I hope conservatives realize that this guy is lying to YOU. Liberals aren’t interested in him… he makes up fake scenarios to trick conservatives… then he gets caught and conservatives look stupid for supporting him…

Way to go Glen!

Glenn’s trying to obtain some credibility, after his Capliphate debacle.

I refuse to believe anything from The Blaze! :)

Everyone knows, am I right Mediaite lib commenters, that Beck and by extension The Blaze is a lying psychotic right wing rodeo clown.

Snowspot said:
I hope conservatives realize that this guy is lying to YOU. Liberals aren’t interested in him… he makes up fake scenarios to trick conservatives… then he gets caught and conservatives look stupid for supporting him…

So when Dan Rather did his “Memogate” story he was lying to… YOU? Nice try but I know what O’Keefe is. A Gonzo Journo who soul purpose is to get the money shot on file…. kinda like 20/20 used to do. Don’t like it now that the same thing is being done to people you support?

tatboy said:
So when Dan Rather did his “Memogate” story he was lying to… YOU? Nice try but I know what O’Keefe is. A Gonzo Journo who soul purpose is to get the money shot on file…. kinda like 20/20 used to do. Don’t like it now that the same thing is being done to people you support?

Hunter Thompson would point his cannon at YOU, tatboy. He don’t have no gonzo, he ain’t no journalist.
O’Keefe is a little wise-@ss who likes playing Ashton Kutscher to make his points.
The truth is of no concern to him. You’re right, his “soul”(sole) purpose is to get a money shot. Unlike 20/20, he isn’t hindered by ethics. He hasn’t any.

i think i might have said one or two justifiably bad thing about beck in the past but i will give props to the blaze, and by extension, glen beck. yesterday i was somewhat castigated by saying just what is now being found out about this tape. this okeefe clown is a liar and has been proven to be such over and over again. the really pitiful thing is, is that people still report on him as if he had won the pulitzer prize and when the truth comes out about the deception, outlet(s) like fox spend 1/100th amount of time covering it.
since i doubt i will repeat this…ever, good job beck.

tatboy said:
So when Dan Rather did his “Memogate” story he was lying to… YOU? Nice try but I know what O’Keefe is. A Gonzo Journo who soul purpose is to get the money shot on file…. kinda like 20/20 used to do. Don’t like it now that the same thing is being done to people you support?

Hunter S. Thompson would bury James O’Keefe

As I’ve learned from My Bloyer, Glenn is on vacation.

Hopefully this reporter still has a job when Beck returns.

Grammie said:
I refuse to believe anything from The Blaze! :)

Everyone knows, am I right Mediaite lib commenters, that Beck and by extension The Blaze is a lying psychotic right wing rodeo clown.

Well, yes, and odious in the extreme. However, even a busted clock is right twice a day.

Joseph Glackin said:
Hunter Thompson would point his cannon at YOU, tatboy. He don’t have no gonzo, he ain’t no journalist.O’Keefe is a little wise-@ss who likes playing Ashton Kutscher to make his points.The truth is of no concern to him. You’re right, his “soul”(sole) purpose is to get a money shot. Unlike 20/20, he isn’t hindered by ethics. He hasn’t any.

Wow… that comment is all over the place.

1) I’ve never met Mr. Thompson but I think our mutual love of guns and the obserd might help us get along.
2) Thank for acknowledging teh 20/20′s liberal reporters were only interested in the same thing as O’Keefe… getting the money shot of your target on camera. We’ll just have to disagree the they had “ethics” different than O’Keefe.
3) Nice dodge on the whole Dan Rather “Memogate” thing. If I were you I would just whistle passed that one to.

tatboy said:
So when Dan Rather did his “Memogate” story he was lying to… YOU? Nice try but I know what O’Keefe is. A Gonzo Journo who soul purpose is to get the money shot on file…. kinda like 20/20 used to do. Don’t like it now that the same thing is being done to people you support?

Rather was foolish and unprofessional in developing the “Memogate” story — and it ended his career.

Given O’Keefe’s parade of deliberate falsehoods and sleazy tactics just this side of date-rape, when can we look forward to his career ending?

I guess the difference is that Rather had farther to fall — from near the top of journalism’s heap. O’Keefe’s already in the gutter and there’s really not much down left for him.

tatboy said:
Wow… that comment is all over the place.

1) I’ve never met Mr. Thompson but I think our mutual love of guns and the obserd might help us get along.

This is the kettle,calling the pot. “All over the place” is a great description of your screed. Couldn’t agree more.
Hope you run into Hunter soon. The cannon I mentioned is the one his ashes were fired out of.

mediadoubt said:
Rather was foolish and unprofessional in developing the “Memogate” story — and it ended his career. Given O’Keefe’s parade of deliberate falsehoods and sleazy tactics just this side of date-rape, when can we look forward to his career ending? I guess the difference is that Rather had farther to fall — from near the top of journalism’s heap. O’Keefe’s already in the gutter and there’s really not much down left for him.

1) You do know that Rather is still working as a journo… right?
2) Date Rape… really??? As a person who had a family member raped I find the analogy slightly offensive.

Joseph Glackin said:
This is the kettle,calling the pot. “All over the place” is a great description of your screed. Couldn’t agree more.Hope you run into Hunter soon. The cannon I mentioned is the one his ashes were fired out of.

I seem to have gotten under your skin. I’m sorry… Still gonna whistle passed the whole “memogate” thing hugh?

ChiliPeppersFan said:
i think i might have said one or two justifiably bad thing about beck in the past but i will give props to the blaze, and by extension, glen beck. yesterday i was somewhat castigated by saying just what is now being found out about this tape. this okeefe clown is a liar and has been proven to be such over and over again. the really pitiful thing is, is that people still report on him as if he had won the pulitzer prize and when the truth comes out about the deception, outlet(s) like fox spend 1/100th amount of time covering it.since i doubt i will repeat this…ever, good job beck.

I knew when these tapes were released they were edited to make them look as bad as possible. That’s what this guy does. Thats what liberal “investigative journ-o-lists” Still does not change my opinion of the targets. They are bigoted a$$holes who hate people like me… screw’em.

Tatboy ~ you don’t have to be a TeaTard. You can change. You’re just pissy because, essentially, NPR executives called it like they see it:

–Gun-toting, cracker christianists with huge xenophobia bend.

<

avoidswork said:
Tatboy ~ you don’t have to be a TeaTard. You can change. You’re just pissy because, essentially, NPR executives called it like they see it: –Gun-toting, cracker christianists with huge xenophobia bend.

And KKK members just “Call it like they see it”… a bigot is a bigot. Liberal or conservative. And I would not consider myself a member of the Tea Party or a “teaba@@er” or a “tea tard” as lovely as that it. But I am a mid-west, fly-over state, gun owner, athiest with conservative leanings and proud of it. And I don’t care for the liberal version of the White Power movement looking down on people like me with all their condisention and bigotry.

This could be Glen’s new site trying to discredit the rival Daily Caller, since they are both shooting for the same Conservative demo?

Is this case? I am sure. But people are saying it.

well well well, congrats to glen beck…..an ounce of truth has emanated from his ton of lies website…..i dont blame fox news for pushing this lie….every other network and every blog both left and right pushed the same lie…why do any of them give james o’keefe any play at all considering everything hes done to date has been a fraud????…i was really shocked that CNN let this past them considering what o’keefe tried to do to them…..so from me O’keefe gets a big thumbs up for his efforts to continue to deceive and success at it even with his record, And a big ass thumbs down to all the rest of the media, left and right that now can claim ZERO credibility for getting bullshitted again and passing that crap on to us

tatboy said:
< And KKK members just “Call it like they see it”… a bigot is a bigot. Liberal or conservative. And I would not consider myself a member of the Tea Party or a “teaba@@er” or a “tea tard” as lovely as that it. But I am a mid-west, fly-over state, gun owner, athiest with conservative leanings and proud of it. And I don’t care for the liberal version of the White Power movement looking down on people like me with all their condisention and bigotry.

You seem seriously confused and unreconciled.

I get the midwest/gun crap. Don’t support guns at all, but it’s an amendment right. I even get being conservative.

What I don’t get is thinking the conservatives/GOP/Tea Party is good for your values unless your values are guns. Because they want a whole lot of Jeebus-freak derived laws to govern us (especially if you have a uterus). They certainly aren’t conservative by any stretch of the imagination. And they’d condemn you in a heartbeat for being a non-Christian/atheist.

Man, are you betting on the wrong horse in this race.

now i know why i suddenly started seeing articles today with republicans praising NPRs balance, even some tea party groups were defending NPR today…..then i come over here and see this…….this proves one thing to me….NOBODY I MEAN NOBODY republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, left or right likes to be bullshitted to the point where they are forced to go out and make incendiary statements about a person or a topic and then have to admit that they’ve been had……kinda embarrassing to have to do that…….WAY TO GO GLEN

tatboy said:
<

And KKK members just “Call it like they see it”… a bigot is a bigot. Liberal or conservative. And I would not consider myself a member of the Tea Party or a “teaba@@er” or a “tea tard” as lovely as that it. But I am a mid-west, fly-over state, gun owner, athiest with conservative leanings and proud of it. And I don’t care for the liberal version of the White Power movement looking down on people like me with all their condisention and bigotry.

uhhhhhhhh remind me to run if im on the street as you…..i wouldnt wanna find myself getting drug behind ya pick em up truck……you seem seriously racist to me…..its friday night….dont you have a crossburnin you need to be at???????

tatboy said:
I seem to have gotten under your skin. I’m sorry… Still gonna whistle passed the whole “memogate” thing hugh?

I’m not going to apologize for Rather. He’s a big boy who didn’t check his sources. He lost his job and a big chunk of good reputation. O’Keefe is a punk. He deliberately entraps people and edits together a shock tape. The uber right have anointed him for his pranks. That says more about them than him.
You’re not under my skin. It’s more like you’re on my shoe. I know it’s you by the smell. It’s either you or Elsie.

tatboy said:
1) You do know that Rather is still working as a journo… right?
2) Date Rape… really??? As a person who had a family member raped I find the analogy slightly offensive.

1) Rather is doing low-profile this and that. His career is effectively over. I’d be perfectly happy to see O’Keefe considered equally irrelevant.

2) If a family member of yours has been raped, I’d think you’d be outraged over O’Keefe’s treatment of CNN’s Abbie Boudreau. Where’s your outrage, please?

Oh, and by the way, all civilized people are appalled by stories of the sexual abuse of women. You have no monopoly on the feeling.

Wait! There is reason to hope that NPR is innocent! They can immediately reinstate those who have been fired and resigned, federal funds can continue! It’s all just a big misunderstanding! NPR people would never say anything like those things, we all know that.

Yeah, and Governor walker totally caved too.

WHarropson said:
Wait! There is reason to hope that NPR is innocent! They can immediately reinstate those who have been fired and resigned, federal funds can continue! It’s all just a big misunderstanding! NPR people would never say anything like those things, we all know that.

