometimes they imagine bias stories that have none. Conservatives are guilty of the same thing when listening to other broadcasters. They imagine what's not there. The big difference is that FOX and conservative media has been caught literally hundreds of times not biasing, but outright lying or consciously reporting information that they know isn't true. From the benign like labeling a Republican under scandal with a D (not once, but many times) to flipping data to show a more positive result, to providing disproven data just to make someone look bad.

Anyway, I know I'm not likely to convince you. People generally have their minds well made up on this subject, but take an honest listen... and if you do find these NPR stories daily please post them into the Overt thread. Every NPR story is archived online. It's not hard.

---------- Post added March-19th-2011 at 09:08 PM ----------

Ah, you are unaware. Here ya go... even Glenn Beck was denouncing the edit hack job.

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/off-mic/item/15325-glenn-beck-defender-of-npr

It was widely covered.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-npr-20110316,0,451923.story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/14/AR2011031403881.html

I was not talking about if it was true or not. At the time of the story all the panelist believed it to be true and it was how i described. I don't listen to Glenn Beck so that means nothing to me. I would love to have my mind changed, so I will try as you recomend.

[Nerm]

One of the things I really noticed in the Overt and Conscious thread is the impact of listener bias. This actually goes both ways. When a liberal listener hears a FOX story their ears perk and they hear the strains of nefarious scheming. Sometimes they imagine bias stories that have none. Conservatives are guilty of the same thing when listening to other broadcasters. They imagine what's not there. The big difference is that FOX and conservative media has been caught literally hundreds of times not biasing, but outright lying or consciously reporting information that they know isn't true. From the benign like labeling a Republican under scandal with a D (not once, but many times) to flipping data to show a more positive result, to providing disproven data just to make someone look bad.

Anyway, I know I'm not likely to convince you. People generally have their minds well made up on this subject, but take an honest listen... and if you do find these NPR stories daily please post them into the Overt thread. Every NPR story is archived online. It's not hard.

I think this is a great point. As humans, we all have biases that affect the way we process information. We minimize facts that contradict our beliefs and selectively attend to information that confirms our beliefs. Awareness of these biases is kind of interesting. I try my best to catch myself when I do this, but it isn’t easy. I like to read research on policy outcomes. When I read an outcome study that is counter to what I would expect based on my general political philosophies, there is a tendency to look hard for the flaws in the studies. I’m thinking “Well, they didn’t control for this variable, that probably explains the result.” However, if I read an outcome study that confirms what I believe, I don’t look too hard for methodological flaws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

---

Confirmation biasFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

[Spec138]

Yeah lets forget that the Dems still control the Senate and the white house. If what they are cutting is so miniscule why are liberals having a cow about it?

I see nothing wrong with eliminating the small stuff while also planning to address the big stuff including entitlements, Fraud, Waste and abuse in areas that can be more efficient, as well as defense spending.

I can't speak for the libs, but I can for me.

I dont see anything wrong eliminating small stuff either, but I haven't seen a coherent plan to address the large problems you mentioned. The GOP is taking a way out that will allow them to act like they are battling for spending cuts and demonize dems, all while skirting around the true things that are bankrupting this country because they wouldn't be popular to cut/reform. I support spending cuts whole heartedly, but not petty political pandering that serves no real purpose other than to strike one up for the elephants.

[Burgold]

What you're describing is evident in the final product. NPR feels very much like a bunch of liberals doing everything they can to be fair. And when people say that NPR is biased, this is what they're picking up on. They're right. NPR is biased. Not by intent but by composition.

I think that danger does exist (although conservatives aren't extinct inside NPR and its member stations). It's possible that the very nature of NPR, the type of folksy and positive cultural stories it often chooses along with its news, and most importantly its not for profit/pay structure winds up being more inviting to libs. Then again, I don't know many libs who are opposed to being paid more so that point was kind of dumb. I'd also argue that while liberal and conservative exist from one point of view I think it's a shallow one that we fixate on. I like to think of us all as scatterplots where each of us vary based on issues or points. Now, looking at the trendline, I suspect you are right that the employees of NPR tend to be more liberal, but I am glad that you and others can see that the product produced tries to be fair. I can also say that I've had pieces that I've written has been sent outside of NPR for review when the editors and directors feel they lack the expertise to judge it properly.

I'd also never argue perfection. Each reporter, producer, assignment editor, and director have their own biases and try as they might some color must escape sometimes. That's true in every endeavor. I still have a set of encylopedia's from the 1960's that my parents bought and it's amazing how much subjective interpretation you can find in them.

So, defining what is fair and objective is yet another problem or impossibility if we're going for the philosophical angle. In practical terms, I think fair and objective is something NPR achieves 99% of the time.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I thought news was news, not something that needs to be agreed upon. you prove my point with your statement. If NPR is leaning left or right in a way that is not even, then it should not be funded by the government.

I proved nothing of the sort, here's why, compared to Faux News any story that does not agree with Faux is Leftist and biased, that doesn't prove that it actually is Leftist or biased it just proves that it disagrees with Faux. For example; Faux says that 61% of people oppose the teacher's Unions in Wisconsin, the reality is that is not true. Does that mean the objective journalism that tells the actual truth is biased, or that it only proves Faux's bias? I think the answer is clear. Just because you don't want it to be doesn't mean it isn't.

But ya'll keep chasing this myth that everyone is as bad as Faux News, honestly it makes it easier to spot the people we should ignore.

[NavyDave]

T

Well, the development guy that Schefter forced out through his deceptive editing was a Republican :halo:

psst There are Republicans that are left leaning liberals just as there are Democrats that are conservatives (blue dogs) that the left uses to increase their numbers and hide behind.

[Larry]

I can't speak for the libs, but I can for me.

I dont see anything wrong eliminating small stuff either, but I haven't seen a coherent plan to address the large problems you mentioned. The GOP is taking a way out that will allow them to act like they are battling for spending cuts and demonize dems, all while skirting around the true things that are bankrupting this country because they wouldn't be popular to cut/reform. I support spending cuts whole heartedly, but not petty political pandering that serves no real purpose other than to strike one up for the elephants.

I think that my opinion is similar to yours, but I may phrase it differently.

The GOP are looking for the most politically divisive cuts they can possibly make, because they want to be opposed.

They want the Dems to oppose this, so then they can say "look, we're trying to make cuts, and those evil Dems are preventing us".

In short, they aren't trying to cut spending. They're trying to make it look like they're trying to cut spending.