3474Re: Possible Spam: Re: [prbytes] NEWS : TRENDS : NEWSPAPERS : WEBLOGS: The End ofTimes? ofTimes?
- Nov 14, 2006Thanks, Richard. I now understand your perspective.
This message sent from a
Blackberry Handheld Device
Golden Field Office
----- Original Message -----
From: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
Sent: Mon Nov 13 19:56:03 2006
Subject: Re: Possible Spam: Re: [prbytes] NEWS : TRENDS : NEWSPAPERS : WEBLOGS: The End ofTimes? ofTimes?
Sorry, I have no interest in doing free "bias" research for you, Christopher. However, if you're in the profession, you doubtless can locate
the studies you're not already familiar with.
But here's just a bit of the interesting stuff that's out there.
Although he obviously had a political axe to grind, Ken Tomlinson, former CPB chair, openly criticized his two networks, NPR and PBS, for
demonstrating a liberal bias, rather than a balanced presentation. If everything had been provably evenhanded, he certainly wouldn't have
advocating messing with the networks' formula, or he'd have been shouted down by the strangely quiet liberals.
The public perceptions study results released by the CPB in Dec 03 said, "21% of respondents indicate that PBS news and information programming
has a liberal bias, while 22% say the same thing for NPR," according to the CPB Web site. While that's a smaller percentage crying "liberal"
than ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN garnered (or, in other studies, "The New York Times" and the "Los Angeles Times"), only 12 percent of Americans
believe that PBS news and information programming has a conservative bias. The "conservative bias" figure for NPR was a measly nine percent.
So, rightly or wrongly, roughly twice as many citizens believe NPR and PBS are liberal as the number who find the networks conservative. Wonder
why that is?
Then there was the Roper study that said nearly 90 percent of the important people in the Washington press corps voted Democratic. Too bad they
didn't break out the stats for NPR or PBS; I guess it's possible that the correspondents and such at the those two "public" networks bucked the
landslide and broke nearly 50-50, with their 50 percent Republican reporters and editors handily falling into the 10 percent that was left over
after the rest of the media were polled.
I don't for a minute believe this is true; but, if it were, I posit that most of these networks' Republican- or conservative-biased reporters
(who must exist -- somewhere!) are far less well-known and less frequently aired and less well-placed.
In 2003, NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin outed Terry Gross of "Fresh Air" for liberal bias. "By coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather
than a neutral and curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the interview to develop," the ombudsman said. If
memory serves, this is not the first Miss Gross has been caught being an advocate, rather than a journalist. And legal reporter Nina Totenberg
has been called down for attacks that have been termed "hate speech" toward conservative Christians.
Al Franken, Michael Moore, and the Johns, Kerry and Edwards, and will go into mourning the day NPR's Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr -- whose
thoughtful, but knee-jerk, analyses and commentaries frequently grace "All Things Considered" and the two "Weekend Edition" shows -- finally
passes on. Clearly, there's no similarly credentialed analyst offering a conservative viewpoint.
And though he's not a news commentator, Garrison Keillor, a popular personality whom many identify as "Mr. Minnesota Public Radio," only
includes anti-Republican and anti-conservative viewpoints in his jokes, skits, comments, and the songs he writes. Even though he isn't a
newsie, it is easy for non-media listeners to confuse his point of view with that of NPR, which has selected no similarly well-known and
identifiable rightish personality or host to provide balance.
I once saw a comment -- don't remember where -- that NPR's "On the Media" host had said NPR remains in the political spectrum's dead center,
while the biased "public" had drifted rightward. So, apparently, NPR is now simply in the center of a somewhat truncated universe, with a mass
of unimportant and uncounted outliers on the conservative end. I have to admit, that's a pretty ingenious formulation.
"Powers, Christopher" wrote:
> Would you please give me the sources for those independent studies? I'd like to read them.
> This message sent from a
> Blackberry Handheld Device
> Golden Field Office
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:prbytes%40yahoogroups.com> <email@example.com <mailto:prbytes%40yahoogroups.com> >
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:prbytes%40yahoogroups.com> <email@example.com <mailto:prbytes%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Sat Nov 11 15:11:51 2006
> Subject: Re: Possible Spam: Re: [prbytes] NEWS : TRENDS : NEWSPAPERS : WEBLOGS: The End ofTimes? ofTimes?
> Well, I understand your perspective, Christopher. However, why on earth would anyone assume that government-financed media are somehow more
> objective or trustworthy than openly for-profit media, run by public companies?
> They have their own points of view and masters to serve, just as for-profit media do. And their bias has been sufficiently proven by enough
> independent studies to resolve all doubt.
> If the American Red Cross or the United Methodist Church were to establish not-for-profit media, would you trust them to the same degree that
> you do the government-funded media?
> Rich Barger, ABC, APR
> Chief Curmudgeon
> http://www.CornerBarPR.com <http://www.CornerBarPR.com>
> "Powers, Christopher" wrote:
> > Richard--I distrust any media motivated by profit.
> > This message sent from a
> > Blackberry Handheld Device
> > **********************************
> > Golden Field Office
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > Differing opinions are what make the world go round, Christopher, but, for goodness' sake, on what basis do you "trust" PBS and NPR more
> than other media?
> > Rich Barger, ABC, APR
> > Chief Curmudgeon
> > http://www.CornerBarPR.com <http://www.CornerBarPR.com>
> > ---
> > "Powers, Christopher" wrote:
> > > Regarding the William Ernest Waites quote below, couldn't agree more that the drive for profit has pretty-much wrecked many a good media
> organization. As to his statements about the government supporting the media, the most highly respected news organization in the world, the
> BBC, is funded by the British government. I trust them far more than the profit-driven media in this country. Likewise, I trust PBS and NPR
> more than CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and, of course, Fox. At least in these cases, are government-supported news media really so bad?
> > >
> > > Christopher Powers
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic