Public Radio might not be the complete loss that some would have it.


PDA






alan
August 8, 2005, 09:11 PM
7 August, beginning at 0700 in Pittsburgh, WDUQ FM broadcast On The Media, produced by WNYC, in New York. It was an interesting broadcast, to say the very least.

One segment dealt with the bureaucracy and government trying to duck the requirements of The Freedom Of Information Act, and efforts of a non-profit organization to check such antics.

The last segment dealt with the media and guns, and was entitled Why Reporters Get It Wrong On Guns. To bad media didn't recognize it's internal problems 30 plus years ago, problems that were mentioned in the segment.

Anyhow, while I realize that 0700 on a Sunday might be a bit early for lot's of people, interested parties that is, you might check with the web sites of WNYC in New York, www.wnyc.org or that of WDUQ, in Pittsburgh, www.wduq.org, to see what their archives might contain.

Wherever a given reader might be, they might also check with their local Public Radio outlet to see what might be available in the way of either a recorded or a text version of the broadcast. It struck me as worth hearing.

Might even be worth while letting the station know what you think or thought of the segment.

If you enjoyed reading about "Public Radio might not be the complete loss that some would have it." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
model 649
August 8, 2005, 10:16 PM
I heard that segment yesterday. The reporter admitted having a good time on the clays course. I wouldn't go so far as to characterize the the report as "gun friendly" however. Seemed as though the reporters were tired of being lambasted for their ineptitude and took up the NRA on its offer to come out and shoot. Hopefully some of these people will get the idea that demons don't emanate from guns and gun owners.(Well we CAN hope, can't we?).
Josh

Hawk
August 8, 2005, 10:32 PM
Dallas NPR affiliate, KERA, runs a local show with Glenn Mitchell doing interviews.

He's recently done interviews with both John Lott and Abigail Kohn. One of those interviews cost me a wager.

Note to self: don't make bets against the local public radio station running pro-gun pieces.

I probably shouldn't be surprised given the area; I wish he'd take over for Terri Gross. Soon.

armedandsafe
August 8, 2005, 10:52 PM
http://www.onthemedia.org/
Scroll down to "Gun Shy." Transcripts will be available Tuesday.

Pops

Derek Zeanah
August 8, 2005, 10:53 PM
In my experience public radio actually tries to do a good job, and it seems there's less editorial control than you find in something like broadcast news.

OTOH, the sorts of people who want to work for NPR start with something of a liberal bias, so there's that to be overcome...

Sam
August 8, 2005, 11:03 PM
Derek hits it right on the head.

Sam

Joejojoba111
August 9, 2005, 01:19 AM
I tacitly understood that the npr would play pretty much whatever people wanted? Write a letter? Usually there's an ombudsman you can complain to if there is misleading information being broadcast, and they might even take their job seriously, working for ideals instead of money etc etc.

AZRickD
August 9, 2005, 01:26 AM
Last October (2004) we decided to have a media event via the CCW Banquet to celebrate the ten-year anniversary of Arizona's CCW law, and to lobby for a move to Vermont/Alaska carry.

http://www.gunlaws.com/CCWPostBanquetPR.htm

Says Alan:NPR decided not to run the story when East Coast brass learned it presented guns in a good light. "We only do hit pieces on guns," an insider revealed, on condtiion of anonymity.

alan
August 9, 2005, 02:29 AM
model 649 wrote in part:

I wouldn't go so far as to characterize the the report as "gun friendly" however.
-----------

I did not so characterize the segment. For the passing interest of anyone who "stops by", the following is the text of an e-amil I sent to WNYC.

