»» Columnists

Ira Glass Comes To DC To Argue Against NPR Bias

by Simon Owens | 10:15 am, April 5th, 2011

» 26 comments

If NPR won’t fight back against charges of bias, Ira Glass will.

The This American Life host already took to NPR’s On The Media to submit his rallying cry, arguing to host Brooke Gladstone that “we have nothing to fear from a discussion of what is the news coverage we’re doing.”

This past weekend, he continued on in this vein, fighting against the notion that NPR, as Bill O’Reilly put it, has “devolved into a totalitarian outfit functioning as an arm of the far left.” In front of a sold-out theater at George Washington University’s Lisner Auditorium, Glass said it was NPR’s “decentralized system” that has tied its hands in being able to fight back. “There’s NPR that produces the big news shows like Morning Edition and All Things Considered,” he said. “Then there’s Public Radio International, American Public Media, there are all these sorts of various distribution channels, and then everyone can pretty much make a show — for instance, our show is made by Chicago Public Radio. Car Talk is out of Boston. The strength of the organization is the decentralization. But what happens is in a moment like this, nobody’s in charge, nobody’s in charge of saying, ‘Ok, it’s time to take out ads and get people on talk shows to say the truth,’ which is to say that the work we’re doing is not biased. So what we have is what Jon Stewart called “bringing a tote bag to a knife fight.’”

Glass’s words were in reference to efforts from the GOP to defund NPR and its member stations, a long-time goal of Republicans that reached a fever pitch after the organization’s firing of Juan Williams, followed by James O’Keefe‘s release of a highly edited video of a top NPR executive spouting his dislike of the Tea Party to a hidden recorder.

Glass told the Lisner audience that he decided he would be willing to put his claims to the test. “I said yes, let’s measure, because I’m 100 percent sure that if we measure it, we have nothing to fear,” he said. “And then came about two weeks of harrowing emails with conservatives. I got flooded with emails from people who say, ‘Well of course it’s biased,’ and I started to drag those people into the studios to talk to them for On The Media. And then finally in the last week of this project, Brooke [Gladstone] got statistics. She went out and found every study that has been done about bias in public radio, and it turns out in every measurable way there is no bias.”

The host cited a study from Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) that found if you simply count the guests on public radio shows, they break down into 60 percent Republicans and 40 percent Democrats. “That’s regardless of whether if Republicans or Democrats are in the White House or Congress,” he elaborated. Glass also referenced a study from Pew that monitored 50 major news outlets to see how each covered Obama’s first 100 days in office. “It found that 28 percent of the stories on NPR were positive about Obama versus 37 percent in the media generally; 52 percent of NPR’s stories were neutral or mixed versus 40 percent in the media overall; 21 percent of the stories were negative about Obama versus 23 percent in general. So bias at NPR would lean more toward neutrality.”

Of course O’Reilly and his followers would argue that you can’t quantify the bias in news, that it can only be measured in the nuance of how a reporter asks a question or asserts a fact. Many of the conservatives Glass interviewed echoed this sentiment. “We had people keep diaries for a week where they list every instance when you wince when you think there’s bias,” he said. “One of them that was really fascinating was when Michele Norris was interviewing a CEO, and he said that a company that builds factories in the United States shouldn’t have to pay taxes in exchange for that. And Michele Norris responded, ‘Can we afford that?’ and to the conservative listeners, many of them said, ‘There’s the bias right there.’ It shows that she’s pro-tax. But Brooke and I as reporters said no, if she had a liberal organization on who said we need to spend more on something, [Norris] would ask the same question. And if you think of that same CEO, if he were on Fox News right now with all the yelling about the deficit in all the daily news, it’s hard to believe even a Fox News anchor wouldn’t ask this. What it taught me is that it reallly is in the ear of the beholder, and we’re not going to agree with our listeners on some of these moments.”

There are limits to how far Glass will go to defend NPR, however. Asked by an audience member what This American Life would do to fight for continued public radio government funding, Glass shrugged his shoulders.

“I don’t know,” he said, eliciting laughter. “We’re kind of busy.”

Simon Owens runs an excellent media blog called Bloggasm. Please follow him on Twitter.

Blogasm, Brooke Gladstone, Ira Glass, James O'Keefe, NPR, NPR Bias, On The Media, This American Life

Nationman

YO NPR IS SO BIASED! HOW DARE THEY HAVE MODERATE, WELL MADE REPORTING!
Republitarian

“followed by James O’Keefe’s release of a highly edited video ”

Absolute rubbish Mr. Owens. O’Keefe released THE FULL INTERVIEW, and made it available for viewing on the web. That story was no more edited than ANY traditional media hidden-camera or sit-down interview piece.

60-Minutes will interview people for hours, and when they finally broadcast the interview, they’ll use a sentence or two. Do you describe those 60-Minutes pieces as “highly edited”?

