No Liberal Bias at NPR — Just Ask NPR

Ask most conservatives and they’ll tell you that NPR is a hopelessly left-wing news organization filled with liberal biases.  Ask most liberals and they’ll tell you it’s a down the middle, mainstsream news outlet. Instead of getting into that debate, let’s get into another, more nuanced one.  So, consider this statement made by the co-host of NPR’s On the Media:

“If you were to somehow poll the political orientation of everybody in the NPR news organization and all of the member stations, you would find an overwhelmingly progressive, liberal crowd.”

Those are the words of Bob Garfield in the aftermath of the conservative “citizen journalist” sting against NPR, which caught on camera a now former fund raising executive smearing the entire Tea Party movement as racist and stupid.

Mr. Garfield was not saying NPR has a liberal bias, just that it’s journalists are “overwhelmingly” liberal.  That is a great big problem all by itself.  But more on that in a moment. Garfield’s guest, a liberal named Ira Glass, who is host of the NPR show “This American Life” predictably said, NPR is a mainstream news operation and has no liberal bias.  End of discussion!

But let’s look it this way:  Let’s say, if you were to somehow poll the political orientation of everybody in the NPR news organization and all of the member stations, let’s say you’d find an overwhelmingly conservative, right-wing crowd — does anyone at NPR think that would be just fine; that such one-sidedness wouldn’t present journalistic problems; that such a news organization would present the news without filtering it through a conservative lens?

I don’t.

But somehow liberals at NPR think that it doesn’t matter if just about everybody in the newsroom is liberal.  After all, the argument goes, they’re professionals.  They can keep their biases to themselves.  To which I have just two words:  Juan.  Williams.

In the “overwhelmingly” liberal bubble that is NPR, executives were appalled at Juan Williams comment to Bill O’Reilly that ““When I get on a plane … if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they’re identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried, I get nervous.”

This was so bigoted, in their view, that they had to fire Mr. Williams.  In a statement explaining why they did it, NPR said:  Williams’ words “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”

But these same sensitive liberal souls let Nina Totenberg, NPR’s Legal Affairs  correspondent, go on a Sunday talk show each week and spout all sorts of liberal nonsense.  Who could forget her shot at then Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, a comment for which she later apologized.  If there was “retributive justice,” in the world, Ms. Totenberg said, Jesse Helms would “get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”

Inside the liberal bubble Juan Williams is a bigot.  Nina Totenberg isn’t.

That’s one of the many reasons it matters if a newsroom is “overwhelmingly” liberal – or conservative.

Another has to do with what a news organization chooses not to put on the air.   It’s about what it doesn’t deem important or interesting enough to share with its audience.  Not all bias can be detected by what actually survives the gauntlet and sees the light of day. I speak from first hand knowledge.

In December 2001, my first book came out.  It was called Bias and it was about liberal bias in the so-called mainstream media.  Terry Gross, who hosts a daily interview program on NPR called Fresh Air, showed no interest in having me on – despite the fact that Bias was number one on the holy grail of liberal booklists, the New York Times best seller list.  And that’s perfectly fine.  I have no right to be on any program.  Terry Gross can pick and choose her guests as she sees fit.

But not long after the book came out she had a liberal professor on her show criticizing it.  She never gave me a chance to defend my work.  And then a full year after Bias came out, I got a call from NPR telling me that Terry Gross wanted me on Fresh Air. Why now, so long after my book came out?  Because a liberal had just published a book condemning Bias, that’s why.

So I was of no interest to Terry Gross until I was in the liberal cross hairs.

I may have no right to be on her show, but she has no right to pretend she’s not part of NPR’s “overwhelmingly” liberal crowd, and one who has a very deep-seated liberal bias.

As for the current debate, about whether federal government money should go to NPR: I’m against it.  And not because of liberal bias.  If public broadcasting is as good as we’re constantly being told by its adoring and loyal supporters in places like Manhattan and Malibu, then it ought to be good enough to survive on its own, without taxpayer money, no matter how small.

In a 21st century media universe with thousands of radio and television outlets, NPR (and PBS) should find its niche in the marketplace.  If it does, that’s fine with me.  If it doesn’t, well, somehow I suspect we’ll all survive.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • Pingback: Daily Show caught editing footage to smear Conservatives - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 7 - City-Data Forum

  • WANG

    The major difference between NPR, and Fox news is when NPR reports news, it is news. When NPR reports opinion, it shows both sides, and is clearly labeled as editorial. Fox and MSNBC have blurred these lines. You will never hear any intentional misinformation, sensational reporting, or flat out lies on NPR. You will find both of those things of Fox.

