Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

NPR: National Pentagon Radio?

By Norman Solomon, AlterNet. Posted March 27, 2008.


When even public radio parrots the military's official line on the war in Iraq, what hope is there for unbiased, quality reporting?
Normon Solomon

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Norman Solomon

Obama's Triumph Over Media Frivolity
Obama's Tuesday win represents a victory over a press corps fixated on fluff over substance.
May 7, 2008

Let's Party Like It’s 1932
Obama has the potential to become as great a president as FDR, while activists have the potential to prompt change comparable to the New Deal.
Apr 21, 2008

Warfare and Health Care
Here's an obvious solution to the health care crisis: why not cut the Pentagon's massive budget to fund health care for all?
Mar 11, 2008

More stories by Norman Solomon

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

While the Iraqi government continued its large-scale military assault in Basra, the NPR reporter's voice from Iraq was unequivocal on the morning of March 27: "There is no doubt that this operation needed to happen."

Such flat-out statements, uttered with journalistic tones and without attribution, are routine for the U.S. media establishment. In the War Made Easy documentary film, I put it this way: "If you're pro-war, you're objective. But if you're anti-war, you're biased. And often, a news anchor will get no flak at all for making statements that are supportive of a war and wouldn't dream of making a statement that's against a war."

So it goes at NPR News, where -- on Morning Edition as well as the evening program All Things Considered -- the sense and sensibilities tend to be neatly aligned with the outlooks of official Washington. The critical aspects of reporting largely amount to complaints about policy shortcomings that are tactical; the underlying and shared assumptions are imperial. Washington's prerogatives are evident when the media window on the world is tinted red-white-and-blue.

Earlier in the week -- a few days into the sixth year of the Iraq war -- All Things Considered aired a discussion with a familiar guest.

"To talk about the state of the war and how the U.S. military changes tactics to deal with it," said longtime anchor Robert Siegel, "we turn now to retired Gen. Robert Scales, who's talked with us many times over the course of the conflict."

This is the sort of introduction that elevates a guest to truly expert status -- conveying to the listeners that expertise and wisdom, not just opinions, are being sought.

Siegel asked about the progression of assaults on U.S. troops over the years: "How have the attacks and the countermeasures to them evolved?"

Naturally, Gen. Scales responded with the language of a military man. "The enemy has built ever-larger explosives," he said. "They've found clever ways to hide their IEDs, their roadside bombs, and even more diabolical means for detonating these devices."

We'd expect a retired American general to speak in such categorical terms -- referring to "the enemy" and declaring in a matter-of-fact tone that attacks on U.S. troops became even more "diabolical." But what about an American journalist?

Well, if the American journalist is careful to function with independence instead of deference to the Pentagon, then the journalist's assumptions will sound different than the outlooks of a high-ranking U.S. military officer.

In this case, an independent reporter might even be willing to ask a pointed question along these lines: You just used the word "diabolical" to describe attacks on the U.S. military by Iraqis, but would that ever be an appropriate adjective to use to describe attacks on Iraqis by the U.S. military?

In sharp contrast, what happened during the All Things Considered discussion on March 24 was a conversation of shared sensibilities. The retired U.S. Army general discussed the war effort in terms notably similar to those of the ostensibly independent journalist -- who, along the way, made the phrase "the enemy" his own in a followup question.

It wouldn't be fair to judge an entire news program on the basis of a couple of segments. But I'm a frequent listener of All Things Considered and Morning Edition. Such cozy proximity of world views, blanketing the war maker and the war reporter, is symptomatic of what ails NPR's war coverage -- especially from Washington.

Of course there are exceptions. Occasional news reports stray from the narrow baseline. But the essence of the propaganda function is repetition, and the exceptional does not undermine that function.

To add insult to injury, NPR calls itself public radio. It's supposed to be willing to go where commercial networks fear to tread. But overall, when it comes to politics and war, the range of perspectives on National Public Radio isn't any wider than what we encounter on the avowedly commercial networks.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: public radio, npr, iraq war, media bias

Norman Solomon's latest book Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State (PoliPointPress) is available now. For more information go to www.madelovegotwar.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I've noticed that for years now.
Posted by: Snowpuppy on Mar 27, 2008 12:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you Mr. Solomon -

I've had this issue with NPR for some time. I have called the local station to point out glaring instances of uncritical reporting from The Morning Edition, but have heard the same from All Things Considered.

