POLL: Is NPR Liberal or Conservative?

[grrl]

Poll fail.

 

[Tristicus]

Conservative - I am Conservative
3
(Not conservatives)

 

[Moonbeam]

Conservative - I am Conservative
3
(Not conservatives)

It's so right wing it isn't even funny. Pacifica is more centrist.

 

[Throckmorton]

It's so right wing it isn't even funny. Pacifica is more centrist.

The reason you think that is the same reason the far right thinks NPR is liberal... because you're so far from the center.

Pacifica is way to the left. You want proof? They refer to illegal immigrants as "immigrants", and people who oppose illegal immigration as "anti immigrant".

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

stupid ass poll. Where is the balanced option? They do good reporting. I remember John Kerry's interview on there. They asked him some hard ass questions and he ended up not looking too great. Helped me decide to vote 3rd party that year.

did not vote

 

[WHAMPOM]

It is liberal. But not much. While their artsy craftsy stuff is strictly neutral. They consistently air liberally focused stories on things such as struggling single mothers with 20 children that can't survive on minimum wage, ect. They do air conservative based interviews, just not as frequently.

NPR doesn't pay appearence fees or cherry pick callers, so many conservatives give it a pass.

 

[Craig234]

missing option for middle

+1, and not everything is a left/right issue, and left/right is a lot more complicated than one type of content.

Simply being 'neutral' and supporting the 'status quo' can be a very ideological, biased position depending what the status quo is.

Would two stations each 'neutral' sound the same if one is in a conservative right-wing Republican administration in the US and the other in Moscow under the Soviet Union?

As the rich have taken a far greater share of the wealth, is pointing out the facts 'leftist', is being silent about the big shifts going on right-wing not to point them out?

Were the reporters who first said the claimed WMD weren't found in Iraq 'left-wing' for reporting the fact that was not in favor of the war and Republicans simply because it was not in favor of those interests, or was it 'neutral' for reporting the facts accurately that happened to reflect badly on the Republicans who made mistakes?

Some label any commentary biased depending whether it 'helps' or 'hurts' a side, regardless of the accuracy of the information. So ANYTHING, for example, on the poor in a sympathetic tone is 'left-wing'. ANYTHING that makes support for any war lessened is 'left-wing' regardless of the accuracy. There's a bare minimum 'allowed' before it's partisan - for example, if Watergate had happened, it'd be ok to say Nixon had resigned, but any reporting sounding like there was a good reason is 'bias'.

Many simply say that things they agree with that are 'biased', aren't biased, and anything they disagree with, is.

 

[Zebo]

Even in Middle ages there were some who believed in the divine rights of kings as they tortured them with a Knee Splitter. Rank and File Republicans are the modern equivalent. Just replace King with Ceo or baseball team owner.

 

[Moonbeam]

The reason you think that is the same reason the far right thinks NPR is liberal... because you're so far from the center.

Pacifica is way to the left. You want proof? They refer to illegal immigrants as "immigrants", and people who oppose illegal immigration as "anti immigrant".

Calling fascist pigs anti immigrant sounds centrist to me.

 

[hal2kilo]

It is liberal. But not much. While their artsy craftsy stuff is strictly neutral. They consistently air liberally focused stories on things such as struggling single mothers with 20 children that can't survive on minimum wage, ect. They do air conservative based interviews, just not as frequently.

As opposed to the suffering of rich people having to live off their last ten million dollars after they've been taxed so harshly.

Speaking of business propaganda channels, is there such a thing as an objective non-liberal basing business channel that actually talks about the price of stocks ,bonds and investment opportunities.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

By American standards NPR is left-wing. By non-retarded standards they're fairly centered.

 

[ericlp]

By American standards NPR is left-wing. By non-retarded standards they're fairly centered.

That pretty much sums it up. Like this stupid poll that OP posted I voted completely WRONG just to try to middle it out... but it didn't work out too well. Conservative / Liberal. hahaha OK... Yeah as stated before it's just a stupid poll period.

