At the root of the hubbub over the conservative activist sting on a pair of NPR fundraisers and NPR CEO Vivian Schiller’s subsequent resignation is a debate that is as old as public broadcasting itself: should the government fund media in the US? The most vocal opponents of public funding often cite what they see as a left-leaning political bias at NPR as an argument that it does not deserve taxpayer help.
In a recent column by The New York Times’s David Carr, NPR’s political slant is treated as a foregone conclusion. It’s “true to a point” that NPR is guilty of “squishy liberal ideology,” Carr wrote. “In terms of assignments and sensibility, NPR has always been more blue than red, but it’s not as if it has an overt political agenda.”
Okay, so it doesn’t have an “agenda.” But is even that so-called “liberal ideology” something we’re all willing to concede? It may be true that journalists who work for public radio personally lean left, but does that bias necessarily leak into their work? So we ask you, our readers: How could we go about measuring such a thing? Does NPR’s reporting have a left-wing bias? And can you provide specific examples of why you think so?
I like NPR and listen to it nearly every day. Although I think there’s a damn good reason its all the way on the left hand of the dial, its national programs like Morning edition (I listen to Michal Savage and some local guys for my ride home) are well produced and keep my attention. On a side note, I think it would be good to differentiate between NPR’s national programming and its local affiliates.
With that said, NPR reflects the sense and sensibilities of its staff and a majority of its audience … basically Christian Landers “White People”. The question of NPR’s ideological and partisan bias (two separate issues) really isnt an issue that serious people debate about.
I am much more likely to hear commie intellectual flavor of the month Slavoj Zizek than Thomas Sowell. Robert Reich is a paid commentator but is there a regualr on to present a non Keynesian view on every economic issue? Could you even imagine, just for a second, NPR giving a weekly slot to someone like Eric Rudolph? Of course we couldn’t, he’s a radical who murdered people, but they had no problem giving Mumia Abu Jamal a weekly three minute commentary. How about when Terry Gross responded No, I wasn't...we had a different interview to Bill O'Reilly when he asked if she had been as hard on Al Franken as she was on him?
But these are all anecdotes and wont convince anyone who already has their mind made up.
In the end though, this is all immaterial, if this is what NPR wants itself to be and if this is what the majority f its listeners like more power to them. I just shouldn’t have to subsidize it. Let the listeners pay for it.
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 01:52 PM
It's an imperfect measure, but in 2004, political scientist Tim Groseclose and economist Jeff Milyo attempted to put together a system for measuring the ideological leanings of news organizations by comparing the interest groups that the organizations cite with the interest groups that members of Congress mention in floor speeches. They then assigned an ideological score based on the ideological score of the senator whose citing patterns the news organizations mirrored the most.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
Here's what they say about NPR's Morning Edition:
Another somewhat surprising result is our estimate of NPR’s Morning Edition. Conservatives frequently list NPR as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet.[27] However, by our estimate the outlet hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet. For instance, its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report, and its score is slightly less than the Washington Post’s. Further, our estimate places it well to the right of the New York Times, and also to the right of the average speech by Joe Lieberman. These differences are statistically significant.[28] We mentioned this finding to Terry Anderson, an academic economist and Executive Director of the Political Economy Research Center, which is among the list of think tanks in our sample. (The average score of legislators citing PERC was 39.9, which places it as a moderate-right think tank, approximately as conservative as RAND is liberal.) Anderson told us, “When NPR interviewed us, they were nothing but fair. I think the conventional wisdom has overstated any liberal bias at NPR.” Our NPR estimate is also consistent with James Hamilton’s (2004, 108) research on audience ideology of news outlets. Hamilton finds that the average NPR listener holds approximately the same ideology as the average network news viewer or the average viewer of morning news shows, such as Today or Good Morning America. Indeed, of the outlets that he examines in this section of his book, by this measure NPR is the ninth most liberal out of eighteen.
#2 Posted by Matt, CJR on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 02:46 PM
I don't buy the Right's charge of left wing bias primarily because what they ultimately mean by that is "they don't think like us." So there's a degree to which we need to consider the messenger.
Beyond that, however, is the question of whether or not bias is possible to avoid. Realistically, a purely unbiased position is like an asymptote: a given curve is always approaching but never meeting the line. Regardless of the level of professionalism of the reporter or their constant striving to hit that line of pure objectivity, some bias will creep in and will give critics targets.
When the critics aren't themselves ever striving to approach pure objectivity (such as many on the Right, or even Left), the targets get much juicier.
I think NPR gets closer to the line than just about any other source, but given the private political leanings of many of its people, the curve is to the left of the line, however close. We can either accept that in this day and age of extremely polarized discourse (witness Fox News on one hand, and some elements of say MSNBC on the other) and be thankful we have a source approaching neutrality, or we can pretend that it's a problem and succumb to indulging the extremes. I tend toward the former, because the latter leaves me very little hope for any kind of middle way of thought in the future.
