General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShouldn't NPR disclose the political slant of people they have on as "objective" analysts?
It came up a few days ago. I was listening to the NPR host.... I *think* it was Brian Lehrer... interviewing a gentleman from... as it turns out... The Manhattan Institute, identified as such at the end of the interview. ( But nothing further was said about what The Manhattan Institute *is*.) The subject of the analysis was the Chicago teachers' strike.
The analysis itself was of the "on the one hand this... and on the other hand that"... variety, regarding which side in the strike, teachers union or Emanuel, had the upper hand --- morally and ethically speaking. In other words it was not BLATANTLY anti-union, but , in my view, was subtly anti-union. In other words, it was anti-union, but dressed up in its 'on the one hand this and on the other hand that' Sunday Best. In still MORE words, it pretended to be even handed, but --- as was apparent only to the to the careful listener--- was NOT.
Now, Manhattan institute was born in the 90's by a cadre of hard-right ideologues. William Casey, (Reagan intimate, CIA Director and co-conspirator in the Iran-Contragate fiasco, seems to have been a key player in its founding ). It's got a pretty long track record of advocating for bad ideas ( They're pro-fracking... I guess just 'cause they want to keep up w the times.)
So who pays for MI ? Here's the wiki sum-up:
>>>Funding sources
The Manhattan Institute received $19,470,416 in grants from 1985–2005, from foundations such as the Koch Family Foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Foundations, and the Smith Richardson Foundation.[5] The Manhattan Institute does not disclose its corporate funding, but the Capital Research Center listed its contributors as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exxon Mobil, Chase Manhattan, CIGNA, Sprint, Reliant Energy, Lincoln Financial Group Foundation, and Merrill Lynch.[6]
[edit]>>>>
OK. Scaife. Koch. Et al. Pretty much the whole friggin' zoo. Give Manhattan Institute credit for being "up front", if nothing else. Seems to me.... this is *relevant*. And should be disclosed by Lehrer and/or NPR.
And while we're on the topic.... does NPR take foundation money? If so...from whom? Gates? Walton? Koch? These are all associated with the most fanatical wing of the ed "reform" ( anti teachers union) wing of the "reform" movement. Wiki doesn't say... and neither does NPR's website... least not that I could find. NPR's site DOES say that it gets funding from foundations.
Wouldn't journalistic ethics ( I realize that they've been watered down since... say... the Watergate days) require a full disclosure on both ends of that equation? If Scaife and Koch are giving cash to MI, they are giving it to MI for a REASON. If NPR is getting money from Gates or other ed privatizers, there's a reason for that also and I want to know about it.
I feel cheated by NPR.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NRaleighLiberal
(60,013 posts)and you have to pay attention and do some research to confirm it. As always, I say liberal media, my ass. Deck is more often than not stacked against us
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)ever saying where the guy was from, or who he really represented.
Same deal, "They are equivalent" bullshit.
She started blustering about what a good and decent person the Oil Shill was.
Diane Rehm is heavily invested in the Inside The Beltway Cocktail Scene.
Cannot stand her.
sendero
(28,552 posts). a lost cause when it comes to news and journalism. This complaint is but the tip of the iceberg.
I think that, in many areas, they are only a smidgen better than Fox news.
The recent "report" where they totally mischaracterized the meaning of the Stanford organic food study is a prime example. True, towards the end of the segment the "reporter" started backing down from the idiotic claims he opened the piece with, but the damage was done.
Mara Liason gets it wrong frequently, Cokie Roberts isn't much better. Shields and EJ Dionne are at least honest IMHO.
Anyone thinking that NPR isn't now controlled by corporate money just like the rest of the MSM is kidding themselves.
a kennedy
(29,642 posts)hack if there ever was one. 
I only listen to my local WPR station now, and only in the mornings.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)... way back in... like... 1970?
He's a RWer now?
Jebus. That's scary.
And...what's WPR?
I feel a little like Smarmie in Wonderland today.
a kennedy
(29,642 posts)WPR....is Wisconsin Public Radio is my local NPR station. Kathleen Dunn out of Milwaukee is the best "local" host. 
