Support NeoGAF

[Hitokage]

Ok, we've all talked about FoxNews. This thread is not about FoxNews. Rather, this thread is about NPR, which has been dismissively labeled by many Republicans as having the most liberal bias of any major news outlet. Well, why is this? Are Republicans acting like Pat Robertson and confusing lack of endorsement with opposition? Is there an actual trend that can be demonstrated, or is it nonsense? Considering that NPR puts everything it airs on its web archive for download, one should be able to post actual examples.

 

[KingGondo]

I've heard this too, but it's tough to prove that a 24-hour station (TV or radio) is biased without the accused coming up with examples to the contrary.

I say forget bias--we simply need to educate people on the ways news media spins their coverage. You can learn just as much from FNC as from NPR--you just have to know HOW to listen.

 

[Willco]

The last bastion of honest journalism is The Onion. Case closed. Let's all go home early and have a round on me at Mickey's.

 

[Agent Dormer]

Bastion is such an overused word. But, to get to the topic - I'm gonna have to go with NPR having a slight bias, but its significantly less than FoxNews and CNN. I'm gonna go look for some examples.

 

[shoplifter]

They get the "liberal bias" label from the right because:

a) they actually spend more than 30 seconds on any given story

b) they actually attempt to let both sides speak without an argument

c) lots of human interest stories (disease control in africa, etc)

d) the hosts are typically soft-spoken and not full of vitriol

e) the talking heads of the GoP have done a really amazing job of making the center the 'new left'

I don't have the data on me, but iirc a study was done and NPR was -the- most balanced of all major news sources. Additionally, those who listened to NPR were the least likely to have misconceptions or false beliefs about the 'news of the day.'

 

[DCharlie]

"They get the bias label because:"

from what you say, it's because they have no biases!

 

[robochimp]

I'm mad at NPR for hyping the hell out of "Open Water"

 

[XS+]

..

 

[Bizarro Sun Yat-sen]

I do sometimes hear NPR programs with a clearly left-slanted POV, but mostly it's pretty level, or even slanted slightly to the right on occasion.

 

[way more]

The news on NPR is top notch. It may be said to have liberal slant because it plays on the same station as Democracy Now, at least where I live. Another factor may be that they are more liberal arts orientated.

they actually spend more than 30 seconds on any given story

So true.

 

[Sirpopopop]

NPR is informative.

It's not in the best interests of the GOP to have informative voters. They want forgiving voters given spoonfed opinions who will treat the President as an ordinary guy, and not as what he is - someone in a position where excellence is demanded 24/7. Hence, it's best to assault the NPR and apply the liberal label until people shy away from the NPR for the fear of having their arguments devalued because it's coming from an "ultra-liberal" radio station. The "new" GOP tends to favor labeling anything "liberal" that disagrees with their viewpoint.

 

[shoplifter]

Link? Please?

Lemme see if I can dig it up. It's been several months.

 

[Drinky Crow]

Air America is the liberal equivalent of Fox News. NPR is squarely in the center, but gets tarred as liberal because it, as Sirpopop said, runs human interest stories, covers the arts, and talks about the environment in a friendly granola-and-Birkenstocks way. Basically, if something has academic pretensions, it's automatically liberal, whereas if its crass and hillbilly like, say, a Toby Keith concert or a gunshow, it's conservative.

Ironic, that, because the dumb white trash are the ones who get universally urinated on by the Republicans. Still, if your assault weapons, teevee shows, racist attitudes, and Bible are under attack by snotty academics, IT MUST BE TEH BIAS!

 

[Pimpwerx]

NPR is informative as mentioned above. But I think shoplifter hit all the points I wanted to mention. I've been listening to NPR at home this Summer and love it. I can just have it droning in the background and tune in when an interesting story comes on. They may seem liberal b/c of the stories they run, since they are more humanitarian and deal with social issues. There are a couple lefty shows on there, but while not as many, there are still right wing shows or topics that come on. I mean, they had this discussion about religion and politics recently that was really interesting eventhough I disagreed with the opinions expressed. It's still a good listen. And the BBC feeds they include are great. Way better than any of the networks, and it's on a lot longer than the News Hour on PBS. Las bastion of honest journalism of course. PEACE.

 

[Drensch]

pipa.org is probably what Shoplifter was looking for.

 

[shoplifter]

Indeed it was, and to be fair it was specifically about the war, though it may very well hold true for other subjects.

