stil here. When I listen it is usually in the car or late at night; I catch
all those specials about murders in Manitoba and things :)
Kevin Schmidt writes:
> Dana, let me dig up some of the quotes from Nina Totenburg and see if you think they are objective. I do listen to NPR, it's certainly better than listening to Bob and Tom on the way into work. I enjoy Bob Edwards and Carl Castle, however they, NPR, rarely, if ever, present viewpoints that are from conservative groups. I should start a log, of course, I don't listen 24/7, but just track how often the only present the viewpoint from the liberal side of the issue, or only talk to a Liberal group and try to pass them off as non partisan.
>
>
> >Objectivity is rarely attained by anyone, even a journalist who is
> >conciously striving for it.
> >
> >Furthermore it can be perverted. If the president made a speech tomorrow
> >that said that Canada was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction I think
> >Fox would report it deadpan:
> >
> > "President Bush today nnounced that British intelligence has learned that
> >the Canadians are srockpiling weapons of mass destruction." Neither their
> >format not their temperament would lead them to go further. At best this
> >reporting style is straight out of Journalism 101, where the director of
> >economic development is presumed to be an authoritative source on the
> >effects of the county budget, a congressman is presumed to be speaking
> >truth when he says what the bill he is introducing will do, etc. But this
> >made them prey if not willing patsies for corrupt government officials.
> >(let's say there are some; I don't think you believe this yet, but humor
> >me) Journalism has now taken a statement made to a roomful of people and
> >made it global ok and by the way sold a lot of newspapers. This type of
> >journalist covers the facts but not the story.
> >
> >NPR would be more likely to say huh? Canada? we must be talking about
> >Labatt's bottles, and to look into it. To be fair, their format allows them
> >a more detailed examination of the stories they cover. But beyond that I
> >think that they do at least try harder to present the truth as they see it.
> >They are of the interpretive school of journalism that would report the
> >above story so:
> >
> >"President Bush's surprising assertion earlier today that Canada is
> >stockpiling WMD is possibly due due to the breakbown earlier this week of
> >trade talks between the two countries, speculates Professor Blabla WoofWoof
> >of the thisnthant Institute for Policy Studies. He is here with us today in
> >the studio. Professor, why do you say that..."
> >
> >ëtc
> >
> >The latter is arguably less objective but is also less uncritical and so
> >may come closer to the truth.
> >
> >MY deep thought for the day. I am outta here.
> >
> >Dana
> >
> >Kevin Schmidt writes:
> >
> >> Of course it's not, for you. Because you know the answer is no.
> >>
> >> >At 10:44 AM 10/17/2003, you wrote:
> >> >>I knew it Larry. You wouldn't be able to answer a simple yes or no
> >> >>question. So i'll try again. Do you think NPR presents an unbiased view
> >> >>of the news? Yes or No, it's a pretty easy question.
> >> >
> >> >Its simply not worth replying to your sort of screedn.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