#3 Posted by Matt Saler, CJR on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 03:12 PM
NPR reveals a "liberal bias" in that its stories involving either homosexuals or religious figures are presented with even acceptance. NPR is not afraid of sex, mild blasphemy, or controversial social topics. It tries to get its stories right, and it doesn't make anything up (like Fox News does frequently). I can live with its "liberal" bias.
#4 Posted by jp1954, CJR on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 04:03 PM
One more thing, basic journalism here and conflict of interest.
NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller said, "We are grateful to the Obama Administration for recognizing the importance of public radio to the life of communities across the nation. Every day, over 900 public radio stations present fact-based local, national and international news, as well as local arts, music and cultural programming that can't be found anywhere else."
How can NPR report anything about the Obama administration without disclosing its obvious conflict of interest? Why would they have even publicly taken such a stance and did they consider what kind of bind it would put them in when reporting about the administration and budgetary issues?
#5 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 04:25 PM
One could tally up the number of times "think tanks" are called up to give commentary on NPR. This is somewhat old (part of 2005) but gives an idea of NPR's tilt:
American Enterprise – 59
Brookings Institute – 102 (left-center)
Cato Institute - 29
Center for Strategic and Intl. Studies – 39 (left-center)
Heritage Foundation - 20
Hoover Institute - 69
Lexington Institute - 9
Manhattan Institute – 53
The score: Right 239, Left 141
The link is http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5053335
#6 Posted by Ron R, CJR on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 04:38 PM
As noted by one more eloquent than I: Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf
#7 Posted by Ron R, CJR on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 07:44 PM
If the public needed and or wanted left leaning news or NPR had value in it's programs they would not need tax payer money to be on the air.
#8 Posted by Isa, CJR on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 08:48 PM
Reality has a well-known liberal bias
Moreso when liberals get to determine what reality is.
#9 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 08:53 PM
Who's trying to determine reality again?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html
"The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''"
A-holes have a well-known conservative bias.
And NPR has a non-reactionary bias. It does mostly the same news, from mostly the same perspectives as the rest of the media, while lulling you to sleep with light jazz and chat.
Nighty-night Public Radio. It's not bad, it's NPR.
Conservativess pick some funny demons, I tell ya.
"Dung beetles have a well-known liberal bias."
Weird.
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 16 Mar 2011 at 02:11 AM
Great timing! NPR's "On the Media" will be devoting its March 18 edition to discussing whether or not the network has a liberal bias. Check it out.
#11 Posted by Justin Martin, CJR on Wed 16 Mar 2011 at 08:09 AM
NPR is the Brittanica of Journalism, making the broadest and closest examination of any topic. Too much information for most people, but those of us on the left seem to have either too much patience or too little discernment to jump to quick conclusions. Subjects that fail to receive editorial condemnation therefore appear to be Left-leaning because no condemnation was forthcoming. I'm thinking of abortion, homosexuality, gender equality, distribution of wealth, bullying, climate issues, etc. Radioactive topics reported without a proper Conservative spin are presumed to carry a Liberal bias, perhaps even more so when no value judgments are clearly articulated.
#12 Posted by John Ballard, CJR on Wed 16 Mar 2011 at 10:31 AM
NPR is mainstream.
This is really about an assault on everything PUBLIC. The goal is to destroy any institution that is Public: Public schools, public jobs, public unions, public broadcasting, government, you name it because these institutions represent the mainstream.
The very document the nation patterns itself on is a public document about public rights/freedoms: of religion, press and opinion. The right has defiled it by reinterpreting some rights as superior to others.
There is power in that public mainstream viewpoint, a viewpoint that does not repress people's differences, but embraces them and their FREEDOMS.
The right can't handle that freedom. So, they're trying to eliminate the instutions that support it. The right is only interested in wealth creation and proselytizing a religious ethos they have failed to practice themselves.
#13 Posted by Vic Price, CJR on Wed 16 Mar 2011 at 11:24 AM
I am often confronted by some of my more right leaning friends on "bias" in the media. Particularly NPR and NY Times, WAPO and a few other sources I happen to choose for my news. When I press them, hard news coverage vs. Editorial or OP/Ed, they confound me by not really knowing the difference. I ask them to name specifics of "bias" in hard news coverage; ultimately they will end up on an editoral argument.
I wish that schools would teach students a course in how to read a newspaper, listen to a program, watch a television news broadcast. This would offer a clear distinction between editorial and news coverage and empower people to know the difference between the two.
In today's 24 hour re-cycle of punditry some, sadly, are too lazy or too busy to formulate their own opinion based on the facts. NPR offers up a great source for facts in their hard news coverage. It is the job of the listener to identify when opinions or editorials occur.