Ladies and Gentlemen, as the case might be:

First, let me compliment you all on the general content of today's broadcast. I think that it was really a first rate job you did, particularly respecting coverage of government/bureaucratic antics seeking to avoid the requirements of the Freedom Of Information Act. Of course, the segment headed What reporters don't get about guns was really interesting, and frankly having heard this, I for one wondered and still wonder as to why in blazes you media types failed to discover your problems 30 years, or more ago? More on this in a moment. Meantime I most seriously suggest to the editorial boards and like groups in "media", that if you really want to gain an understanding of "gun people", or The Gun Culture, as it's sometimes known, that you read Unintended Consequences, by John Ross. I doubt that many, if any will so do, however I seriously submit that you should.

As to the "lack of empathy" that was mentioned, and what appears to be a situation where media types either cannot or will not treat gun owners as the generally reasonably people that most are, I submit that it is not a question of "cannot", rather it is a question of "will not". You all might also read some of the monographs by William Tonso, Professor Emeritus at U. of Indiana, Evansville, who wrote some pieces on what he politely described as "the information gate keepers".

On to other aspects, I think that the following might get the attention of those who trouble to read it. Mention was made of an Arizona newspaper, don't recall which one it was, one that had an editorial position that was strongly anti gun. For one reason or another, perhaps the fact that some reporters and or columnists actually "went out shooting" in the process coming to see that gun people were pretty much normal folk, just like they were, this paper underwent something in the way of a change in editorial policy, something that The New York Times, and many others, shows no sign of doing. Anyhow, a lady who was connected with this paper, the one in Arizona, in a voice-over, offered the following. One day, while on an errand or business related travel in the local area, she happened to tune into a talk radio program, where one individual was criticizing the paper, regarding it's anti gun position and policies. A gentleman phoned in to the show, this person having previously criticized the paper for the same reasons, and sort of defended the paper, saying that "anyone can make a mistake", the quote is not exact, I'm relying on memory.

Re this, which I found really interesting, might I note the following. Operation on the basis of what might be bad information, or information misunderstood, could be characterized as a "mistake", assuming that when correct data was made available, assuming that it wasn't already available, positions and or statements changed. Given that media outlets, on an ongoing basis, seem to "misunderstand available data" and or operate on the basis of bum data, it becomes all to clear that we are not looking at a simple mistake, rather we are confronting knowing and deliberate action. Once it's happenstance, maybe the second time it's coincidence, however when the same "mistakes" continue, mistakes it no longer is, if it ever was. Obviously, what is then faced is ENEMY ACTION, and respecting the unchanging editorial line/policy taken by most media outlets, ENEMY ACTION is the only reasonable characterization available.

Might I also note the following respecting media's stalwart and entirely proper defense of The First Amendment, that respecting their ongoing efforts in the direction of trashing The Second Amendment, that he who would diminish any constitutional right, diminishes all constitutional rights. In simple terms you all in media cannot have your cake, having previously eaten it. I cannot either, however that is something that I recognize. Sad to note, you people do not seem to, one wonders as to why.

Joejojoba111 wrote:

I tacitly understood that the npr would play pretty much whatever people wanted? Write a letter? Usually there's an ombudsman you can complain to if there is misleading information being broadcast, and they might even take their job seriously, working for ideals instead of money etc etc.

------------------

A Mr. Dvorkin, don't recall his first name, so far as I know, is the Ombudsman at NPR. I've e-mailed him in several instances. He sounds like a pleasant fellow, though I have quite serious questions as to the "size of the hammer he might swing" at NPR in Washington, D.C.. Another comment on the general subject of Ombudsmen I once heard was the following. Any organization that needed one, an ombudsman, was in real trouble to begin with.

Derek Zeanah wrote:

In my experience public radio actually tries to do a good job, and it seems there's less editorial control than you find in something like broadcast news.

OTOH, the sorts of people who want to work for NPR start with something of a liberal bias, so there's that to be overcome...

------------------

You might be right, however I personally have heard the same rubbish repeated time and time again, concerning firearms, on Public Radio stations, to accept that absent a large helping of salt. As I mentioned above, once it's a mistake, twice, perhaps happenstance, however the third time is knowing and deliberate enemy action. How would you characterize the fourth, the fifth and sixth times?