  • tony

    factual evidence tends to be liberal

  • Brian

    NPR has good and entertaining news coverage in my opinion. I am a daily listener. However, you are not honest or uninformed if you believe they aren’t left leaning. Most news coverage is just that, relaying the events of the day. There are times when guests and topic exploration (usually a few minutes) are dripping with liberal views. E.g the recent fiscal cliff spending and tax debate which was presented as if it is fact that low taxes hurt the economy and government spending (as they see fit) boosts the economy. They do present conservative argument, but often the weakest and poorly presented ones. Of course liberal representatives get the benefit of the doubt every time and rarely are their failures explored unless they make it beyond conservative news.
    Fox is conservative leaning, but not more than NPR is left leaning. Their strength is that they are honest with this reality. They also periodically present the argument for conservatism. NPR in contrast does not present liberalism as a choice, but as a fact.
    Happy listening

  • Pingback: Shocking! | hellinahandbasket.net

  • Kjus Formula

    Hi, Neat post. There is an issue along with your website in internet explorer, may check this? IE nonetheless is the marketplace chief and a big element of other people will pass over your great writing because of this problem.

  • Pingback: Warning: Conservatives May Be Harmful to Your Mental Health – Americas Review

  • Byron

    Here’s a more up-to-date page about Fox News:

    Fox News—Wing of the GOP?
    More like a Republican slugging arm

    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3957

    I’d like to make a suggestion. When Fox News stops being propped up with money from Murdoch and Koch, then they can critisize NPR for “failing to stand on their own two feet”. Until then we can only add them to the litany of flamingly hypocritical Republican voices out there.

    • Jim

      Bad analogy, since Fox doesn’t get any public funds.

    • John

      Fox is a private Co.,doesn’t recieve any public funds and has view points from the left on a daily basis. Can NPR say this? And if you have a problem with Murdoch and Koch you must really hate George Sorros!

      • Daniel Walker

        Yes! NPR can say that, they give equal time to both defenders from both sides of the fence (something Fox cannot say). It is not so far right as FOX is, or so far left as MSNBC is either. When you compare it to both of these sources NPR is FIRMLY right down the middle. You should listen to it for a week, and if it you cannot hear that for yourself then I don’t know what else will convince you! Just because FOX says that NPR is liberal don’t believe it! Just because liberals say NPR is conservative don’t believe that either. Yes NPR is the only major news source that has been accused of bias from both sides! Let me repeat that for you! NPR has been accused of being biased by both political leanings! Fox will never be accused of being liberally biased, and MSNBC will never be accused of being conservatively biased. If that does not scream truly “Fair and Balanced” I don’t know what does!
        As far as a private company it is not, but it was not set up that way either! So that comparison is a moot point! However, a comparison of journalistic integrity I think would be a better one. NPR has it, Fox definitely does not!

        • Your Name

          NPR is NOT firmly down the middle.  I may lean only slightly left; but, the leanings are not true North.  I enjoy much of NPR, but fair and unbiased NPR is not.

  • Byron

    I propose a straight up comparison between NPR and Fox News. It would be quite instructive because next to Fox News NPR is 210% fair and balanced. Fox News, on the other hand, is being propped up by billionaire extremist rightwinger Rupert Murdoch. They are nothing more than the televised version of the rightwing “Reverend” Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times. There is nothing, repeat NOTHING fair or balanced about them. They have a very definite agenda to distort the facts to meet their hateful conservative agenda and that has been shown time and time again.

    What people like Bernard Goldberg don’t like is the fact that NPR is not parroting their party line. Why that’s just INHERENTLY wrong they believe. The only LOGICAL conclusion that one can come to is that NPR must be a communist organization! Why aren’t they singing the praises of the Teabagger loons? Why aren’t they condemning evolution theory and exhaulting creationism? Why do they INSIST on doing shows that speak positively about the environment, clean air, clean water and the notion of protecting it? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THOSE PEOPLE???

    The thing about NPR is that even though most people working there might lean progressive, they do not let that influence their programming. The fact that they don’t give crazies equal time is not evidence of bias you bozo unless you also want to insist that college astronomy classes ought to be balanced with astrology and flat-earth “theory” classes. I guess that’d be balanced, but would it be right?

