Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/11/27/nprs-shameful-comparison-stacey-abrams-donald-trump
If you want to hear the truth about most things political (or even not so political) you can’t count on supposedly neutral public broadcasting anymore. They aren’t, just listen to who their “supporters” are at the beginning and end of each broadcast, a who’s who of the swamp monsters. No, one has to go to truly independent sources, that refuse to take corporate money, like DemocracyNOW! to get even a clue as to what is really going on.
NPR also referred to Elizabeth Warren as a “demagogue” who was “just like Donald Trump.”
And of course they did everything in their power to make Bernie Sanders look like a sexist, racist buffoon.
NPR has news cred because they don’t just read the headlines, they give in-depth coverage. What they don’t tell you is that giving you in-depth coverage means interviewing experts–the experts that NPR chooses, of course, who either agree with NPR or can be made to look foolish.
But, of course, the snobs in the D party eat this sort of thing up and proudly display their NPR bumper stickers and tote bags, because paying to support “independent journalism” is their civic duty.
That, in my view, is an important fairness issue that NPR completely failed to mention. Shame on them.
npr has always favored corporate over people. nothing new here - stopped supporting them financially years ago. to mention the work done by Abrams in the same sentence or paragraph as the monster still flaying around in the white house is abominable!
NPR and PBS sold out decades ago, at which point I canceled my membership and turned them off. The station is no longer independent, and requires other source(s) to be researched before being given credibility. In my mind, they are as obnoxious as Fox News and the rest of the MSM with their servility to corporations.
NPR = Nationalist Propaganda Radio (and several other wholesome titles). Contrary to some comments here, perhaps from people under about 40 years of age, NPR and the rest of CPB were a breath of fresh air when they went live in 1971. Because they told some “inconvenient truths” about people in high places, in the early 1990s they became targets of certain of those people, notably Lynne Cheney and North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms. Through the actions of Cheney and Helms their funding was cut to the point that they had a choice between paring down their operation substantially or becoming MSM. Cheney and Helms were betting that it would be the latter, and it was.
N ormalizing the
P olitics of
It was all down hill for NPR after Car Talk (which for years had more listeners than any other NPR show) went off the air a decade ago.
Carol, I 100% agree with you. But, NPR started moving to the right when the Gingrich gang got into power in 1994. I stopped listening to NPR, then.
NPR Speak: Trump Bad; anyone who did something even mildly related to Trump also bad; If related actor can be used to bash Trump, fine; otherwise thrown that actor under the bus so we can continue feeling good about saying Trump Bad.
It will be interesting to see which villain the MS(Corporate)M will fixate on to replace Trump as the bogeyman, for surely they will need one to continue their bamboozling of the US population. Doing journalism is not on tap, that’s for sure.
This is a good history. They used to do some good in depth reporting. Then the Republicans started bellowing and hollaring about “liberal bias” and the tax payers paying for it. So public funding went by by and they had to start begging for cash. Enter the magnanimous corporate sponsors; who, of course, didn’t want to pay for anything “controversial”- which means anything that challenges the dominant marshmallow paradigm.
My assessment of NPR is that it is designed for liberals who don’t want to know that their government, federal especially, is a totally fubar corrupt mess. This, of course, would be uncomfortable. They also wouldn’t want to hear that American democracy is the worst form ever designed other than democratic centralism.
So for years republicans have done voter suppression and we are suppose to believe it did not happen in Georgia, Kentucky and North Carolina et al???
I think it was originally intended to be actually informative, at least to a point, and as we know it did a fair job of that for a time. But it was instituted at exactly at the time that the modern “conservative” movement that is anything but conservative was emerging–end of story. You’re probably correct in thinking it is now aimed at what we used to call “arm chair liberals” that don’t actually liberate anything anymore than today’s “conservatives” conserve anything.
I can’t remember where I heard this but it makes sense. When Fox went to “fair and balanced” reporting it fails to take into account pre-existing divisions or inequality. It makes issues that are unequally divided, equal in terms of discussion or reporting. An obvious flaw. I guess it is important how the message is framed, and by what perspective.
The primary problem for NPR came when their federal funding support became blatantly tied the political slant they presented in their “objective” commentary. I didn’t notice any dramatic shifts until post 9/11, but it was so abrupt that it was jarring when it did happen, particular its reversal in its coverage of the Bush administration and the lead up to the war in Iraq. But the problem isn’t NPR, IMO, but rather by the interest of its private sources of funding, getting in the way of their neutral presentation of news and national perspectives. Too bad there isn’t a way to federally fund (at a basic national needs level without political control or influence) and then allow local stations some local programming preference control through small dollar private donation drives. This wouldn’t exclude major private donations, it would just limit them to the (NPR/PBS) national organization and strip them of any programming preference support. I found so much value in PBS/NPR neutral programming as I was maturing, that it pains me lose that resource and value for current and future generations.