You’re own bias is showing Mr. Owens.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Simon-Owens/48505698 Simon Owens

@Republitarian — not absolute rubbish. O’Keefe knows that the overwhelming majority of people aren’t going to watch the video, and how he edits it will shape the narrative. Of course 60 minutes edits down interviews. Hell, this article is a edited down version of what Ira Glass said. The key is accurately distilling what the interview subject said — as The Blaze aptly demonstrated in the link I provided, O’Keefe, as is usual, didn’t do a fair job of conveying what was said and edited it to maximize the blow to NPR. That’s what I mean by “highly edited.”

PBS indicated that O’Keefe performed a similar sting on them, yet we haven’t seen this video released. Does this mean that nobody at PBS said anything outrageous enough for O’Keefe to damage them with? This would show that O’Keefe is only willing to release videos when it helps his conservative cause and scraps everything else. Or maybe he does have the PBS video and he’s just sitting on it. I don’t know. He doesn’t respond to interview requests from anyone except Fox News, so it’s very difficult for other journalists to check his work. He pretends he’s for transparency but is actually one of the hardest people to get hold of.
Nacho

I remember listening to that episode of On The Media and it was inspiring hearing somebody from NPR actually speaking out about what BS was being spewed by the right wing hate machine that is commited to keep America stupid. At the time I thought, good, they’re going to show that the allegations just aren’t true.

I hadn’t heard the results on the radio, but reading this column, I’m brought back to our sad reality and know it will have no impact. The people that have been convinced by the conservative talking heads from AM radio and outlets like FoxNews wont believe what they don’t want to believe despite any real evidence.

As Glass pointed out, the people that listen to NPR know what NPR offers and it is not bias. So this was either an attempt to change the minds of the misinformed or to show evidence directly to the Democrats in Congress to stand strong in support of NPR and help save it for the American people for the benefit of our glorious country.
Girth

Nacho said:
I remember listening to that episode of On The Media and it was inspiring hearing somebody from NPR actually speaking out about what BS was being spewed by the right wing hate machine that is commited to keep America stupid. At the time I thought, good, they’re going to show that the allegations just aren’t true.
I hadn’t heard the results on the radio, but reading this column, I’m brought back to our sad reality and know it will have no impact. The people that have been convinced by the conservative talking heads from AM radio and outlets like FoxNews wont believe what they don’t want to believe despite any real evidence.
As Glass pointed out, the people that listen to NPR know what NPR offers and it is not bias. So this was either an attempt to change the minds of the misinformed or to show evidence directly to the Democrats in Congress to stand strong in support of NPR and help save it for the American people for the benefit of our glorious country.

I’m seriously trying to help you out. Clearly you have some learning disability so I’m suggesting you keep things simple. That is to say, don’t post at all and save yourself from extreme embarrassment. Resist the urge – it’s for your own good. LMAO !!!!!
Jaurez

If npr WASN’T biased you libs wouldn’t listen to it. Give it up, please.
Arch

> Of course O’Reilly and his followers would argue that you can’t quantify the bias in news, that it can only be measured in the nuance of how a reporter asks a question or asserts a fact.

Well, they know their business. Or should I say look how well they know their business?
ModerateMan

Where is the Mediaite disclaimer (“This guy is crazy and does not reflect our views”) that you always put when a conservative’s article is posted?
Resistance Is Futile

No reasonable person who has listened extensively to NPR, especially their news programs Morning Edition or All Things Considered would argue that NPR is biased. These shows present at least two sides of every controversial issue with proponents of the varying views in interviewed.

People who watch Fox News, which is no less a propaganda vehicle than the old Soviet Pravda, probably think that any news that does not contain the right wing pulp they are used to ingesting is biased. Anyone who is gullible enough to use Fox is their primary source of news and information is both intellectually and experientially handicapped and as a result incapable of making any determination of what is biased and what is not.
GreyWolf

NPR isn’t too much different from CNN & FOX. The only difference is one is paid by our tax dollars & the others are not. The only way to get the real news is to read lots of other websites (like this one) to sift through & find the truth.

Good article!
Dem4Ever

NPR LIES!
http://www.facebook.com/people/Dronetek-Bulk-Vanderhuge/100000918732763 Dronetek

““followed by James O’Keefe’s release of a highly edited video ””

The edits had ZERO bearing on the words spoken by the NPR executive. For example, when he called them “scary, gun toting racists”, it had nothing to do with editing.
Bill Huggins

LOL at the crazies who didn’t read the article and won’t face FACTS.

Prove the bias you lemmings.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Dronetek-Bulk-Vanderhuge/100000918732763 Dronetek

Bill Huggins said:
LOL at the crazies who didn’t read the article and won’t face FACTS.

Prove the bias you lemmings.