Funding for NPR needs to be free from budget-cut football, and staffing decisions must also be fully independent of WH meddling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NPR and public TV have been neutered
Posted by: PaulC on Mar 27, 2008 3:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Republithugs took over congress one of the first things they did was launch an assault on the alleged liberal bias of public media, repeatedly threatening to cut all funding unless they took a "fair and balanced" approach. Of course we all know what that means - "he said she said" coverage which parrots what each side is saying without regard to what is actually happening, who is responsible, who benefited, who loses, surrounding context and history, is it even true, and so on.

The assault only ended after the public rallied around public media. However, the Republithugs did not give up, installing senior officers who were Republithug operatives with long histories of slash and burn partisan thuggery.

The result has been a move away from controversial topics, or simply glossing over them.

Challenging programming is the exception. The classic example is the Bill Moyers weekly show NOW. But even there, Moyers was actually forced off his own show and the show's air time was halved because Republithugs didn't like what Moyers was saying about their illegal, traitorous and fascist activities.

Lessons learned: when an all-powerful fascist regime takes control of a government the very first casualty is always the media, and that is precisely what was carefully planned and executed over decades, beginning with the rise of the right wing "think tanks" in the '70's, through its rollout with Ronnie Raygun in the '80's, and its "krystalnacht" transformation in the '90's under Newt Gingrich, reaching its "Sieg Heil" zenith under the dark lord, Cheney, in the great unending military-industrial-complex/oil industry orgy known as the Iraq war.

peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Underwriting IS Advertising
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 27, 2008 3:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The same is true of The NewsHour on PBS. When one petroleum company dropped out as sponsor another one appeared.

The NeoCons endless assault upon federal funding for NPR and PBS stations has pushed them ever closer to the underwriters and the strings that come with it.

They don't call it National Petroleum Radio without reason.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Underwriting IS Advertising Posted by: LinearBob
Now Pandering Radio
Posted by: crackbaby2 on Mar 27, 2008 6:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
National Public Radio has been on a downward trend for years. Insipid hosts with saccharine facades, vapid stories about inane subjects (e.g. radio reports about dance, for God's sake), and tedious self-promotion for their self-proclaimed balance. Yuck.

I'll take the nuze models on cable, thank you. At least they are pleasant to look at and the content has become, well, similar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the purpose of NPR
Posted by: Dboy on Mar 28, 2008 2:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The purpose of NPR is to define what is "Left". Anything more-left of NPR is considered radical and is therefore "not serious". NPR is fake-left establishment programming, nothing more. By defining "Left", you can continue to push the general discourse further to the right..pulling "left" to the center, and "right" to the farther right. Left only happens on the Internet, in a few dead-tree publications, and in small-group discussion...but certainly not on the radio.

dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is Why I Listen to the BBC
Posted by: SkeeterVT1 on Mar 28, 2008 4:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's Called national PUBLIC Radio. But in fact, NPR is heavily dependent on corporate money, in the form of grants by foundations linked to Corporate America.

But that's not entirely NPR's fault. It used to be financed heavily by taxpayer funds through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. But thanks to the relentless atttacks on CPB by conservative Republicans in Congress, NPR (and to an ever greater extent, PBS) have had to wean themselves off CPB funding and rely more heavily on direct contributions by their listeners (in the form of "memberships") and corporate foundation grants.

NPR can ill-afford to "bite the hands that feed them," if you catch my drift. Which is why I listen more to the British Broadcasting Corporation's World Service radio. Unlike NPR, BBC Radio is financed largely by public funds. Chartered by the British government in 1922, The BBC is financed by a tax paid by Britons, which makes it a truly public broadcaster. Foreign broadcasters that carry BBC programming pay carriage fees to the network.

Free from corporate influence -- and protected by law from government interference in its news coverage -- the BBC can afford to report the news "without fear or favor," to borrow from the credo of The New York Times.