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)... at least age-wise: B. 1949.
He was a young lefty in those days. Pretty *far* left, as I recall. But otherwise not that noticeable in a free-speech radio swimming pool of early 70's "New Left"-ers. Funny,how the NPR official bio starts with 1977.
This is exactly the point of my original OP: the deliberate , calculated effort to mislead by *omission*.
from Wiki:
Alumni of the station
Alumni of WBAI include Margot Adler, Abraham Aig, Jan Albert, Chris Albertson, Nancy Allen, Matt Alperin, Archie Altman, Lindsay Audin, Robbie Barish, Deborah Begel, Olenka Bohachevski, Delphine Blue, Peter Bochan, Bunny Bruce, Janice K. Bryant, Doreen Canto, Pepsi Charles, Frank Coffee, Candy Cohen, Janet Coleman, Neal Conan, Pat Conte, John Corigliano, Deloris Costello, Liza Cowan, Larry Cox, Joe Cumo, Ken Davis, Barbara Day, Ife Dancy, Dick Demenus, Kathy Dobkin, Mike Edl, Barika Taheer Edwards, Matt Edwards, Dick Elman, Bob Fass, Mike Feder, Charlie Finch, Richard Fioravanti, Paul Fischer, John Fisk, Sara Fishko, Joe Frank, Gary Fried, Jim Freund, Paul Gorman, Joanne Grant, Jeff Greenfield, Edward Haber, Doug Henwood, Lex Hixon, Charles Hobson, Milton Hoffman, Mary Houston, Susan Howe, Jimmy Howes, Rob Hunter, Timothy Jerome, Reggie Johnson, Larry Josephson, Sam Julty, Citizen Kafka, Jesse Keyes, Glo Kirby, Robert Knight, Alen Pol Kobryn, Chris Koch, Robert Kuttner, Richard Lamparski, Andy Lanset, Julius Lester, Al Lewis, John Lithgow, Sari Locker, Leonard Lopate, The Mighty G-Man, Ann MacMillan, Marian McPartland, Samori Marksmen, Margaret Mercer, Frank Millspaugh, Dale Minor, Kathy O'Connell, Andrew Phillips, Betty Pilkington, Charles Pitts, Steve Post, Charles Potter, Robert Potts, David Rapkin, Desiree K. Robinson, David Rothenberg, Jay Rothman (Zeke), Charles Ruas, Eric Salzman, Lynn Samuels, Bill Schechner, Baird Searles, Judy Sherman, John J. Simon, Miles Smith, Peter Cedric Rock Smith (aka: Rocky), Jay Smooth, Bruce Soloway, A. B. Spellman, Gordon Spencer, Dick Sudhalter, Becky Thorn, Tom Tracy, Mickey Waldman, Marjorie Waxman, Manoli Wetherell, Ira Weitzman, Bernard White, Tom Whitmore, Will K. Wilkins, Ed Woodard, David Wynyard, Peter Zanger.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)to see what it's about. Hosts can't go on and on about backgrounds of the various organizations. Also, you get into a discussion about whether the determination of political slant is accurate at any given time.
Someone can work for the NYT, for example, but be a conservative.
Viewers have to use their own brains and Google skills at some point.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)When this propagandist is introduced, the host can say, "Here from right wing propaganda organ the Manhattan Institute..."
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Even if correct in that instance, the PERSON may not be a right wing propagandist.
Second, what you said is said in an insulting way. It's not good journalism to insult guests you're going to interview.
In a show on the Chicago Teachers Union strike, would you like NPR to introduce a guest as "Here's a tool from a radical, left wing socialistic group supported indirectly by George Soros."
This is the news business. This is a show geared toward people who watch political shows, know the organizations, or at least know how to Google them and spot tools. They don't need to feed the viewers with baby spoons.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Everyone at the Manhattan Institute is a right-wing propagandist. They get paid huge amounts of money just for that reason. They should be flattered to be identified as such.
Nor should they implicitly lie to their listeners by identifying a fascist partisan as a reasonable commentator. How would someone in their car "google them"? Your forgiveness of right-wing propaganda houses pawning themselves off as new sources is extremely disruptive to democracy.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)the train of thought.
