Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Monkeyleg on December 16, 2010, 11:41:34 AM
-
Last Sunday I was driving back from a range in eastern AL, and the only station I could get on the radio was NPR out of Birmingham. The comedy show I was listening to was actually pretty good, so I kept the station on. After the show they went to "All Things Considered", and did a segment on the AK47.
They interviewed the author of a book on guns who quickly revealed his bias. The reporter asked him for reasons why the AK is so popular, and he said that it's easy to shoot (compared to what?), and will shoot in just about any conditions.
He then went on to describe numbers of production, and the AK's role in global conflicts. The reporter asked why the AK is so often involved in wars in the Third World, and he said it was because of the AK's durability, in that the weapon lasts for decades. This is true for just about any gun except a Lorcin, so he lost me on that one.
The reporter then went on to ask what could be done about the proliferation of this "evil gun" (her words), and if there was a way to stop sales of them throughout the world. The author didn't really have an answer, but did say a lot of things that simply were not true, both from technical standpoints as well as political.
There was more to the story, but I think you get the gist of it. This is the sort of "reporting" that drove me away from NPR years ago, and makes me want it defunded now.
-
What I've noticed about NPR (and, for that matter, most other "news" organizations) is that when someone speaks in a manner that supports their political bias, they simply nod agreeably and allow everything said to go unchallenged. If asked, they'll just say they were showing basic courtesy and allowing their guest to exercise his First Amendment rights.
On the other hand, they're not at all shy about interrupting and arguing with people from the other end of the political spectrum - behavior which they'll explain by saying "challenging a guest's assertions is just good journalism."
As Sarah Palin termed them, they really ARE "corrupt ba$t@rd$."
-
This is the sort of "reporting" that drove me away from NPR years ago, and makes me want it defunded now.
I stopped listening regularly long ago, for the sake of my sanity.
I recall a piece they did, wherein a reporter went to a gun shop. The proprietor was described as "brandishing" a gun. "NO!", I yelled at the car radio, "what he is doing is showing you the gun you asked to see. Brandishing is a legal term. You can get in a lot of trouble for 'brandishing'."
Defunded and driven from polite society, to dwell under the bridge with Michael Bellesiles, would be my preference.
-
The guy has got to be CJ Chivers. He wrote a book about the AK and has been plugging it all over the place.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/books/03book.html
Chivers is quite biased and the "evil gun" was probably a quote from his book.
-
That's him. The word "evil" was used by the reporter/journalist/interviewer in her questioning, though.
I wonder if it's occurred to either Chivers or the interviewer that roughly half of the people with AK's in these conflicts need them to defend against the other half (the bad guys)?
-
This is the sort of "reporting" that drove me away from NPR years ago, and makes me want it defunded now.
I agree, but wish to add that public funds should be canceled for all radio/tv/internet/papers/etc regardless of political leanings and/or bias. Let them stand on their own two feet.
-
These people got it all wrong. The hero's of Rodinia produced these by the millions and gave them to the peoples of the world. This was done to bring down the evil, capitalistic, earth polluting, xenophobe, Americans. Somebody there did not get the memo.
-
Defunded and driven from polite society, to dwell under the bridge with Michael Bellesiles, would be my preference.
Sadly, Mr. Bellesiles is still publishing on the subject of "violence," and (according to Wiki) still lectures in academia. ;/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bellesiles#Life_after_Arming_America
-
That's him. The word "evil" was used by the reporter/journalist/interviewer in her questioning, though.
I wonder if it's occurred to either Chivers or the interviewer that roughly half of the people with AK's in these conflicts need them to defend against the other half (the bad guys)?
but, but, but... That just perpetuates violence... [barf]
There is one NPR station that plays classical music all night, I tune them in sometimes on my long dark drives.
-
That's him. The word "evil" was used by the reporter/journalist/interviewer in her questioning, though.
I'm reasonably sure I heard him mention that in an interview somewhere.
I wonder if it's occurred to either Chivers or the interviewer that roughly half of the people with AK's in these conflicts need them to defend against the other half (the bad guys)?