Yeah, and Governor walker totally caved too.

Yes, because when you’re wrong should act the same way as when you’re right.

You know one of the funny things about all this is that liberals at NPR are going to become not less politically correct, but more politically correct, in that they will be mincing words ever so much more tightly. Talk about stifling speech! They should just liberate themselves and absolutely refuse public funding so they can live the american dream and express their true beliefs to their hearts content. The free market will take care of them won’t it? Let’s find out.

== http://www.nbcchicago.com/==

The new update, a large hot ..
WE ACCEPT P http://www.buyshopping.usOT MISS IT!!!

–http://www.nbcchicago.com/ –

WHarropson said:
You know one of the funny things about all this is that liberals at NPR are going to become not less politically correct, but more politically correct, in that they will be mincing words ever so much more tightly. Talk about stifling speech! They should just liberate themselves and absolutely refuse public funding so they can live the american dream and express their true beliefs to their hearts content. The free market will take care of them won’t it? Let’s find out.

.
Thru hundreds and hundreds of comments here for days it has become apparent that those on the left can’t conceive of their ideas being funded by coerced tax payer funds is something that might not be an immutable truth from on high.

I don’t care what they say or don’t say. Just don’t reach in my pocket to finance it for you.

What is it about that idea to the left that is like kryptonite to Superman?

I am just excited for the reveal of the new bogeyman sometime in the next couple of weeks.

ProObamaAgenda said:
uhhhhhhhh remind me to run if im on the street as you…..i wouldnt wanna find myself getting drug behind ya pick em up truck……you seem seriously racist to me…..its friday night….dont you have a crossburnin you need to be at???????

Ok…. aviodswork… see what I mean. This scumbag, bigot, POS is NOTHING I want anything to do with. This is what PBS appeals to. I have no interest in there protection. I’m glad O’Keefe stripped them naked for the world to see them as they really are. No matter how he did it. It’s OK when ALF, ELF, PETA, Rainbow Push, Earth First, SHAC does this crap… but not O’Keefe? Remember when Earth First used to spike trees in the 80′s… that was a hoot. Compared to the tactics of the left, O’Keefe is an amateur.

avoidswork said:
You seem seriously confused and unreconciled.

I get the midwest/gun crap. Don’t support guns at all, but it’s an amendment right. I even get being conservative.

What I don’t get is thinking the conservatives/GOP/Tea Party is good for your values unless your values are guns. Because they want a whole lot of Jeebus-freak derived laws to govern us (especially if you have a uterus). They certainly aren’t conservative by any stretch of the imagination. And they’d condemn you in a heartbeat for being a non-Christian/atheist.

Man, are you betting on the wrong horse in this race.

I assure you I am neither. I’m hard to pigeonhole. I’m a Libertarian Objectiveist. I am for smaller govt., lower taxes, freedom of choice (not just abortion), I am for freedom OF religion not FROM it. Just because I’m not religious does not mean I get to impose my values on other people. Why so many atheist are offended when they see ANY religious symbol is beyond me. Are they really that weak that they feel threatened by a cross or a star? The rest of my family is devout… do I want them to be second class citizens… no. I have MANY values left and right that are nuanced… not easy to put me in a box. But I am most of all smaller govt… and that leans me conservative. Which is the largest agenda the Tea Party is pushing… not religion.

P.S. Nice avatar BTW… :)

tatboy said:
<

And KKK members just “Call it like they see it”… a bigot is a bigot. Liberal or conservative. And I would not consider myself a member of the Tea Party or a “teaba@@er” or a “tea tard” as lovely as that it. But I am a mid-west, fly-over state, gun owner, athiest with conservative leanings and proud of it. And I don’t care for the liberal version of the White Power movement looking down on people like me with all their condisention and bigotry.

Tatboy, you got issues.
How did someone with such a thin skin get to be “tatboy”?
You live in he Midwest? Fine! You own guns? That’s your right. You say you are an atheist? Lots of us are non-believers or doubters. Your conservative? I think I am in many aspects.
I haven’t the foggiest idea what you mean by the “liberal version of the White Power movement”.
I refuse to look down on anyone, or let anyone look down on me. We are all equal under the law.
Condescension and bigotry are wrong no matter the source.
When clowns like VoR throw the “Jew” card at Jon Stewart, I get mad.
When Obama is contorted into Obawmau, I get mad.
When O’Keefe tried to compromise Ms. Boudreau with a sexual set-up, I get mad.
None of those responses make me left or right, Progressive or Reactionary.
They just make me a human being who is trying to live by the Golden Rule.
You remember, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
It’s not a solution, but it’s a start.

Joseph Glackin said:
Tatboy, you got issues.
How did someone with such a thin skin get to be “tatboy”?
You live in he Midwest? Fine! You own guns? That’s your right. You say you are an atheist? Lots of us are non-believers or doubters. Your conservative? I think I am in many aspects.
I haven’t the foggiest idea what you mean by the “liberal version of the White Power movement”.
I refuse to look down on anyone, or let anyone look down on me. We are all equal under the law.
Condescension and bigotry are wrong no matter the source.
When clowns like VoR throw the “Jew” card at Jon Stewart, I get mad.
When Obama is contorted into Obawmau, I get mad.
When O’Keefe tried to compromise Ms. Boudreau with a sexual set-up, I get mad.
None of those responses make me left or right, Progressive or Reactionary.
They just make me a human being who is trying to live by the Golden Rule.
You remember, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
It’s not a solution, but it’s a start.

1) Thin skinned??? Do you call black Americans that complain about bigotry “thin skinned”?
2) I’m not sure what “issues” you are referring to. Is it just because I don’t fit into your stereotype of a mid-west conservative?
3)If you can’t understand what I mean when I refer to these bigoted liberals with there hate and anger as the “liberal version of the White Power movement” I can’t help you then. To see a man refer to people in such broad terms in such a hateful way just makes me sick. Especially since I’M the one he is spewing his hate about. He’s never met me but he KNOWS I’m a bigot. I hope he never finds another job.
4) I also believe in the golden rule…. with more people on the right and left followed it. Most don’t.
5) Who is VoR?
6) When people accuse G.W. Bush of orchestrating 9/11 I get just as mad.
7) When O’Keefe tried to compromise Ms. Boudreau with a sexual set-up I thought it was beyond dumb. But when a poster compares a plan to embaris a reporter to the rape of my family member. I get mad.

Thank you for the back and forth. These are the conversation s I come here for. :)

This is absolutely outrageous. Teabloggers are real scumbags for supporting this O’Keefe bastard.

NEVER should someones quote be edited like he did to the “A very highly placed Republican” quote.
Schiller stepped down for less of an offense than O’Keefe committed. Do you think O’Keefe will step down? Hardly.
Not as long as the Tealiban continue to support this lying son-of-a-bitch.

BFD said:
Do you think O’Keefe will step down?

.
Step down from what subsidized by what government agency?

I believe he is an independent.

Grammie said:
.
Step down from what subsidized by what government agency?

I believe he is an independent.

For starters he could step down from the human race for being such a lying cocks*#ker.
Then he could step down from ever doing a hidden camera interview again.
Then he could take a step down from his high horse and apologize.
Then you teabloogers could step down from supporting this pos instead of trying to defend him by bring up Dan Rather.

That’s for starters.

I guess I’m trying to figure out how Schiller is any less of a bigot because he brought up another bigot to back up his bigotry.

Jim Treacher said:
I guess I’m trying to figure out how Schiller is any less of a bigot because he brought up another bigot to back up his bigotry.

He’s not. That doesn’t excuse what O”Douche did.

it is funny that the right doesn’t have a problem with O’Keefe but when that “evil” liberal blogger posed as a Coke brother there was outrage!

and the left is all upset with O’Keefe but cheered the guy who punked Gov. Walker

both sides are so hypocritical

bigbrainbrad said:
both sides are so hypocritical

I wasn’t pissed at O’Keefe for punking NPR until I found out he edited his tapes out of context to make fools of everyone again. I never said one word against those tapes until I saw them tonight in their entirety.

As far as I know the Walker tapes were not edited mid-sentences like that.

To recap…

1 – Punking is fair play.
2 – It in no way makes you a journalist.
3 – Don’t edit the goddamn tapes mid-sentence.

BFD said:
He’s not. That doesn’t excuse what O”Douche did.

Your sparkling witticism aside, what exactly would that be? Think real hard.

BFD said:
I never said one word against those tapes until I saw them tonight in their entirety.

And how is it that you saw them in their entirety? Because O’Keefe posted them right along with the shortened version. Why would he do that, if he was trying to change Schiller’s meaning by taking him out of context?

Jim Treacher said:
And how is it that you saw them in their entirety? Because O’Keefe posted them right along with the shortened version. Why would he do that, if he was trying to change Schiller’s meaning by taking him out of context?

Because O’Keefe knows:

a) the media will repost only the 10-second clip they consider “newsworthy”
b) his simpleminded fans don’t care anyway
c) if you can simulate journalistic integrity you’re halfway home

Jim Treacher said:
Your sparkling witticism aside, what exactly would that be? Think real hard.

I already made clear that there is no excuse to release an edited version, for any reason-especially circulation, that takes out of context the fact that someone is relating a story he heard. That is exactly what they did to Shirley Sherrod.
Sadly, I’m not surprised our resident teabloggers are ok-fine with it.

mediadoubt said:
Because O’Keefe knows:

a) the media will repost only the 10-second clip they consider “newsworthy”
b) his simpleminded fans don’t care anyway
c) if you can simulate journalistic integrity you’re halfway home

You forgot the Koch Brothers. They must fit in there somewhere.

I understand, you got beat and you’re bitter about it. You really want to get back at the guy. I can sympathize.

BFD said:
I already made clear that there is no excuse to release an edited version, for any reason-especially circulation, that takes out of context the fact that someone is relating a story he heard. That is exactly what they did to Shirley Sherrod.
Sadly, I’m not surprised our resident teabloggers are ok-fine with it.

He’s relating a story he heard because he thinks quoting a REPUBLICAN who thinks teabaggers are racists lends the idea extra credibility. He clearly agrees with the idea, and expands on it. Other than that, excellent point.

It’s hilarious how quickly you guys have flipped from “What’s the problem? He’s right!” to “He was only quoting some OTHER guy!” Keep throwing stuff at the wall, maybe something will stick.

Jim Treacher said:
It’s hilarious how quickly you guys have flipped from “What’s the problem? He’s right!” to “He was only quoting some OTHER guy!” Keep throwing stuff at the wall, maybe something will stick.

BFD said:
Sadly, I’m not surprised our resident teabloggers are ok-fine with it.

Yep, those are quotes alright…

Anyone that watches Beck know he is all about the truth. His opponents are all about lies.

tatboy said:
I knew when these tapes were released they were edited to make them look as bad as possible. That’s what this guy does. Thats what liberal “investigative journ-o-lists” Still does not change my opinion of the targets. They are bigoted a$$holes who hate people like me… screw’em.