Don't like NPR? Then listen to the BBC instead. Ironically, many NPR stations carry the BBC's early-morning "World Update" program an hour ahead of NPR's "Morning Edition."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

oldfreedondude
Posted by: oldfreedomdude on Mar 28, 2008 5:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NPR is a little better than FOX News, but not much. They never question Government statements/propaganda, and their idea of presenting two sides of an issue is presenting Bush's side then Cheney's side.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: oldfreedondude Posted by: Quannah
» RE: oldfreedondude Posted by: Dboy
Democracy Requires an Informed Electorate
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Mar 28, 2008 6:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't recall the exact year but I recall that for a long period of time I would hear on the news every day that Republican Congressmen and Senators were sponsoring bills to force NPR to become more responsible and get off the public dole. I think that this was the Gingrich congress in its heyday, but it could well have been earlier.

The idea was that the government had helped public radio get started, but it was past the time that they needed to find corporate sponsorship and stop being a drain on the public treasury.

Before that time you rarely if ever saw on PBS these long sponsorship announcements at the start of shows, because public radio still prided itself on being independent of corporate influence. Even then, they deeply worried about offending Congress who could cut back funds at any time, but at least then Congress had to worry about the public wrath that might result. Public radio and TV seemed to have greater public support at that time.

Public radio, public television and yes, a new nation-wide public newspaper need to have an adequate trust fund to allow them to be honest. We need to insulate them from both corporate and government and corporate interference.

This would always have been a good use for both public funds and for wealthy individuals like George Soros or Bill Gates to establish. It is especially needed today when so much of the media has come under the control of special interests.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

National Praeternatural Radio
Posted by: Jim Swanson on Mar 28, 2008 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NPR has slowly evolved into the voice of the political establishment and the national council of churches. Running programs such as Speaking of Faith, perpetuating the racist and demonstrably wrong concept of "crack babies" and "rampant drug abuse", backing a war which has killed over a million innocent people and displaced millions more, and interviewing more conservatives and religious people than liberals and scholars--as found in a recent media study. By the Fall of 2004 I had donated over $4,000 that year to Chicago affiliate WBEZ--I had been a large donor to different affiliates over the years--when the station manager asked me to "stop donating so that we can ignore your criticisms of our programming--we are spiritual people here". This came after I challenged a "science" reporter calling astrology a "science" and citing a long list of faux degrees held be the astrologer and my criticism of a NPR series on surviving "crack babies" by a Black Female reporter who never once mentioned that "crack babies" were fictional and that the myth had been dispelled almost a decade earlier by the scientific community.
It is time for us to stop all government funding of NPR and remove the corporate tax deductions. I have not donated a cent and mostly quit listening to WBEZ. When I do catch it on a friend's radio I am usually again appalled at the lack of objective reporting and programming. We quite ofter refer to the staff as "reverends" which I first heard amongst cutting edge jazz musicians here in Chicago who found the jazz programming narrow minded and religious.
DIE NPR, DIE or return to educational and honest public radio.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

don't feel like the lone stranger ....
Posted by: siamdave on Mar 28, 2008 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- not unlike the formerly world class, now fallen on very hard (that is to say neocon) times, serving as a propaganda arm for the NWO, Canadian Broadcasting Corp (CBC) - I try to keep an eye on them, but it's a big job for one guy - On Green Island

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fox and NPR
Posted by: covalentbonded on Mar 28, 2008 7:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yesterday on Talk of the Nation a man called in and said he enjoyed Npr and Fox. The host Neil Conan([?]sp)said that was a small demographic. I e-mailed NPR and disagreed. I think there are many, many NPR listeners and fianancial supporters that use them both.

WHYY in Philadelphia is a "faux-"news" station that could easily find itself "fair and balanced".

And don't even get me started on The World with their full-time Ministry of Truth employees!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fox and NPR Posted by: dianectaylor
Propaganda du Jour
Posted by: babka on Mar 28, 2008 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh yes! From ongoing use of bushspeak pentagonian buzz-words (credible, simulated drowning, troops - ie. "three troops" to signify 3 dead soldiers) to interviews skewered toward mockery of the marginalized (Kucinich), to self-satisfied, whitebread, up-talking Valley Gals? 'n' Dudes?, the only non-"embedded "extant are (possibly) Daniel Shore and Daniel Swerdling (sp?), the latter having been relegated to an Arctic puff piece of winter wonderland, following some excellent journalism on abusive neglect of post-traumatic combat veterans. And will someone please tell Scott Simon that he. is. not. funny. ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

