My complete sentence is ROFLMAO!
Is there something even more sinister going on than just becoming more conservative. I was irate enough over some issue, I think having to do with Obama’s declaration that ‘Assad must go!’. Some talking head was interviewed and kindly explained why Assad must go. But there was no opposing view and I knew there was plenty to be said in rebuttal. I wrote to NPR complaining about the lack of balance. In return I was supposed to be placated by their assurance that an opposing view would be aired at a diffenent time. What good did that do? Are we supposed to be listening to NPR all day, every day, in order to get the whole story?
There is very little analysis of anything to do with foreign policy which is the most important issue we should be talking about and hearing good analysis about. Not hearing about it makes it seem as though our aggressive policies are okay, nothing to concern us. Peace activists have been defanged but we don’t need teeth when all we are fed is pap!
While I agree with much of what Nader has to say about many issues, I always find his delivery so dark and gloomy, it seems likely that most avoid hearing him at all. Chris Hedges is listing in the same direction. While inanity is not the answer, a more positive way to present the issues would be nice.
In the aughts, the constant use of the word “insurgents” irked me. Who are they and why are they resisting? That’s right. I don’t have all day to find out. Don’t think “Morning Edition” or ATC told me, but I found out. The noticeable reduction of multi-faceted, well-rounded reporting that was once common at NPR hasn’t kept me from listening (no shouting, mostly facts) or contributing (my local station runs more than NPR). The signal moment was when Bob Edwards was forced out.
Hey Ralphie boy - you think the media might be a little better if Al Gore had become President in 2001? I sure do. Oh and by the way, I did not vote for Hillary. I am not a lesser of evils voter. Al was a better choice than you in 2000. Instead, however, we got 9/11 and perpetual war in the Middle East. Tanks fer nuttin’.
Back in 2000-2001 I had a 20 mile commute to work. I made up a game to pass the time.I would listen to Minnesota Public Radio (MPR/NPR) until I heard the word “Israeli” or “Isreal.” Then I would change the station. Most days I wouldn’t make it out of my 100 yard driveway. Then came 9/11 and it was…well, you know the meme. “Middle-east terrorists did it.”
In depth news.? Are you referring to the way NPR covers, say, the refugee catastrophe in the Mideast/Africa without providing any historical context; or who is responsible for it (i.e the US). You mean that in depth news?
Underwriters I’ve heard on KQED’s NPR coverage have included the ‘CIA’ and ‘Department of Homeland Security’. Fortunately we have Pacifica affiliate KPFA as an antidote in the Bay Area. Ad spots on KQED come in threes about 5 minutes apart leaving little time left for local or national news - not that their coverage is worthwhile.
We always called NPR “National Pentagon Radio” for its continual cheerleading for more and more destructive wars.
If you hang around CD for more than 30 seconds you will get much of the same negative tone. The trick is to be able to sort it out and then add YOUR two cents worth. Used to be worth a nickle but inflation is a bitch.
Boards of many NPR member stations are populated with people who also sit on corporate boards, or former or current management. People like Geoffrey Cowen, who literally worked for U.S. government propaganda programs like VOA and USIA were involved in the establishment of NPR.
Flagship affiliate “news”/call-in programs like WBUR’s On Point and WAMU’s 1A mostly regurgitate corporate news media headlines and more often than not populate their guest panels with political reporters drawn from mainstream media. More disturbing, they stack their panels to the right with right-wing think-tankers whose funding and political bent they rarely fully disclose. It’s rare to find anyone from the left represented on their programs.
PBS similarly kowtows to the right, at least in their overt news programs. Since the moderately left-ish Bill Moyers program left the air when Moyers retired, there is no dedicated news or public events program that takes a progressive outlook. And they’ve added the conservative (and really lame and boring) Firing Line.
I was listening to some of the 2016 election coverage on PBS from the other room, and heard a familiar voice i couldn’t quite place. Getting back to within sight of the teevee, there was Amy Goodman on one of the panels. I almost fell over. It was the first — and still only — time i’ve ever seen any real progressive represented on their analysis panels.
The most positively subversive thing on PBS are some of the independent documentaries, which examine some of the injustices inflicted on the marginalized and show some of the darker aspects of the country’s history. Their regular newscasts, not so much.
For me, the worst aspect of both NPR and PBS is their failure to ever examine the full extent of hegemonic U.S. foreign policy history, the expansion of the security/surveillance state, and the obscene expansion in “defense” spending, and the subversion of what passes for democracy by corporate interests. All overriding issues. But they pander to their neoliberal donor base with a steady stream of concern coverage of various social issues. Not that those aren’t important, but they almost never look at the larger issues. Not surprising given that this would require taking a hard look at the history of corporate influence and abuses, which is not going to make their underwriters happy.
