Do we know that their policies in 1995 were the same as they are now, and whether Williams' position within the company was the same as the other two's?

why is the latter relevant?

Do we know that their policies in 1995 were the same as they are now, and whether Williams' position within the company was the same as the other two's?

 

 

 

Does it matter?

 

The point I was trying to prove was the fact that they never had any "journalistic integrity."

 

They basically serve the purpose of countering the Limbaughs, Savages, Becks, Hannitys, etc. and the rest of talk radio which is mainly right-wing dominated. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, but to make it seem as if they have maintained a certain level of integrity by being non-partisan is simply wrong.

why is the latter relevant?

 

 

Let’s state a couple of facts. Juan is not an employee of NPR. He’s an independent contractor. He’s not NPR staff. He’s an NPR analyst. We have a contract with him for analyst opinions to provide news analysis. He is not a columnist or commentator. He also has an on-going relationship with Fox News. Mara Liasson is also on Fox News and is a full-time staffer. We accept that’s a whole other issue. However, we expect our journalists, whether they are news analysts or reporters to behave like journalists.

 

 

 

Do we know that their policies in 1995 were the same as they are now, and whether Williams' position within the company was the same as the other two's?

 

 

 

Does it matter?

 

The point I was trying to prove was the fact that they never had any "journalistic integrity."

 

They basically serve the purpose of countering the Limbaughs, Savages, Becks, Hannitys, etc. and the rest of talk radio which is mainly right-wing dominated. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, but to make it seem as if they have maintained a certain level of integrity by being non-partisan is simply wrong.

 

That's flatly ridiculous. You can't actually believe that.

 

From Wiki:

 

Allegations of liberal bias

 

A 2005 study conducted by researchers at UCLA and the University of Missouri found that Morning Edition leans left. At the time Morning Edition had a bias comparable to the The Washington Post and the CBS Morning Show, and was slightly more liberal than Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report.[26] It found Morning Edition to be more liberal than the average U.S. Republican of the time of the study and more conservative than the average U.S. Democrat of the time. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a progressive media watchdog group,[27] disputes the claim of a liberal bias.[28]

[edit]

 

If you want to find something more comprehensive that shows that they are the left wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, who actively promotes his far right wing views, be my guest, but you're wrong in that characterization.

 

There isn't always a left wing or right wing equivalent for everything. Sometimes, one side REALLY is worse than the other. In this case, the right wing is clearly more defined and extreme on the radio, and NPR is not the liberal equivalent of the right wing radio hosts.

 

MSNBC is the left wing equivalent of Fox News. Michael Moore is the left wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. But to say that a legitimate news gathering and reporting organization with a potential left wing slant is the equivalent of opinion driven, radical, openly biased commentators is absolutely ridiculous.

No it's not, the fact you believe a website run by majority liberals (yes most editors on Wikipedia are liberals just look at their userpages) to judge which is liberal and which isn't scares me.

So you think NPR is as liberal as Rush limbaugh is conservative? Like, really?

 

Also, if you actually read, you would see that it is citing a UCLA and University of Missouri study, and is not from Wiki itself. If you want to read the study itself, the citation is on wikipedia. I'm honestly not sure if you read what I posted there.

FAIR's study is 6 years old, things can change in 6 years....and the university study is 5 years old, things change in 5 years as well.Got any source more recent?

I would think the burden of proof would be on the guy who has produced no proof and is making the charges of liberal bias. But I have low expectations.

I would think the burden of proof would be on the guy who has produced no proof and is making the charges of liberal bias. But I have low expectations.

 

 

That's a cop out. Just say "I don't have anything" and we can get on with our lives.Oh if you want to play that game, I think the burden of proof is on either side.

And yet you've provided no proof of their liberal bias except that they fired Juan Williams for what he said, in which case we can only assume then that "People in Muslim garb make me nervous" is a typical mainstream conservative point of view. That is, in fact, the totality of your argument at this point. If they do indeed have a liberal bias, then they fired him for expressing what can only be taken as an unnacceptable conservative viewpoint.

 

Any conservatives here want to take that one on?

Oh come on, universities have a liberal bias. Everyone knows that.

Oh come on, universities have a liberal bias. Everyone knows that.

 

 

God I hope you're not being sarcastic...

Oh come on, universities have a liberal bias. Everyone knows that.

 

 

God I hope you're not being sarcastic...

It's been a longstanding statement from the media on the right that this is true.