I was using that as an example. (dictionary.com is your friend) What a quagmire a host would get into trying to definitively define who every person is, political viewpoint and political backing-wise, as well as all the background facts of the organization s/he is affiliated with.
There. That was simpler. I'm sure you can understand it this time.
IMO, it's enough to identify the person and the organization. If you're too uninformed to know anything about either, then you're probably not watching that program. If you're too lazy to click on the google search button, then you're too lazy for it to matter to you, anyway. For the rest....identification of each is enough. People are watching the program for substance, not a long list of insulting adjectives that viewers insist they use.
When Charlie Rose interviews people, he gives a very short intro...name, his claim to fame, organization, if he won any awards, and that's it. And that's for a full blown hour long interview with the person ABOUT that person.
Name a program that does it differently.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)... particular issue, this fact should be withheld from an unsuspecting audience which believes (because available information to the contrary has not been disclosed) it is listening to an *objective* analysis by an objective analyst w. expertise on the subject.
Are you *sure*?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)so it's probably moot.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Besides... the rw used to complain that NPR was dominated by lefties.
Besides: I'm not complaining about the *slant*.
I'm complaining about the effort to mislead the listener by omitting relevant information.
I'm complaining about the journalistic ethics.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)and they're not that "public" any more anyway. Journalistic ethics ended at least 20 eyars ago when Limpballs took over the radio and declared himself a truth-teller (irony of ironies). fox "news" doesn't disclose that "contributor" Dan Senior is a republican operative. Why would NPR?
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)it's conservative. That means it's neutral. Same with CNN.
Individual shows may differ, however, depending on the purpose of the show. Is MSNBC liberal? It had the KO show on for years, has Maddow and Big Ed and Lawrence. But it also has several hours of a Republican hosting a show every morning.
Amaril
(1,267 posts).....but they don't seem to be so neutral anymore.
Granted, I don't listen to NPR all day, but I do listen during my commutes to and from work (about 40 minutes each way).
The thing that struck me recently was their coverage of the conventions. During the Repub convention, it was all convention, all the time -- sometimes to the point that I would get so sick of hearing Mitt Romney's voice (I really can't stand his whiney, weasely voice -- it grates on me like nails on a chalkboard) that I would change to a music station.
During the Dem convention, they barely mentioned it -- some days they didn't mention it even once during my two 40 minute listening windows.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Even though 98% are to the right of the typical American voter, and about 80% could accurately be described as fascist. So your invocation of what wingnuts think presents a strong right-wing tilt of your perspective. MSNBC is about 50-50, which makes them the most liberal of any "news" outlet by miles.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)So I think I have an idea of what they are and are not. You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine.
"Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" - great show. Liberal.
The Home Prairie Companion with Garrison Keillor (celebrity liberal) - great show (liberal).
All Things Considered - great topical program (incl. stories like The Landscape Art Legacy Of Florida's Highwaymen about Af. American men, and a story about a woman who served two years in the Israeli military, and a story about Woody Allen, and a story about a blues guitarist, etc.)
You won't find those programs on a conservative/Republican station. That's because NPR is neutral.
I'll wait for the post that lists the conservative entertainment programs on NPR.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Or do you really think that running Wait Wait and PHC offsets day after day of Heritage & Manhattan "opinions" on what are supposed to be the news shows. Please tell me you can distinguish these things.
Maybe Fox is "fair" because they run 20 1/2-hrs per year of Family Guy to offset Hannity, O'Reilly, Carlson, Blankley, Kelly, Hemmert, Gibson, Wallace, Van Susteren...
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)"Right wingnuts think it's a liberal tool, and progressives think it's conservative. That means it's neutral. Same with CNN."
The false equivalency meme is so old and tired I'd think you guys would abandon it as it makes spotting you so easy. BTW, the "both sides do it" meme is in the in the same category.
Oh, and just because everybody has an opinion, it does not follow that all opinions are equal. Just a FYI.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Come back when you grow up and learn to discuss things, instead of calling names.
