Call and complain about the Biased NPR Radio Show on DC Ban and Mayor Fenty Int
- Thread starter jpk1md
- Start date
- Status
silverlance
Member
I listened to the interview on the way to work. Contrary to what the OP said, Fenty came across as a stuttering idiot and you could almost hear the snicker in the interviewer's voice.
If he had only added the last question, "Do you have any bodyguards?" He would have been firmly pro-gun as the rest of the set-up was there.
He stopped short of that (probably to save his job), but otherwise did everything he could to expose Fenty for the tautological moron that he is. Why the heck anyone would vote for that idiot I don't know. I'm certain he sounds like that in everything else.
NPR is a large organization and is made up of quite a few people. Some are very anti gun. Others are pro gun, but quiet. The vast majority are left leaning fence sitters.
I myself am a member of KPCC (local NPR buying station) and I support NPR. I do agree that tax dollars should not sponsor radio, but that support is probably short lived anyway. IIRC it has been shrinking steadily for a long time now.
NPR for the most part is good stuff.
Occasionally they lean left.
Once in a blue moon they shout themselves blue in the face and say dumb things.
When THAT happens, we call them and let them know.
If he had only added the last question, "Do you have any bodyguards?" He would have been firmly pro-gun as the rest of the set-up was there.
He stopped short of that (probably to save his job), but otherwise did everything he could to expose Fenty for the tautological moron that he is. Why the heck anyone would vote for that idiot I don't know. I'm certain he sounds like that in everything else.
NPR is a large organization and is made up of quite a few people. Some are very anti gun. Others are pro gun, but quiet. The vast majority are left leaning fence sitters.
I myself am a member of KPCC (local NPR buying station) and I support NPR. I do agree that tax dollars should not sponsor radio, but that support is probably short lived anyway. IIRC it has been shrinking steadily for a long time now.
NPR for the most part is good stuff.
Occasionally they lean left.
Once in a blue moon they shout themselves blue in the face and say dumb things.
When THAT happens, we call them and let them know.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
DON'T READ THE TRANSCRIPT without listening to the recording! It's missing a lot. Some is unimportant fluff. Some, maybe not so much. The response to the question "What's wrong with having a gun in your home?" is about five or six times longer in the recording--the transcript only shows the last sentence. Obviously it's not meant to be a faithful transcription, bu that's a BIG difference.
One small thing I noticed is that the interviewer did NOT say " . . . but you could have a gun in your home." He said "Correct me if I'm wrong, but when it goes into effect, you still won't be able to carry a gun around Pennsylvania Avenue. But I could have a gun in my home."
See a difference there? Morning Edition is produced from D.C., I believe, so he might not have meant "I" in a completely hypothetical sense.
And yes, I listen to NPR more than anything else except my local talk radio station, which covers mostly local news. NPR is definitely leftist, but they're no farther to the left than my local ClearChannel affiliates are to the right, and they actually take some time to cover the issues.
One small thing I noticed is that the interviewer did NOT say " . . . but you could have a gun in your home." He said "Correct me if I'm wrong, but when it goes into effect, you still won't be able to carry a gun around Pennsylvania Avenue. But I could have a gun in my home."
See a difference there? Morning Edition is produced from D.C., I believe, so he might not have meant "I" in a completely hypothetical sense.
And yes, I listen to NPR more than anything else except my local talk radio station, which covers mostly local news. NPR is definitely leftist, but they're no farther to the left than my local ClearChannel affiliates are to the right, and they actually take some time to cover the issues.
Beagle-zebub
Member
Considering that NPR only gets 11% of its funding from the federal government, I think that they could stay afloat if completely privatized.
If I don't have an option other than listening to the radio when in DE, I'll put on NPR in hopes of catching This American Life, Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, and (provided the guest is interesting) Fresh Air.
If I don't have an option other than listening to the radio when in DE, I'll put on NPR in hopes of catching This American Life, Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, and (provided the guest is interesting) Fresh Air.
The issue with 2A Rights Issues and NPR is that they cater to the Anti Rights folks without giving the Pro Rights side an equal shake.
I listen to a wide variety of media while in the Car...everything from Sirius Patriot Station to NPR and this is the SECOND Anti Rights slanted/represented bit I've heard since the DC Ban decision was announced last week.