This is the Knight-Ridder article about the study.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/iraq/6918170.htm

Study: Wrong impressions helped support Iraq war

By FRANK DAVIES

Knight Ridder Newspapers


WASHINGTON - A majority of Americans have held at least one of three mistaken impressions about the U.S.-led war in Iraq, according to a new study released Thursday, and those misperceptions contributed to much of the popular support for the war.

The three common mistaken impressions are that:


U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.


There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists.


People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it.

Overall, 60 percent of Americans held at least one of those views in polls reported between January and September by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, based at the University of Maryland in College Park, and the polling firm, Knowledge Networks based in Menlo Park, Calif.

"While we cannot assert that these misperceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq, it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions," said Steven Kull, who directs Maryland's program.

In fact, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. U.S. intelligence has found no clear evidence that Saddam was working closely with al-Qaida or was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Gallup polls found large majorities opposed to the war in most countries.

PIPA's seven polls, which included 9,611 respondents, had a margin of error from 2 to 3.5 percent.

The analysis released Thursday also correlated the misperceptions with the primary news source of the mistaken respondents. For example, 80 percent of those who said they relied on Fox News and 71 percent of those who said they relied on CBS believed at least one of the three misperceptions.

The comparable figures were 47 percent for those who said they relied most on newspapers and magazines and 23 percent for those who said they relied on PBS or National Public Radio.

The reasons for the misperceptions are numerous, Kull and other analysts said.

They noted that the Bush administration had misstated or exaggerated some of the intelligence findings, with Bush himself saying in May: "We found the weapons of mass destruction … and we'll find more as time goes by."

The Bush administration has also been a factor in persistent confusion.

Last month, for example, Bush said there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 attack after Vice President Dick Cheney suggested a link. Cheney, in a "Meet the Press" interview, had described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

Why some news audiences had more accurate impressions than others was less clear.

Kull cited instances in which TV and newspapers gave prominent coverage to reports that banned weapons might have been found in Iraq, but only modest coverage when those reports turned out to be wrong.

Susan Moeller, a University of Maryland professor, said that much reporting had consisted of "stenographic coverage of government statements," with less attention to whether the government's statements were accurate.

The study found that belief in inaccurate information often persisted, and that misconceptions were much more likely among backers of the war. Last month, as in June, for example, nearly a quarter of those polled thought banned weapons had been found in Iraq. Nearly half thought in September that there was clear evidence that Saddam had worked closely with al-Qaida.

Among those with one of the three misconceptions, 53 percent supported the war. Among those with two, 78 percent supported it. Among those with three, 86 percent backed it. By contrast, less than a quarter of those polled who had none of the misconceptions backed the war.

On the Web:

To review the study, go to http://www.pipa.org

 

[teiresias]

I've always found NPR rather centrist and pretty much "honest" journalism. I hear as much stuff on there that I disagree with as I agree with. Of course, I'm mainly discussing the news shows, specifically "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered" (and "Marketplace" too I suppose though I dont listen to it as much - I'm home and out of the car by that time).

I think some of the other shows, like "Fresh Air," are allowed a certain bias simply because they aren't really news shows, but they still don't display the kind of bias and out-and-out hostility towards guests and contrary ideas that AM talk-radio and cable news commentary shows exhibit.

NPR will also give you news stories on things you will NEVER hear about on cable news or network news, and if you do it's merely a two second blip or something. Like NPR pretty regularly covers the annual AIDS conference.

 

[capslock]

I really love NPR, the interesting stories they run, plus the classical music is a clincher for me, if there is a slight liberal bias it may be because of the environmental views and cultural stories that they run, otherwise, they are very fair in their reporting.

 

[ge-man]

That's the main thing about NPR--even the shows that are presented with a bias slant present all sides with a fair time and detail. Much of what is present on the AM band is an assualt on individual intelligence. I have a hard time listening to Sean/Rush and their ilk without feeling like these people think little of their listeners.

 

[Minotauro]

Air America is the liberal equivalent of Fox News. NPR is squarely in the center, but gets tarred as liberal because it, as Sirpopop said, runs human interest stories, covers the arts, and talks about the environment in a friendly granola-and-Birkenstocks way. Basically, if something has academic pretensions, it's automatically liberal, whereas if its crass and hillbilly like, say, a Toby Keith concert or a gunshow, it's conservative.

Ironic, that, because the dumb white trash are the ones who get universally urinated on by the Republicans. Still, if your assault weapons, teevee shows, racist attitudes, and Bible are under attack by snotty academics, IT MUST BE TEH BIAS!

