NPR and the AK47

[Doggy Daddy]

Bias is always in the mind of the beholder...

And seldom in the mind of the biased.  They'll brag about how open minded they are and eager to consider alternate viewpoints.

DD

[Doggy Daddy]

NPR is an amalgam of production companies

I haz some toofs wif the amagam stuffs in them.

DD

[MillCreek]

And seldom in the mind of the biased.  They'll brag about how open minded they are and eager to consider alternate viewpoints.

DD

And never in the minds of those who Know The One True Way. Alternate viewpoints are for wussy.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

An open mind, exposed to a wide range of alternative views, would rapidly conclude that NPR is heavily biased.

[makattak]

And never in the minds of those who Know The One True Way. Alternate viewpoints are for wussy.

What value added is there from hearing liberal talking points again? Being exposed to alternate veiwpoints is good as it allows you to know the mind of your adversaries.

I don't get anything more from hearing their viewpoint repeated. I have heard it and processed it. "Guns are bad." There, I got their viewpoint.

[MillCreek]

An open mind, exposed to a wide range of alternative views, would rapidly conclude that NPR Fox News is heavily biased.

The above is how someone of the left side of the political spectrum would argue.  It works both ways on each end of the political spectrum.  Perhaps the best value of that open mind is being receptive to information from a variety of sources.  We all apply our own filtering, but I have no fear of listening to other viewpoints.  One thing about working in the law is that you are taught to consider all sides of an issue, even though you may be advocating for only one side.

I must admit, I really don't get the point of bragging about how you avoid other viewpoints.  Interesting.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The above is how someone of the left side of the political spectrum would argue.  

Ok, let's stipulate that this is indeed how someone on the other end of the spectrum would argue.  What of it?  

Does the fact that those on the left might use (or misuse) the same pattern of reasoning make my statement about NPR being biased any less true?  Of course not.

NPR is biased to the left.  C'est la vie.  No amount of moral relativism changes that fact.

Perhaps the best value of that open mind is being receptive to information from a variety of sources.  We all apply our own filtering, but I have no fear of listening to other viewpoints.  

If your extra superior perspective doesn't readily reveal the bias of NPR, then perhaps it's not all it's cracked up to be.  See above.

There's value in having an open mind and considering all sides.  That doesn't mean that all sides are equally right and valid and deserving of credence.  

There's no value in a mind so open to all possibilities that it isn't able to see a thing for what it is.

One thing about working in the law is that you are taught to consider all sides of an issue, even though you may be advocating for only one side.

I hope you apply better reasoning in your practice of the law than you do in your analysis of news.

I must admit, I really don't get the point of bragging about how you avoid other viewpoints.  Interesting.

I must admit, I don't get how you think I'm avoiding anyone's viewpoint, or bragging about such.  Interesting.

[Monkeyleg]

I must admit, I really don't get the point of bragging about how you avoid other viewpoints.  Interesting.

Speaking only for myself, I try to avoid being driven insane as much as possible, and listening to liberal drivel drives me crazy. I just can't tolerate it any longer.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Is it even possible to avoid liberal-leaning biases in modern news/politics/culture?

I can understand wanting to avoid it.  But can one succeed here?

[Racehorse]

While I agree that NPR is biased, I have the same gripe with conservative talk radio. The analysis of any issue on both sides is so biased and predictable that it's just gotten tiresome over the years. I can't stand either one anymore. TV news is even worse. 

As has been mentioned, I do enjoy Car Talk and Wait Wait on NPR. But lately, I'm either turning the radio off or listening to music.

[MillCreek]

Ok, let's stipulate that this is indeed how someone on the other end of the spectrum would argue.  What of it?  

Does the fact that those on the left might use (or misuse) the same pattern of reasoning make my statement about NPR being biased any less true?  Of course not.

NPR is biased to the left.  C'est la vie.  No amount of moral relativism changes that fact.
If your extra superior perspective doesn't readily reveal the bias of NPR, then perhaps it's not all it's cracked up to be.  See above.

There's value in having an open mind and considering all sides.  That doesn't mean that all sides are equally right and valid and deserving of credence.  

There's no value in a mind so open to all possibilities that it isn't able to see a thing for what it is.
I hope you apply better reasoning in your practice of the law than you do in your analysis of news.
I must admit, I don't get how you think I'm avoiding anyone's viewpoint, or bragging about such.  Interesting.

I would point out that I did not reference you or your post by name, nor am I arguing the bias or lack thereof of any particular media outlet, but you seem pretty passionate about defending your position.

I also like to think of Harry Anderson's quote and apply it to my own life: "I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out."   This is not directed to HTG, but it is a good quote.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I would point out that I did not reference you or your post by name, nor am I arguing the bias or lack thereof of any particular media outlet, but you seem pretty passionate about defending your position.

Hrrm?  Now I'm confusernated.

No, you didn't reference me or my post by name, only by quote and by reference and by second person pronoun.  Perhaps you see how there'd be a misunderstanding.

But never mind that.

You now say you're not arguing bias or lack of bias at any particular outlet.  Can you clarify your previous remarks in favor of NPR for its wide breadth of coverage (which I take to mean a lack of narrow bias), and your assertion that any observations of bias are always in the mind of the beholder?

[MillCreek]

I would be interested to learn your thoughts on how bias is objectively defined.

[sanglant]

  Bill(Clinton) has a APS account?

think "that depends on what the meaning of "is" is."

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I would be interested to learn your thoughts on how bias is objectively defined.