Once I had a somewhat heated phone conversation with the news director at WDUQ in Pittsburgh, that revolved about their sloppy use of technical terminology, assault weapon in particular. The news director allowed that I might be right in my comments, however the term Assault Weapon had become "part of the vernacular", he said. I pointed out that if that was the case, that media's unacceptably sloppy use of technical terms was the reason for the condition, and that such was, in my view, not acceptable. I also pointed out to this news guy, regarding "things that were part of the vernacular", the term ****** was also part of the vernacular, but that NPR stations, WDUQ in the present case, didn't toss that bit of vernacular around. The news director got terribly upset, for some reason.

As I said in my note to WNYC, I thought the broadcast was quite interesting, especially the segment dealing with media on guns. Re that, it appears that some might be beginning to recognize that there is something problematic about the way they are addressing things. Who knows, but what this recognition could lead to corrective action. I'm not planning to hold my breath, for blue is quite far from my best color, but I suppose that one can always hope, all the while, keeping their powder dry, cool too.

Henry Bowman
August 9, 2005, 10:28 AM
NPR had finally realized that their public funding might actually be in jeopardy. They have started doing "counter" programming spots in order to have something to point to as "balance." Many on "elite left" rally think that this is some sort of "tolerance" and "open mindedness" on their part. It is a transparent sham. Sort of like the token "colored" person at the country club who knows how to be "well behaved." :barf:

fourays2
August 9, 2005, 11:07 AM
our local Air America affiliate in Phoenix has Phoenix and Scottsdale gun centers as sponsors for the Randy Rhodes show. I listen to AA to balance out the republican koolaid that all other talk radio makes you drink.

SalukiFan
August 9, 2005, 12:07 PM
I liked the way that you brought up that Second Amendment rights protect the First Amendment in your email. The First Amendment is near and dear to journalists and that is sure to get their attention.

You all might also read some of the monographs by William Tonso, Professor Emeritus at U. of Indiana, Evansville, who wrote some pieces on what he politely described as "the information gate keepers".

BTW, I think that the report that you got the information on about William Tonso mistakenly gave his university as University of Indiana, Evansville. There isn't a "University of Indiana" only University of Evansville...I know because the Salukis (Southern Illinois University) play against them.

cookekdjr
August 9, 2005, 12:19 PM
In my experience public radio actually tries to do a good job, and it seems there's less editorial control than you find in something like broadcast news.

OTOH, the sorts of people who want to work for NPR start with something of a liberal bias, so there's that to be overcome...

Derek, I was having a conversation with my most conservative friends one day. They asked me what was the most objective news source around. I said "NPR". "NPR?!" they said. "No way!"
I responded "OK, who do you think is more objective than NPR?"
They sat there stumped for a minute, thinking.
Finally one of them said, "you know, they're not my favorite, but I really can't think of anyone more objective than NPR".
And that pretty much sums it up. They may not be your favorite, but no one else is more objective (and no one tries harder to be more objective).
-David

No_Brakes23
August 9, 2005, 12:23 PM
I like how NPR is always talked about by Repubs as "Liberal" or "Leftist" biased, (Which I am more than willing to agree it is,) but all the Dems whine about how conservative and Republican biased NPR is. :confused:

I like listeing to NPR because while it certainly is biased at times, it is far more objective than most TV news. I like getting to hear about stuff going on in places I would never hear about on TV. And even in the midst of its left leaning, NPR still seems more balanced and less sensational than network TV news.

But NPR changes slightly with region, too, so maybe it is just San Diego NPR that is more palatable.

I tried listening to Air America, but I couldn't get past Stuart Smalley. Then I tried listening to it when he wasn't on and found that the only palatable show on there was a local show in the morning. I don't mind getting a dissenting viewpoint, but I draw the line at blatant propaghanda. To me Air America and Rush both belong in the circular file, as they are just notch below tabloid journalism.