Hard News Bias? No
Editorial Bias? Subjective
Tim Schreier
New York, NY
#14 Posted by Tim Schreier, CJR on Wed 16 Mar 2011 at 12:46 PM
Some suggestions . . . how many times is someone tagged 'ultra' as a prefix to 'conservative' vs. 'liberal'. Oh, right, NPR already did that - and found the usage was about 5 to 1 applied to the former.
Identification of the party membership of some political boodler or another in a story. NPR has done a lot of stories on the scandal of the Bell, California public office-holders without ever identifying their political party within my hearing. So for those of you still in the dark, they are all Democrats.
Political donations or past political affiliations of reporters and editors. Peter Overby is the correspondent from Common Cause - and covers campaign financing. Dina Temple-Raston co-authored a book with the head of the ACLU. Doesn't matter when they have their reporters' hats on? Well, the story that isn't done tells as much as the story that is, and I've never heard a story framed as critical of either above organization - you know, one of those stories in which 'non-partisan' observers ('some say') are the critics, or liberals are called upon to deliver the criticism of their ideological brethren. By contrast, NPR often calls upon Republicans to criticize conservative or Republican proposals.
NPR's cultural coverage frequently highlights the political opinions of its subjects, which are overwhelmingly left-wing. (The most recent subject was the singer Barbara Dane.) The treatment is invariably non-judgemental in spite of the depressing history of support by artists and intellectuals for some of the worst regimes in the world as long as they present themselves as 'leftist', going back to Stalin.
Race is the big stumbling block of white liberalism - the politics of race and political correctness has been the source of all the furor at NPR since the Williams firing. A listener to NPR would think that the greatest physical threat to 'blacks and Hispanics' was the activity of 'right-wing hate groups', to judge by the breathless conveyance of the findings of groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center. How much coverage of these groups vs. the coverage of race/ethnicity-based gangs, factoring in the amount of actual criminal activity?
Stories on the possibility of the execution of an innocent person for homicide vs. stories on whether persons spared execution have, in fact, murdered again. (Hint: they have, but you never hear about cases like Kenneth McDuff on NPR.)
Times that NPR has noted the racial composition of Tea Party rallies, vs. the number of times it has noted the racial composition of, let us, say, campus environmentalist rallies, or pro-choice rallies, or gay rights rallies. Or of the audiences for the cultural figures who proclaim their leftist/multicultural politics, from Bruce Springsteen to Ani DiFranco (or, for that matter, Barbara Dane). Or, while we're at it, the virtually African-American-free populations of impeccably left-leaning environments such as Vermont, or the Pacific Northwest, or Boulder, Colorodo, or . . . NPR has spend time profiling and objectifying white conservatives as a political force. There is also a noticeable, stereotypical white liberal political demographic (fading, though still potent) which has never drawn the attention of NPR so far as I can recall.
#15 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 16 Mar 2011 at 12:58 PM
I'm often frustrated by NPR's acceptance of conservative and corporate framing of issues, and the failure of its reports and anchors to challenge dubious assertions. This week the NPR host allowed Intel's CEO to get away with the ludicrous claim that giving companies "tax hollidays" to build plants doesn't cost the public or the government anything.
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/15/134568752/intel-ceo-tax-holiday-could-create-more-jobs
On the same show, NPR quoted a series of congressional Republicans on how Democrats weren't serious about addressing the long-term Social Security shortfall but the reporter failed to note that the Democrats simply have a different approach -- raising the cap on income subject to the SS payroll tax.
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/15/134533722/gop-calls-for-social-security-overhaul-grow-louder
Similarly, most of the NPR reports on the budget deficit accept the Republican framing and focus solely on spending rather than equally examining where and how revenues could be increased.
As with most major media, I find that NPR too often is timid in challenging establishment actors and narrators, too often following the conventional wisdom. But thankfully there are plenty of exceptions from their better reporters.
#16 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Wed 16 Mar 2011 at 01:48 PM
Before you can measure something, you have to define what it is.
#17 Posted by edward ericson jr., CJR on Wed 16 Mar 2011 at 03:21 PM
I'm a regular, daily listener to NPR. I appreciate their news coverage, although I tune in with the knowledge that their employees are looking at the world from a liberal perspective, often extremely liberal.
They try to cover stories in a balanced way, but often it's the stories they don't cover that shows their bias.
The liberal bias is especially evident on stories and programs covering religion and culture.
I enjoy NPR's entertainment and music shows, too, and am a big fan of A Prairie Home Companion, which I know is not NPR, but is public radio.
It's funny and interesting, but there's no mistaking where host Keillor is coming from. Would they do better by their listeners by having some conservative voices on NPR?
Of course, but I doubt that could happen, given the prevailing culture there.
Should it be funded by the government? The amount is so small it doesn't bother me -- although I don't contribute becasue I figure I already am.
If NPR did not get government funding, I'd contribute.