Are you interested in how I define bias?  Or, rather, are you interested in how objectivity vs bias can be identified?

Definition is easy.  The relevant dictionary definition is:
"A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment."
Their definition is close enough that I could accept it all on its own, but I might also fine tune it to add a connotation that bias tends to refer more to political preferences and inclinations.

How would you recognize bias in any given news report?  That's less easy, but still not particularly hard.  Do the reporters tend to favor facts, ideas, or contexts that fit in with their own political inclinations?  Do they tend to ignore or downplay or try to dispute things that is disagreeable to their own politics?

As relates to NPR and their specific story on AKs, it's pretty clear that they run with a strong bias against the guns, against their private ownership and use, and by inference, against the wider concepts of RKBA.  We've covered this already in the thread.

An independent or unbiased story might be an overall accounting the design, history, and use of the AK throughout the world, or it's history and use specifically within the US.  But it's critical not to cherry pick which elements related to the AK you present and leave out, as NPR apparently did in their story.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Also, MillCreek, can you please clarify your seemingly contradictory remarks about bias at NPR?  Do you in fact believe NPR is open-minded and unbiased?

[MillCreek]

Also, MillCreek, can you please clarify your seemingly contradictory remarks about bias at NPR?

No. You may make any interpretation of them that you wish.  I do not find it necessary that people agree with me, nor do I find it necessary to persuade people to share my point of view.  Unless I am getting paid to advocate on behalf of somebody.

It seems to be very important to you that people share your opinion of NPR.  Your arguments as to bias, real or not, can equally be made about a variety of media outlets across the political spectrum.  Not everyone agrees that NPR is the Devil's Spawn.  Deal with it. I will continue to enjoy Car Talk and a Prairie Home Companion.   

[makattak]

No. You may make any interpretation of them that you wish.  I do not find it necessary that people agree with me, nor do I find it necessary to persuade people to share my point of view.  Unless I am getting paid to advocate on behalf of somebody.

It seems to be very important to you that people share your opinion of NPR.  Your arguments as to bias, real or not, can equally be made about a variety of media outlets across the political spectrum.  Not everyone agrees that NPR is the Devil's Spawn.  Deal with it. I will continue to enjoy Car Talk and a Prairie Home Companion.   

And that tells me more about NPR listeners than I could have gotten from NPR. Thank you for your illustration.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It seems to be very important to you that people share your opinion of NPR.

Well, no, not really.  I don't much care about NPR and their biases.  If someone said they weren't biased, then I'd find that interesting in the same way I'd find it interesting if someone said the sky wasn't blue, but that's the extent of it.  

I admit, at first I was peeved at the senselessness you displayed in your Reply #30, which appeared to be directed at me.  So I responded to that.  But you clarified that those remarks weren't directed at me, so no never mind there.

Now I'm just trying to understand what you've meant all along in this thread.  I can't really make sense of it.  So I'm asking.

Actually, no.  Now I'm irked.  You have said things all along in this thread, and I have understood them.  It's just that what you say keeps changing.  Typical weaselly lawyer behavior, say something one moment, then say something completely different another moment, then deny it all later.

So I'm done trying to explain myself, and I'm done making the effort to understand you.  Like Mak, I think I now know all I need to about your opinion on these matters.

[Monkeyleg]

It seems to be very important to you that people share your opinion of NPR.  Your arguments as to bias, real or not, can equally be made about a variety of media outlets across the political spectrum.  Not everyone agrees that NPR is the Devil's Spawn.  Deal with it. I will continue to enjoy Car Talk and a Prairie Home Companion.

They can be as biased as Shawn Hannity. Have at it, guys. Just don't make me pay for it.

This AK story was in a news report. Adjectives such as "evil" applied to an inanimate object do not belong in an objective news story.

My objection to public funding of broadcasting started back in the 1980's when I heard a PBS reporter refer to the "NRA's stranglehold on Washington". I've heard far worse since then.

[geronimotwo]

are you able to see the bias in other news shows besides npr?  many of the ones on fox are biased, even if you agree with them you have to admit that.

[kgbsquirrel]

are you able to see the bias in other news shows besides npr?  many of the ones on fox are biased, even if you agree with them you have to admit that.

But is Fox operating off of public money? Yes they have their own agenda and bias that they are pushing, but they are not doing so with tax dollars taken from people of opposing views.

[geronimotwo]

 

But is Fox operating off of public money? Yes they have their own agenda and bias that they are pushing, but they are not doing so with tax dollars taken from people of opposing views.

point taken.  but even if the average person agreed that a news show was "unbiased", likely it would only mean that it was biased towards their point of view.  so would we remove all tax funding for news shows?  that would leave an advertiser driven bias, do we have such faith in them?

[kgbsquirrel]

point taken.  but even if the average person agreed that a news show was "unbiased", likely it would only mean that it was biased towards their point of view.  so would we remove all tax funding for news shows?  that would leave an advertiser driven bias, do we have such faith in them?

As there seems to be little faith in any primary "news" organization, whether privately or publicly funded that leaves us with two options: First, we leave the NPR in place with no faith in objective journalism from any source, or second, we pull funding from NPR, saving tax dollars and carry on with no faith in objective journalism all the same. The trust is lacking no matter what, the only question is how much of our taxes we waste in the process.

[Perd Hapley]

I will continue to enjoy Car Talk and a Prairie Home Companion.   

Last I heard, Prairie Home Companion was still on Public Radio International (not NPR). And last I heard, it was no longer "enjoyable," due to too much politics and not enough originality.  Used to be a real hoot, though.