R.H. Lee
August 9, 2005, 12:25 PM
NPR is just a lapdog for the DNC, who is beginning to realize that their gun grabbing philosophy is hurting them politically. It's all a part of a coordinated BS effort to appear more 'gun-friendly'. :barf:

buzz_knox
August 9, 2005, 12:27 PM
I'm not so sure NPR is trying as hard as you all say. Having started to listen to it fairly regularly, you can pretty much tell how the story is going to go by the title. If they have a story on schools and hospitals being reopened in Iraq, there'll be a short discussion of the principle matter, with constant references to them being the only bright spots in a sea of blood and fire, and of dubious value since those using them will probably be killed.

Henry Bowman
August 9, 2005, 01:34 PM
I like listeing to NPR because while it certainly is biased at times, it is far more objective than most TV news. I like getting to hear about stuff going on in places I would never hear about on TV. And even in the midst of its left leaning, NPR still seems more balanced and less sensational than network TV news. Great! So why does it have to be taxpayer funded? Does anyone truly believe that this beloved radio network would just disappear if it had to sell an occasional ad or two? Same with PBS. Barney, Sesame Street and Thomas the Tank Engine are billion dollar corporations. Would they just disappear if we quit filling the feeding trough?

MBane666
August 9, 2005, 03:00 PM
Hey guys;

I originally pitched that story to ON THE MEDIA, and I and Gary Mehalik, late of NSSF, worked with them extensively on getting it put together. On the whole, I'm pleased with how it came out.

My original dealings with NPR were acrimonious, to say the least. I'm the guy who ended up in a shouting match with the NPR ombudsman (I suggested, loudly, that "Fresh Air" be renamed "Hot Air," and that "All Things Considered" be renamed "Some Things We All Agree On Considered"). However, NPR responded by sending a high-ranking correspondent to one of our NSSF media seminars. Following that seminar, NPR began calling NSSF and asking for information on various subjects, and some less partisan stories began sneaking onto the schedule.

I'm not giving them a free pass, but they have stepped up. That's why our strategy shoudl ALWAYS be to continue to communicate rather than stick our heads in the sand!

Michael B

ACP230
August 9, 2005, 06:34 PM
I used to be a member of two public radio stations.

They wore me out with anti-Reagan, pro-taxes and pro-Sandinista bull by product, plus self-congratulatory begging fests.
I'll never give them another dime.

I still listen to an occasional jazz or blues show, but as soon as they start begging in goes a CD.

I never listen to All Pink Things Considered or Morning Sedition anymore unless I'm on the road, no other stations will come in, and the tape player isn't working.

alan
August 10, 2005, 07:26 PM
SalukiFan:

Now that you mentioned, it, it is U of Evansville where Professor Tonso.ead any of Tonso's stuff?

------------------

Re Air America mentioned by some, I'm unfamiliar with it, especially givsen that it does not appear to air in my are, Southwestern PA.

-------------------
MBane666:

I believe that such efforts that you put into helping develope the segment were very much worth while. Having said that, I believe that the belated recognition by media, of it's problems re firearms coverage, assuming that they have even begun to recognize that they have problems in and with this, are unfortunately 30 plus years late in coming. I believe that I had mentioned this aspect of the thing earlier. Will media "pull up it's socks" and begin to treat this aspect of PUBLIC POLICY in a reasonable, adult manner, I will believe that when, and if I see it, on an ongoing basis. One shot, it has been said, does not a war make.

Firethorn
August 11, 2005, 04:17 AM
I have to agree, I often love their playing of classical music.

Click&Clack aren't bad at all.

I find their morning news better than the canned talk shows played by the other radio stations. (though sometimes a bit lefty).

Then again, I'm listening to them in that bastion of lefty thoughts: Minot, ND. :rolleyes:

I'm sure they can get downright communist in many of the cities.

If you enjoyed reading about "Public Radio might not be the complete loss that some would have it." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!