I think you should tick your conservative insult counter down by a few hundred.

 

[brooklyngooner]

Air America is the liberal equivalent of Fox News. NPR is squarely in the center, but gets tarred as liberal because it, as Sirpopop said, runs human interest stories, covers the arts, and talks about the environment in a friendly granola-and-Birkenstocks way. Basically, if something has academic pretensions, it's automatically liberal, whereas if its crass and hillbilly like, say, a Toby Keith concert or a gunshow, it's conservative.

Ironic, that, because the dumb white trash are the ones who get universally urinated on by the Republicans. Still, if your assault weapons, teevee shows, racist attitudes, and Bible are under attack by snotty academics, IT MUST BE TEH BIAS!

You'd better be careful my man. That's two in one day, and at this rate you'll get banned in thirteen years.

I suppose I am often confused at how this forum defines "bias" when it comes to the media: do we mean news programming that actively seeks to promote a specific political agenda, or just those that air more "liberal" or "conservative" programs, measured almost count-wise? To me, Fox News is so unbalanced in its reporting and seems to border on misinforming its viewership, thus I would consider them biased.

As for NPR, I have just always found their coverage and discussion to be far more informed than any other source; I haven't really engaged the "are they liberal?" question. Being librul meeself tho, perhaps I am kidding myself. To echo others' sentiments, I find their focus on, for lack of a better term, "human" news stories to be the most important to me.

 

[sc0la]

I would say it varies from show to show. I definately would not say it has a bias, though it does focus a bit more on topics of interest for the center to left listener, they attempt to bring in voices from all sides of the story and even encourage listener input (Talk of the Nation particularly well, all fairly deftly handled by the host), you can tell when a guess or listener is banging out talking points and when they are actually engaging the topic, it is painfully obvious in this setting since they get to spend extended time on segments.

Some of the shows are hit and miss. I love fresh air as an art, entertainment, and insight show, but when she tries to get "tough" with conservative guests it kind of disintigrates. I like it better when she sticks to the where they came from angle etc. you can hear her voice sort of crack and her pacing is all off when she tries to stick it to them, it is audibly palpable and I think it hurts the shows in which it happens (See Bill O'Reily show etc.) sometimes she sticks to her format though as with the recent show with one of Neo-Conservatisms founders and it works. She asked him to frame his positions in regards to opposition stances and his arguments unraveled themselves (he began to call all opposing arguments "silly"). When she tries to hard to grill someone it just falls apart. And IMO that helps underscore what they try to do at NPR, when they try to bring stories the audience is interested in as fairly as possible it is wildly succesful radio, when they don't (which isn't often) it is clear.

They often have Christian voices on the shows, conservative figures, dissident opinon etc.

As I said before I think Talk of the Nation does a bang up job at being really ballanced and fair radio, and shit who doesn't want to listen to "Science Friday" on that program? its awesome.

In conclusion, any radio that can bring me up to the minute news, coherent and extended discussion of that news and "Car Talk" is A+ by my standards.

 

[Hitokage]

Hmm.. the representation of "NPR IS LIBERAL" in this thread is lacking. I honestly wanted to hear from them too, provided they could post anything substantive. Maybe I'm kidding myself.

In conclusion, any radio that can bring me up to the minute news, coherent and extended discussion of that news and "Car Talk" is A+ by my standards.

NPR/PRI Weekday and Weekend programming are different animals(as far as this thread is concerned), but yeah, once I even got my mom's car to start using a trick I heard on Car Talk. NPR has informative entertainment down much better than PBS ever did.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

THEM HIPPIES AT NPR TALKKING 'BOUT THE KIDS A-FRI-KA AND THE AIDS AND THE ARTSY-FARTSY ARTS AND MUSIC. TOBY KEITH IS THE BEST THEY IS.THEY JUSTA BUNCH OF LIBRUL 'LITISTS FROM NEW YAWK!!!! BILL O'REILLY, HE'S MY HERO HE IS, SAID THAT THEM QUEER FOLK AT NPR ARE FUNDED BY A BUNCH OF RICH OLD LIBRUL , DRAFT CARD BURNING HIPPIES AND WE SHOULD BOYCOTT THEM UNTIL THEY IS IN RUINS LIKE FRANCE OR CANADIA..... nuff said.....

 

[Shinobi]

The last bastion of honest journalism is The Onion. Case closed.

Amen...and here's all the proof you'll ever need.

http://chak.org/pages/onion/bush_nightmare.html