I'm thinking of whether to bother with an alert. Or just place you on ignore. Or both. In all my years of posting here, I have never posted such an insulting post as yours is. You should learn the meaning of "shame." You may as well have posted, "Yeah? Well, your mama wears army boots! Take that! Na na na na na." And don't forget to stick your little tongue out, like a bad little boy.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)as for shame, it is quite shameful that a Republican troll is allowed free reign here. The DU Jury system has, despite its good points, allowed a few trolls to infest our boards.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Offensive? You want to talk about offensive? What is more offensive than the puerile declarations that both sides dislike it, therefore it is neutral? Nothing immediately comes to mind except maybe the implied demand that we are somehow required to submit to an absurd notion like that.
If you are so dim as to genuinely believe such tripe, well there's little that can be done beyond pity, but you and I and the others reading this all know that there is nothing genuine about that steaming pile of dumb you wrote.
I will be proud to occupy a (hopefully) prominent place on your ignore list and look forward to no future interaction whatsoever.
Buh-by 
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)To counter the liberal (and excellent) ones. Surely they wouldn't have more liberal ones, if it is a conservative organization.
Rush Limbaugh? Glen Beck? Van Sustern? Hannity? Another far righter? I listed in another post the several liberal entertainment programs that conservative stations would never have. I'm sure there must be far more conservative ones, since it's a far right leaning organization.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)without announcing it. What does Wait Wait have to do with that?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Does that pretty much sum up your assertion?
xchrom
(108,903 posts)
valerief
(53,235 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)of all the networks (I don't think NPR was incl. in the study).
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)
By what, the Manhattan Institute? Newsbusters? Newsmax? Media Research Center?
You're sprinkling Republican talking point around this thread. Why?
MinM
(2,650 posts)but unfortunately they flipped it on it's head. Framing it in the old right wing canard -- Does NPR Have a Liberal Bias?
Although they were dismissive of any evidence that would have proved the opposite thesis. There was this little bone thrown to us at the end...
Friday, September 14, 2012
The final installment of our exploration into the question: Does NPR have a liberal bias? In this segment we hear from conservative listeners Sam Negus and Kevin Putt. Then FAIR's Steve Rendall provides his take on our endeavor. PEW's Tom Rosenstiel reports his findings in examining NPR's coverage for bias. And finally, Ira Glass returns to discuss what he learned from our coverage...
BROOKE GLADSTONE: That was Kevin Putt. Among our critics there were also a fair number of liberals who felt NPR actually leaned the other way.
Next up, Steve Rendall, senior analyst at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, or FAIR, a liberal organization that monitors media bias. In a controversial study released in 2004, FAIR counted up the liberal and conservative sources cited in news reports on Morning Edition and All Things Considered.
STEVE RENDALL: And what we found was a very strong slant in favor of the GOP. Sixty-one percent of partisan guests who appeared on those two NPR shows in 2003 were Republicans.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: There was a Republican Congress, there was a Republican White House. I mean, doesn't that make sense?
STEVE RENDALL: You should see a few more Republicans on, but the number was 61% Republicans to 38% Democrats. And, we were repeating a study that we had done in 1993, when the Democrats had the White House and both houses of Congress. And in that study, we found that there was the same bias, 57% Republicans at that time and 42% Democrats. So it didn't matter who was dominating Washington. Republicans had more guests.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Now, I'm assuming that at least a third of our listeners, the third that identify as conservatives, and maybe a good number of the liberal listeners too are thinking you’re a liberal research organization, and you make no bones about it. Why should we trust what you say?
STEVE RENDALL: Well, our studies are replicable. You can check the numbers. Everybody comes from a point of view. But the thing is, we've had four decades of formal campaigning by the right, by groups like Accuracy in Media, the Media Research Center, the Heritage Foundation, to portray our media, corporate and public broadcasting, as being to the left of center. It’s paid off. And I think the fact that we're having this discussion here, the fact that there’s a debate in Congress, shows how much it’s paid off.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: And not because there’s a kernel of truth in it.
STEVE RENDALL: Well, I would love to see the studies. I have looked at the studies, I have combed the literature, and I just haven't seen anything that really shows that to be true.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: That was Steve Rendall of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.