You got that right. The only problem is O’Keefe doesn’t have to do it. Libs are scum and will say these things without being prompted. Just look at the lying libs here on this site. They say these things all the time. Of course they are hiding behind phony name so they can’t be outed the the NPR crowd. Some of the libs here may even work for NPR. We know some work for the unions and the Democrat party.

catfishjuggling said:
I am just excited for the reveal of the new bogeyman sometime in the next couple of weeks.

He could be revealing YOU. Oh, maybe not since you hide behind a phony name to express your ignorance and hate.

== http://www.nbcchicago.com/==

The new update, a large hot ..
WE ACCEPT P http://www.buyshopping.usOT MISS IT!!!

–http://www.nbcchicago.com/ –

i think there is a lot more to this scam then even the totally unbiased site the blaze has uncovered. here is the scenario…
fake muslim tells ron schiller if he heard how the tea party is being portrayed in the media and ron replies “yes, i’ve heard and i think it is horrible.”
fake muslim asks ron if he can describe the negative stereotypes he has heard.
ron schiller replies that he doesn’t like to repeat things he doesn’t believe are true, but prodded by the fake muslim he says “ok, people are saying they are xenophobic, racist, and they tend to tote guns.”

gordonbloyershow said:
He could be revealing YOU. Oh, maybe not since you hide behind a phony name to express your ignorance and hate.

Yes, Gordon. Most of us do not have the guts to express ignorance and hate while using their real name like you.

WHarropson said:
You know one of the funny things about all this is that liberals at NPR are going to become not less politically correct, but more politically correct, in that they will be mincing words ever so much more tightly. Talk about stifling speech! They should just liberate themselves and absolutely refuse public funding so they can live the american dream and express their true beliefs to their hearts content. The free market will take care of them won’t it? Let’s find out.

I keep hearing this free market line in regard to news and the role of journalism. How I wish the free market did work that way, but let’s look at What is watched , what’s popular, and see what consumers value. Thank God there are enough viewers to support the Discovery channel and the history channel. Sadly, they are not that popular, and I suppose we have to take the blame as consumers and as parents.
Free Market says if people want crap for their bodies and minds then by golly that’s what they ought to have. It’s easy to see MSNBCs choice of a liberal counter voice to Fox with their line up of talking heads, but NPR does a far better job of actually getting relevant voices and information to the public on issues. They consistently have two sides to an issue because that’s their journalistic standard. It’s okay by me if they operate on donations rather than commercials, as long as they maintain a standard of bringing relevant researched information to the public.
The next step is to get the public to actually care about hearing relevant researched information instead of wallowing in networks that capitalize in selling conformation bias.

Grammie said:
.
Thru hundreds and hundreds of comments here for days it has become apparent that those on the left can’t conceive of their ideas being funded by coerced tax payer funds is something that might not be an immutable truth from on high.

I don’t care what they say or don’t say. Just don’t reach in my pocket to finance it for you.

What is it about that idea to the left that is like kryptonite to Superman?

Somebody asked in another thread for an example of NPRs bias. The only thing offered was some cartoon in the opinion section. I listen to NPR and IMO they offer much more valuable relevant researched information than any of the 24/7 news channels. I constantly hear conservative voices on their offering reasonable arguments and relevant facts and counterpoints. Still, i keep hearing that they are just liberal hacks delivering a biased message. I’d love to see some concrete examples of that.
It’s okay by me if they don’t receive federal funds, but we are in desperate need of real journalists who do research and find educated informed voices to discuss issues. That seems to be a vanishing commodity while consumers are drawn more to networks that offer them confirmation for their biases.
If we’re really going to solve this country’s problems then more people need to spend time being involved and educating themselves, which means we need reliable sources.

ChiliPeppersFan said:
i think there is a lot more to this scam then even the totally unbiased site the blaze has uncovered. here is the scenario…
fake muslim tells ron schiller if he heard how the tea party is being portrayed in the media and ron replies “yes, i’ve heard and i think it is horrible.”
fake muslim asks ron if he can describe the negative stereotypes he has heard.
ron schiller replies that he doesn’t like to repeat things he doesn’t believe are true, but prodded by the fake muslim he says “ok, people are saying they are xenophobic, racist, and they tend to tote guns.”

So that’s what the unedited tape revealed? Quite different than the clips being played over and over.

I wonder now, after all the the edited clips that have been exposed as bullshit, why people on either side jump up with their “gothcha” the minute a tape like this comes out. We ought to know at this point that editing this stuff is to easy and any clip is suspect.
I have to agree with Jon S when he talked called NPR pussies for letting two people go over this. I know perception matters but dam, couldn’t you at least look for the facts before you jumped?

CosmosDan said:
I’d love to see some concrete examples of that.

Here’s one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPmczKV66IY

“While the content of the article is certainly interesting enough, the fact that The Blaze wrote it up is even more interesting. Who would have guessed when Glenn Beck announced that he was starting a news site, that that site would be the only ones to spend this much time in the defense of an NPR executive? ”

Can we say, that rather than defend an individual, the folks involved were defending things like, the truth, honest journalism, and a sense of fairness and even handedness in journalism.

We need to try and find a way to get beyond our bias and have a concern for the facts, and a sense of fairness in how we judge events and people. We can’t avoid being bias completely, but we can at least be aware of it in others and in ourselves. Why excuse the lies of a Republican and then call a Democrat a scumbag for lying , or vice versa? All that reveals is that our bias prevents us from having a balanced standard of judgment.
Now Brietbart has been allowed to express himself on HuffPo and The Blaze does an honest journalistic analysis of OKeefe’s video. That’s a good start.

Personally I wondered why anyone would give OKeefe’s video much credibility considering his record of dishonesty and sleaziness. What’s the value in going after a group, talking to a lot of people until you eventually catch someone saying stupid shit , editing it to look as bad as possible, and then making the ridiculous claim that this is somehow representative of the group as a whole. Doesn’t it cry Bullshit, right form the start?

Calvin said:
Here’s one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPmczKV66IY

I manged to listen to all of that , and even laughed a couple of times. Didn’t hear any example though.

CosmosDan said:
I manged to listen to all of that , and even laughed a couple of times.

:)

CosmosDan said:
Didn’t hear any example though.

You don’t think that their coverage was something akin to slobbering? Their ombudsman seemed to think so. http://www.beatthepress.org/blog/ralph-ranalli/520

That lady didn’t even seem bothered by the revelation that his one of his favorite sources of humor was jokes about Chappaquiddick.

@cosmos dan
i agree, it would be great if this were a step to creating, or expanding a climate of unbiased reporting.
imo, there is an obvious right and left bias in fox and msnbc respectively but cnn and the major network news, although not having the standards set by npr, don’t have intentional bias in either direction and do a good job being objective.
the sad part of all this is that the people being interviewed can say the most ridiculous things and just say “well, that person is on fox” or that person was on any other channel not fox”.
again imo, this was very apparent with the gibson/palin interview in that he was clearly searching for that ‘gotcha’ moment but when couric innocently asked her reading preferences in the subsequent interview, palin was already on the defense and thought she was being attacked.
this might be a step in the right direction, but i will just feed the unicorns here waiting for a biased free world.

Calvin said:
:)

You don’t think that their coverage was something akin to slobbering? Their ombudsman seemed to think so. http://www.beatthepress.org/blog/ralph-ranalli/520

That lady didn’t even seem bothered by the revelation that his one of his favorite sources of humor was jokes about Chappaquiddick.

The guy had just died, so I’d give them a pass for not taking the time to criticize him. I’m talking about what is presented as a repeating pattern in their presentation of issues, of obvious liberal bias. I’ve always enjoyed the conservative voices on NPR because they often offer factual analysis rather than superficial talking points. Neither side seems to get away with many cheap political shots either. I think it’s because of the guests they select.

ChiliPeppersFan said:
this might be a step in the right direction, but i will just feed the unicorns here waiting for a biased free world.

LOL! Is that the invisible pink ones?

I never expect a bias free world and often have to remind myself to keep mine in check. I just think we have to be aware that bias can sometimes keep us from making a fair and honest assessment of the facts, or even searching for the facts, beyond the ones that confirm what we prefer to believe. We need to place a higher value on solutions, honesty, and the facts , than we do just “winning.”

I think we have to stop looking at politics like it’s our team vs their team as if it’s a sporting event we want to win. These really are issues that affect us all very much and either we all win, or we all crash, together. IMHO, that means trying to maintain a reasonably fair standard that we judge both parties by. Corruption and rampant dishonesty in both parties is hurting us all.
You can’t really defend a lying scumbag by pointing out that the other team has a lying scumbag as well. I think we have to learn that nobody, and no political philosophy has all the answers, and other philosophies have something valid to offer if we can get beyond simplistic slogans , and try to understand and listen to the other guy.

So, do the unicorn’s like lumps of sugar or apples, in case I get to feed them?

CosmosDan said:
The guy had just died, so I’d give them a pass for not taking the time to criticize him.

Of course. You know that guy was an evil SOB, right? C,mon!

Even their ombudsman had to acknowledge NPR’s infatuation with Ted Kennedy:

Not everyone loved Teddy Kennedy. He was a complex man with a family history that defies belief when all the tragedies are strung together. To accurately portray any man or woman, it is just as important to fully include what is unpleasant or unflattering — especially since those events for Kennedy went a long way toward shaping who Teddy Kennedy was when he died.

By the by, there was an FBI report that came out recently that said Kennedy rented out an entire brothel while meeting with communists.

CosmosDan said:
I’m talking about what is presented as a repeating pattern in their presentation of issues, of obvious liberal bias.

Dan, maybe you don’t see their bias because they say the things you want to hear.

Calvin said:
Even their ombudsman had to acknowledge NPR’s infatuation with Ted Kennedy:

There was no doubt that Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts had died if anyone listened to NPR in the days after his death late on Aug. 25 from brain cancer. Between Aug. 26 and 30, NPR ran 53 stories.

Before Kennedy even died, NPR had 7 in-depth stories already prepared, according to David Sweeney, NPR’s managing editor. “From shortly after he was diagnosed with brain cancer, we worked up a list of stories both for the air and online,” said Sweeney. “We also worked to produce a couple of obits that would reflect his life, in all its aspects.”

Media saturation on the Kennedy story was not unique to NPR. A report released Tuesday by the Project on Excellence in Journalism noted that Kennedy’s death was the No.1 story last week. “Indeed, his passing generated more coverage than that of any other political or celebrity since the PEJ News Coverage Index began in January 2007,” said the report.

On Wednesday, Aug. 26, Morning Edition ran 6 stories on Kennedy — covering 34 minutes. To put that in perspective, Morning Edition produces 1 hour and 14-minutes of editorial content each day after newscasts, breaks and funders are taken out.

Tell Me More devoted 19 minutes to Kennedy. Talk of the Nation devoted 48 minutes to an NPR special on remembering Kennedy. By late that afternoon, half the stories (45 minutes) on All Things Considered related to Kennedy’s passing. Total programming time across two hours of ATC, excluding newscasts, breaks, funders, is approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes.

