General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"I can't stand to look at him. I don't like his wife."
NPR interview with a woman who is voting for Romney. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/09/27/161903264/a-second-chance-interview-with-subject-of-controversial-first-lady-remarks
The reporter then interviews her again and she denies that her remarks were racist. She neatly avoids talking about why she can't stand to look at the President but goes into great detail about the First Lady's looks, dress and push-ups.
NPR seemed to be very proud of itself that it set the record straight: this lady isn't a racist (still questionable). I don't think they realized that, at the very least, they proved that she is a complete idiot.
This is an example of the quality of the campaign reporting on NPR these days. They seem to go out of their way to ferret out complete fools who have nothing substantive to say about the candidates' policies and proposals. I'm sure if these reporters worked a little harder they could find some folks with intelligent things to say on both sides of this campaign. Too much trouble, I guess, so it's going to be too much trouble for me to pick up my checkbook this year when their annoying fundraising campaign begins.
Glimmer of Hope
(5,823 posts)I don't listen to NPR anymore.
GreenPartyVoter
(72,378 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)Blue Belle
(5,912 posts)PCIntern
(25,556 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)Helping fill the gap in funding now that some states have stopped paying?
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)hearing that kind of response--instead doubling down on being deferential to the blatant racist moron--not even bothing to correct very wrong information/perceptions advanced by these idiots. By doing this, the media is not being "fair", but rather sending a very ugly signal that what the listeners have just heard is "no big deal." Sorry, but presenting both sides of an argument does not mean one ignores blatant ugly racism, bigotry, ignorance.
GreenPartyVoter
(72,378 posts)KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)It's no surprise that a majority of those voting for the Stench are doing is as a vote AGAINST President Obama. There's no reason to vote for Mittens other than he's the "Great White Hope"...especially for many of the angry white voters who won't earn in a lifetime what Bishop Willard earns in a week. Even on this side of the sandbox I still see posts of people who say they're relunctantly voting or supporting this President and only as a "lesser of evil".
enough
(13,259 posts)Also Richard Nixon.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)I think YOU think you are making some kind of trenchant, ironic point, but.........no.
enough
(13,259 posts)Just a causal remark, the literal truth. Nothing trenchant or ironic. Not sure what inspired such hostility.
Javaman
(62,530 posts)they have become fox news light.
rurallib
(62,423 posts)a couple of months ago.
NPR is scared of its own shadow anymore.
They are so afraid of losing a nickel of funding from any source they steer away from real reporting.
Raven
(13,893 posts)reporters tape dozens of interviews and then pick the ones they want to broadcast. They must run into a few intelligent voters so it smells like pandering to me and I feel like I've lost a good friend.
rurallib
(62,423 posts)or did up until about a year ago. Now I listen sporadically when I don't have access to a computer.
The quality of the reporting is only slightly above the corporations. They often use folks from Cato or AEI etc. as "expert opinion. Seldom if ever do they challenge any statements by the right wing.
Years back, NPR gave me great hope for the future. Now they in particular cause me great concern. There are still some bright lights like Ed, Stephanie etc and of course Amy Goodman, the Nation and Mother Jones.
But to see the way NPR folded like a paper sack was so disheartening.