Probably not. Then again, in some conflicts there are no good guys...
-
I listen to NPR every single day. I appreciate the depth and breadth of coverage.
-
I listen to NPR every single day. I appreciate the depth and breadth of coverage.
Interesting. I have yet to listen to NPR for more than an hour without hearing at least some very blatant bias.
As for breadth of coverage, this story was promoted at the beginning of the program as an in-depth look at the Kalashnikov rifle. When they finally got around to the story, it consisted of these parts: mention that the AK-47 was introduced in 1947 after the Soviets realized that the Germans' SG-38 was an effective weapon; introduction of Chivers; question about why the AK-47 is so common in foreign conflicts; what can be done about proliferation; thank you, Mr. Chivers.
That's not "breadth", at least in my book.
-
Interesting. I have yet to listen to NPR for more than an hour without hearing at least some very blatant bias.
As for breadth of coverage, this story was promoted at the beginning of the program as an in-depth look at the Kalashnikov rifle. When they finally got around to the story, it consisted of these parts: mention that the AK-47 was introduced in 1947 after the Soviets realized that the Germans' SG-38 was an effective weapon; introduction of Chivers; question about why the AK-47 is so common in foreign conflicts; what can be done about proliferation; thank you, Mr. Chivers.
That's not "breadth", at least in my book.
A "Broad Mind" is just a "Narrow Mind" rotated 90 degrees.
-
Interesting. I have yet to listen to NPR for more than an hour without hearing at least some very blatant bias.
Bias is always in the mind of the beholder, and I try to access media across the political spectrum to broaden my point of view.
-
I am going to have to put this book on reserve at the library. I read the NYT review and note that the author is a former Marine.
-
Frank W. James reviewed that book a while ago. He didn't seem too fond of it.
http://frankwjames.blogspot.com/2010/12/book-review-gun.html
I know Tamara K. did a review too, more favorable from what I remember, but can't find the link to her blog right now. Kinda hard to find a reference to "the gun" on there via a search engine. :)
Edit: Found it: http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2010/11/afk-brb.html
-
He then went on to describe numbers of production, and the AK's role in global conflicts. The reporter asked why the AK is so often involved in wars in the Third World, and he said it was because of the AK's durability, in that the weapon lasts for decades. This is true for just about any gun except a Lorcin, so he lost me on that one.
True, but the AK lasts under adverse conditions in the hands of an unskilled user. Most rifles need maintenance every now and then. For the AK and the SKS, "maintenance" consisting of cycling the rusted-in-place bolt once or twice with a mallet will keep it going for years.
-
NPR has some good music shows, but I wont listen to it.
I have two conservative friends who do because of all the so called yelling on regular talk radio and adds on regular news radio. I've given up on trying to convert them :facepalm:
-
NPR has some good music shows, but I wont listen to it.
I have two conservative friends who do because of all the so called yelling on regular talk radio and adds on regular news radio. I've given up on trying to convert them :facepalm:
NPR airs advertisements, as does all public radio.
-
I listen to NPR every single day. I appreciate the depth and breadth of coverage.
They have their place, of course.
Like most "news" outlets, they can't really report on what's going on, simply because they do not understand it or just won't be honest about it. I find I'm better-informed if I avoid such disinformation.
-
What I've noticed about NPR (and, for that matter, most other "news" organizations) is that when someone speaks in a manner that supports their political bias, they simply nod agreeably and allow everything said to go unchallenged. If asked, they'll just say they were showing basic courtesy and allowing their guest to exercise his First Amendment rights.
...
As Sarah Palin termed them, they really ARE "corrupt ba$t@rd$."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2010/01/08/maddow-obama-1st-yr-most-accomplished-generation-cold-winter-sign-glo#ixzz18R3LhGvo (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2010/01/08/maddow-obama-1st-yr-most-accomplished-generation-cold-winter-sign-glo#ixzz18R3LhGvo)
The last quoted line at the above link is from Rachel Maddow, and it's an example of the "nod agreeably and allow everything said to go unchallenged" method. Dennis Prager loves to play the sound clip, during which you hear Letterman go "mhm, mhm" as Maddow drops a line so patently stupid it would make your four-year-old go "huh?", as an example of how the left will just redefine language when it gets discredited or caught in a lie(think about it... what did "liberal" mean 150 years ago?).