NPR also pulled together an hour-long special that went out to stations Wednesday evening. And that’s just on-air coverage. More was written on npr.org.

But on that first day, in the 23 on-air stories, only one mentioned the name Mary Jo Kopechne and 5 mentioned Chappaquiddick

“The post hasn’t seemed to have drawn that much press yet, which is unfortunate, because its as clean and thorough a media criticism as you will ever find. Perhaps it’s because no one would think to look for an O’Keefe exposé on “the Glenn Beck news site.” However, with posts like this, ones that show a clear deference to one of their boss man’s favorite sayings, “the truth has no agenda,” The Blaze could very well stop being viewed as “the Glenn Beck news site” at all.”

Considering O’Keefe posted the entire two hour lunch video, I don’t see how he can be accused of trying to hide anything.

I read and watched all the videos from the Blaze story, and while they did point out a couple of editing points, I don’t think it changed anything that was said, or revealed in the original tapes. As for the mission statement on the web site, and then the video showing the guy laughing, I never even put the two issues together… I think the claim from Blaze that they were downplaying their Muslim Brotherhood claim is wonky.

Good on them for going through the tapes, but I don’t think they uncovered anything that excuses NPR, or discredits this exposé.

CosmosDan said:
The next step is to get the public to actually care about hearing relevant researched information instead of wallowing in networks that capitalize in selling conformation bias.

As long as the relevent researched information has the blessings of…..who exactly? East Anglia. You have way too much faith in scientists. You forget that they are human.
I believe that is just what the mission is, the problem is that, under this noble persuit you speak of there is intentional fraud, reinforced by true belief. If Al Gore had his way, (the very thing you speak of here) that east Anglia scam would have been swept under the rug, and you know it. It’s a wild world out there in the free market, it ain’t perfect, it just happens to be better than the alternative, which becomes State Controlled Media…for the “common good”, administrated by the scientific communities version of Jimmy Swaggart.

sarainitaly said:
“The post hasn’t seemed to have drawn that much press yet, which is unfortunate, because its as clean and thorough a media criticism as you will ever find. Perhaps it’s because no one would think to look for an O’Keefe exposé on “the Glenn Beck news site.” However, with posts like this, ones that show a clear deference to one of their boss man’s favorite sayings, “the truth has no agenda,” The Blaze could very well stop being viewed as “the Glenn Beck news site” at all.”

Considering O’Keefe posted the entire two hour lunch video, I don’t see how he can be accused of trying to hide anything.

I read and watched all the videos from the Blaze story, and while they did point out a couple of editing points, I don’t think it changed anything that was said, or revealed in the original tapes. As for the mission statement on the web site, and then the video showing the guy laughing, I never even put the two issues together… I think the claim from Blaze that they were downplaying their Muslim Brotherhood claim is wonky.

Good on them for going through the tapes, but I don’t think they uncovered anything that excuses NPR, or discredits this exposé.

…Really? The man was paraphrasing the words of others, but O’Keefe presented them as the man’s own. How doesn’t that discredit it?

gordonbloyershow said:
You got that right. The only problem is O’Keefe doesn’t have to do it. Libs are scum and will say these things without being prompted. Just look at the lying libs here on this site. They say these things all the time. Of course they are hiding behind phony name so they can’t be outed the the NPR crowd. Some of the libs here may even work for NPR. We know some work for the unions and the Democrat party.

I find it amazing that people who have radio or cable show use this sort of language…..”Libs are scum.”

You, sir, are scum of the highest order. So are many conservotards. O’Keefe also is a scumbag of the highest order. He highly edited the ACORN videos. He and his cohorts lied to get into Mary Landrieu’s office in an attempt to illegally bug her phones. This sleazy scumbag tried to get that female CNN reporter onto his “love boat” where he had champagne and sex toys. These are not lies. Why do you conservotards approve of these sleazy, unethical practices? It’s because you are sleazy and unethical yourselves.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
…Really? The man was paraphrasing the words of others, but O’Keefe presented them as the man’s own. How doesn’t that discredit it?

i think you need to watch the videos again. He brought up two Republicans to lend his beliefs *cred*. He believes the tea party is filled with a bunch of xenophobic racists.

“SCHILLER: I won’t break a confidence, but a person who was an ambassador — so, a very highly placed Republican — another person, who was one of the top donors to the Republican party, they both told me they voted for Obama, which they never believed they could ever do in their lives. That they could ever vote for a Democrat, ever. And they did, because they think the current Republican party is not really the Republican Party. It’s been hijacked by this group that…

“MUSLIM”: The radical, racist, Islamophobic, Tea Party people?

SCHILLER: Exactly. And not just Islamophobic, but really xenophobic. Basically, they believe in white, middle America, gun-toting — I mean, it’s pretty scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people.”

His little story is funny in itself, since the tea party wasn’t around before the election.

But you can not tell me you think he brought up that story because he disagrees with it, or that this comment is paraphrasing: “I mean, it’s pretty scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people.”

And again, the entire tapes were posted, so not sure how you can think he was hiding anything, nor do the longer tapes change that he called them seriously racist, racist people.

Zermatt2 said:
I find it amazing that people who have radio or cable show use this sort of language…..”Libs are scum.” You, sir, are scum of the highest order. So are many conservotards. O’Keefe also is a scumbag of the highest order. He highly edited the ACORN videos. He and his cohorts lied to get into Mary Landrieu’s office in an attempt to illegally bug her phones. This sleazy scumbag tried to get that female CNN reporter onto his “love boat” where he had champagne and sex toys. These are not lies. Why do you conservotards approve of these sleazy, unethical practices? It’s because you are sleazy and unethical yourselves.

And by the way, mr. gordon blowhard. I do not work for NPR or PBS. I am not a union member, nor have I ever been a union member. I am a Democrat, but I do not work for the Democratic party.

Come to think of it, you may not even be the real gordon blowhard. You might be rush the pig limbaugh or one of his agents. Or, perhaps, you work for karl rove, the master of dirty tricks.

catfishjuggling said:
Yes, Gordon. Most of us do not have the guts to express ignorance and hate while using their real name like you.

How do cowards like you face your family?

Zermatt2 said:
I find it amazing that people who have radio or cable show use this sort of language…..”Libs are scum.”

I was just being kind to libs.

Zermatt2 said:
And by the way, mr. gordon blowhard. I do not work for NPR or PBS. I am not a union member, nor have I ever been a union member. I am a Democrat, but I do not work for the Democratic party. Come to think of it, you may not even be the real gordon blowhard. You might be rush the pig limbaugh or one of his agents. Or, perhaps, you work for karl rove, the master of dirty tricks.

Now let me see, a person using a phony name tells me who he is not, and I should believe him? Sure. Now if you want to put your real name on those statements we might be able to check it out.

Do you really want to admit that you are soooooo stupid that you can’t find out if I am who I say I am? LOL
That stupid comment just makes you look bad, not me. Fool.

Do you know how boring and usless these videos would have been had not they been boiled down to the core issue? Go ahead and believe it was a total fabrication, no one can help you.

If there was some creative editing, chalk it up to one for the good guys. They don’t often benefit from these kind of tactics because the good guys don’t play as dirty as they need to to counter what the left does without conscious. If it’s not perfect, it was perfectly affective.

Remember Dan Quayle? Just think of these tactics as one’s used against Quayle when he was given a flashcard with potato MISSPELLED, whereby he corrected a students correct spelling, and the left took it to the bank! Was it a setup? This poor Shiller got set up, the difference is, he no doubtedly deserved it, Quayle, not so much, unless you are just cruel.

This is from Wiki…
His most famous blunder occurred when he mistakenly altered student William Figueroa’s correct spelling of “potato” to “potatoe” at an elementary school spelling bee in Trenton, New Jersey, on June 15, 1992.[15][16] Although he was relying on cards provided by the school, which included the misspelling, Quayle was widely lambasted for his apparent inability to spell the word “potato”. According to his memoirs, Quayle was uncomfortable with the version he gave, but did so because he decided to trust the school’s incorrect written materials.

gordonbloyershow said:
Now let me see, a person using a phony name tells me who he is not, and I should believe him? Sure. Now if you want to put your real name on those statements we might be able to check it out. Do you really want to admit that you are soooooo stupid that you can’t find out if I am who I say I am? LOLThat stupid comment just makes you look bad, not me. Fool.

Stupid ignorant foolish conservotard pig. I don’t use my real name because hate mongering conservotards sometimes publish people’s home addresses or telephone numbers.

You know, conservotard pigs sometimes claim that all liberals can do is call names (and, yes, I am calling names, something I usually do not do). But the fact is, foolish conservotards often call liberals names. limpballs does it; look at what you, fool, have done in this thread.

Last year, I went on a conservotard web site and tried to have a civil argument with some of the turds on that site. I did not use any foul language; I did not call anyone a single name. Yet I was accused of being 12 years old; I was accused of living in my parents’ basement eating cheetoes; I was called an “idiot”; I was accused of being drunk and on drugs. And, I repeat, I did not call a single name, even when I was called such names.

Even if I used my real name, you probably wouldn’t be able to find out about what I do for a living, although you possibly could find out where I live, if I give my location. Fool.

gordonbloyershow said:
Now let me see, a person using a phony name tells me who he is not, and I should believe him? Sure. Now if you want to put your real name on those statements we might be able to check it out. Do you really want to admit that you are soooooo stupid that you can’t find out if I am who I say I am? LOLThat stupid comment just makes you look bad, not me. Fool.

And, I forgot to ask. Prove to me that you are the real Gordon blowhard. How do we know you aren’t some foolish agent of limpballs using an assumed name and claiming to be the real mr. blowhard himself?

Gordo, I checked out your website. That’s five minutes of my life I’ll never get back. It’s amazing how much better a hot shower and some yellow soap can make a person feel after they’ve been covered in slime.
So, you’ve been a right wing apologista since the Nicaragua days? A staunch believer in Ronnie investigating himself? Guess what he found? NOTHING! There was nothing there. Now we know he was right.
Smuggling cocaine. supplying Saddam, death squads, arms for hostages. All cool because Ronnie said,”In my mind I wasn’t trading ……” Too bad his mind had already left.

gordonbloyershow said:
Now let me see, a person using a phony name tells me who he is not, and I should believe him? Sure. Now if you want to put your real name on those statements we might be able to check it out. Do you really want to admit that you are soooooo stupid that you can’t find out if I am who I say I am? LOLThat stupid comment just makes you look bad, not me. Fool.

I just realized something. With mr. gordo trying to provoke us into giving our real names; with mr. gordo trying to provoke us into saying who we work for; mr. gordo is very likely james o’scumbag keefe himself.

The fool is the one who believes that anyone on this thread is really who they say they are, including mr. gordo himself. Neither one of us will “prove” that what they say is real, regardless of whether or not they use a real name, which, again, you cannot prove is actually real.