    Here’s what Fox New’s Bill O’Reilly said about his own station: ““The anti-liberal Fox News Channel and the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial page is conservative, are both doing very well.” That certainly shows that they are fair and balanced.

    Still believe that? Then check out this site: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

    • Jim

      Then feel free to point out examples of Fox’s bias.

      • Bob Hadley

        Glad you asked.

        FNC is biased in many respects: of not reporting facts that run contrary to their bias; of de-
        emphasizing facts that run contrary to their bias; of cherry-picking stories that support their bias (i.e. make liberals or democrats look bad); and of continually repeating certain stories that support their bias. These are in the straight news stories as well as in their opinion pieces that claim to include fair reporting (e.g. O’Reilly).

        This is not to say that FNC does not have some news programs that are actually fair and balanced and some opinion shows that have serious dicussion of the issues.

        I watch FNC a lot. Obama’ so-called stimulus spending package has received heavy coverage, as has the harsh criticsim of Obama’s stimulus spending. I am unaware that FNC has ever reported the fact that about 1/3 of this so-called stimulus package is NOT spending but is in the form of tax cuts. You can argue that the criticsm is really aimed at the other 2/3, but you can’t argue against the foregoing fact or that the 1/3 is not part of the story.

        FNC has given heavy coverage to the tea partiers protests against high taxes and other criticism of high tax rates, but I am unaware of FNC ever reporting the fact that taxes under Obama are at the lowest in a generation for about 95% of all taxpayers. You can argue that the protest are really about future taxes given the rapidly rising deficits, but that is not how it is typically presented.

        From watching FNC, I’d think that the so-called death tax is applied to all estates of any value.

        Until recently, from watching FNC, I’d think what is ailing the country is federal funding for NPR, the New Black Panther party and ACORN. Reporting these stories is good, but what happened to proportionality?

        FNC has given liberal coverage to the story about the New Black Panther party’s voter intimidation and the Obama justice dept’s failure to prosecute its members. I have never heard FNC address the stories that it was the Bush justice dept that initially declined to prosecute, that the New Black Panter party has only 3 members, or that the voter intimidation occurred at a polling site in a black and predominantly Democratic district. I don’t know if these reports are true, but FNC has never, to my knowledge, included in its reports information that would address these reports. Accordingly, I’m inclined to believe these reports. Here, I’m not necessarily saying that the members shold not be prosecuted, but let’s get the whole story.

        These are just a few examples.

        Yes, FNC has some good discussion and some good reporting, but it also has a lot of bias masquerading as fair reporting. And yes, there are other news outlets that are biased in the other direction. It could be argued that FNC provides a balance to those other news outlets. But, to say that FNC’s news reporting is generally fair and balanced.isd generally untrue.

        • John

          So if you have a problem with Fox being bias then what about CBS, NBC,ABC,CNBC,CNN,NYT,WP and LAT? All these medias are bombing because Americans are sick of the lefts one sided bias reporting and blatant sucking up to Obama. All of these outlets have called the Tea Party racist, violent and stupid and never backed it up with one shred of proof. There has NEVER been one arrest at any Tea Party event for violence or a call from anyone involed wirth the Tea Party for violence of any kind. Let’s take a look at NBC’s reporting on the protest in Az over illegal aliens. As an angry crowd chases police officers who are placing a counter protester under arrest a water bottle bounces off one of the Police officers heads and the NBC reporter says this ” Today at the mostly peaceful protest in Az….” and all the left news media outlets let this slide including NPR. They never mention any of the real violence coming from the left, so don’t give me your onesided view of Fox unless you are willing to hold ALL the media to the same standard. Every day Fox has POLS from both sides on every program including O’Rielly and Hannity.
          The Bush JD continued to proescute the black panther party and handed over the case to Holders JD, it was Loreeta King who stopped the case for Holder, NOT Bush’s JD. King also thinks that the NYC Fire Dept. should hire all minorities who score as low as 30% on the Dept. exam, but you wouldn’t know this because NPR and all the other liberial rags you bow to didn’t report it.
          If Fox is so bias how come they beat EVERY other media outlet in every time slot. Not one news outlet comes close to them. Why because most of the people in America are sick of the one sided bias reporting coming from outlets like NPR, NBC and the NYT.

          • Bob Hadley

            You sound like a liberal scorned.