If Palin truly did say that, my hat is off to her for calling them out on bias, if not for using profanity. I don't want public figures using anything worse than "damn". It diminishes the dignity of their office and the perception of their character.
NPR airs advertisements, as does all public radio.
Yes, they certainly do. However, I'll say that their brief live-read mentions are quite bearable. The awful periodic pledge drives are another thing altogether. I'd sooner listen to a station of solid business advertisements than listen to reporters beg.
I listen to NPR for "Car Talk", which is mostly apolitical, and "Wait Wait" and "What Do You Know" because they're funny. During the weekday, it's AM all the way.
-
The last quoted line at the above link is from Rachel Maddow, and it's an example of the "nod agreeably and allow everything said to go unchallenged" method. Dennis Prager loves to play the sound clip, during which you hear Letterman go "mhm, mhm" as Maddow drops a line so patently stupid it would make your four-year-old go "huh?"
I'm scratching my head that Michael Steele was someone she would actually try to present as a scary, crazy, Obama-opposing Tea Party-er. ???
-
I am going to have to put this book on reserve at the library. I read the NYT review and note that the author is a former Marine.
So was Murtha.
-
NPR is an amalgam of production companies
-
That's him. The word "evil" was used by the reporter/journalist/interviewer in her questioning, though.
I wonder if it's occurred to either Chivers or the interviewer that roughly half of the people with AK's in these conflicts need them to defend against the other half (the bad guys)?
"oh god no, we can't have people defending them selves. if people can defend them selves, how are the nice UN troups(spelling to avoid grouping this pile of crap with real troops) going to rape, and rob them? [tinfoil]
-
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
-
NPR is an amalgam of production companies
I haz some toofs wif the amagam stuffs in them.
DD
-
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.
-
An open mind, exposed to a wide range of alternative views, would rapidly conclude that NPR is heavily biased.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :P
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. [barf]
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.
-
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. :P
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.
-
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?
-
I would be interested to learn your thoughts on how bias is objectively defined.
-
:O Bill(Clinton) has a APS account? [tinfoil]
think "that depends on what the meaning of "is" is."
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. :laugh:
-
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. :laugh:
And that tells me more about NPR listeners than I could have gotten from NPR. Thank you for your illustration.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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. =(
-
I think people of all creeds can enjoy the Ketchup Advisory Board on PHC: http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/programs/20031227/scripts/ketchup.shtml
Ketchup contains natural mellowing agents, you know.
-
True.
From time to time, I do eat Raw Bits for breakfast.
-
i was looking up the funding for npr and found this:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2008/01/frequently_asked_questions_1.html
about halfway down it states that none of their funding comes directly from the federal gov, and less than 2 percent comes from other federally funded organizations.
????
any countersources available?
-
I suppose I am sort of biased - I take it as self evident that we are endowed by [nature] with certain unalienable rights.
=)
-
i was looking up the funding for npr and found this:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2008/01/frequently_asked_questions_1.html
about halfway down it states that none of their funding comes directly from the federal gov, and less than 2 percent comes from other federally funded organizations.
????
any countersources available?
The wiki page on NPR goes into it in some detail. The short answer is that NPR doesn't get anything directly from the government, but they do get a fair amount of tax money indirectly from more circuitous routes, mainly from local public radio stations who get money from states, universities, and publicly funded charities.
The rest of their money comes from tax deductible donations. The tax write-offs that encourage these donations might be the biggest form of public funding they get.
-
yea, i saw the wiki page as well. in one sentence it said they received 10% of their funding from cpb grants, and two sentences later it only received 1.5% from cpb grants. ??
any other sources
-
Local public radio stations ("member stations"), not NPR, receive 10% of their funding from CBP. These stations then turn around and use some of their funding to purchase content (radio shows) from NPR.