I will just repeat that I do not work for NPR or PBS; I am not a union member, nor have I ever been one; I do not work for the Democratic party, although I am a Democrat. You can believe this or not. That is your prerogative. I can only say that I know for myself that I am telling the absolute truth. Fool.

gordonbloyershow said:
How do cowards like you face your family?

Quite well actually. I go to work. Pay my bills. Live a decent life. Really no issues with my family.

You are a very dear person for asking though. How is your family? I hope all is well.

Zermatt2 said:
I find it amazing that people who have radio or cable show use this sort of language…..”Libs are scum.”

.
You find that amazing.

Have you ever listened to Keith Olbermann describe Michelle Malkin on a nationally televised prime time cable, purported to be news, show as “a mashed up bag of meat with lipstick”?

Oh, never mind. Having read the remainder of your charming little love note I’m sure you have not only heard him but emulate him.

Carry on!

Snowspot said:
I hope conservatives realize that this guy is lying to YOU. Liberals aren’t interested in him… he makes up fake scenarios to trick conservatives… then he gets caught and conservatives look stupid for supporting him…

They won’t, they want to be lied to, they need it to fit their idealogy steeped in idiocy. If they’re wrong on any one point, they’ll have to kill themselves as they’ll finally realize that educations, science, research and facts trump blind faith stupidity and their indoctrinated lives of “faith” over intellect, knowledge and history, i.e., there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny, no tooth fairy, no Jesus for America.

This video, like the other Brietbart, O’Keefe and Koch funded BS, had no credibility from the start. You must consider the source. This has nothing to do with reality. It’s a distraction for the Propagandists to have you look away from the Union Busting and Plutocratic attacks on the tax paying middle class and poor in the mid-west – while the Koch Brothers are all profit and pay little and no taxes. The idiotic that post for the “rightfully” villified Koch Heads/Whores aka Teabagers as racist – fits. Doesn’t matter what these tapes had to show; there is truth in the statement and it should stand. Hell if Fox can call three unknown African Americans “the new Black Panther Party” to scare up their brood – it’s safe to say that the Koch Brothers/Fox Funded Teabagers are “The New KKK”. There are more members of that group in that party than the other – and you don’t see Fokkks expose and month long playing up of that – because they know it’s true. Still it’s all about Wisconsin and the evils of the Republicans. They are a dangerous cult, not unlike Jim Jones’ Jonestown. Koch Whores must be repealed and Recalled. Starting with Scott Walker.

Grammie said:
.
You find that amazing.

Have you ever listened to Keith Olbermann describe Michelle Malkin on a nationally televised prime time cable, purported to be news, show as “a mashed up bag of meat with lipstick”?

Oh, never mind. Having read the remainder of your charming little love note I’m sure you have not only heard him but emulate him.

Carry on!

Michelle Malkin is an idiot. What’s your point?

Grammie said:
I refuse to believe anything from The Blaze! :)

Everyone knows, am I right Mediaite lib commenters, that Beck and by extension The Blaze is a lying psychotic right wing rodeo clown.

You’re right. Blaze, like O’Keefe, Brietbart, Fox have no credibility. To be honest with you, the guy made a true statement. There are more KKK members as Teabagers than there are “new black panther members”.

Nacho said:
As I’ve learned from My Bloyer, Glenn is on vacation.

Hopefully this reporter still has a job when Beck returns.

It was never a credible story. O’Keefe, Fox, Koch Bros. propaganda. The fact that Sean Hannity lives up James O’Keefe’s rear makes me think they might be a couple.

gordonbloyershow said:
How do cowards like you face your family?

My guess is that they too are educated so there is no problem. And you? Do live in a cave, under a rock or in a tent with Jesus Camp indoctrinated, dinosaur riding, the earth is flat brainwashed?

WHarropson said:
. You have way too much faith in scientists. You forget that they are human.

I haven’t forgotten that at all. At some point we need to go forward based on the facts we have , even if they are faulty or incomplete. We can reconsider new information as it is offered.

Grammie said:
.You find that amazing. Have you ever listened to Keith Olbermann describe Michelle Malkin on a nationally televised prime time cable, purported to be news, show as “a mashed up bag of meat with lipstick”? Oh, never mind. Having read the remainder of your charming little love note I’m sure you have not only heard him but emulate him. Carry on!

No, I have never heard Keith Olbermann say what he did about Malkin, but I have heard about it. I do not approve of what he said, but I do have to say a couple of things. First, Malkin is a vile and vicious human being, far worse than Olbermann. She simply is one very nasty person. She gave out the contact information for those college kids out in California who subsequently received threats. And don’t give me the excuse that these college kids who were protesting ROTC had their contact information posted around campus so therefore Malkin was not wrong in broadcasting it to her rabid fans. Malkin’s intent was to have one or more or her rabid fans somehow attack these college kids……and, I repeat, they were college kids.

I also have to ask why Bill O’Reilly has banished her from his program. She used to be a regular. Even someone like Bill O’Reilly thinks she is a vile person.

Secondly, I do know that unlike conservatives, people like Keith Olbermann actually have apologized for things they have said or done. I do not know if he apologized in this case, but I have seen him apologize in other cases.

Third, I take great offense when people like Gordo make a blanket statement that “liberals are scum.” Then he follows this up by saying he was just “being kind” to liberals. Many if not most of the people posting here are very likely your common, every day “Joes.” Some may be liberals; some may be conservatives. But the majority of us, including myself, a liberal, are not scum. Michelle Malkin is a public figure, as, apparently, Gordo is. If public figures can dish out the name-calling, they should be able to take it as well.

Calvin said:
Of course. You know that guy was an evil SOB, right? C,mon!

That;s not the point. I’m saying it’s understandable to stay away from harsh criticism of someone right after they died. I don’t consider that a valid indication of their on going bias. It’s pretty much tradition in this country that we tend to focus on the positive immediately after the death of someone.
If the point is, they didn’t criticize him enough because he’s a liberal, I’m not buying it.

Calvin said:
Dan, maybe you don’t see their bias because they say the things you want to hear.

Maybe, but here I am asking for examples, and I’m not getting much. If it’s that obvious you’d think there’s be more examples. As I said, I hear conservative voices on there on a regular basis and appreciate it because they tend to offer a more detailed and nuanced argument and that’s something that helps me understand a lot more than bullet points.

CosmosDan said:
WHarropson said:
. You have way too much faith in scientists. You forget that they are human.
I haven’t forgotten that at all. At some point we need to go forward based on the facts we have , even if they are faulty or incomplete. We can reconsider new information as it is offered.

I don’t disagree with the incredible insight that the discipline of science brings to us. And with all that insight, and diligent study, and committed opinion, one must weigh it all out and make a decision whether the conclusions they come to are conclusive enough to justify crippling ourselves.

Here’s my global warming position, posted elswhere:

I am a man made global warming denier. I am comfortable in this one sided scientifically unsophisticated position because even if I am wrong about it I know that nothing is going to change for me or anyone else about anything… ever… even if I am wrong. It is a total no risk morally neutral, reality based (and really quite sophisticated in my opinion) position to take. How do I come by this blissful state of being? It has to do with the reality that even if MMGW is true the only answer is draconian massive population control (yes including extermination) that only the likes of Hitler could fully appreciate. I’m not going to do that, and I hope, neither are you.
Allow me to share the sophistication:
It’s called The Population Paradox: by Paul Lutus: Quote:
“An intelligent, educated individual explains to his tribe that there are far too many human beings on the planet and that, by increasing our numbers, we risk our own safety and that of our children.
On hearing this information, the more intelligent, sensitive, caring listeners resolve to have fewer children.
On hearing the same information, the less intelligent, sensitive, caring listeners don’t change their behavior.
The result is fewer intelligent, sensitive, caring people in the next generation.
Yes, the Population Paradox really is as simple as that — to put it bluntly, people who care about the state of the planet are out-competed by those who don’t.”

If you think that mankind at the established rate of growth can reduce the use of fossil fuels enough, go ahead believe it. I believe murder is a sin, so I won’t be coming along but I’m a little more liberal when it comes to suicide, so have at it if you want to do something meaningful about it. Just do us a favor and start by shooting yourself first, and please don’t “volunteer” your family and friends. I’d like them to hang back with the rest of us and enjoy the spectacle of mankind adapting to climate change like the survivors we (less sensitive) are.
The real answer is: Let Liberals think that they are the “intelligent, sensitive, caring people” and just wait it out.
P.S. I kind of like it warmer, so I can’t lose really. And anytime I can be on the opposite side of an issue from someone who called George W. Bush a LIAR, I get all warm inside, and quite confident that after all I must be right. It’s kind of scientific, don’t you think?

Now, I love science, but I reserve the right as a unique part of nature itself to survive as an individual having been born to a sophisticated fossil fuel burning, science and technology supporting natural organism. If liberals decide suicide is the answer, I’ll respectfully not participate, and do what I can to isolate them, so they can’t harm anyone but themselves.

WHarropson said:
I haven’t forgotten that at all. At some point we need to go forward based on the facts we have , even if they are faulty or incomplete. We can reconsider new information as it is offered.

Just wanted to properly attiribute cosmos response.. I’m learning how to use the quote thing.

CosmosDan said:
If the point is, they didn’t criticize him enough because he’s a liberal, I’m not buying it

No, it’s because they were “fawning” over him, as the ombudsman put it. That’s their bias showing.

CosmosDan said:
As I said, I hear conservative voices on there on a regular basis and appreciate it because they tend to offer a more detailed and nuanced argument and that’s something that helps me understand a lot more than bullet points

I’m sure they do, but that doesn’t mean NPR is unbiased.

CosmosDan said:
Maybe, but here I am asking for examples, and I’m not getting much. If it’s that obvious you’d think there’s be more examples.

Since another topic going on here seems to be global warming/climate change…

Calvin said:
Since another topic going on here seems to be global warming/climate change…

I’m unsure how that article displays bias. They talk about the science, and to a Republican who got voted out because he supported the science. They even include that that wasn’t the only reason he was voted out.
They don’t support any legislation or offer solutions, they simply report that the science supports climate change and certain Republicans reject the science.

Are they omitting important relevant facts, or reporting something that isn’t factual. I suppose they could have had a global warming denier on to offer some evidence if they had any. I suppose that might be considered bias.

Calvin said:
I’m sure they do, but that doesn’t mean NPR is unbiased.

Um, It is absolutely a measuring stick for their level of bias. Notice that the interviewer simplify asked good questions and allowed GB to give full answers. No gotchas or yelling.
To claim they are just liberal shills that means either they have many more liberal voices than conservative, or they misrepresent or discredit the conservative view in some way. When they repeatedly invite intelligent articulate conservatives on to give an informed argument that’s evidence of a lack of bias , or at least a commitment to a balanced presentation on the issues.
FTR; I didn’t listen to NPR all day so I really can’t claim complete knowledge. I did leave my radio tuned to them so anytime I was driving I checked out what the story was. Several different shows depending on time of day. I consistently heard a balanced informed approach.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2011/03/11/npr-board-member-admits-it-serves-liberal-highly-educated-elite-wond

I’ve never listened to NPR, myself. If it wasn’t very biased, as you say it isn’t, I don’t think all of people claiming it was very biased would be saying that.