perplexed
Posted by: perplexed on Mar 28, 2008 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I stopped listening and supporting NPR when Jim Lehr admitted on Jay Leno's show that he just goes along. When David Brooks kept supporting Bush and pushing the Iraq War and Mark Shields just kept agreening. It was all a big farse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You just now caught on?
Posted by: sawdust on Mar 28, 2008 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, folks, I've been dismayed by this decaying and degradation of NPR for years.But it is ALL OUR FAULT. We elected the clowns who took away the public money (just another case of I-can't-spend-my-taxes-the-way-I-want-to)and then were stupid enough to re-elect them. For public radio and TV to exist at all, unfettered, they need unfettered cash. But by taking my (your)public money and giving it to private sluts and whorehouses like Wall Street, the public air waves have had to go street walking to make enough money to stay on the air. With that come the admonitions of what you can and cannot say.

We hung National Public Broadcasting out to dry and we are getting faux Fox Noise. You ignore your kids and of course they will take drugs, zone out and not communicate. And you are acting surprised?

Vote, get a voice, stand up and be heard and get a new government that will keep its' fingers out of the mix. Otherwise, get used to 1984. Goerge Orwell, where are you now?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You just now caught on? Posted by: BlackbirdHighway
Thanks Norman
Posted by: grn1 on Mar 28, 2008 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The opposite is true for so-called National Public Radio's (NPR), but its public broadcast (PBS)counterpart shares equal guilt. Many people naively turn to NPR as an acceptable alternative to corporate media disinformation without realizing it's as corrupted by capital interests and big government as all the others. Its president, Kevin Klose, is the former head of US propaganda that includes Voice of America (VOA), Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Worldnet Television and the anti-Castro Radio/TV Marti. He's ideal for the same role at National Public Radio, and it's why he got the job.
NPR never met a US war of aggression it didn't love, and it's especially attentive to the interests of its corporate paymasters like McDonald's (with $225 million of it), Allstate, Merck, Archer Daniels Midland, and the worst of all worker rights' abusers, Wal-Mart, that NPR welcomes anyway. In its space, there never is heard a discouraging word on any of these or most other major US corporate giants. Taken from Steven Lendmans The Greatest Story Never Told

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NPR has been Stinkin for years
Posted by: Rosasharn on Mar 28, 2008 3:57 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can't bear to listen to it, have to rush into the kitchen and turn the channel before any of their stinkin war propaganda has a chance to invade my peace-loving home. If I'm 2 seconds late, you can bet it'll be ole G Dub giving the daily pepsi talk, always their 'top' story. NPR is a JOKE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

on Canada's Afghanistan cheerleader: Christie Blatchford
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Mar 28, 2008 4:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.
.
considering Christie Blatchford, pro-war propaganda & "John McCain, Iraq, & the Eyewitness Fallacy"

but of course, CHRISTIE didn't get *handled* by military MEDIA HANDLERS... oh nooooo.

she just LOVES drumming the support for Canada in Afghanistan... without ever asking WHY the hell we're there...


~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian com
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NPR--they've been that way for a long time.
Posted by: seeall on Mar 28, 2008 6:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NPR has been doing that since the first Gulf War under Pappy Bush. That is when I stopped listening to them. Lately I have begun tuning them in because I am tired of the liberal talk show hosts and audiences using their long knives on Hillary Clinton.

However, NPR is still the spokespeople for this administration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Citizen
Posted by: auromar on Mar 28, 2008 6:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Very sad and disappointing, indeed! Is everybody becoming shellshuck these days?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Best News Sources
Posted by: BlackbirdHighway on Mar 28, 2008 6:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The media has reached such an absurd state in this country that the best, most accurate sources of news are now The Comedy Channel and The Onion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Best News Sources Posted by: soundman
P.B.S. = Privatized B.S. NPR = Neo-con Privatized Ranting
Posted by: jcrw on Mar 28, 2008 8:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For decades national newspapers have always had "business" or "money" or "financial news" sections set aside to promote the interests of capital. There is no major newspaper with a separate section...not a daily or weekly column... that discusses economic news from the perspective of working people.

