Originally Posted By mawnck We hardly knew ye. >>Air America Radio, a progressive radio network that once aired commentary from Al Franken and Rachel Maddow, said Thursday it is shutting down immediately. The company founded in April 2004 said it ceased airing new programs Thursday afternoon and will soon file to be liquidated under Chapter 7 bankruptcy. It began broadcasting reruns of programs and would end those as well Monday night.<<
Originally Posted By mawnck <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20100121/us-air-america-bankruptcy/" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...kruptcy/</a> (The Liberal's Bible)
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Well, no big news there... At least some other companies are offering liberal talk radio. While I might not agree with much of what they say, I am glad to see that all talk radio is not Conservative talk. Now, I am against the Fairness Doctrine, and having to be forced "equal" amounts, but so long as the talk show can make a profit by selling commercials, they should be allowed to be broad-casted, with only a very few limits (such as swear words). Now, if TAX dollars are used, and I think that NPR does get some, then they should be required to present all sides of the issue, and that politics should be presented in a fair and balanced way. If NPR turly gets no tax dollars, then they can do what they want, alas, even if NPR can claim no direct tax dollars, many NPR stations are associated with public colleges, which do receive taxpayer support.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Statement of principles Our coverage must be fair, unbiased, accurate, complete and honest. At NPR we are expected to conduct ourselves in a manner that leaves no question about our independence and fairness. We must treat the people we cover and our audience with respect. "Fair" means that we present all important views on a subject. This range of views may be encompassed in a single story on a controversial topic, or it may play out over a body of coverage or series of commentaries. But at all times the commitment to presenting all important views must be conscious and affirmative, and it must be timely if it is being accomplished over the course of more than one story. We also assure that every possible effort is made to reach an individual (or a spokesperson for an entity) that is the subject of criticism, unfavorable allegations or other negative assertions in a story in order to allow them to respond to those assertions. "Unbiased" means that we separate our personal opinions - such as an individual's religious beliefs or political ideology - from the subjects we are covering. We do not approach any coverage with overt or hidden agendas.<< <a href="http://www.npr.org/about/ethics/ethics_code.html" target="_blank">http://www.npr.org/about/ethic...ode.html</a> >>"Where is the opinion piece making fun of President Obama?" asked Susan Begat, from Sarasota, FL. "NPR won't run it. That video shows the deck is stacked against the Tea Party." Not quite. On Dec. 31, Fiore took after Obama on npr.org. And NPR has covered the Tea Party movement as an important political story. Last fall, for example, All Things Considered host Robert Siegel spent 5 days with Tea Party activists in Dallas and portrayed them in a thoughtful, 12 1/2-minute story on Dec. 9. ATC also has an on-going series profiling up and coming Republican leaders.<< >>To bring different viewpoints, NPR has partnered with the National Review, The Nation, the New Republic and Foreign Policy.<< <a href="http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2010/01/loud_protests_on_nprs_tea_part_1.html" target="_blank">http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2...t_1.html</a>
Originally Posted By Darkbeer CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer (3/31/04) seemed to repeat it as a given while questioning a liberal guest: “What about this notion that the conservatives make a fair point that there already is a liberal radio network out there, namely National Public Radio ?” <a href="http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-sargent/2009/12/07/msnbcs-scarborough-points-out-nprs-bias-hypocrisy" target="_blank">http://www.newsbusters.org/blo...ypocrisy</a> >> On MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Willie Geist and Politico.com executive editor Jim VandeHei were discussing a Politico story about internal political pressures at National Public Radio (NPR). Apparently, NPR's top political correspondent Mara Liasson was asked by NPR executives to reconsider her appearances on Fox News, for concerns over Fox's perceived political bias. Scarborough pointed out the obvious: > JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well I just want to say, I love NPR and I listen to NPR, but I've been listening to reformed, pot-smoking hippies for the past thirty years on NPR with a very substantial left-wing bias - and I don't care that they eat tree bark like Euell Gibbons, and I don't care if they are still smoking pot in their sixties. They put on great radio. But for NPR - for NPR, the leadership at NPR to question the bias of Fox News is a joke. They have been biased - again, I still listen to them, because like "The New York Times" they are the best at what they do. But, please, that is a laugh. NPR - MIKA BRZEZINSKI: It's very soothing listening, too. SCARBOROUGH: It is soothing, it is very soothing. Just put a mirror to your face, NPR.<< The best solution, just stop funding NPR and let them live off of donations and selling of advertisment. With the massive amount of debt, and more important things to fund, we should stop funding it. Also, there are now so many other outlets (not just over the air radio) that can be used. Maybe take the current NPR tax dollars and use it to help establish better internet access in Rural areas.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Now, if TAX dollars are used, and I think that NPR does get some, then they should be required to present all sides of the issue, and that politics should be presented in a fair and balanced way. >> What does this mean to you? Does this mean that if NPR does a story on the earth being round, they have to present another story about the earth being flat with the same weight? Every issue, even political ones, do not always have two sides. There are facts that clearly define most issues. Where I see most people get upset with the media is when they are not happy with the facts and would like to have someone give them some other information that conforms more closely with their world view instead of the facts.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Every issue, even political ones, do not always have two sides. There are facts that clearly define most issues.<< I might've already mentioned this, so forgive me if I have. I'm reading "Idiot America" by Charles Pierce and this is one of his key contentions about why America is falling apart. He calls it a war on expertise. CNN does a story on intelligent design and they put an evolutionary biologist alongside a preacher to hash out the issue. What kind of impression does that give viewers? It's fundamentally wrong-headed, but it's how our news is done. So now the preacher is just as much as an expert as the biologist. It creates a nation of experts - and when everyone's an expert, no one is. He goes on to argue that Americans have a sense of "fairness" that overwhelms their sense of accuracy. It's only "fair" that both sides get their say, no matter how ridiculous. Throw in our love of truthiness and here we are.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF I'd be willing to wager that DB has spent maybe five minutes listening to NPR... I have it on virtually every day and the reason why I listen to it is BECAUSE they give time to both sides of issues where appropriate.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Here's another example in a political debate on health care: Fact - The United States spends more per capita on health care than any country on earth Fact - The United States ranks 37th in overall health system outcomes among all countries in the world Fact - France ranks number one in health outcomes and spends only about half per capita in comparison to U.S. spending. Fact - Italy ranks number two and spends only about 1/3 of U.S. spending per capita Yet, we get these silly debates where people are allowed to make claims like 1) "America has the best health care system in the world!", 2) "Single payer doesn't work as well as privatized medicine", or 3) "The government health care takeover is going to cost too much" None of these statements are in alignment with actual facts, yet we allow them to be aired in a "balanced" set of viewpoints. How can we ever solve our problems if we don't allow facts to weigh more than fantasy?
