NPR is very DISTURBING

[kwolf68]

I was listening to NPR this morning at around 9:30 and they were doing a news segment on the Mud Slide/flood tragedies going on in California.

Much to my amazement they used a climatologist from the Cato Institute to comment in the story. It was never mentioned this is a rabid anti-government, Libertarian, wise-use think tank.

Earlier they had someone from the Clinton justice department comment on the new appointee for the Homeland Security and made sure to precursor any comments that individual made by letting the viewers know what this person’s background was. Just letting the viewers know this person was a former Clinton appointee so consider that.

The ideologue from CATO was not given the same treatment and was merely treated as a conscientious, objective voice. To be honest, I am not even sure what the purpose of having this person in the story was. All he did was say “weather was repeating itself” as he went on to explain the same type things were happening in 1931. It didn’t add anything to the crux of the story and appeared to me to be subtlety placed propaganda to let everyone know the weather patterns we are now experiencing are “nothing new” so don’t even say the “G” word.

This reminded me of a story they did right after the fires in Maryland (Walkers Brooke SubDivision I believe it was called). I was appalled at the shoddy journalism on this story. NPR decided to “create a story” when there was none. At the time the story was published, fire investigators had no clues, no leads, no nothing. However, NPR in their infinite wisdom decided to imply “eco-terrorism” even going so far as to interview one of the homeowners who called himself an “environmentalist.”

That story left you with a negative taste toward the entire environmental movement (as do most cases involving ELF types). However, there was ZERO evidence any enviro-group did this and when the perpetrator was finally caught it was obvious he had no “environmental” ax to grind. He was just a sad, freak.

However, NPR had already done the damage to keep environmentalists painted as “whackos” and have never since retracted or apologized for that hatchet piece.

I notice NPR is heavily supported by individual users, but also get support from Walmart, the government (now run by you know who) and even defense contractors.

Has anyone else had these same feelings about NPR, or have heard similar stories? And is NPR officially dead and there is absolutely nowhere in the “mainstream” to turn for objective journalism?

[AllyCat]

1. Sick of NPR. Evidence, once again, that the liberal media

is a myth.

[hatrack]

2. NPR has been sucking Alpo Beef Chunks Dinner since, oh, 2000 or so

I now consider it pretty much background noise of occasional utility. Most of my news comes from sources linked here - BBC, DW, AFP, etc.

DU - your one-stop news center! :hi:

[RubyDuby in GA]

3. Their coverage leading up to the election was so biased

that I simply took them off my programmed dials in my car.
Liberal media? Sure.......and I have a bridge to sell you.

[Dora]

4. I've been rolling my eyes at their broadcasts for two years now

NPR has lost all its integrity. I probably should have started rolling my eyes years ago, but sometimes it takes a while to wake up to these things.

I've also noticed that they're no longer saying whether a congressman or a senator is a Republican or a Democrat in many of their stories, particularly when they're being interviewed.

Thanks for clearing up the enviro-terrorist angle for me - I hadn't heard about the arrest and I still believed an eco-insurgent was behind the fires.

[saltpoint]

5. NPR's religion correspondent, Barbara Bradley Hagerty --

-- is an oily-tongued con artist for Christ.

She has impressive credentials if their website is to be believed, but her reporting always paints independent views as questionable, while her baseline references are always conservative ones.

At its worst, it's still better than most everything else at its best, but it's no great bargain. On many days I get out Jackson Browne or Duke Ellington or Emmylou Harris and just black out the radio altogether.

There's no question that NPR is much more conservative now than it was a few years ago.

[danostuporstar]

6. yes NPR has become very disappointing

i used to count on them as the one sane voice.

you are totally on about the arson in MD. if it makes you feel any better though, the local media jumped to the same false eco-terrorism conclusion. at least the fact the the housing development threatens some very sensitive areas was also reported as a side-effect of the shoddy journalism, (and some who had been fighting the development were briefly flattered in a way by the idea that EarthFirst had decided to take up their cause for them).

[terip64]

7. I have a hard time listening...

I was so clueless it wasn't until after this election that I realized how bad NPR had become. I had a little grieving period where it actually hurt to listen. It truly was a companion to me while I drove, sewed or cooked during the day. Now I listen to music during the day and get all my news online. I have been wondering if they will feel this during their spring drive. I won't be giving this year.

[Gyre]

8. NPR's board has a number of major chimp donors on it.

But there's an easy solution. Stop giving them $$$$, and let them know WHY you're are no longer contributing. If you can stand the other end of the spectrum, listen to Pacifica Radio on your computer.

Gyre

[BRLIB]

9. National Pentagon Radio is holding true to form...

Two days in a row so far on Morning Edition, the story complete with B#$# excerpts, on Michael Chertoff nomination. Today was glowing praise for Chertoff.

Yesterday, when the previous Kerik nomination was mentioned, he supposedly resigned due to "allegations" of scandal (no details).
Today the excuse was Kerik's "suitability" to the job!

NPR, Total #%*wipes!

[Quakerfriend]

10. Yes, ever since they changed hands ~ 2 yrs ago

they have become increasingly skewed to the right. Funny, how they still try to pretend that they are so objective!

So sad really, they used to be excellent.

[sketchy]

11. And they booted Bob Edwards

He's at XM Radio now.

http://www.xmradio.com/programming/channel_page.jsp?ch=133

I miss him so much on Morning Edition, and will soon follow him to XM, even though it's by subscription.

I agree with the DU'er who called them Stepford Journalists.

[primavera]

12. On immigration matters...

... they've recruited as their chief pundit the Center for Immigration Studies, the superficially respectable think tank branch of a consortium of white-supremacist anti-immigrant organizations funded by the right-wing Scaife Mellon Foundation and the Pioneer Fund, the nazi eugenics organization whose publicly-stated goal is to carry on the good work of Joe Mengele. I've written to them numerous times on the subject, but they invariably ignore my letters and go right on providing these extremists the benefit of a respectable mainstream platform from which to air their bile.

[kwolf68]

13. We have a major problem

There is no question, he who controls information can control the world.

Its one thing to go to BBC, Air American, Pacifica, or whatever, but the bottom line is the people going there are US, folks who know what they are looking for.

What I worry about is the suscpetible minions who take what the mainstream media feeds them verbatim. There appears to be no objective viewpoint at all, just right-wing talking points.

There is no way we will win in this nation if the media continues on this path. Freedom and Democracy can't survive when only one viewpoint is promoted.

I see Liberal viewpoints on the radio, but they are invaraiably used as "journalistic" fodder.

We are in dire trouble on the left (and even center-left). When corporate oligarchs with a clear political agenda control the flow of information you bet your ass it will be nothing more than propganda for the industry (or political) position.

[kwolf68]

14. Should I email NPR

Or would it be a waste of time?