 

[sandorski]

It is liberal. But not much. While their artsy craftsy stuff is strictly neutral. They consistently air liberally focused stories on things such as struggling single mothers with 20 children that can't survive on minimum wage, ect. They do air conservative based interviews, just not as frequently.

Why is that "liberal". Seems like Real Life on the Street stuff to me.

 

[Moonbeam]

Don't forget that the anti intellectualism of the right isn't driven by choice but by lack of capacity.

 

[Brigandier]

Don't forget that the anti intellectualism of the right isn't driven by choice but by lack of capacity.

The anti-intellectualism of the right is fueled by and proportional to the anti-intellectualism of the left.

Humanity as a whole is anti-intellectualism.

 

[Moonbeam]

The anti-intellectualism of the right is fueled by and proportional to the anti-intellectualism of the left.

Humanity as a whole is anti-intellectualism.

A lack of capacity, however, does not lead to any shortage in the ability to rationalize it away.

 

[Mike Gayner]

Someone please explain to me why LOLAmericans are always so ridiculously partisan on every single issue to the point of looking like complete idiots?

 

[DainBramaged]

I don't think NPR has any clear political agenda, unlike places like Fox News in toto or the opinion programs on MSNBC.


Didn't vote in poll.

I agree.

 

[Double Trouble]

They are not as extreme as some of the other outfits like MSNBC, but they certainly are liberal. They just hide it a little better and are more nuanced.

You can always tell the ideological bent of the news outlet by looking at the angle they use to approach a story. For example, lets say we want to do a story about a family of illegal immigrants. Fox will report the story from the "evil Mexicans stole our jobs and probably committed 10 crimes" angle, conveniently forgetting those who made the immigration happen by offering low wage jobs to the immigrant family knowing full well that they are illegal. NPR will report the story from the "they live in fear of being found and deported, they are hard working, they need a chance" angle, calling them "undocumented" instead of the correct word, "illegal".

NPR is not as bad as some of the other outlets, and I can actually stomach listening to them most days (I listen during my commute in the morning), but I consider them to be left of center liberal.

 

[Craig234]

The anti-intellectualism of the right is fueled by and proportional to the anti-intellectualism of the left.

No, it's not. That's idiocy.

Intellectualism tends to lead to better analyzed views the left agrees with, not the right.

 

[Craig234]

It is liberal. But not much. While their artsy craftsy stuff is strictly neutral. They consistently air liberally focused stories on things such as struggling single mothers with 20 children that can't survive on minimum wage, ect. They do air conservative based interviews, just not as frequently.

I had not seen your post until it was quoted later, but amazing how well you fulfill what I posted:

As the rich have taken a far greater share of the wealth, is pointing out the facts 'leftist', is being silent about the big shifts going on right-wing not to point them out?

Were the reporters who first said the claimed WMD weren't found in Iraq 'left-wing' for reporting the fact that was not in favor of the war and Republicans simply because it was not in favor of those interests, or was it 'neutral' for reporting the facts accurately that happened to reflect badly on the Republicans who made mistakes?

Some label any commentary biased depending whether it 'helps' or 'hurts' a side, regardless of the accuracy of the information. [bold]So ANYTHING, for example, on the poor in a sympathetic tone is 'left-wing'.[/bold]

If the Republicans took total power and their policies caused the economy to crash and 10% of the country was being killed annually by starvation and treatable poverty illnesses (like rat-borne viruses) without any care, and a reported told the story of the people in poverty, you would call it 'left-wing bias'. When 'the truth' is 'biased' not because it's distorting the truth, but because it hurts the client of 'the right wing', however truth the story is.

 

[Craig234]

The current MSNBC shows - at least the two I watch reasonably often, Maddow and Olbermann - have little 'bias'.

'Bias is putting the desired message ahead of the truth - not telling the truth that supports a message.