WAMU also recently did another Anti bit on Maryland's SB 43/Assault Weapons/Semi Auto Ban the day after the Judicial Hearing occurred.
If they were to go tit for tat and give equal representation to all sides I would have no beef with them as that would be closer to objective reporting on the issues....but thats unfortunately not the case.
I listen to a wide variety of media while in the Car...everything from Sirius Patriot Station to NPR and this is the SECOND Anti Rights slanted/represented bit I've heard since the DC Ban decision was announced last week.
WAMU also recently did another Anti bit on Maryland's SB 43/Assault Weapons/Semi Auto Ban the day after the Judicial Hearing occurred.
If they were to go tit for tat and give equal representation to all sides I would have no beef with them as that would be closer to objective reporting on the issues....but thats unfortunately not the case.
Deanimator
Member
That's the problem which I pointed out previously, but it's actually worse than that.
NPR will sometimes PRETEND to give a voice to both sides of an issue. What they in fact do is to provide a platform for an articulate, committed advocate for the side they suppot, while presenting the "other side" through an inarticulate, clownish or half-hearted spokesman. The example of their anti-gun "pro-gun" interviewee is classic NPR. It's the equivalent of discussing gay rights with Dr. James Dobson on the anti side, and the pro side represented by a gay guy who claims to have converted to heterosexuality through one of those christian "therapy" programs, and who concedes that homosexuality is a sin and supports anti-sodomy laws. You've created the ILLUSION of presenting both side, without actually doing so.
Malone LaVeigh
Member
Yeah, it also looks like that from the other extreme. It ALWAYS looks like that from an extreme. Extreme spokespeople don't tend to be articulate.
And you heard this interview on NPR?
Jkwas
Member
I listen to "leftist public radio" as I like to call it, and enjoy most of the programming. They have done some ok gun pieces as well. Like this one:
http://slate.com/id/2109816/
http://slate.com/id/2109816/
xd9fan
Member
Clark Neily
I subscribe to the currently unfashionable view that the Founding Fathers envisioned a sea of liberty with islands of government power — not the reverse. It is my hope that the Parker lawsuit will not only vindicate the right of law-abiding citizens to possess functional firearms in their homes, but that it will remind conservatives, in particular, about the excesses of majoritarianism and the critical role of judges in combating it.
As a constitutional litigator, I am troubled by the ascendancy of so-called “judicial minimalism” among both liberal and conservative jurists. Following the Supreme Court’s appalling Kelo decision, for example, it was dismaying to see conservative bloggers like Jonathan Adler and John Hinderaker (and even the iconic Judge Alex Kozinski) supporting the liberal justices’ view that courts should interpret the public use clause of the Fifth Amendment as imposing no meaningful limits on government’s power to redistribute private property.
In federal courts today, there is a presumption of government power, not liberty. I think that’s exactly backwards. Many conservatives will embrace Parker because it vindicates a freedom they hold dear. If it reacquaints them with the important role of judges in protecting liberty and containing government power, so much the better.
— Clark Neily is an attorney at a Washington, D.C.-area public interest law firm. In his private capacity he is co-counsel for the plaintiffs in Parker v. District of Columbia.
Kaylee
Member
*sigh*
http://www.wets.org/?BISKIT=1823843171&CONTEXT=cat&cat=10
It's not that liberals don't know anything.. it's just that they know so much that just isn't true"
Goodman a goddess? I reckon if your definition of a goddess means "someone who regularly bashes US soldiers, raises up for praise everyone she can find who supports communism, radical jihadists, or illegal aliens, and lionizes those presently claiming to be involved in ongoing espionage and treason against the US... sure, she's a goddess.
Being left-wing is one thing. Heck, hate Bush and company all you want.
But Goodman goes far, FAR, beyond that... celebrating treason is quite another.
So yeah,
http://www.wets.org/?BISKIT=1823843171&CONTEXT=cat&cat=10
It's not that liberals don't know anything.. it's just that they know so much that just isn't true"
Goodman a goddess? I reckon if your definition of a goddess means "someone who regularly bashes US soldiers, raises up for praise everyone she can find who supports communism, radical jihadists, or illegal aliens, and lionizes those presently claiming to be involved in ongoing espionage and treason against the US... sure, she's a goddess.
Being left-wing is one thing. Heck, hate Bush and company all you want.
But Goodman goes far, FAR, beyond that... celebrating treason is quite another.
