Should conservative talk radio be funded by the government?

[Robor]

Originally posted by: DesiPower

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Analogsoul

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Analogsoul
Fresh Air is a talk show, not a news show like All Things Considered or Morning Edition, sorry try again.

Ding! We have a winner. I <3 those news programs. They are probably the least biased out there.

NPR

If FOX had something similar to those shows, then perhaps I would watch, but they can't help to inject all of their shows with "fair and balanced" reporting of conservative news.

I would as well. As a former FOX news watcher, they have gone more and more off the deep end every year. They lay the propaganda...errr....commentary... on a little too thick for my tastes.

what other option do you have? if you want to go home after work and watch news channel what other option do you have? i guess that's the foremost reason when Fox news is #1. i reach home around 6:00 CDT, on CNN you have Lou Dobbs (epic fail), Campbell Brown (fail), Larry King Live (major fail). CNBC... just forget it. I mean oreilly factor does seem to be the best choice and believe me he is one hell of an entertainer

/Troll

I choose none of the above.

 

[DesiPower]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: DesiPower
I totally agree that NPR has become a left wing loonbag. I listen to it all the time, still do. I was a member in 2007 but as the election season came around they just went haywire... Just listen to the Diane Rehm show, she is so mean to the conservatives, she almost admonishes them, does not give them enough time to speak, she almost has an attitude of like... why are you alive...

and whats up with the Latina USA... i didnt tune in to listen to the plight of illegal immigrants...

Define 'haywire' and 'mean' because what you just described sounds like SOP at Fox News. Anyway, I'm guessing NPR didn't stoop to the level of Fox News and conservative talk radio accusing Obama of being a Kenyan born sleeper cell terrorist racist sexist muslim.

Haywire explanation - NPR has never been a "conservative" or even right leaning organization. Its for young, educated, lively, savvy people who, by nature are liberal or centrist. During election they catered to their audience and the other (GOP) choice was definitely an epic fail, so on their radio they tried their best to remain neutral but every now and then would openly lean to the left. A few times, they themselves came up with stats about how much airtime was given to each side and how many people from each side were invited on the radio and stuff like that. When you listened to those stats it was clear that the time slots and number of people were equal but when you took into consideration the context and programming it seemed a little too obvious...

About Diane Rehm, well, on several occasion you could almost feel that she had preconceptions about the people she had invited. She will be very nice to the liberals and have a totally different tones for the conservatives, she would keep interrupting them. I felt that she was too old to realize what she was doing and keep herself under control.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Blackangst, my post said NPR, not fox.

Right. I answered you

Q: Does that mean NPR has a conservative bias?
A: On some of their talking head shows, yes.

And I qualified it.

Your answer doesn't make sense. The decision not to use the term torture is a network wide one, not an individual one.

Really? Why then when you search for "torture" do you get 5270 results, and 68 for Enhanced Interrogation Techniques?

I haven't the slightest idea. Maybe you should ask your friend the ombudsman.

I dont give a rats ass what NPR's ombudsman says. The fact is, NPR used the liberal word for (torture/enhanced interrogation techniques) 8 times more than the conservative word for it. Make your own assumptions.

BTW thats a great article...I love the line "Both Presidents Bush and Obama have insisted that the United States does not use torture." LOL

 

[ZeGermans]

Jesus christ do you have any idea what a false dichotomy is

 

[ZeGermans]

Hrm do we use the common sense term for it or the absurd legal term that no one believes?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Lothar

If there's a slant or bias to NPR, I've certainly never noticed it.

I for one would love to see some examples of this 'librul' bias that NPR supposedly has.

Democracy Now is the only program that i would consider biased and for that reason NPR shouldn't be carrying it.

The other day they had a professor from Michigan State talking about his study that supports a union position that their contract shouldn't be cut (due to Michigan budget deficits). I think it might have been Detroit Today or Tell Me More, but regardless the host pushed the issue that the study was actually funded by the unions... an obvious dent in his credibility.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Your answer doesn't make sense. The decision not to use the term torture is a network wide one, not an individual one.

Really? Why then when you search for "torture" do you get 5270 results, and 68 for Enhanced Interrogation Techniques?

I haven't the slightest idea. Maybe you should ask your friend the ombudsman.

I dont give a rats ass what NPR's ombudsman says. The fact is, NPR used the liberal word for (torture/enhanced interrogation techniques) 8 times more than the conservative word for it. Make your own assumptions.

BTW thats a great article...I love the line "Both Presidents Bush and Obama have insisted that the United States does not use torture." LOL

What... what? Literally one page earlier you are quoting the ombudsman to support your argument, and now on this page you say 'I don't give a rat's ass what NPR's ombudsman says'. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? If you don't give a rat's ass what she says, you probably shouldn't link to her.

Your argument is so absurd I don't even know where to start. They had entire shows on the history of torture, on what different people consider to be torture, on the debate on torture, etc... etc... etc. Just because they say the word 'torture' doesn't mean that they are referring to the actions of the US as 'torture', which is the entire crux of the debate was about, and something that NPR has a specific institutional rule against.

Saying a word doesn't mean you're applying a word to a specific target or action... jesus. My own assumptions would be that this is easily the stupidest argument I've heard in days.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Lothar

If there's a slant or bias to NPR, I've certainly never noticed it.

I for one would love to see some examples of this 'librul' bias that NPR supposedly has.

Democracy Now is the only program that i would consider biased and for that reason NPR shouldn't be carrying it.

The other day they had a professor from Michigan State talking about his study that supports a union position that their contract shouldn't be cut (due to Michigan budget deficits). I think it might have been Detroit Today or Tell Me More, but regardless the host pushed the issue that the study was actually funded by the unions... an obvious dent in his credibility.