If a Republican president ate a baby a day, some here would say that a reporter saying that - much less sympathetically interviewing the babies' families, much less saying anything critical about the practice - would have 'left bias', and the reporters who did not say anything about it, or provided 'spin' such as how some leaders in some tribal societies have practiced cannabilism, or how 'Democrat leaders killed many babies in their wars', or how much good the President is doing along with the baby eating, might be 'neutral', just 'telling the other side, fair and balanced'.

In these bias discussions, I've cited countless examples of where the actual 'bias' is; sites like Media Matters for America, headed by a former member of the right-wing propaganda machine who turned on it and decided to expose its bias after his experience accidentally as a gay man exposed finding out how it feels to be the target of their bias - what you don't see are practically any specifics on 'left wing bias'.

You do see a couple dishonest, trumped up false 'examples' - which say more about how little ammo the proponents have than they do about the existence of bias.

And you see a lot of repetition of the ideological claim of bias, using 'the big lie' technique of repeating the conclusion until it's unquestionably correct.

MSNBC today is not the counterpart to Fox. Fox is a propaganda machine, MSNBC isn't. They're not counterparts. One is misleading by design, the other generally is a counter to the deceit by pointing out the lies and telling a more accurate story. It's not all one sided, but it's a lot closer to that than to being two equally wrong sides.

MSNBC has its history of bias - as when after 9/11, they backed the Bush administration pure and simple, and having Phil Donahue on their top rated show, refused to let him say almost anything otherwise, first installing staff to limit what his show could say, then giving him a rule every anti-war guest required three pro-war guests, and finally cancelling his show while it had the top ratings on the network. That's bias by the real biased side. (Putting aside MSNBC's GOP former congressmans' show).

Let's talk about how 'freedom of speech' works here with a real example, as opposed to the pretty story about how 'the opposition' has a full voice.

LBJ chose to placate Republicans and start the Vietnam War. He didn't like the critics, who were helping the nation move to anti-war views.

The Smother Brothers included some bits that had jokes against the war. These weren't causing the network a problem; the show was unexpectedly a major hit, one of the top rated on television, and the public was largely sympathetic to the views in those jokes. Even Nixon months later ran on an 'end the war' platform.

But LBJ was personal friends with the head of the network, and he did not like the show's jokes, and the top-rated show was unexpectedly cancelled for only that reason.

We're not a totalitarian society where that happens to all 'opposition voices', but we're not the society where that doesn't happen, either.

 

[PokerGuy]

Have you ever listened to it?

Yes, as much as I can stand anyway. It's typical garbage, the lib elite think they have all the answers and getting everyone to agree with them is just a matter of more communication and/or education.

other than a couple of the hosts betraying a liberal bent now and again (that one lady in the early afternoon for sure), they are pretty much entirely even-handed.

Every now and again? Try just about all the time.

I've heard more than a little bit of criticism of Obama and his administration on there, and not shallow 'he's a commie' criticism but actual well-thought out critiques.

The only critiques I've heard are of the "he's not progressive enough" variety, but never overt criticism of the overall incompetence of the administration.

I think modern conservatism (post WFB for sure) has gone on an anti-intellectual bent, whereupon anything in-depth or highly complicated in terms of media/culture is looked upon as 'liberal'.

Not anti-intellectual, anti-elitist liberal. Somehow the elitists always cloak themselves in the mantle of intellectualism. Intellectual =/= liberal.

NPR is miles better than the gasbags who fill most talk radio, and this holds true when comparing to TV 'news' as well. CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc are about as deep as rice paper.

NPR is better than MSNBC and CNN, but that's about the extent of it.

I am saddened by the conservative movement away from intellectualism

There is no such movement. That's just what the media wants you to believe.

 

[PokerGuy]

The poll results are very telling. Even the self identified liberals consider NPR to be liberal. That pretty much says it all.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

The poll results are very telling. Even the self identified liberals consider NPR to be liberal. That pretty much says it all.

The poll is flawed. That is like criticizing the forum's music taste given the following poll:
What are tour thoughts in Justin Bieber?
* His music is great
* I'm a serial rapist