On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 23:53:49 -0400, Kevin Tarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is as idiotic as Dan's theory (from the NYT) that you can compare a > rebuilding effort on a per capita basis, ignoring the 4x difference in > population and 25x difference in land area.
How would you compare a rebuilding effort if not on a per capita basis? > > Do they define their terms? They say source an awful lot, but is it a five > second clip, or a half hour interview? Do you listen to NPR? This backed the perception I had that they tried to balance but devote more time to Republicans than Democrats, more to conservatives than liberals and much more to both conservative institutions and businesses than liberal institutions and non-corporate interests. The report says they have more Republicans on and conservative representatives outnumber liberal representatives four to one. Now this gets hard to measure and the ombudsman tried to say that about the think tanks. >Of course, the show(s) host(s) and > reporters are all unbiased, so they weren't counted. Just like I don't > count the beers I drink at a friends house. Or in >my own house by myself. > The ones you drink at a bar are the bad ones, I count them. Free beers are best, I agree. Not sure what that means but here's to free beers. > > Republicans had the top seven government sources but look at the numbers: > 28% of 2334 sources = 654. Those seven had 77 of the sources. That's 12% of > 654, 3% of the total. They are using this to show that republicans dominate? > Seemed kinda silly, all they had to do was show that there are more Republicans on or time them - they choose to count them and show the top seven people on were Republicans. > When their own ombudsman says the report is false, who you going to > believe? We already know that answer. That is not what NPR's ombudsman says. he says "The FAIR study seems about right to me with a couple of exceptions." Then he goes onto what is a liberal or conservative and the timing. "For the left, NPR is never quite left enough. For the right of course, NPR remains a paragon of liberal bias. NPR sees itself as a bastion of fair-minded journalism. But fewer media critics are able to agree with that." >From FAIR's response: "We did not actually conclude that NPR is skewing more to the right than it did when we studied it in 1993." > > Let NPR and CBP survive on their own, off the governments teat. They aren't > doing their job anymore, serving the local public; they are squeezing out > small stations that do what they should be (used to be) doing. The theory of public media is that corporations nearly always have the money to get their voice heard. Shouldn't there also be a place where the public citizen is heard? > > (and damn if I can find that information now) Only recent study I've seen is that religious non-profit and tax-free radio was buying up licenses in a campaign to knock NPR off the air in smaller communities. http://www.cephas-library.com/nwo_religious_braodcasting.html > > Kevin T. - VRWC > > Gary D - Upset with SCLM Maru #1 on google for liberal news
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