Democracy Now is not a creation of NPR, and is most likely carried by NPR affiliates who schedule whatever programming they feel like.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Your answer doesn't make sense. The decision not to use the term torture is a network wide one, not an individual one.

Really? Why then when you search for "torture" do you get 5270 results, and 68 for Enhanced Interrogation Techniques?

I haven't the slightest idea. Maybe you should ask your friend the ombudsman.

I dont give a rats ass what NPR's ombudsman says. The fact is, NPR used the liberal word for (torture/enhanced interrogation techniques) 8 times more than the conservative word for it. Make your own assumptions.

BTW thats a great article...I love the line "Both Presidents Bush and Obama have insisted that the United States does not use torture." LOL

What... what? Literally one page earlier you are quoting the ombudsman to support your argument, and now on this page you say 'I don't give a rat's ass what NPR's ombudsman says'. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? If you don't give a rat's ass what she says, you probably shouldn't link to her.

Your argument is so absurd I don't even know where to start. They had entire shows on the history of torture, on what different people consider to be torture, on the debate on torture, etc... etc... etc. Just because they say the word 'torture' doesn't mean that they are referring to the actions of the US as 'torture', which is the entire crux of the debate was about, and something that NPR has a specific institutional rule against.

Saying a word doesn't mean you're applying a word to a specific target or action... jesus. My own assumptions would be that this is easily the stupidest argument I've heard in days.

Its not stupid at all. We're talking about two different ombudsmans. The article I linked is quoting Jeffrey Dvorkin, while the article you linked doesnt actually quote the ombudsman, but rather the office of, of which, at the time that article was written, was occupied by Alicia Shepard.

Not sure what the confusion is.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
I've always thought the reason right-wing radio succeeds commercially is the right-wings' craving for vitriolic reinforcement of their views. It's porn for right-wingers.

Or better yet, it's ATPN for right-wingers.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What... what? Literally one page earlier you are quoting the ombudsman to support your argument, and now on this page you say 'I don't give a rat's ass what NPR's ombudsman says'. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? If you don't give a rat's ass what she says, you probably shouldn't link to her.

Your argument is so absurd I don't even know where to start. They had entire shows on the history of torture, on what different people consider to be torture, on the debate on torture, etc... etc... etc. Just because they say the word 'torture' doesn't mean that they are referring to the actions of the US as 'torture', which is the entire crux of the debate was about, and something that NPR has a specific institutional rule against.

Saying a word doesn't mean you're applying a word to a specific target or action... jesus. My own assumptions would be that this is easily the stupidest argument I've heard in days.

Its not stupid at all. We're talking about two different ombudsmans. The article I linked is quoting Jeffrey Dvorkin, while the article you linked doesnt actually quote the ombudsman, but rather the office of, of which, at the time that article was written, was occupied by Alicia Shepard.

Not sure what the confusion is.

I'd be very interested to hear what makes you value one NPR ombudsman's opinion enough to link to it, but then not give a rat's ass what another ways.

Other than that, I did notice that you ignored the substance of my post.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What... what? Literally one page earlier you are quoting the ombudsman to support your argument, and now on this page you say 'I don't give a rat's ass what NPR's ombudsman says'. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? If you don't give a rat's ass what she says, you probably shouldn't link to her.

Your argument is so absurd I don't even know where to start. They had entire shows on the history of torture, on what different people consider to be torture, on the debate on torture, etc... etc... etc. Just because they say the word 'torture' doesn't mean that they are referring to the actions of the US as 'torture', which is the entire crux of the debate was about, and something that NPR has a specific institutional rule against.

Saying a word doesn't mean you're applying a word to a specific target or action... jesus. My own assumptions would be that this is easily the stupidest argument I've heard in days.

Its not stupid at all. We're talking about two different ombudsmans. The article I linked is quoting Jeffrey Dvorkin, while the article you linked doesnt actually quote the ombudsman, but rather the office of, of which, at the time that article was written, was occupied by Alicia Shepard.

Not sure what the confusion is.

I'd be very interested to hear what makes you value one NPR ombudsman's opinion enough to link to it, but then not give a rat's ass what another ways.

Other than that, I did notice that you ignored the substance of my post.

Its simple. Same as how you probably value the deficit spending of one president, but dismiss another. Get it?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What... what? Literally one page earlier you are quoting the ombudsman to support your argument, and now on this page you say 'I don't give a rat's ass what NPR's ombudsman says'. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? If you don't give a rat's ass what she says, you probably shouldn't link to her.

Your argument is so absurd I don't even know where to start. They had entire shows on the history of torture, on what different people consider to be torture, on the debate on torture, etc... etc... etc. Just because they say the word 'torture' doesn't mean that they are referring to the actions of the US as 'torture', which is the entire crux of the debate was about, and something that NPR has a specific institutional rule against.

Saying a word doesn't mean you're applying a word to a specific target or action... jesus. My own assumptions would be that this is easily the stupidest argument I've heard in days.

Its not stupid at all. We're talking about two different ombudsmans. The article I linked is quoting Jeffrey Dvorkin, while the article you linked doesnt actually quote the ombudsman, but rather the office of, of which, at the time that article was written, was occupied by Alicia Shepard.

Not sure what the confusion is.

I'd be very interested to hear what makes you value one NPR ombudsman's opinion enough to link to it, but then not give a rat's ass what another ways.

Other than that, I did notice that you ignored the substance of my post.

Its simple. Same as how you probably value the deficit spending of one president, but dismiss another. Get it?

No, I don't. Please explain.