Here is about 50 pages showing examples of bias at NPR:

http://newsbusters.org/media-places/radio/npr

I just love how left wingers declare any point of view outside of theirs “bias”, but the second it gets turned back on them they deny it with everything they have. Its gotten so old. Liberals want liberal opinion ONLY.
OxyCon

If NPR and PBS are so invaluable, then let them compete for their existence and rely on their audiences or George Soros. Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to finance a left wing POV.
wf82

I agree with Republitarian’s argument. Calling a video “highly edited” conjures up images of Breitbart’s Shirley Sherrod video. That video was edited such that it was completely misleading. Yes, the NPR video was edited for length and content, but upon viewing the full and complete sting video, nothing in the shortened portion is rendered untrue.
mibwilso

What about FAIR’s stat that 60% of guests on NPR are conservative?? You never heard conservatives mention that for some reason….
Alz

Resistance Is Futile said:
No reasonable person who has listened extensively to NPR, especially their news programs Morning Edition or All Things Considered would argue that NPR is biased. These shows present at least two sides of every controversial issue with proponents of the varying views in interviewed.

People who watch Fox News, which is no less a propaganda vehicle than the old Soviet Pravda, probably think that any news that does not contain the right wing pulp they are used to ingesting is biased. Anyone who is gullible enough to use Fox is their primary source of news and information is both intellectually and experientially handicapped and as a result incapable of making any determination of what is biased and what is not.

There is a TON of bias at NPR. You can hear it in many of the stories – not all of them, but many of them. It’s sets the tone so it becomes harder to figure out what is really happening.

What people have to realize is that the differences between the two sides not mere politics, but a vast chasm due to differing belief systems.

One side wants to make things better (Conservatives) and the other side wants to make things “equal” (liberals).

So, yes, there is a bias on Fox, but it’s towards making things better.
BatBoy

Your mission Mr. Glass, should you choose to accept it …. Is to come up with some BS story on why NPR should still be a freeloader, when there is no financial need.

This message will self-destruct in your memory in five seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtyByefOvgQ
dlauf87

Bias isn’t the issue. The government shouldn’t be funding a radio station, especially one that can survive without it.
mibwilso

dlauf87 said:
Bias isn’t the issue. The government shouldn’t be funding a radio station, especially one that can survive without it.

I agree with you in theory…but not in reality.

NPR is actually a network of thousands of local stations.

The funding from the federal government goes to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which in turn gives grants to the local stations. There are some markets where NPR would do well independently, but there are other markets (such as small rural areas) where it might not.

The reason for having public radio is this: it’s news that’s not funded by advertising (and thus ratings). This has a definite impact on the content that it provides. Stations that are non-profit in nature can offer content that may go against the grain of what a large corporate parent company might enforce on a for-profit station.

For example MSNBC is owned by GE/Comcast. Fox is owned by NewsCorp. In both cases, the parent companies have policies that will prevent the networks they own from airing content that could reflect negatively on their bottom line.

Public radio/tv does not have those limitations. One could argue that it allows the stations to more directly serve the interests of its community. Yes, the government provides some grants, but it is a minority percentage of the funding….so it’s not “state controlled” radio either.
mibwilso

Here’s how NPR funding breaks down:

-According to the 2009 financial statement, about 50% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations for programming and distribution charges.

- In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from federal, state and local government funding, 10% of their revenue from CPB grants, and 14% of their revenue from universities.

-While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR’s overall revenues.[14]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR
hanoisteve

Jaurez said:
If npr WASN’T biased you libs wouldn’t listen to it. Give it up, please.

Because you can hear the news without all the fucking commercials.
hanoisteve

The NPR exec. was a sales man, his job is the schmooze people and collect donations, and as we know salesmen will say anything to close a 5 million dollar deal. you teabaggers act like he was on the news editorial board or a news producer. He was a sales man and O’Keefe is a know liar, another fox non-story, but too bad the people at NPR are pussies and don’t stand up for themselves. Ira is right, have any of you baggers ever listen to “This American Life” it is great radio. Compare it to an an hour of Rush Limp-balls, on Rush you get 32 min of right wing propaganda and lies and and 28 min. of commercials.
Raygun

LOVE Ira Glass. All things considered is the best show on radio.
Anonymous

Ira, ira, ira..,

You gotta take off the gloves. Phone calls are OK, but you gotta go undercover. Bus stops, coffee shops, wherever the cool congragate.., there ira might be.., seemingly idle conversation.., and then PPOW you whip out your Identification Card. “I’m Ira, I’m from NPR. You have the right to remain silent.., You just admitted to me that you listen to NPR and you don’t subscribe, is that right?”

The word spreads, fear ripples throughout the non-subscriber underground, because that friendly looking guy standing next to you on the crowded subway.., MIGHT BE IRA!!!

Allan