            Why do you make up stories? You realize that only degrades your credibility? Isn’t that what liberals do? You made up the bit about me bowing to NPR “and other liberal rags.” First, I do not listen to NPR much and most newpapers I read lean conservative. I watch FNC about as much as, if not more than, I watch other TV “news” outlets. Second, I bow to no medium or source. I’m what is known as an independent or critical thinker. I am often critical of those I support and am often supportive of those I oppose. Yes, I do have my biases but I also seek to challenge my beliefs.

            As O’Reilly would say, you’re using bad behavior to justify other bad behavior. You use the bias of other media to deflect (or justify) FNC’s bad behavior. I acknowledged in my post that certain other media are biased in a direction contrary to FNC. If this were a liberal website with an “amen chorus” for various liberal media I’d criticize those media while acknowledging the right wing bias of certain other media.

            FNC is popular at least largely because of the marketing and managerial genius of Roger Ailes. Ailes has a set of demographics he’s targeting and has corresponding appeals to those demographics–red meat for the hardline anti-government types (including reporting that repestedly emphasizes facts that conservatives want to hear and that de-emphasizes or omits facts that those conservatibves prefer not to hear), discussion slanted heavily conservative for more cerebral conservatives, fairer and more balanced discussion for more centrist types, sexy anchors and analysts (who are also talented) and sexy, sensational andd frilly segments for those wanting that kind of entertainment, etc. Apparently, Ailes also does a masterful job of maintaining maximum camraderie and team spirit among the FNC personnel. Ailes knows his base and tailors FNC accordingly. Is FNC’s bias unmistakingly clear-cut and consistent? No, but it’s there if you choose to take a critical look.

            FNC’s popularity alone does not mean that FNC is, in and of itself, fair and balanced.

            And, yes, other networks do much the same, albeit not as effectively, and maybe they’re jealous. But that doesn’t justify FNC.

            You said that the Bush JD was prosecuting the New Black Panther party for voter intimidation. Where did you get this information? If it was reported on FNC, I missed it. Do you have a link to that info? As far as i can tell, FNC is scupulous about not falsely reporting facts. The problem is that FNC often screens facts to fit its bias.

            You say that O’Reilly, for example, has analysts/guests from both sides on all of his shows. Technically that is true. But I hope you’re not falling for O’Reilly’s claim that his presentations are fairly even. His anti-Obama chorus includes Rove, Morris, Miller, Monica, Gingrich (until just recently), Krauthammer and that woman who typically appears with Williams (whose name escapes me). Of the foregoing, Krauthammer is probably the most independent, although tyopically taking an anti-Obama stance. He also includes as regulars such conservatives as Hume and Goldberg. The latter aren’t so much anti-Obama as typically conservative, although Goldberg is independent, albeit frequently conservative, on O’Reilly’s show. The only consistent pro-Obama person is Combs. Williams is sometimes pro-Obama, but often is not. On rare Occasions O’Reilly has that white haired guy who sometimes appears on Fox News Watch give a liberal point of view. The topics O’Reilly chooses to cover usually are designed to put Obama, democrats or liberals on the defensive. Liberals are often brought on to justify their side.

            If conservatives come on ABC, MSNBC and other such networks as window dressing, much the same can be said about liberals on Fox.

          • John

            Two lawyers from the Holder JD testified in front of congress that while they were in the process of prosecuting the BP case they were told by King to drop the case. One of them had over thirty years with the JD and said it was the worst case of bias he ever saw. This was reported on ALL the news outlets including fox. This was a well known fact and NO where was it ever reported that the Bush JD droped the case.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/30/justice-dept-lawyer-accuses-holder-dropping-new-black-panther-case-political/http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/28/justice-department-drops-charges-in-voter-intimidation-case/http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/07/06/adams-lawless-civil-rights-division-dismissed-black-panther-case/

          • Bob Hadley

            John,

            Yes, I saw those reports. But it was never made clear (unless I missed it) when they began working on the New Black Panther case. That one guy who was working in the JD for 30 year may have picked up the case again after Obama took office.

            I’ve heard reports that the Bush JD refused to pursue the case. I have not heard this report addressed by any reputable new organization. I’m not approaching this from an ideological or partisan perspective. I merely want to know something known as the truth.