I'm a 30 year veteran in the news business. The bias comes in You
#18 Posted by Chuck Sweeny, CJR on Wed 16 Mar 2011 at 03:36 PM
I think one can the discern the bias of an information source from who pays it's bills, and who "buys" its product. What are NPR's demographics, and who are NPB's advertisers? What "industries" will NPB not accept as advertisers? Oh yes, I know NPB has no "advertising" (Ha, ha!)
So knowing the biases of the demographics and knowing who pays the bills, including which side of the aisle the Congressional fans sit on, what would you guess the bias is? (wait for it) BINGO!
#19 Posted by BK, CJR on Wed 16 Mar 2011 at 07:11 PM
By the way, I don't think its fair to compare and contrast NPR News to Fox News...NPR News is a serious, self-absorbed and self-righteous news organization, while Fox News is entertainment for those who consider "Larry the Cable-Guy" too intellectual, and I'm guessing the performers on Fox News would be surprised if they believed that anyone except serious, self-absorbed, and self-righteous listeners took their "news" seriously.
I believe the comparative items should at least be on the same continuum...maybe like NPR and The Onion.
#20 Posted by BK, CJR on Wed 16 Mar 2011 at 07:27 PM
I enjoy NPR for many reasons, one reason is that their reporters will go into the field and interview people, at length-- to get to the truth. Commercial news doesn’t have the time to do that.
Additionally local NPR stations broadcast important local public forums, try hearing that on commercial news!
But I have a solution!
I download for free to my IPOD, as do many friends….the person I'd most like to meet--Terry Gross’s Fresh Air and shows such as Wait Wait dont tell me, etc
I can pay for these downloads-- which are free now--- to offset pubic funding.
The Faux News idiots think that they can stop the truth by stopping funding.
Six words..
Be careful what you wish for
#21 Posted by HOTINSAC, CJR on Wed 16 Mar 2011 at 08:11 PM
I think one of the problems about bias is determining that an issue is liberal or not. A few years ago, most people would look at the issue of gay civil rights as a liberal issue. But now that the majority of America supports gay civil rights, and even conservatives, allowing GOProud into CPAC. If the country is moving in this direction, can it be said to be a liberal issue any more?
Another thing to consider is that not all stories have two sides. To give an extreme example, the vast majority of Americans, liberal or conservative, think that Westboro Baptist Church is a reprehensible organization. If coverage is biased towards, say, soldier's families that the picket, if stories are sympathetic to those families. is a news organization biased for leaning that way?
#22 Posted by Sean, CJR on Thu 17 Mar 2011 at 12:39 AM
National Public Radio is not liberal. They are commie pinko marxist scum. Firing Juan Williams was just a token. We know that. Williams is the #1 protector of Obama in the WH. He even blames the rising 4 dollar a gallon gas on the arab criss but who screamed fire in a theater and went worldwide calling for world revolution but Obama? This is as bad as Bush and his neocon puppetmasters telling him what to do after 911 was rigged.
Where are all the libs and blacks who bitched about high gas under Bush yet silent today protecting their boy Obama? Gas was 1.70 a gallon in Nov 2008. Today it is heading to 4.00 a gallon. Is Obama chiding Wall St speculator crooks? NO.
He called for Khadafi to step down yet sits back and allows him to squash the revolution and kill 1000s there and all over the arab world. All mouth. No action.
COWARD.
America does not need anymore wars but dont go around yelling for world revolution in a bully pulpit if you are gonna slink down to coward status and not stand behind your big mouth. In other words dont let your mouth overload your ass as they used to say.
Do something about these gas prices Obama. Your silent protectors are scum.
#23 Posted by raymond, CJR on Thu 17 Mar 2011 at 12:00 PM
Here is a test: See if NPR reports on this new story:
"Capitol protester found armed with weapon"
http://detnews.com/article/20110317/POLITICS02/103170445/Capitol-protester-found-armed-with-weapon
If this had been a Tea Party member, you could be sure they would have reported it, Diane Rehm would have had segment on it, etc.
#24 Posted by Frog, CJR on Thu 17 Mar 2011 at 02:11 PM
Considering the appalling crimes that have been ignored or abetted by the mainstream media in America over the past decade, NPR can hardly be considered Leftist. Like most of the major news outlets, NPR has been ridiculously evenhanded in its coverage, meaning it has rarely or never shown the kind of rigorous skepticism that would have enlightened its listeners about the massive corporate abuses taking place within our government.
There are two sides to every issue, but only one side is the truth--a reporter's job should be biased towards the truth. Because NPR is not heavily biased towards the Right, they call it Leftist--they could as well call Ronald Reagan or Dwight D. Eisenhower Leftists.
This country has been all but bankrupted by unjustified war and financial-sector plundering, millions of people have been thrown out of work or lost substantial value of their homes and savings, thousands of soldiers have been maimed or killed, and most of it is due to the actions and beliefs of those very people who now call for defunding NPR. It's just one more part of their agenda to undermine everything that does not directly benefit the wealthy.