I believe Dr. Beinfest believes in that bias. That is what he is saying.

I would think the burden of proof would be on the guy who has produced no proof and is making the charges of liberal bias. But I have low expectations.

 

 

That's a cop out. Just say "I don't have anything" and we can get on with our lives.Oh if you want to play that game, I think the burden of proof is on either side.

 

have you ever even listened to NPR? even if you want to argue they have a left-leaning slant, they're hardly the left's version of Rush Limbaugh. Please.

That's flatly ridiculous. You can't actually believe that.

 

From Wiki:

 

Allegations of liberal bias

 

A 2005 study conducted by researchers at UCLA and the University of Missouri found that Morning Edition leans left. At the time Morning Edition had a bias comparable to the The Washington Post and the CBS Morning Show, and was slightly more liberal than Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report.[26] It found Morning Edition to be more liberal than the average U.S. Republican of the time of the study and more conservative than the average U.S. Democrat of the time. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a progressive media watchdog group,[27] disputes the claim of a liberal bias.[28]

[edit]

 

If you want to find something more comprehensive that shows that they are the left wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, who actively promotes his far right wing views, be my guest, but you're wrong in that characterization.

 

There isn't always a left wing or right wing equivalent for everything. Sometimes, one side REALLY is worse than the other. In this case, the right wing is clearly more defined and extreme on the radio, and NPR is not the liberal equivalent of the right wing radio hosts.

 

MSNBC is the left wing equivalent of Fox News. Michael Moore is the left wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. But to say that a legitimate news gathering and reporting organization with a potential left wing slant is the equivalent of opinion driven, radical, openly biased commentators is absolutely ridiculous.

 

 

I love how people always use the word "radical" when describing one's political beliefs, as if there is a set standard as to what is "mainstream."

 

Do you even bother to look up your sources? FAIR, just like Media Matters, is a self-described liberal organization that only points out bias when a conservative shares his/her views. In case you didn't know, this is one of the organizations that constantly complains about how much the right-wing controls all of the American media outlets and about how guys like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are such Nazis. I could easily quote someone from the Media Research Center to "prove my point", but what would that accomplish? If NPR doesn't contain any bias, I guess the same would go for Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow, etc.

Uh.

 

What?

 

Do people even read posts anymore?

 

I quoted from Wiki saying that they lean left in their reporting, a charge I would likely not disagree with. What I disagree with is the attempt to equivocate NPR with Rush, Beck, et al.

 

In my post I said MSNBC is the left wing FNC. Seriously, are you purposefully ignoring what I wrote?

I would think the burden of proof would be on the guy who has produced no proof and is making the charges of liberal bias. But I have low expectations.

 

 

That's a cop out. Just say "I don't have anything" and we can get on with our lives.Oh if you want to play that game, I think the burden of proof is on either side.

 

have you ever even listened to NPR? even if you want to argue they have a left-leaning slant, they're hardly the left's version of Rush Limbaugh. Please.

 

I don't recall saying they were a leftie version of Rush, I just said they were left leaning.

I believe Dr. Beinfest believes in that bias. That is what he is saying.

 

 

 

It's not so much that the college students have a liberal bias, but college professors have long been known to be overwhelmingly liberal. Of course, one could also make the assumption that a student's views are likely to be impacted by those of the professor.

Fish Dynasty said they serve to counter Rush, Beck, et al. When I asked you if you agreed, you changed the subject.

Fish Dynasty said they serve to counter Rush, Beck, et al. When I asked you if you agreed, you changed the subject.

Uh.

 

What?

 

Do people even read posts anymore?

 

I quoted from Wiki saying that they lean left in their reporting, a charge I would likely not disagree with. What I disagree with is the attempt to equivocate NPR with Rush, Beck, et al.

 

In my post I said MSNBC is the left wing FNC. Seriously, are you purposefully ignoring what I wrote?

 

 

 

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a progressive media watchdog group, disputes the claim of a liberal bias.

 

 

That's a quote from your post, is it not?

 

Even so, who are you to say that guys like Limbaugh and Beck have "radical" or "extreme" views? Calling someone radical or extreme is typically just used as a political tool, as you can see in our home state's Senate race. Do you have a set list of positions on certain issues that could be considered either radical or not radical?

 

The entire game of trying to place an unpopular label on someone is ridiculous.