Calvin said:
I’ve never listened to NPR, myself. If it wasn’t very biased, as you say it isn’t, I don’t think all of people claiming it was very biased would be saying that.

The overwhelming majority of people screaming about an NPR bias also don’t listen to their programming and even if it had one for anything other than thought-provoking, informative, longform journalism, their news programming is only a few hours out of the day.

Of course the host of “Thistle & Shamrock” may have some personal leanings, but I don’t think it’s reflected too much in her choice of Celtic music and I’ve occasionally thought the “Radio Reader” may be conservative considering some of his book choices, but it’s still entertaining radio.

===== http://www.chic-goods.com/ =====

===== http://www.chic-goods.com/ =====

Nice to hear some criticism of O’Keefe, but not too surprising when you consider that in Glenn Beck’s world only He has the power and focus to interpret and connect the evils and hypocrisy of liberalism.

There is only on true prophet and his name shall be Glenn Beck.

Calvin said:
I’ve never listened to NPR, myself. If it wasn’t very biased, as you say it isn’t, I don’t think all of people claiming it was very biased would be saying that.

So, in the other thread you’re trying to show me that NPR is biased even though you’ve never listened. Shame on you.

Lot’s of people claim Fox is extremely biased , or that Glenn Beck is not honest. Does that constitute proof to you? Sure doesn’t seem like it from your posts.

CosmosDan said:
So, in the other thread you’re trying to show me that NPR is biased even though you’ve never listened. Shame on you.

Whoops, got my threads mixed up. It’s this same thread. But still, Why argue the point when you’ve never listened.

CosmosDan said:
So, in the other thread you’re trying to show me that NPR is biased even though you’ve never listened.

Well, my mother listened for a while until she got tired of it. Her and others have told me about it. And Dan, even if I didn’t hear anybody say anything about NPR, that clip of NPR’s (nauseating) coverage of Ted Kennedy’s death is quite telling by itself. And Dan, ever hear of Newsbusters?
Start here. Or here

Dan, what about this link:

Calvin said:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2011/03/11/npr-board-member-admits-it-serves-liberal-highly-educated-elite-wond

CosmosDan said:
Lot’s of people claim Fox is extremely biased , or that Glenn Beck is not honest. Does that constitute proof to you? Sure doesn’t seem like it from your posts.

I have no problem admitting that Fox is biased. As far as Glenn Beck goes, I think I do a pretty good job going toe to toe with others here whenever he is the subject of discussion.

Calvin said:
, ever hear of Newsbusters?

OH!!! Now that’s a real credible site. NOT!

the real john t said:
OH!!! Now that’s a real credible site. NOT!

Please tell me which stories they got wrong about NPR. Just go down the list, if you will, you strange little man.
I’ll do the same with Media Matters stories.

Calvin said:
Please tell me which stories they got wrong about NPR.

“For instance, it is official NPR policy to refer to pro-life Americans as “abortion rights opponents.” As I have written, that intrinsically shifts the debate to the left by (a) assuming that there is a “right” to abortion, which is by no means a settled political question,”

By all means women have certain rights to abortions. Have you ever heard of Roe vs Wade? So yes, pro life groups are “abortion rights opponents”.

If I may also address the abortion language thing…

“Pro-life” insinuates that the other side is “anti-life” and “anti-abortion” implies that the other side is “pro-abortion”; There’s really no clean way to reference either side in the abortion rights debate.

Calvin said:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2011/03/11/npr-board-member-admits-it-serves-liberal-highly-educated-elite-wond

I’ve never listened to NPR, myself. If it wasn’t very biased, as you say it isn’t, I don’t think all of people claiming it was very biased would be saying that.

From your link, Schardt’s conclusion in response to the argument that NPR serves liberal, highly educated, white elites charts a new course for the network:

I believe we need to say, in this moment, “You’re right. We are not satisfied, either. Now that we have achieved this huge success over a 30-year incubation period, we now are poised to commit ourselves to translate and bring what we have to everyone in America. Within the next five years, seven years — we set the timetable. We are absolutely committed to serving — truly — and speaking in the voices — truly — of 80 percent or 90 percent of the public.” We set our numbers.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2011/03/11/npr-board-member-admits-it-serves-liberal-highly-educated-elite-wond#ixzz1GSWk5Lu1

A few comments for you to consider:

1) I read people’s links. Seeing that you chose a right wing blog whose tagline is “exposing and combating liberal media bias,” you might want to consider a more impartial source. With just a little effort, you could have gone to her original post and linked there, so we don’t immediately assume you are completely blinded by your partisan preference

2) If you read the entire post, instead of what News Busters chose to show, you would get a very different vibe from the woman, including these three paragraphs:

What happened as a result is that we unwittingly cultivated a core audience that is predominately white, liberal, highly educated, elite. “Super-serve the core” — that was the mantra, for many, many years. This focus has, in large part, brought us to our success today. It was never anyone’s intention to exclude anyone.

But we have to accept — unapologetically — that this is the franchise we’ve built.

We have to look at this because the criticisms that are coming at us — whether they’re couched in other things — do have some legitimacy. We must, as a starting point, take on board some of this criticism. Before we can set a path, we have to own this.

In other words, she looks at her own organization, and does so in an honest way, including readdressing their core mission in order to serve “80-90% of the people.”

I don’t think this sounds like all the partisan hacks in the media who never admit a mistake, or claim they are “fair and balanced” while lying their asses off 24/7.

3) When a poster who has listened to NPR says they have conservative voices on air, and don’t interrupt, attack or play gotcha with their guests, you need to make the effort to listen to NPR and judge for yourself. I know it’s difficult when you identify with your political party like it’s the home team, but politics should be about valuing truth as much as we value our personal ethics.

If you do a search on google for Rep. David Deier (R) California, you will find he loves NPR and doesn’t think it is biased. Perhaps you might ask why he would go against his party on this topic.

4) When you say that you don’t think all the people (conservatives) wouldn’t say it’s biased if it really isn’t, you show way too much faith in the group think of your team. There is absolutely no logic in accepting other people’s reality, especially when it comes to politics. There are far too many hidden agendas which lead people to say things that will enrich them or increase their power.

If you watched an infomercial that claimed a product could turn garbage into gold, would you buy it? I doubt it. You might go online and look at consumer protection sites, or the better business bureau to see if those claims are true.

I always try to track down the original source of disputed information. I look at sites like factcheck.org and politifact.org to see if people are telling the truth. I value real data that comes from the GAO, CBO and the Census Bureau. If we can’t agree on basic facts, then there is no such thing as political discussion, just religious war.

5) My friend and I made a promise that we would watch the other’s preferred show, so I watched O’Reilly, while he watched Rachel Maddow. We still disagreed about their viewpoints, but there were times we could point to something positive to say about the shows we watched.

6) Try watching MSNBC and then see if Fox is carrying the same story. A lot of the problem in seeing the whole picture is that some stories are pushed by one network and not in the other. Again, cross reference stories with accounts in major newspapers (not the editorial sections). The Wall Street Journal is known for journalistic excellence, even though their op-ed section has an extreme right wing bias. The New York Times and L.A. Times are decent at reporting the facts and recounting what each side said. The BBC and major wire services are very good, too. The point is, newspapers still have editors and legal departments, so they double check facts and make sure they won’t get themselves sued. This is not the case with blogs and online news aggregators. They are still considered opinion based reporting, so they don’t need to follow the same standards as major news sources.

If you really want to know the truth, it takes a lot of work to open one’s mind and stay focused on facts.

Calvin said:
I’ve never listened to NPR,

So you take Newsbusters for truth about NPR. I suppose you don’t think Newsbusters is bias?

the real john t said:
So you take Newsbusters for truth about NPR. I suppose you don’t think Newsbusters is bias?

Like I’ve said before, I’ve heard from plenty of people I know that NPR has a liberal bias. I suggested Newsbusters as a place where one could find instances of bias at NPR. Media Matters does the same thing for Fox, do you have a problem with them?

Magister said:
If I may also address the abortion language thing… “Pro-life” insinuates that the other side is “anti-life” and “anti-abortion” implies that the other side is “pro-abortion”; There’s really no clean way to reference either side in the abortion rights debate.

Magister, I have to say something: I think you’re the most polite, mellow, liberal poster here. You are somewhat liberal, correct? Anyways, kudos.

Calvin said:
Media Matters does the same thing for Fox, do you have a problem with them?

Well why don’t you tell me the lies Media Matters have told about Fox. Or did you ever read Media Matters, or are you just going by what some people say?

the real john t said:
Well why don’t you tell me the lies Media Matters have told about Fox. Or did you ever read Media Matters, or are you just going by what some people say?

I have a comment awaiting moderation. It has a bunch of links to media matters lies. And after that, I wrote: It’s called Google. You put “lies” after “media matters” or “fox news” and you’re bound to get results. We could do that all day if you want, but that’s not the subject of discussion. We’re talking about NPR.

Calvin said:
Magister, I have to say something: I think you’re the most polite, mellow, liberal poster here. You are somewhat liberal, correct? Anyways, kudos.

I’ve always called myself a liberal, but as I’ve aged, some others may consider me more center-left.
And, thanks for the kind words, though you probably should know that I’m a big public radio fan.

I read people’s links. Seeing that you chose a right wing blog whose tagline is “exposing and combating liberal media bias,” you might want to consider a more impartial source. With just a little effort, you could have gone to her original post and linked there, so we don’t immediately assume you are completely blinded by your partisan preference.

…which I did earlier with the ombudsman story on Ted Kennedy. I got that from another site, but I went with the original story from the ombudsman. I just forgot to do that with the Newsbusters story.

If you read the entire post, instead of what News Busters chose to show, you would get a very different vibe from the woman, including these three paragraphs:

Uh, that’s in the Newsbusters story. I get the same thing from both places: someone at NPR gets it.

When a poster who has listened to NPR says they have conservative voices on air, and don’t interrupt, attack or play gotcha with their guests, you need to make the effort to listen to NPR and judge for yourself. I know it’s difficult when you identify with your political party like it’s the home team, but politics should be about valuing truth as much as we value our personal ethics.

I actually made the decision that I’m going to make an effort to listen to NPR a few hours ago. I’m not a person who puts my party first.

If you do a search on google for Rep. David Deier (R) California, you will find he loves NPR and doesn’t think it is biased. Perhaps you might ask why he would go against his party on this topic.

He says they do great work, as I’m sure they do. I have seen some episodes of Frontline from PBS and they do great things with that. Somebody else thinks that too:

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/02/23/pbs-is-so-the-new-cia/

http://www.mediaite.com/online/glenn-beck-to-rabbis-my-new-iran-documentary-disproves-anti-semitic-charges/

“Instead he urged listeners to see a new documentary his media company produced called Rumors of War, a piece of journalism he compared as being on par with Frontline.”