So yeah,
Deanimator
Member
Well, let's see. You have militantly anti-gun people who are allowed ample time to present their well packaged opinions. On the other hand you have... lukewarm anti-gun people who are allowed to mumble and stumble their way through a watered down version of the militantly ant-gun position. NPR made the choice of who the "pro-gun" spokesman was, and the presentation of his opinions. This was done INTENTIONALLY to "prove" that even gun owners don't think handguns should be legal... among other things. Oddly enough this was right around the time the sham National Firearms Association put in its appearance. You've probably never heard of the NFA. It was the late '80s version of the sham [and shameful] American Hunters and Shooters Association. It was created for EXACTLY the same purpose that NPR did their sham "interview".
I heard the interview in which the "pro-gun" spokesman was anti-handgun and was willing to give up his shotguns if people REALLY wanted him to. I would agree that that's "extreme", but HARDLY extreme IN FAVOR of 2nd Amendment rights. It was every bit the equivalent of having a "pro-gay rights" spokesman who's "converted" to heterosexuality and supports anti-sodomy laws. It's like Fox News having a segment on veganism and having as the "opposing" sides, the president of the National Meat Board and Ted Nugent.
flashman70
Member
WAMU is American University's station. Good luck registering a complaint with them that the program was left-leaning.
Most federal $$ go to the affiliates which use the $$ to buy programming from NPR and PRI. I'm not sure whether or not those $$ are included in the 11% cited above. Nevertheless adding 11% to any business' top line is a good thing and very likely to mean the difference between making a go of it or not. I'll bet those yo-yos at Air America would have loved to have gotten a 11% contribution from taxpayers. Thank the Lord they went belly up before Pelosi & friends took control of the budget.
I often listen to BBC and NPR in the morning driving in. It's amazing how NPR can seem almost balanced next to the America-hating BBC. I enjoy listening and never giving a dime to these characters that couldn't make it in the commercial world.
Most federal $$ go to the affiliates which use the $$ to buy programming from NPR and PRI. I'm not sure whether or not those $$ are included in the 11% cited above. Nevertheless adding 11% to any business' top line is a good thing and very likely to mean the difference between making a go of it or not. I'll bet those yo-yos at Air America would have loved to have gotten a 11% contribution from taxpayers. Thank the Lord they went belly up before Pelosi & friends took control of the budget.
I often listen to BBC and NPR in the morning driving in. It's amazing how NPR can seem almost balanced next to the America-hating BBC. I enjoy listening and never giving a dime to these characters that couldn't make it in the commercial world.
I don't have a problem with NPR, and they're my primary news source (All Things Considered, I mean, which IMHO is reason enough for NPR). The only bias I see comes from ignorance rather than malice -- they're doing their best to cover issues fairly. The day of the DC decision the teaser was something like "a win for gun rights" -- not biased at all.
Can't speak for the other programs your local affiliates might handle, but when you compare them with stuff like Glenn Beck or O'Reilly or (pick your example from a mainstream media outlet) they do a helluva job.
Can't speak for the other programs your local affiliates might handle, but when you compare them with stuff like Glenn Beck or O'Reilly or (pick your example from a mainstream media outlet) they do a helluva job.
MatthewVanitas
Member
Again, given the choice between biased news of good quality (NPR, BBC) and biased news of terrible quality (everything else), I'll go with NPR.
I've listened to Hannity and the like while out driving. I particularly recall the show where Newt Gingrinch was on to discuss relations with Iran, and due to call-in questions they spent half the show on how tragic it was that some soccermom's kid was killed in an SUV rollover, and how the government needs to mandate better SUV design.
Bingo, education is key.
-MV
my radio options for mid-morning:
two religious scholars discuss their new book on the Gospel of Judas with Terri Gross (not great, but preferable to Diane Rehms)
poop jokes on the 'alternative talk' station
boobie jokes on sports radio
right-wingers asking if Democrats have stopped beating their wives
two religious scholars discuss their new book on the Gospel of Judas with Terri Gross (not great, but preferable to Diane Rehms)
poop jokes on the 'alternative talk' station
boobie jokes on sports radio
right-wingers asking if Democrats have stopped beating their wives
Deanimator
Member
That's no more a "news" show than Howard Stern or Randi Rhodes. All three are 100% opinion/entertainment.
- Status