40% of NPR's funding comes from the content purchased by member stations. Another 1.5% comes straight from CPB. So NPR is getting CPB money directly from CPB, and indirectly from CPB via the member stations.
As for other sources, you could start with the citations on the wiki page.
-
i like this version
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/how_public_is_nprs_funding.html
-
I did some volunteer work in high school at KRVM 91.9FM in Eugene, Oregon for a time. It's an NPR station that is housed and operated in Henry D. Sheldon public high school and in turn offers classes to students in broadcasting and other things but remains primarily a public radio station. It would follow that being housed in a public institution would be government funding in a way but I'll sling an email to the folks I know back there and see if I can't get a more solid answer.
-
During pledge drive week, aren't they always complaining that .gov will be giving them less money next year? Or maybe I'm confusing them with St. Louis's "other" public radio station, KDHX.
-
Here is what our local NPR/BBC/local news and talk station, KUOW has to say:
KUOW serves communities in the Puget Sound region, Western Washington and Southern British Columbia. The station is operated by KUOW Puget Sound Public Radio (PSPR) under an agreement with the University of Washington, KUOW's licensee. PSPR was established in 1999 and is a private, non–profit corporation governed by a community board.
More than 89 percent of KUOW's applied revenue comes from individual and business support, while the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and the University of Washington provide 9 percent. The station employs 63 full–time employees; plus freelance reporters, part–time staff, interns and work–study students. Donor information, intern opportunities and employment opportunities are available on our Website.
I thought I recalled them saying during pledge drives that about 90% of their funds came from 'listeners like you'. And the pledge drives are always at 0600, when I am in the shower getting ready for the day.
-
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?
What other news organizations are taxpayer-funded? I don't know of any.
Bias in the news is not new, and in fact was much more prevalent decades ago in the age of William Randolph Hearst and "yellow journalism", or at least that's what were we told in school.
If NPR were defunded and disappeared, its listeners would gravitate toward another news outlet that reaffirms their views. Liberals are as unlikely to listen to Rush Limbaugh as I am to watch "The View". Advertisers will watch the bottom line, not the political slant. Few advertisers want to be perceived as politically biased.
-
Although it is impossible to quantify, I wonder how much of a news organizations editorial or investigative focus is driven by the bottom line of not ticking off the advertisers. If, say NBC did an investigative piece on defects in GM cars, and GM pulled their advertising from NBC, how much does this drive the actions of the news organization? Although I cannot place my hands on them right now, I do recall reading about newspapers and local TV stations suffering large revenue drops when advertisers pulled the ads in response to critical news stories.
I know that many news organizations talk about editorial independence and all, but I suspect that these bottom-line considerations do exist.
-
What other news organizations are taxpayer-funded? I don't know of any.
Bias in the news is not new, and in fact was much more prevalent decades ago in the age of William Randolph Hearst and "yellow journalism", or at least that's what were we told in school.
If NPR were defunded and disappeared, its listeners would gravitate toward another news outlet that reaffirms their views. Liberals are as unlikely to listen to Rush Limbaugh as I am to watch "The View". Advertisers will watch the bottom line, not the political slant. Few advertisers want to be perceived as politically biased.
advertisers are frequently using their clout to change programming. why do you think shows get cancelled? mostly this is because of consumer ratings. sometimes it is through a consumer based uproar. but either way it goes back to the "if i like it it is good (or not biased)" argument. how many times have we talked about "mainstream america's" lack of proper reasoning, and yet it is consumer driven programming that we are arguing for. i do not like the idea of government owned/censored media either, but to think that consumer driven programming is any less biased is a big mistake.
as i can't seem to find the reply button for this thread (i guess i used up my three reply limit?), i will respond to the comment below via editing. i think the correct term would be "viewer ratings", but an advertiser is looking for more than how many people are watching a show, they want to know the demographics that will lead to the viewer becoming a consumer, or more specifically their products consumption. that is why i mispoke with the term "consumer ratings".
i heard this week about how direct tv will be using demographics, and how your home's commercials will be tailored to fit your preferences. ie: if you have dogs but no cats, you will likely never see a cat food commercial, but will be inundated with k9 ads.