They are stealing our country one piece at a time, and they won't stop until they have folded every public institution into their private dynasties...until the rest of us are all tenants, squabbling over their crumbs. It's already happening: the present economic crisis has been engineered by them to "starve the beast." Like the Iraq war, it's a blatant power-grab.
That many of the middle-class and even the working poor have bought into the no-public-anything propaganda (which is robbing them blind) shows how successfully it has been promulgated by the major media--including NPR.
We need public broadcasting, never more than now, but NPR will never be the beacon of light that we need it to be as long as it depends on the kindness of corporate sponsors or private donors. All too often, there are strings attached to such money. NPR needs to be fully publicly funded in order to be free from partisan manipulation. Look at the recent fundraising scandal--money corrupts. NPR needs to answer only to the truth.
#25 Posted by Walter , CJR on Thu 17 Mar 2011 at 02:32 PM
As the comments above indicate, supporters of NPR don't support it because it doesn't use a left-leaning story choice, framing, and vocabulary; they support it because it does. To be fair, a sort of urban modernism is the general vocabulary of political journalism as a whole, not just at NPR.
The mutual antipathy of the big news organizations and the Republican Party's rank-and-file has been part of the furniture of American politics at least since Eisenhower denounced the press at the 1964 GOP convention, and was lustily cheered for doing so. NPR has a lot of virtues. It is rich in news gathering resources. The editors and journalists really do think they are being fair, by their political lights. (Who doesn't?) But the pose of CJR and others that they can't for the life of them imagine why anyone with a shred of intelligence would find NPR and other public-radio programming to be aimed at a white, left-leaning audience undermines its credibility. CJR should have been warning NPR, or advising it to be as tough on liberal shibboleths as on conservative ones, all along.
The latest round of drama, for example (which has not provoked a think piece in CJR confronting the issue bluntly) illustrates nothing so much as how much further to the Left than the great majority of Americans is NPR on the subject of 'racism'. And this issue, 'identity politics', is the baseline political issue of the Democratic Party. It underlies most contemporary left-leaning attitudes. To listen to NPR is to get a steady drumbeat of tales recalling the great days of the civil rights movement, but there is little about the subsequent ambiguous outcomes, like busing, and race-based affirmative action, and the re-segregation of the very torch of Brown vs. the Board of Education, the public school. To listen to NPR is to get the impression that African-Americans face the greatest physical danger from right-wing hate groups, which are chump change compared to the here-and-now violence being perpetrated by ethnically-based urban gangs. Most interracial violence consists of white victims, rather than perpetrators, which may account for continuing racial attitudes of a lot whites (and others) who are not by any reasonable definition operationally 'racist', but the very suggestion is taboo at NPR. It goes on reporting the latest trivia from the Southern Poverty Law Center as if it explained what is actually going on out in the streets. The 'all-white' nature of Tea Party rallies rarely passes unnoted, but the 'all-white' nature of ostentatiously 'liberal' gatherings of people - the audience at a Jon Stewart taping, the Vermont legislature, the listenership of 'A Prairie Home Companion', the donor list to the ACLU, the subscription rolls of Mother Jones, the citizens of Boulder, Colorado - has never been discussed within my hearing. This becomes very noticeable to those of us who live in the real world.
#26 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 17 Mar 2011 at 08:28 PM
The real arch enemy of conservatives is not NPR or even the DNC. The real enemy lies within the GOP and are the old rank and file elitist Lincolnite in bed with the neocons who own and control everything in the media along with everything else.
Who rhetorically started the Republican party in 1854 anyway only 6 years after original neocons Marx and Engels published their Manifesto at the exact time an uneducated dirt peasant was getting into politics in Springfield ILL who had just been kicked out of the US Army for desertion in the Mexican American War in 1849? This was a war where 50k US soldiers were killed and where 2 famous top US Military Academy grads led America to victory with Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis?
Lincoln the original Republican rigged into office in 1860 created a furor intentionally and caused the wealthiest state in America to peacefully seceed with 10 more to follow in the south knowing Lincoln was nothing but a Marxist scalawag tool.
Some saw Lincoln as the 666 symbolism since 6 yrs after the 1848 Manifesto was published the Republican party was created in 1854 and then 6 years after than he won the rigged election as the 16th president causing the great split of America and Marxist War with 1 million death and its been hell ever since on earth.
Why have there been 500 million deaths on earth in just the past 150 yrs since Marx and his Lincoln tool came on the world scene and those who worship at his alter including both Bush and Obama?
#27 Posted by Goodtime Charlie , CJR on Fri 18 Mar 2011 at 09:42 AM
I don't know how to measure right vs. left bias in a medium that is so clearly down the center - like NPR. Whatever you come up with, it will be discounted by the right. My imperfect measure, faulty as it is, is this: if you can listen to the medium and understand what all sides of the issue are, then it is providing balanced coverage.