But that doesn’t mean PBS and NPR are unbiased. Like I said before, their (NPR’s) coverage of Ted Kennedy was akin to slobbering. Like I said, I’ll try to keep an open mind and make an effort to listen to NPR.

When you say that you don’t think all the people (conservatives) wouldn’t say it’s biased if it really isn’t, you show way too much faith in the group think of your team.

Maybe, but it is interesting that four people who seem to lean left are engaging me in this thread.

There are far too many hidden agendas which lead people to say things that will enrich them or increase their power.

Speaking of riches and power: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/259819/npr-thanks-obama-matthew-shaffer

I always try to track down the original source of disputed information. I look at sites like factcheck.org and politifact.org to see if people are telling the truth. I value real data that comes from the GAO, CBO and the Census Bureau. If we can’t agree on basic facts, then there is no such thing as political discussion, just religious war.

I would say that factcheck.org does a better job than politifact.org, but I agree with your point.

My friend and I made a promise that we would watch the other’s preferred show, so I watched O’Reilly, while he watched Rachel Maddow. We still disagreed about their viewpoints, but there were times we could point to something positive to say about the shows we watched.

Don’t really care for either of them.

Try watching MSNBC and then see if Fox is carrying the same story.

I randomly switched over to MSNBC four times in the space of two weeks or three and each time MSNBC was talking about Fox.

The Wall Street Journal is known for journalistic excellence, even though their op-ed section has an extreme right wing bias. The New York Times and L.A. Times are decent at reporting the facts and recounting what each side said. The BBC and major wire services are very good, too.

Do you think NYT, LAT, and BBC are biased like the WSJ is?

The point is, newspapers still have editors and legal departments, so they double check facts and make sure they won’t get themselves sued. This is not the case with blogs and online news aggregators. They are still considered opinion based reporting, so they don’t need to follow the same standards as major news sources.

Does that mean you ignore them? You examine their stories and see if they’re backed up by facts.

If you really want to know the truth, it takes a lot of work to open one’s mind and stay focused on facts.

I try to do that.

Magister said:
And, thanks for the kind words, though you probably should know that I’m a big public radio fan.

Np biggie. I have a question: do you think NPR should be funded by the taxpayers, whether it’s biased (either way) or not? Somebody said this about funding things you value with taxpayers’ money:

“I’ve never understood the idea that, “If you value something, tax dollars should fund it.” How about, “If you value something YOU fund it.”"
http://twitter.com/LDoren/status/39831551814537216

He also said this:” Newsflash to the Left: Even if Rush Limbaugh was named the new CEO of NPR, we wouldn’t want the government to fund it.” http://twitter.com/LDoren/status/45623864876740608

I agree with both of these statements.

Calvin said:
Well, my mother listened for a while until she got tired of it. Her and others have told me about it. And Dan, even if I didn’t hear anybody say anything about NPR, that clip of NPR’s (nauseating) coverage of Ted Kennedy’s death is quite telling by itself. And Dan, ever hear of Newsbusters?
Start here. Or here

Dan, what about this link:

I have no problem admitting that Fox is biased. As far as Glenn Beck goes, I think I do a pretty good job going toe to toe with others here whenever he is the subject of discussion.

Let’s be clear. I haven’t claimed no bias exists at NPR, and I said, I don’t listen to every show. Just as on Fox some hosts may be more bias than others. I do maintain that they do a far better job of bringing relevant information and intelligent informed guests to explore the issues, and from my listening, presenting conservative opinion. Personally, that’s what I want to hear. I want to hear from conservative voices like Tom Coburn discussing the details of specific legislation , rather than Michelle Bachman offering talking points and slogans about liberty.
We need both sides of the discussion , and we need it offered in an intelligent factual way. Too many networks , like Fox and MSNBC appeal to the public in a pretty superficial and emotional way. So, while there may be some liberal bias on NPR, they are not the liberal hacks that conservative meme makes them out to be.
My other point to you was, I think it’s a perfectly legitimate argument to say to Fox and Beck critics , if you haven’t spent any time watching them then don’t be to eager to label them.
The same applies to critics of NPR who then admit they never listen.

Calvin said:
…which I did earlier with the ombudsman story on Ted Kennedy. I got that from another site, but I went with the original story from the ombudsman. I just forgot to do that with the Newsbusters story.

Oops. I guess I didn’t. I did post the whole original story, though.

Magister said:
If I may also address the abortion language thing…

“Pro-life” insinuates that the other side is “anti-life” and “anti-abortion” implies that the other side is “pro-abortion”; There’s really no clean way to reference either side in the abortion rights debate.

I object to the terms pro-life and pro-choice for those reasons. I consider myself supportive of life and choice.
Folks that support a woman’s right to choose for herself, are not pro abortion. They are pro women, and their right to have the final say over their own bodies.
Would it be accurate to say, one side wants to make abortion illegal and one side wants it to remain legal?

CosmosDan said:
rather than Michelle Bachman offering talking points and slogans about liberty.

A question, Dan: do you happen to live in her district or something? I notice you bring her up a lot. I don’t know much about her, so I can’t comment on her, but it seems like the latest thing she’s talking about seems pretty important. http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/09/politifact-factcheck-and-wapo-all-confirm-the-105-billion-obamacare-slush-fund-exists/

CosmosDan said:
Let’s be clear. I haven’t claimed no bias exists at NPR, and I said, I don’t listen to every show. Just as on Fox some hosts may be more bias than others. I do maintain that they do a far better job of bringing relevant information and intelligent informed guests to explore the issues, and from my listening, presenting conservative opinion. Personally, that’s what I want to hear. I want to hear from conservative voices like Tom Coburn discussing the details of specific legislation , rather than Michelle Bachman offering talking points and slogans about liberty.
We need both sides of the discussion , and we need it offered in an intelligent factual way. Too many networks , like Fox and MSNBC appeal to the public in a pretty superficial and emotional way. So, while there may be some liberal bias on NPR, they are not the liberal hacks that conservative meme makes them out to be.

I’m sure they do a good job at some things, like I said before. Their Kennedy coverage seemed worthy of hacks, though. I’m just sayin’, that is extremely telling. I’ll try to listen to them though.

BruinAlum77 said:
but politics should be about valuing truth as much as we value our personal ethics.

Excellent point. It takes effort to keep our own bias in check and search for the relevant facts. Especially when spin is so acceptable. I think we also have to maintain a willingness to truly listen to and understand the opposing argument. I’m fortunate enough to have some good friends who are conservative or libertarian, and we respect each other enough to be able to chat over a beer and explore the issues. One asked me to listen to Glenn Beck more before I labeled him, so I listened to his show in it’s entirety for a while. It didn’t really change my basic opinion but I felt better and understood his technique better for having done it.
I think we do have to check out different sources, but I hope the sources are informed and articulate. As I’ve said several times, I really think we need intelligent input from liberal and conservative voices to address serious issues. That’s part of the checks and balances built in to our government and something we should value.

Calvin said:
I’m sure they do a good job at some things, like I said before. Their Kennedy coverage seemed worthy of hacks, though. I’m just sayin’, that is extremely telling. I’ll try to listen to them though.

I think that’s a fair thing to do. As I said in my other post, I think it takes a desire to truly understand the opposing argument , even if you ultimately don’t agree. I try to approach things with the understanding that I have more to learn and new information should be considered. I’m not in favor of either side dismissing opposing arguments.

Calvin said:
A question, Dan: do you happen to live in her district or something? I notice you bring her up a lot. I don’t know much about her, so I can’t comment on her, but it seems like the latest thing she’s talking about seems pretty important.

No, I just find her a little extreme and out there. My experience with her in the media is that she will repeat all kinds of inflammatory nonsense to get some face time. Politifact found several of her statements to be “pants on fire” lies. When I get the impression form any politician, that the winning the game of politics is far more important than being factual and finding real world solutions to serious problems, I no longer find them credible.

I heard them talking about the issue you mentioned on a Sunday talk show. I haven’t looked at it yet.

BruinAlum77 said:
I always try to track down the original source of disputed information. I look at sites like factcheck.org and politifact.org to see if people are telling the truth. I value real data that comes from the GAO, CBO and the Census Bureau. If we can’t agree on basic facts, then there is no such thing as political discussion, just religious war.

Thanks for that entire post btw;

I see some nasty trends in the comments, but perhaps I’m taking them way to seriously. People seem willing to simply dismiss almost any source that offers an opposing opinion under the claim of bias. IMO, that leads to more tunnel vision as you simply don’t explore the opposing argument and very relevant facts they may offer.
I don’t have time to explore every opposing argument point by point but if I’m interested in a particular subject I try to read the pros and the cons and find sources that seem concerned about facts more than political team spirit.
Like you I try to find the original source and context. It’s far to easy in electronic media to highlight phrases to create an inaccurate impression.

BruinAlum77 said:
From your link, Schardt’s conclusion in response to the argument that NPR serves liberal, highly educated, white elites charts a new course for the network:………..

Very good posting.

I also watch O’Reilly, although I have been boycotting him to a large extent this past year because of his support of Glenn Beck. But in the past, I have watched him extensively, although I disagree with many of his views. I also watch Rachel Maddow sometimes and others on MSNBC.

I list to NPR in the morning. I will say that from what I listen to, there is no bias. In fact, I would have to say that their actual news reporting is some of the most unbiased reporting you will find. I have to compare NPR to the BBC. Further, NPR does have both conservatives and liberals on their programs, often at the same time to debate a topic. What NPR does not have is the yelling and screaming and cutting off of guests while they’re speaking.

Calvin said:
Please tell me which stories they got wrong about NPR. Just go down the list, if you will, you strange little man.I’ll do the same with Media Matters stories.

Conservatives often cite Media Matters as being extremely biased. I’ve watched Bill O’Reilly enough to know that he hates that site and has called it a “far left” web site and a dangerous site.

I never hear conservatives bash Media Research Center, Brent Bozell’s outfit.

MRC is the right’s version of Media Matters.

Personally, I rarely look at either one of them.

“The post hasn’t seemed to have drawn that much press yet, which is unfortunate, because its as clean and thorough a media criticism as you will ever find. Perhaps it’s because no one would think to look for an O’Keefe exposé on “the Glenn Beck news site.”

Well, Dan Abrams of Mediaite has enough connections to make sure this story gets out everywhere. Why hasn’t it?

Zermatt2 said:
I will say that from what I listen to, there is no bias. In fact, I would have to say that their actual news reporting is some of the most unbiased reporting you will find. I have to compare NPR to the BBC

.
Zermatt, I was struck by that statement.

Were you aware of this internal report by BBC:

“BBC report damns its ‘culture of bias’
Richard Brooks and Dipesh Gadher

THE BBC is institutionally biased, an official report will conclude this week. The year-long investigation, commissioned by the BBC, has found the corporation particularly partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece

.
Just google “internal report declares BBC biased” for many links to the subject.