-
advertisers are frequently using their clout to change programming. why do you think shows get cancelled? mostly this is because of consumer ratings.
If by "consumer" you mean "viewer", then this makes perfect sense. If by "consumer" you mean the consumers of a particular advertiser's product, could you give an example?
-
i think the correct term would be "viewer ratings", but an advertiser is looking for more than how many people are watching a show, they want to know the demographics that will lead to the viewer becoming a consumer, or more specifically their products consumption. that is why i mispoke with the term "consumer ratings".
i heard this week about how direct tv will be using demographics, and how your home's commercials will be tailored to fit your preferences. ie: if you have dogs but no cats, you will likely never see a cat food commercial, but will be inundated with k9 ads.
-
i heard this week about how direct tv will be using demographics, and how your home's commercials will be tailored to fit your preferences.
"Cookies! On you TeeVee!", or, why it is I see ads for GFI Mailsecurity everywhere I go.
-
What's wrong with having consumer's deteremine the success or failure of the news outlet ?? If they are doing a good job then people will flock to it. (I watch* Fox News NEWS shows, not because they are 'conservative' but because they present BOTH sides of the discussion). Fox News according to viewers presents the news in a way viewers prefer.
Yellow Journalism has been around since news began. Since the news is found, written and presented by humans it always shows the bias inherent in any human activity. J-school profs like to point at the "Yellow" journalism period as how "bad" it was. But was it really ?? People bought and presumably read several papers all with their biases. They always point to the Heasrt Fortune as "bad" and that McKinley allowed himself to be bullied in War with Spain. (Can anyone say "Bullied Clinton into the former Yugoslavia and Kosovo" ??)
Let the market decide and get the .gov out of the news business. If NPR is worthwhile, it will have to learn to stand on it's on two feet.
-
What's wrong with having consumer's deteremine the success or failure of the news outlet ?? If they are doing a good job then people will flock to it. (I watch* Fox News NEWS shows, not because they are 'conservative' but because they present BOTH sides of the discussion). Fox News according to viewers presents the news in a way viewers prefer.
Yellow Journalism has been around since news began. Since the news is found, written and presented by humans it always shows the bias inherent in any human activity. J-school profs like to point at the "Yellow" journalism period as how "bad" it was. But was it really ?? People bought and presumably read several papers all with their biases. They always point to the Heasrt Fortune as "bad" and that McKinley allowed himself to be bullied in War with Spain. (Can anyone say "Bullied Clinton into the former Yugoslavia and Kosovo" ??)
Let the market decide and get the .gov out of the news business. If NPR is worthwhile, it will have to learn to stand on it's on two feet.
so this would be a consumer driven "election" of a news station?
-
so this would be a consumer driven "election" of a news station?
No not "A" news station, but a variety of news stations. Seriously, look at magazines. There is, in essence, no government regulation/support, of magazines, and hence there is a wide variety of all types of magazines.
Same with the internet.
Why is there a "government" radio and TV network ??
The marketplace of ideas. Why should ideas be any different then economics ?
-
. . . NPR doesn't get anything directly from the government, but they do get a fair amount of tax money indirectly from more circuitous routes, mainly from local public radio stations who get money from states, universities, and publicly funded charities . . .
When I read this, I immediately thought "Money Laundering."
-
No not "A" news station, but a variety of news stations. Seriously, look at magazines. There is, in essence, no government regulation/support, of magazines, and hence there is a wide variety of all types of magazines.
Same with the internet.
Why is there a "government" radio and TV network ??
The marketplace of ideas. Why should ideas be any different then economics ?
i agree that there should be a variety of news stations. i am less than thrilled with the pandoring to specific consumer groups by most networks. i would like to see sensible newscasts reporting complete stories, regardless of the political slant. but hey, sensationalism sells!