But as someone else mentioned earlier, it's not about right vs. left content. It's about "public". The Republican agenda is to eliminate as many public programs as they can, to "reduce the size of government". And by the way, it would be a nice bonus to their agenda if NPR, which provides such in depth coverage, were silenced.
#28 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Fri 18 Mar 2011 at 02:45 PM
Alternate title of the article but with the same answer: Do bears shit in the woods?
No to be crass.
#29 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 18 Mar 2011 at 03:12 PM
To Rick, you find NPR 'right down the middle'. Then you talk about NPR, a network with far more resources (as it likes to point out) than its direct and indirect federal subsidies, being 'silenced' by the (implicitly bad) Republicans. All these people who find NPR 'centrist' seem to turn out to be very hostile to the Republican Party. Irony-impairment.
I'd like someone on this thread who voted for Obama in 2008, but who switched to the Republicans in 2010, someone who is not obviously hostile to the Republican Party (Tea Partiers and all), to pronounce NPR's politico/cultural coverage 'right down the middle'.
#30 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 18 Mar 2011 at 04:54 PM
As this board of responses has grown and grown, more and more Republican pundits have voiced their concern against the continued funding of NPR and liberal bias. I liked the conservative commentator who pointed that NPR topics have covered rights issues of convicted criminals and the like, clearly showing bias. However, the truer questions are two-part: 1) does this lean effect objectivity in reporting the truth and 2) is there an attributed value in the final product produced? While many moderate and liberal-leaning listeners find value, many stronger-leaning rightists do not.
Over the past couple of days my brother and I have engaged in furious dialogue. He asserts an OVERT liberal bias with NPR, I have trouble seeing it affect their reporting integrity (although it may more-effect their topic selection). I would argue that if NPR has an agenda, it is a surreptitious one. In either case, we've not been able to find a meeting point no matter the effort.
For example: if Israel launches missiles into Gaza at a target, and NPR reports from that site denoting said destruction, it will not matter whether NPR conducts objective reporting of difficulties felt by both Iraelis and Palestinians. My brother will cite the choice to report in Gaza, at a site of destruction, as evidence of overt lean against Israel. I do not think his sentiments stand alone. The content then becomes irrelevant as the choice to show an Arab perspective would never occur on the other network he views.
If there is a benefit for the continuation of NPR and other public broadcasting, I doubt that our nation will be able to clearly appraise it. After all, we're a nation of consumers, we watch more television that other industrialized nations, and we ideologically are opposed to the word "socialism" if not some social systems. Apart from the NPR discussion, it seems paradoxical to me that in a nation of purported Christians, I see little interest in assisting a hand-up for those in need.
We've cut food banks, heating and gas, and education, all under the guise of fiscal spending, but are now engaged in a 3rd war (I am not a big Obama fan) that assuredly will cost more than all of those cuts combined. Tragic, simply tragic.
I'm convinced there must be an alternate version of the Bible I have not read. One where when Jesus kneels to wash the disciples feet... he pulls out a chainsaw.
#31 Posted by Brent Fremming, CJR on Sun 20 Mar 2011 at 08:01 PM
I see funding a war in the Constitution - a legitimate (if imprudent) federal expense.
I don't see funding food banks in there. Or education. Or heating fuel.
Or NPR.
#32 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 20 Mar 2011 at 08:18 PM
To Mark: I'm curious: can you identify a news outlet that is "unbiased" or "down the middle" by your standards?
#33 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Mon 21 Mar 2011 at 02:01 PM
liberal, defined: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal
lib·er·al
/ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2.
( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3.
of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4.
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5.
favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6.
of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7.
free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8.
open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9.
characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10.
given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11.
not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12.
of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13.
of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
boiled down: "opposed to ignorance and stupidity."
NPR makes the grade most days. Hence its enemies.
#34 Posted by edward ericson jr., CJR on Mon 21 Mar 2011 at 02:18 PM
Does NPR have a liberal bias?
Is water wet?
Liberals can't see it has a liberal bias because liberals don't see themselves as liberal. They see themselves are self-evidently right. Except that the facts of life aren't liberal.
Nina Totenberg says anything she wants. She wishes for Sen. Jesse Helms grandkids to get AIDS. Nothing happens. Juan Williams tells the truth. Flying imams make him nervous. They should.
So why not just admit the obivious.
#35 Posted by Newspaperman, CJR on Mon 21 Mar 2011 at 03:11 PM
To Rick, for genuine 'straight down the middle' content, I trust the publication 'The Week', and C-SPAN . . . CNN tries harder to work at keeping loaded vocabulary and framing out of its coverage of domestic politics - partly in response to the challenge of Fox and MSNBC - than the other television outfits.