Thus working people (the vast majority of the population) have no understanding of really why we are always at war? Why are we are all drowning in credit card debt? Why despite working overtime or working two jobs etc. we can't make ends meet? Why is nothing seriously done about global warming? Why is there a vast increase in the wealth of the top 1% but living wage jobs are increasingly difficult to find? Why is it that 50 million have no health care insurance? etc.etc.

This lack of understanding is from lack of knowledge or ignorance that is the inevitable result of corporate ownership of not only the privately owned print media, but because of corporate funding of NPR and PBS. With corporate money comes corporate interests and agendas. An alternative economic voice, critical of corporate capitalism, is never allowed a voice.

The organized labor movement at one time had a perspective of opposing corporate interests. They even had their own radio station in the 1950s (in Chicago).

Today, the labor movement "leaders" have a philosophy of being a "business partner" to corporate capital. As a business partner to corporations, it enforces cutbacks on pensions and benefits, downsizing, "two tier" wage rates, etc. that culls out the unprofitable aspects of the "human resources" pool.

Globalization has meant the destruction of working people throughout the world. The best alternative voice on to this corporate monopolization and destruction of mass media:
World Socialist Web Site

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you
Posted by: dianectaylor on Mar 28, 2008 10:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now, if someone would just package up these comments and forward them to NPR headquarters and the local affiliates...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mick3
Posted by: mick3 on Mar 29, 2008 9:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing new here. NPR announcers used to call Reagan's terrorists in Central America, "Freedom Fighters." In the run-up to the war in Iraq, when it was still being opposed here and worldwide, NPR was referring to it as "the war" as if a done deal. Either they are lame about the use of language or they are too Right to notice. Or they're just lazy. I once tried to watch a Democratic national convention when Cokie Roberts was "moderating" or whatever. She wouldn't let us hear the speakers, kept yapping about her opinions. So it goes. Who's in charge?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Finally someone has said it
Posted by: janelynne on Mar 29, 2008 1:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NPR Morning Addition is pure propaganda that is getting spoon fed to us. Before I am out of bed, I am getting the White House version. Cokie Roberts shows up every Monday and gets the week off wrong. The "experts" that get interviewed have agendas and might be better referred to as lobbiests. They are "experts" in sales.

The media in this country are unreliable. They are selling us something, and it isn't the truth. It is frightening that Americans cannot trust our press. NPR is part of the mainstream press, and all the networks should have to defend their broadcast licenses when they come up for renewal. They promise to serve the public interest. But alas, the FTC is just another shell game by the government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All the NPR bashing is off-base
Posted by: Artaraxl on Mar 29, 2008 4:13 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on people! NPR is light-years better than Fox. There's just no comparison. The fact that it is public radio, means listeners have a meaningful influence. Write letters, complain to local stations, do (or don't) donate money as you see fit. Your views matter to NPR VASTLY more than they do to any network television station.

Correcting some comments above: NPR receives very little federal funding (via the CPB) as a percentage of it's operating budget (off hand, Wikipedia says 2%).

Public broadcasting should be encouraged, not "killed" -- if your gripe is that it's not the BBC, well then work to make it more like the BBC! But it's silly to say it's closer to Fox than the BBC, when obviously the reverse is true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: FOX Posted by: Dboy
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Mar 30, 2008 2:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The GOP started putting pressure on NPR to get in line 25 years ago, during the Reagan administration. Anyone who is just now noticing the rightward drift probably shouldn't be allowed to handle sharp objects.


Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Terrorist Posted by: Dboy
bikey
Posted by: bikey on Mar 31, 2008 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, and thank you again Mr. Solomon. Can NPR be aware of how often I, and I assume other listeners, just switch it off rather than listen to long quotes from our moronic president and his ilk? Who needs this? At least you know where Fox is coming from. This posturing (and asking for monetary support as well) should stop. Whatever they're paying you, NPR, at least get your money's worth, because no one is fooled.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

say what?
Posted by: gregii on Mar 31, 2008 2:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, I knew that NPR & Public TV were under assault by the dogmatic in congress - and I was aware of the increase in effectiveness of these assaults under W. But I gained an impression a couple of years ago that with ouster of the head of the Federal agency leading the charge, and the return of Bill Moyers to Public TV, the battle for editorial control had been lost by the thugs. However, of some dozens of comments above, only two defend NPR or Public TV. The rest of you are scathing. I am impressed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]