    • Marc

      You are hypocritical Byron.  You are saying that Fox News is biased and therefore a bad news organization.  I agree with you on that.  Despite my Conservative leaning, I don’t watch much Fox news because I believe a news organization should be without bias – give me the facts and let me make my own decision.  But if you criticise Fox for this, then surely you must criticise CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, and nearly all other news organizations, for they all show a clear liberal bias.  You are hypocritically saying that as long as a news organization is bias in your favour, then it is a good news source.  I say that all news organization should be unbiased, balanced, objective; and by that measure both Fox and NPR need much improvement.

  • Nicholas

    Just like there’s no conservative bias at Fox News, right Bernie? Every media outlet is biased in one form or another, whether it’s Fox News, the New York Times, or the Washington Post. The fact (you know, a verifiable truth) is that anyone who claims that they aren’t biased but demonstrate bias at every turn is inherently dishonest, regardless of whether they lean left or right.

    • stmichrick

      Nicholas, the difference is that FNC recognizes debate. They acknowledge that there is another side while the other news organizations ignore that. Even Sean Hannity is at his best when he has someone who thinks he’s wrong across the table firing back.

      It is self-evident that FNC is a success because they have something the others do not.

  • TOMMY FREEDOM

    FOX NEWS SHOULD RESCUE VIVIAN SHILLER LIKE WILLIE JUAN WILLIAMS, THEY COULD BE A
    HERO AGAIN AND BRAGG ABOUT IT FOR THE NEXT 6 MONTHS. BILLY COULD HAVE HER CO-HOST
    THE HUGE EGO FACTOR. IS IT TRUE BILL IS GOING ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL WITH OBAMA.
    ANYTHING FOR A RATING, A BOOK OR A BUCK!!!

  • joe from louisiana

    The outrage because Schiller’s interview was edited to make it appear worse is funny. This is what 60 Minutes and Dateline have been doing for years. It’s parallel to the Shirley Sherrod case. I don’t agree with the editing but still the same she was acknowledging offensive ideas(whether apologetic or not). Juxtapose that with any other time a conservative is reamed for comments, i.e. Trent Lott. The arrogance is they dictate what is offensive and that is bias. i used to listen to NPR occasionally but the Totenburg comments changed my mind. Let them rely on private donations.

  • Paul Courtney

    Two recent columns give rise to an idea. Mr. Copps and the FCC could regulate content only of radio that receives federal funds. They could “get their feet wet” and work out practice and procedures to analyze npr for balance. Something tells me his review committee would find npr perfectly balanced, but at least it would give them something to do. This is not a serious proposal, but if tried, it would likely serve to demonstrate the impossibility of the FCC fairly regulating radio content.

  • http://www.huffingtonpost.com Wil Burns

    Bernie, “What was in the two hour video that mitigated what Schiller said?”

    In the edited footage, Mr. Schiller is shown acting jovial when told the Muslim brotherhood was wanting Sharia. In the raw footage, the laughter is obviously from another incident completely unrelated.
    Mr. Shiller is shown in the edited version saying nothing but negative things about Republicans. In the raw footage, Mr. Schiller has much to say about Republicans both good and bad.
    In the raw footage, Mr. Schiller is describing how a couple of people told him that Tea Party members are “xenophobic…seriously racist people.” This is edited to look like Mr. Schiller’s personal opinion.
    Mr. Schiller is goaded by the expose members into saying Democrats are better educated than Republicans. Missing in the edited video are his initial refusals to say such.
    Missing from the edited footage is the explanation why NPR needs federal funding – instead there’s only the quote of claiming NPR’s survival without it.
    Missing from the edited footage is how Mr. Schiller repeatedly tells the potential donators that their donations cannot effect NPR’s journalism.
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-raw-video-of-npr-expose-reveal-questionable-editing-tactics/

    By the way, “The Blaze” is owned by Glenn Beck.

    • Cameron D. MacKay

      Will Burns
      Examining the New York Times publications I notice
      Missing …. any coverage whatsoever of Climategate
      Actual footage …. thousands of emails which disclose not only the scam being perpetrated by global warming alarmists under the guise of science but computer code which is shockingly amateurism and totally inadequate for the intended task. So what is edited out a news story which affects every nation and all of their populace.

      Maybe you should address your new found skills towards the editing deficiencies of the liberal mainstream media.

      • http://www.huffingtonpost.com Wil Burns

        Cameran, Bernie does the editing deficiencies of the liberal mainstream. It’s his job and career. I don’t want to muscle in. BTW, I do not read the NYT.