And here’s another study. Tim Groseclose, a professor in the Economics and Political Science Department at UCLA, and Jeff Milyo, an economics professor at the University of Missouri, analyzed 20 mainstream news outlets, counting each time they cited a think tank or policy group in a news story. They gauged the political stripe of a think tank by how many times it was cited by a conservative or a liberal member of Congress. The Congresspeople themselves were rated based on their roll call votes...
http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/sep/14/conclusions-nprs-liberal-bias/transcript/
PBS went FOX on us…. CALL THEM ON IT!
Great Expectorations
MinM
(2,650 posts)PBS went FOX on us…. CALL THEM ON IT!
http://stopkillingourworld.tumblr.com/post/31807313990/pbs-went-fox-on-us-call-them-on-it
Great Expectorations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1295393
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)BROOKE GLADSTONE: There was a Republican Congress, there was a Republican White House. I mean, doesn't that make sense?
STEVE RENDALL: You should see a few more Republicans on, but the number was 61% Republicans to 38% Democrats. And, we were repeating a study that we had done in 1993, when the Democrats had the White House and both houses of Congress. And in that study, we found that there was the same bias, 57% Republicans at that time and 42% Democrats.
Case closed. Every media pig who claims there isn't a strong right-wing bias is a liar, period.
central scrutinizer
(11,639 posts)During the WTO protests in Seattle, the reporter ON THE SCENE, who commented on the peaceful nature of the demonstrators was constantly interrupted by the host in Washington. He kept screaming about people throwing bricks through the windows at Starbucks and setting fires in dumpsters. He was determined to demonize and marginalize the protests.
I once visited their new office in DC and boy, the public is not welcome there.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)What the fuck happened to NPR???
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Oh, wait...he's a celebrity liberal. Then it's the popularity of Wait Wait Don't Tell Me that has persuaded NPR to slant right...oh, wait that's a liberal show. I guess it's Gwen....oh wait, she's liberal. I guess it's that they showed only the Republican Convention and not the Democratic Convention...oh, wait they showed both and had commentators at them.
The fact that Republicans are still pushing to totally de-fund NPR? That's a ruse. They really want to fund it to the hilt, to push their conservative ideas.
Silly putty.
aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)I really don't mind that they have more right of center of guests because if it wasn't for NPR I wouldn't hear much from them anyways. I'm not going to listen to Fox to hear them and I don't listen to Beck or Limbaugh.
I still like NPR even though they've changed.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Let's see, NPR identifies where their guest works, the guest gives a fairly even handed analysis(as you mentioned, "on the one hand this... and on the other hand that"
and you're complaining. I guess you haven't heard other, more pro teacher analysis that have been on NPR. Or are you one of those purity people who can't stand to have your tender ears assaulted by anything that doesn't follow your ideological position right down the line.
NPR is broadcast aimed at all of the people, not just Democrats. So yes, it has analysts on who are right wing. But if you look at the overall tenor of NPR's programming, not just the news shows, but programs like Bob Edward's Weekend, This American Life and the rest, it is still overwhelmingly obvious that NPR is a network that leans to the left, a lot. But it is also a network that is trying to present a truly fair and balanced view of the news on its main news shows.
Deal with it, geez.
sl8
(13,713 posts)More about Unions vs. Right to Work, although they do talk a little about the teachers' strike, but that's the only recent show I found where Lehrer talked with someone from the Manhattan Institute.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Only caught the last few minutes of the MI guy's spiel. And... to be fair... Lehrer did in fact introduce him ( I was not "there" for that part; driving around, making stops, no doubt) as being from the "conservative" think tank ( but did not disclose the funding sources of MI).
He spoke less about the Chi teachers than I remembered and, as you say, more about unionism vs. anti unionism in general.
I perked up for the strike stuff, though ( I'm retired AFT) and don't appreciate the Koch et al $$$$ connections w. MI being..... shall we say... *neglected*. They are neck deep in corporate school "reform" and Lehrer should have disclosed this.
Or find a different conservative commentator w/o a conflict of interest.