I read the NY Times daily, and while its resources are impressive in the event of a Japanese earthquake or uprisings in the Middle East, the paper's coverage of domestic politics has to be taken with a grain of salt. The Times ran far more copy during the 2010 election campaign on Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell than on, say, Scott Walker - with the result that the Wisconsin uprising took the Times and the media which follow its lead completely by surprise. In concentrating on Palin and O'Donnell, in other words, the Times was sharing the obsession of liberal readers with those personalities, to the exclusion of the genuine challenge to liberalism of Walker and other governors who are in showdowns with the public-sector unions. You think Bill Keller wouldn't have drastically revised his coverage of 2010 if he could, knowing what he knows now?
This story was repeated all through the political journalism of last year, though. Including at NPR. The story might be told 'straight', but the story is on a subject liberals want to talk about.
(There may be hope for the Times - and by extension, the rest of the news media. The paper actually did a story in the Sunday 'Week in Review' on the subject of liberals who oppose 'green' initiatives when those are to be executed in liberals' own back yards. The absence of the sort of news that points out this sort of thing - why are so many aggressively 'liberal' environments so 'white'? - is one of the briefs against NPR. They don't do such stories.)
NPR has some on-air staff which does play it straight. Which is one reason for listening. Scott Simon does not stuff his program with little liberal civics lessons, and seems to have some appreciation that honorable and intelligent people can disagree - a fine old 'liberal' principal. Mara Liasson is a reliable Washington hand. She seems to have gotten into political reporting not as an extension of political activism by other means, but because she likes 'the game'.
I'll single out Jake Tapper of ABC as a reporter I trust - genuinely tough on both sides of a normal debate. He should have gotten the 'This Week' seat.
#36 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 21 Mar 2011 at 05:35 PM
Mark: I've never read "The Week", but I'll take a
look at it and see if I agree with you. Yes, CSPAN
is definitely neutral, but I don't think of it as
a great source of news. Christian Science Monitor,
in my opinion, has an unbiased stance.
But I have not found a more neutral source of news
on the radio than NPR; at least not one that
covers stories in depth; and not one that is so
widely avaiable (there may be stuff on Satellite
Radio - but I don't listen to that).
Having offered my opinion, I'll say that this
debate is like the ancient philosophical debate:
"how many angels can you fit on the head of a
pin?". There are no concrete definitions of
'liberal' and 'conservative'; there is no
measurement that will resolve the issue. It's
unlikely that conservatives will agree that NPR is
unbiased, and it's unlikely that liberals (like
myself) will agree that NPR has a overt liberal
bias or agenda. There are certainly news outlets
that do, but not NPR.
Since it is such a great source of news and
information - I fully support it. Does it deserve
public funding? I can argue for and against, but
lean FOR. Will it survive a cut in funding?
Yes. Will cutting CPB and NPR make any difference
in the budget deficit? No; the fact that cutting
NPR is such a strong focus of the right is
misguided, and leads me to believe that this is an
idealogical pursuit. There are much bigger fish to
fry if we really want to cut the deficit.
#37 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Tue 22 Mar 2011 at 12:57 PM
It occurs to me that definitions of political parties in the news, is almost always defined by the party's opponents.
I feature myself to be a "conservative" i.e., someone who understands that all resources are finite, including the Environment, and therefore I lean toward conservation of resources (including tax monies). At the same time, I'm opposed to laws which easily contravene the sovereignty of the individual, and am willing toI believe we should not intervene in the consequences when one acts on that sovereignty. Further, I do not believe in deity granted "rights." There are no "unalienable rights" except those you seize and defend by force if needed.
So which party am I? In this polarized climate, am I liberal or conservative? The fact is that most every voter is "conservative" unless the ballot measure or candidate is messing with our own special interests...then we are all big spenders, who want to curtail the "rights" of those who oppose us at any cost, including the greater good.
In fact, by our deeds we should already have known that there is only one political party in the U.S. It's the Party of Self.
#38 Posted by BK, CJR on Tue 22 Mar 2011 at 02:39 PM
I dearly love so much about my NPR affiliate including MOST of the news programs MOST of the time. The "analysis" and "opinion", however, could hardly be called even-handed.
Every time I get the urge to write a check to support my affiliate I remember:
The latest episode of either Steve Inskeep slobbering over a liberal-chic interview. Or Steve Inskeep "interviewing" (hysterically railing on) a member of the military or business or industry. Or Nina Totenberg yet again finding a way to drag the Tea Party into a non-political story ("....by the way a darling of the Tea Party movement"). Or either one of them finding AGAIN finding a way to criticize the former presidential administration (I think Nina and Steve blame George W. Bush for world hunger). Or those wild-and-crazy kids at Planet Money ridiculing the idea that ANYBODY with a brain would want an alternative to single-payer health care sytem ("Health care coops? Why would anybody want THAT????").
Until I can get through a presidential campaign without having to turn off the radio in disgust for hours at a time, I will keep my checkbook closed.