  • http://www.huffingtonpost.com Wil Burns

    Terry Gross snubbed Bernie, so now we have to de-fund NPR? And BTW, Nina Totenberg slammed Jesse Helms in 1995. Bernie that’s a long time to hold a grudge and she did apologized, has Juan Williams ever apologized?

    • Tim

      Juan didn’t do anything. What should he apologize for?

    • Cameron D. MacKay

      What would Juan Williams possibly apologize for ? ……. being a centre left liberal who researches his material and presents a cogent logical argument to support his position. It’s not his fault that he is a dying breed among Democrats.

      • http://www.huffingtonpost.com Wil Burns

        Juan Williams on The O’Reilly’s Show Friday 3-18-11 “He said that black men make him nervous, too!” He did it again!

        http://www.newshounds.us/

        • Bob Hadley

          Will,

          Thanks for earmarking that clip of Williams hosting O’Reilly’s show. I missed it last night. Williams was ill prepared for that exchange. He did not comport himself well.

          On the other hand, I don’t judge Williams harshly the way various others do. And I think he probably should not have been fired. This is not to say, however, that I don’t have sharp disagreement with some of his views.

  • http://www.bigbureaucracy.com/ Ellie Velinska

    NPR are a bunch of snobs.
    Back in the time of communism in my native Bulgaria there was only one radio – the government one – and to be radio journalist a person had to have their voice certified by the government. It is true – making sure the ‘journalists’ don’t have any out-of-the-city accent or speech defect.

    A professor in college told me I will never work at radio because I say ‘R’ improperly.

    I ended up working 7 years in private radio and we basically killed the public radio ratings despite our speech defects.

    Now I am blogging despite my horrible grammar. Liberals don’t like that. Whatever.

    • http://www.bigbureaucracy.com/ Ellie Velinska

      With the coming of glasnost, perestroika and the ‘democracy’ many private radio stations emerged. There was no voice certification there. The snobs had really hard time accepting the new imperfect sound of the free radio.

  • Paul Courtney

    I still listen to npr daily, partly to “know thine enemy” and partly for the guilty pleasure of listening while sending them no $. It doesn’t take a trained ear to hear the bias and the attempts at balance, but Bernie’s Terry Gross experience tells us “there are no accidents” (not sure if I should attribute Freud or Frazier). Ms. Gross is pleasant on air, but she gets to choose what goes on air, and her choices reveal her politics. Do they sit in a boardroom and plan to attack conservatives? No need, they can work off the same page without meeting. Coverage of the WI protests on several programs was instinctively sympathetic to the protesters for the first several days, locally (Ohio had its own union protests) and nationally. And NEVER any coverage of the protesters uncivil, even threatening behavior, or a nice round table about the pressing need for civility, or if closing schools for this was worthwhile. Just when it couldn’t get any more ironic, David Brooks repeats the talking point that Federal money is needed to get npr to “rural” areas. So we rubes can hear npr’s indifference and outright hostility to “rural” folk? Here’s the deal- cut off federal funds, and maybe I’ll donate. Keep federal funding, I won’t.

  • Kathie Ampela

    Would liberals stand for a media outlet with a clear conservative bias taking taxpayer money..I hardly think so. Let them pay their own way..and I don’t buy the argument that rural areas get their news from NPR and would be cut off otherwise..in the era of 24 hr cable news/internet/wireless, etc. I find it hard to believe that ANYONE would miss NPR.

    40 years ago when I was a preschooler I benefited from watching children’s programming on PBS..but today there are tons and tons of entertainment altermatives for children and adults..CPB is a waste of money.

  • Jay Thompson

    Bernie, you are correct to point out that what is not reported says as much about the leanings of a news organization as what the reported does. That is why we know exactly where CBS, NBC, and ABC tend to position themselves.
    They routinely neglect reporting many important events, happenings, developments. And their silence, as NPR’s is deafening.

    • EddieD_Boston

      Like they don’t report Obama’s complete lack of interest in world changing events and his pathetic lack of ability to lead.

      Yes, the silence is deafening.

  • Bruce A.

    With a endless assortment of radio & television choices now available via cable, satelite, wireless & internet. Why must a tax paying for profit business and tax payers be forced to subsidize any non profit or government sponsored radio/television corporations with the exception of Voice of America?

  • Ron Kean

    I remember the day I took NPR pre-set buttons off my car radio and my wake-up alarm inside my home.