 

And Fox News doesn't lean to the right as much as MSNBC leans to the left, although I think we already had a thread about this.

I believe Dr. Beinfest believes in that bias. That is what he is saying.

 

 

 

It's not so much that the college students have a liberal bias, but college professors have long been known to be overwhelmingly liberal. Of course, one could also make the assumption that a student's views are likely to be impacted by those of the professor.

 

Do you have proof that the professors involved in the cited study at both UCLA and the University of Missouri misrepresented any facts in their study that found that NPR's main syndicated news program falls somewhere between the average democrat and average republican's political leanings? that they willingly and knowingly allowed their personal views to impact their findings? Do you have anything that discredits those findings? If not then this is irrelevant. That the average college professor has liberal ideals does not discredit the work of a collective of them from two different universities. As soon as I see some reason to disregard it, I will.

 

Equating what happens at NPR to what happens at either MSNBC or Fox News (Neither of which I watch) requires a gigantic and fundamentally unsound leap of faith. That Fox News has spent the better part of 5 days criticizing NPR's coverage is an absolute joke.

I believe Dr. Beinfest believes in that bias. That is what he is saying.

 

 

 

It's not so much that the college students have a liberal bias, but college professors have long been known to be overwhelmingly liberal. Of course, one could also make the assumption that a student's views are likely to be impacted by those of the professor.

 

Do you have proof that the professors involved in the cited study at both UCLA and the University of Missouri misrepresented any facts in their study that found that NPR's main syndicated news program falls somewhere between the average democrat and average republican's political leanings? that they willingly and knowingly allowed their personal views to impact their findings? Do you have anything that discredits those findings? If not then this is irrelevant. That the average college professor has liberal ideals does not discredit the work of a collective of them from two different universities. As soon as I see some reason to disregard it, I will.

 

Equating what happens at NPR to what happens at either MSNBC or Fox News (Neither of which I watch) requires a gigantic and fundamentally unsound leap of faith. That Fox News has spent the better part of 5 days criticizing NPR's coverage is an absolute joke.

 

 

Are you asking me to try to go in and pick out flaws of the people who conducted the specific study that you used as your source? No, I can't do that, and I don't think most people would be able to. I do have this though, and it is from the Washington Post of all places:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

 

And I also have this, which is by the non-partisan Pew Research Center:

 

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

 

I don't know how you would know what Fox News' coverage has been like if you don't watch it, but since I watch both Fox News and MSNBC, I agree with you on the issue that FN's coverage could possibly be classified as extensive. Although, Juan Williams is affiliated with their station, and the episode did occur on their station, so I expect them to have least have a decent amount of coverage over it.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a progressive media watchdog group, disputes the claim of a liberal bias.

 

 

That's a quote from your post, is it not?

 

Even so, who are you to say that guys like Limbaugh and Beck have "radical" or "extreme" views? Calling someone radical or extreme is typically just used as a political tool, as you can see in our home state's Senate race. Do you have a set list of positions on certain issues that could be considered either radical or not radical?

 

The entire game of trying to place an unpopular label on someone is ridiculous.

 

And Fox News doesn't lean to the right as much as MSNBC leans to the left, although I think we already had a thread about this.

 

 

So you are picking on one line in my post that I quoted that I didn't even focus on...

 

I watch neither FNC or MSNBC on a regular basis, and have no love for either, but I wouldn't say one is worse than the other in their actual coverage. They both stink as far as their actual news coverage is concerned and both simply use each story as a springboard with which to promote their particular world view. I take them as one in the same, and I think both are equally detestable as journalistic institutions. You obviously disagree simply because you are, presumably, a Fox News supporter and a believer in the particular storyline they are attempting to promote.

 

I think your opinion on this is obviously and clearly defined when you take issue with calling Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck radicals or extremists. They both play on fears of birtherism and a socialist and shariah takeover of the nation, fears that are entirely unfounded. They have both, at various points, accused Barack Obama of being a racist, a communist, and Rush Limbaugh has said on numerous occasions that Barack Obama is actively pursuing policies that will doom the nation on purpose. They have both called Barack Obama far worse than "radical" or "extremist". They flaunt their extreme conservative views. If you believe Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck reside in the mainstream of American political thought then you are too far gone to even discuss anything with.

 

If you can't even concede that the views they espouse on an everyday basis are extremist, then there's simply nowhere for this conversation to go, because you are occupying a reality outside of the one the rest of us currently exist in.