Grammie said:
.Zermatt, I was struck by that statement. Were you aware of this internal report by BBC: “BBC report damns its ‘culture of bias’Richard Brooks and Dipesh Gadher THE BBC is institutionally biased, an official report will conclude this week. The year-long investigation, commissioned by the BBC, has found the corporation particularly partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece .Just google “internal report declares BBC bof alliased” for many links to the subject.

Grammie,

I was struck by your statement.

First of all, I never did say that there was no bias on the BBC. What I said was that from the programs I listen to on NPR, I hear no bias. Yes, I did compare NPR to the BBC; however, that doesn’t mean there isn’t any bias on the BBC. It means that I believe both NPR and the BBC provide unbiased news reporting; I believe they both provide very interesting and very informative programming. They are both public service broadcasters in their respective countries. NPR has both conservative and liberal guests on their shows. I actually haven’t listened to the BBC in awhile, but from what I remember, they also have programs with guests on both sides of an issue.

I can say that I can compare you with me. We are both human; we both read and post on Mediaite. I have no idea if you’re male or female, but if you’re male, so am I. However, you obviously are a conservative, and I am a liberal.

Truth of the matter is, there is bias in every media outlet, whether it is a small amount or a large amount. You tell me someone is completely “fair and balanced” and without bias, then I will try to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

Zermatt2 says:
“Truth of the matter is, there is bias in every media outlet, whether it is a small amount or a large amount. You tell me someone is completely “fair and balanced” and without bias, then I will try to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.”

So there are two questions: how much bias is offered in a given direction, and how much dishonesty can be shown?

Fox is shown over and over to deceive their viewers, so it’s no wonder that their viewers perform poorly on tests about current events while viewers of PBS perform better than any other outlet.
http://swashzone.blogspot.com/2010/07/contest-of-madmen-for-primacy-of-sewer.html

So it’s not so much bias that matters in media but truthiness. That is what matters to the fact-oriented media watchdogs, not bias. Bias is a matter to the reactionary MCR, and they turn blind eyes and deaf ears toward bias that they agree with.
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/09/bias-vs-truthiness-analyzing-media.html

GlennBeckReview said:
Zermatt2 says:“Truth of the matter is, there is bias in every media outlet, whether it is a small amount or a large amount. You tell me someone is completely “fair and balanced” and without bias, then I will try to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.” So there are two questions: how much bias is offered in a given direction, and how much dishonesty can be shown? Fox is shown over and over to deceive their viewers, so it’s no wonder that their viewers perform poorly on tests about current events while viewers of PBS perform better than any other outlet.http://swashzone.blogspot.com/2010/07/contest-of-madmen-for-primacy-of-sewer.html So it’s not so much bias that matters in media but truthiness. That is what matters to the fact-oriented media watchdogs, not bias. Bias is a matter to the reactionary MCR, and they turn blind eyes and deaf ears toward bias that they agree with.http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/09/bias-vs-truthiness-analyzing-media.html

I pretty much agree with you, although I think that not only “truthiness” is what matters; I also believe that the degree of the bias also matters.

I saw that study about Fox viewers being the most informed. It came out a few months ago, I think from the University of Maryland. I have no doubt there is a lot of truth fo that study.

I also believe that Fox is overall highly biased in favor of Republicans and Conservatives. I will also say the same for MSNBC in favor of Democrats and Liberals.

When it comes to NPR, I do think, from the programs I listen to, that they are not nearly as biased as conservatives say they are. In fact, I think there is very little if any bias in their actual news reporting (the national and international news every hour on the hour). In fact, the first I heard of this latest O’Keefe “sting” was on NPR itself.

And, getting back to “truthiness,” I agree 100% here. I know of an instance or two where NPR was wrong in their reporting, but overall, I believe their reporting is true most of the time.

I want to also say something about MRC. Last year, I heard its founder Brent Bozell defending Fox News against those critics who say it is highly biased. Bozell defended Fox News by saying that there is a difference between “hard news” reporting and political commentary or opinion shows like hannity. I agree with this.

However, while Bozell was defending Fox and bashing those who criticize Fox in this regard, I got on his MRC web site. I saw an article about how biased and partisan Lawrence O’Donnell is. I saw an article bashing Kathy Griffin and Wanda Sykes (comedians) because they were bashing the Tea Party; his claim?….that they were being liberally biased. I saw several other articles on that MRC site which were bashing those Bozell thought were liberally biased. And, you know what? Not a single one of these people in these articles were on a “hard news” program. They were all opinion shows.

Zermatt2 said:
Yes, I did compare NPR to the BBC; however, that doesn’t mean there isn’t any bias on the BBC. It means that I believe both NPR and the BBC provide unbiased news reporting

,
I find that a bit contradictory but we all have opinions that involve some cognitive dissonance. I am a very regular watcher of PBS but all I know of NPR’s reporting is from columns such as this.

The bias in any direction or lack thereof is immaterial to me in this debate. I see this as a what is the proper role of government in funding TV and radio.

I don’t think any public funding should go to any entity that disseminates “news” and opinions on the news. I also don’t think public funding should go to provide entertainment. My views on this have gotten much stronger now that we find ourselves teetering on the edge of a financial abyss and are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar spent.

Any entity that provides news is de facto political, IMO b/c of all the “editorial” decisions that go into what is news, which particular facts, from whom juxtaposed how etc. I don’t want my government, no matter how the power shakes out vis a vis varying ideologies, to pick and choose who/what is funded. Unfettered political speech is a bedrock of our freedom and subsidizing any of it dangerously wrong.

.

Zermatt2 said:
I can say that I can compare you with me. We are both human; we both read and post on Mediaite. I have no idea if you’re male or female, but if you’re male, so am I. However, you obviously are a conservative, and I am a liberal.

Yes, I am a very conservative woman. My user name, Grammie, is the name that I’m known by at this stage in my life to the vast majority of people that I see b/c that is what I am literally. I’m a grey haired old widow and even the neighborhood kids call me Grammie.

Zermatt2 said:
Truth of the matter is, there is bias in every media outlet, whether it is a small amount or a large amount. You tell me someone is completely “fair and balanced” and without bias, then I will try to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

I must agree. However, with that in mind, why do you also seem to feel that NPR/PBS should be subsidized by public funds?

As a liberal you claim to see no bias in NPR. Do you think that I, a conservative, would agree with you. Is it not true that we all perceive the world thru our own filters and what you see as pure another might just as legitimately and reasonably perceive as tainted. Is this alone not a strong enough argument against government funding of any of it?

Grammie said:
,I find that a bit contradictory but we all have opinions that involve some cognitive dissonance. I am a very regular watcher of PBS but all I know of NPR’s reporting is from columns such as this. The bias in any direction or lack thereof is immaterial to me in this debate. I see this as a what is the proper role of government in funding TV and radio. I don’t think any public funding should go to any entity that disseminates “news” and opinions on the news. I also don’t think public funding should go to provide entertainment. My views on this have gotten much stronger now that we find ourselves teetering on the edge of a financial abyss and are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar spent. Any entity that provides news is de facto political, IMO b/c of all the “editorial” decisions that go into what is news, which particular facts, from whom juxtaposed how etc. I don’t want my government, no matter how the power shakes out vis a vis varying ideologies, to pick and choose who/what is funded. Unfettered political speech is a bedrock of our freedom and subsidizing any of it dangerously wrong. . Yes, I am a very conservative woman. My user name, Grammie, is the name that I’m known by at this stage in my life to the vast majority of people that I see b/c that is what I am literally. I’m a grey haired old widow and even the neighborhood kids call me Grammie. I must agree. However, with that in mind, why do you also seem to feel that NPR/PBS should be subsidized by public funds? As a liberal you claim to see no bias in NPR. Do you think that I, a conservative, would agree with you. Is it not true that we all perceive the world thru our own filters and what you see as pure another might just as legitimately and reasonably perceive as tainted. Is this alone not a strong enough argument against government funding of any of it?

Grammie,

Several points:

First, I truly believe that NPR’s actual news reporting is unbiased. If there is any bias in the actual news reporting, it is very, very little. One reason why I like NPR’s news reporting is that there isn’t any “fluff” in it. It reports facts on major news stories around the world. When I lived in Europe, the only English language cable stations I had were CNN International and the BBC. I watched the BBC a lot, and I believe its news reporting had no bias (maybe other of its programs do), and the news reporting did not have the “fluff” that you see in many of the other stations. How many times have you seen a story about Charlie Sheen on most of the networks? I don’t know if I’ve heard any reporting about Charlie Sheen on NPR, although if there has been, it has been minimal.

Secondly, I do feel strongly that public funds should help NPR. The fact that I believe NPR provides very unbiased news reporting and has very informative (and entertaining) programs i think is a very good reason. I will stick by my thoughts that NPR does provide some of the most unbiased news reporting that you will find anywhere out there. As far as some of the other programs, look at David Brooks and Mark Shields’ program on PBS. They discuss both sides of an issue, without the yelling and screaming you see on other networks. Jim Lehrer’s news reporting is done so without, again, the “fluff” you see in other newscasts.

I truly believe that NPR andPBS provide news and programming which educate its listeners with truth and without the nastiness and “fluff” you often see on other networks. Don’t take this the wrong way, but I also truly believe that if NPR/PBS were to go away, that would contribute to the “dumbing down”" of America. I believe it is partially the government’s role to help educate this country. NPR very often has guests on, liberal and conservative, that you simply do not see on other networks, and they very often are experts in their field. And when I say I believe it is “partially the government’s role,” keep in mind that only a miniscule amount of public funding goes to NPR/PBS.

Lastly, I don’t listen to NPR or watch PBS all day, so perhaps there is some bias that I do not hear. However, from what I listen to, it is very little, if any, especially in the news reporting.

Mediaite wrote:
“Sure, any site that seems to have a set ideology may have a couple posts with a differing opinion”

Just like Mediaite.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/blaze-scrutiny-of-npr-expose-videos-draws-extensive-media-reaction/

Interesting story from Glenn Beck from minutes ago. Once upon a time, Glenn was holding across the country “Rallies for America.” Apparently there was a phoney story that Clear Channel Communications radio stations were organizing these rallies. NPR had a short segment on this story on their “Marketplace” program. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/875546/posts Well they put Glenn on for an interview to adress this and Glenn made sure that he would be able to respond and not be interrupted. Halfway through the interview, the interviewer got a phone call. After he got off the phone, he said that the interview would not be continued. They had just found out that there was nothing to this story (which they got from one reporter at Salon.) They said that this was not the story they were looking for or something (he may have said something else, I’m not sure, don’t remember exactly what he said) Glenn was like “well, isn’t this the story? That it’s not a real story?” Apparently not. I’ll listen to what he said again later to make sure I’ve got the story right.

BruinAlum77 said:
The point is, newspapers still have editors and legal departments, so they double check facts and make sure they won’t get themselves sued. This is not the case with blogs and online news aggregators. They are still considered opinion based reporting, so they don’t need to follow the same standards as major news sources.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/14/ny-mag-to-nyt-yer-gettin-sloppy/