Only Michael Moore – and long ago the Church Hearings – has had the guts to try to
call the CIA to accountability. It seems now that the CIA is the HUB or CORE of Elite
control over our world and futures and is wired to all of the Elite interests in keeping that
control. And, most of it in SECRECY which is how the control has been gained.
Keep in mind what a SECRET it has been to all of us that Our Founders are not honest men.
How can they be honest men when they immediately privatized the Commonwealth and
“redistributed” the wealth of the nation from the many to Elites?
How can they be honest men when they saved the system of Slavery holding other human
beings in enslavement under cruel, mortal conditions of violence?
They not only saved it for the benefit of their fellow Elites and themselves, they did it all
the way to the “Runaway Slave Act” where Militias were used to return slaves to the “owners.”
They also invited the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church to run “Church Schools” for the
US in order to brainwash the children of native people here – often those children were kidnapped
and forced into these schools. Their parents were not allowed to visit. They very appearance was
changed and they were forbidden to speak in their own languages. And these conditions were
enforced by violence of beatings, mutilation, hangings, murders and sexual abuse.
So much for Separation of Church & State.
“Christianity” underpins Elite-Patriarchy and Elite-Patriarchy cannot be defeated because
“Christianity” is supported by our government. When that support stops, Elite-Patriarchy will fall.
It is the “say so” for White Male Supremacy in all of these male supremacist religions since they
couldn’t proclaim their own superiority.
And very definitely it seems that the Vatican invented Islam in order to control Arabs/Jerusalem.
All of the symbolism and myths of “Christianity” and Islam trace back to Rome and secret societies.
The Old Testament was written to cement patriarchy.
These organized patriarchal religions came thousands and thousands of years after the Old
Religion based in Nature. No gods above – No gods below.
Enlightenment comes from within – we do not need middlemen to connect us with our spirituality
which is likely universal.
As more and more citizens walk away from organized patriarchal religions, there seems to be
more collusion between these religions and our government to fund them.
After the Church Hearings, my opinion is that the CIA took over the NRA to use it to target what
remained of liberals and moderates in both parties in Congress. These were the member who
(like Frank Church) would have investigated them and held them accountable. As we can also
see, the CIA is active all over the world in running drugs into peaceful societies – and gun-running.
In Central and South America we see the results of this in destruction of their societies where
peaceful societies are replaced by vicious, threatening gangs.
If anyone noticed – one of the said “Russian” female spies was here to arrange that guns be
brought into Russia. Trump himself has said that he is looking to move more guns “abroad.”
Since the 1970’s we have watched our societies become more and more violent due to drugs
and guns – this is the way to overturn democracy here as people lose faith in their government.
In New York City, the local NPR station, WNYC, has gone from an all listener-sponsored, progressive station, to a station funded mostly by corporations and weathy individuals, featuring pro-business shows such as “Freakonomics” and “Marketplace.”
Imagine how a black American feels when standing by the Washington Monument or the Jefferson Memorial! How about some sculptures beside each one of slaves beng separated from their children or being beaten by their owners or managers? That might give us something to think about! The nonsense of our myths has turned our brains to mush.
Jefferson wrote that any person wanting to maximize his return on Capital should invest in “land and Negroes” poiting out that the natural growth in the Negro population would lead to a bonanze of revenues and a constant 5 to 10 percent return per annum.
He also wrote how by changing the overseer at his nail factory (to one more wiling to use the whip) saw the Children working in that factory increase his profits by 5 percent.
It a mystery to me how all of those Statues from the Civil war have become controversial and are being removed because the persons the memorials to “supported slavery” when one Thomas Jefferson was a big fan of slavery and lived in luxury off the back of his slaves.
Again it that hypocrisy , suggest that his memorial be removed and the Liberal elite ranting on statues to Robert E Lee would find any number of excuses as to why Jeffersons support of slavery somehow benign and an act of justice.
Next to land, the next largest asset of financiers in the newly formed United States of America were the slaves owned by the plantation owners. It no wonder the Constitution written so as to protect that “property”.
What a lovely thought to make clear the whole picture – !!!
Show the surroundings and the sources of their wealth in Slavery.
This is why they must keep “blacks” and “whites” and “Reds” from uniting – !!
That’s the only way they can continue to keep us separated – hitting the color notes!!
What’s important is the heart and mind – the thoughts, intentions, actions that spring from them.
"The actions of men are the best interpreters of their thoughts." John Locke
Interesting reminders and opinions, but how are they relevant for this article?
When researching my New Hampshire ancestors I came across this document:
To my shame, the brother of my great-great grandfather is listed as a slave owner, William Rogers.
The overturning of the Fairness in Broadcasting Act, for one …
The corruption of our Congress which at one time funded NPR and PBS …
And, the fact that Koch Bros. pretty much now owns PBS.
Jefferson was smart enough to know that slavery was immoral but he was selfish enough to keep hold of his 600!!! slaves because he wanted to design his beautiful Monticello down to the last detail qand live in its beauty even knowing that his estate was rotten to the core.