#39 Posted by ML, CJR on Wed 23 Mar 2011 at 03:33 PM
You are kidding, right? Of course it has Liberal (Lefty) bias. You mean somebody actually thinks it doesn't?!
#40 Posted by Ed Franks, CJR on Thu 31 Mar 2011 at 02:56 PM
In an International Mass Media class I took in 2004, it was noted that NPR's listeners were comprised of approximately 1/3 liberals, 1/3 moderates and 1/3 conservatives. I don't remember where those statistics came from, but I've known some fairly right-wing people who listened to NPR's market reports. If those statistics are true, then NPR is arguably the most balanced news source, in terms of audience, available in America.
By contrast, most demographics I've seen recently are based less on on political leanings than on socioeconomic status, which in the case of NPR tends to be wealthier and more highly educated than the average news audience. One could argue this audience is well-off enough to pay for their own radio station. Indeed, our local NPR station, KUNC, is heavily listener supported, because local (Northern Colorado) listeners decided several years ago they preferred its daytime music format to the primarily talk-show format on the national NPR network, and were willing to pay for that.
In mass media research, the NPR higher socioeconomic demographic are known as "opinion leaders," because of their disproportionate influence on the opinions of others around them. Thus, it's not NPR, but NPR listeners, who pose the biggest potential threat to GOP lawmakers. And all the more so if over half those listeners happen to be "center-right," and are less influenced by more ideological news sources like Fox News.
Speaking of which, cable companies also receive federal subsidies, which indirectly benefit Fox News, MSNBC and CNN. To my knowledge, nobody has suggested cutting these taxpayer subsidies.
If one could demonstrate that NPR still has a significant "center-right" audience, it might raise questions as to why conservative politicians are so interested in defunding the network. Maybe they are simply misinformed and didn't realize their supporters listen to NPR. Or maybe the programming creates unwanted competition to more traditional right-wing media outlets. Indeed, a cynic might wonder if they want to shield their own supporters from an alternative viewpoint.
#41 Posted by Megan Stewart, CJR on Fri 1 Apr 2011 at 12:10 PM
I listen to NPR every morning for Diane Rehm's segment, as it is the only radio station my alarm will consistently pick up.
As a strong fiscal conservative and somewhat social conservative (pro-life otherwise libertarian) I find that the guest speakers are uniformiy moderate, but the host is very liberal. Ms. Rehm is clearly anti-profit, anti-business, pro-entitlement program and the questions she asks often attempt to lead the guest into criticizing a conservative viewpoint or group. This happens every morning, not just occasionally.
I don't mind a radio or television station having a point of view, but I object to having to fund one that attempts to ridicule my position then call itself neutral.
#42 Posted by SentWest, CJR on Mon 8 Aug 2011 at 07:57 PM
So much talking past the point. The bias is real.
Statistical analysis or how many times a medium uses key words is worthless. My local paper once ran a very even article from the AP about how GW Bush actually managed to get some union endorsements (a small miracle for a Republican). The headline blared "Bush only manages to get 2 out of 30." Matt Drudge recognized this problem years ago and set out to post news articles verbatim, but with a different slant in the headline.
NPR's sin occurs in the choice of words. I listened to months of coverage on the gulf oil spill. Spill and leak were never used, it was always "gushing" even when capped and restrained. OK, they also said "spewing" a lot. Good news was almost mumbled, less than good developments were trumpeted. It was the great environmentalist "I told you so" moment. Then the spill was capped, but were was the oil slick, the dying birds, the fouled beaches? Frustrated by the efficiency of dispersants, NPR treated us to weeks of interviews from experts that all ended the same way - "It may take decades before we know the full effect of this."
Another example? Listen to an interview with GOP Chairman Michael Steel, in which Innskeep goes for intellectually dishonesty to try for his ah-ha moment. I'm no great fan of Michael Steel, but the twisted logic used to make him sound foolish was infuriating.
Another? Try to find the episode of This American Life that deals with recycling. What they found was not supportive of the environmental movement's beautiful lie and has since disappeared from the archives.
Another? I have several.
#43 Posted by LongTimeListener, CJR on Thu 9 Feb 2012 at 12:58 PM
I am a raging Centrist and think that a "Pox on both their Houses" suits me best. That being said, I gave up contributing to NPR and their affiliates after have been a donor for decades.
After listening to the NPR coverage on the 2008 election, I called and asked that the station manager give me a call back to discuss what I considered to be a continuing bias against the Republican candidates. I promised that, no matter what the conversation, the call would result in a $500.00 donation.
After repeating the offer several times with no call back... no donation.
I still listen to the local NPR affiliates wherever I am and even have some guilt about not supporting them.
Oh well... their loss.
If funding is dropped, I will then begin my contributions again and attempt to direct the use of my funds to apolitical programming such as good music and interesting science reporting.
Manetti
#44 Posted by Manetti, CJR on Wed 31 Oct 2012 at 12:45 AM