    This was many years ago and it was specifically about bias against Israel which, of course is fashionable on the left.

    Then soon after, the widow of Ray Kroc of McDonald’s fame donated 100 million dollars to NPR. Lately Soros gave a lot. Obama recently spoke out in support of keeping NPR funding.

    I fear if congress can’t cut funds from NPR (and CPB), they won’t cut anything.

  • Tim

    I don’t know if Bert and Ernie are liberal or not, but it’s time they pay their own way. Why NPR is so concerned about going off the federal trough is a mystery. Perhaps they’re afraid that they may actually succeed being independant of federal funds! Wouldn’t that be a liberal nightmare?

  • EddieD_Boston

    One thing that has happened over the last 30-35 years is the WWII generation retired and these liberal, mostly upper middle-class, Ivy League grads filled the vacumn.
    Where once there was reporting from reporters there is now journalism from the self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing generation who think of themselves as journalists.
    They started injecting themselves in what was once just plain news about what was going on in the world.

    • http://bit.ly/aa7vFR Dan Farfan

      Good point. And the “non-profit” special business model added to the air of privilege and superiority.
      Let’s celebrate free market capitalism, together. :-))

      • EddieD_Boston

        Funny how a “non-profit” not paying taxes has no problem with my taxes going up.

        • http://paul-borden.blogspot.com Paul Borden

          You just made two outstanding points in two brief messages, EddieD. I would just add that in a journalism career that took me from a small hometown newspaper to jobs with the largest newspapers in four different states, I found that the smaller the newspaper the more concern for fairness and objectivity its editor had.

          • EddieD_Boston

            Maybe because those small town newspapers weren’t infested with elitists that assumed they knew everything.

    • http://www.huffingtonpost.com Wil Burns

      Remember Eddie, Our country now is being ruled by the ELITE and the rich and powerful along with big business who really would prefer the ‘peasants’ to work for nothing and with no rights at all…..it’s no longer nor has been for quite a while a government for its people and by its people.

      • Bob Hadley

        Eddie, you seem to be flip-flopping. Are 99.99% of all newspapers liberal? If so, then you must be admitting that liberal newspapers (small town newspapers) are fair and objective. If not, then why did you say 99.99% of ALL newspapers are liberal.

        In case you forget what you said at various points, I’ve cut and pasted your remarks below. You’ve gotta stop acting like a liberal. ;)

        EddieD_Boston
        March 9, 2011 – 9:39 pm
        Right nitwit, ALL newspapers are seeing their circulation drop. But what you’re not bright enough to grasp is they’re ALL liberal. Duh!

        EddieD_Boston
        March 10, 2011 – 2:26 pm
        My mistake. I should have said 99.99%.

        EddieD_Boston
        March 15, 2011 – 11:27 am
        Maybe because those small town newspapers weren’t infested with elitists that assumed they knew everything.

      • Jim

        As opposed to when it was ruled by the weak and powerless?

  • Tommy

    I had a very liberal professor at Penn State Erie who worked for NPR. She fit in with them perfectly.

  • http://bit.ly/aa7vFR Dan Farfan

    I recall years ago hearing two NPR folks on NPR’s air discussing the “liberal” label. Essentially all they would admit is that while liberal bias drives the selection of the stories that get attention, once the subject is selected, they “would like to think they do an objective job covering it.” But that’s okay because it certainly could be much worse.
    Hmmm.

    Fast forward about 15 years, I’m watching the weekend political shows and I realize that while Jazz may be the “1 true American art form,” seeing NPR folks answer softball questions with semi-rehearsed talking point back flips reminds us all that Sunday morning American TV is special too. ;-)

    Despite the fact that they (and PBS) play commercials now, had NPR said something more like this:

    “The dirty secret of fund raising, known to everyone who does it, is that you tell the people with the money whatever they want to hear to get the check. We’re guilty of it. Every politician is guilty of it. Where do you think NPR hires these people? From political campaigns! Harvard isn’t churning out “fund raising” MBAs. If enough money fell from the sky we wouldn’t fund raise at all. We don’t promise quid pro quo for the money, but we take money from people who want to give it. If that’s a crime, then wire every political campaign fundraiser for sound and see what it does to the 2012 election cycle.”

    I probably would reward that kind of candid honesty with pledge money again.
    Instead we got, “Well, the money goes directly to the member stations. They need it. Especially in rural areas.” #fail

    Dan