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.

 

You gave me one piece that has nothing to do with what I asked of you and has nothing specific to say about this discussion (the pew one), and one piece that does nothing to answer my question of whether or not the study's findings on NPR are incorrect or biased in some way.

 

Nobody on this thread has, as of yet, produced anything even resembling proof about the supposedly obvious bias in NPR's reporting, while the lone study cited that shows that NPR's reporting falls somewhere between the average Democrat and average Republican's views has been conveniently explained away with "That study is 5 years old!", "you also quoted a bit about how another organization disagreed even though you weren't using that to make your point", and "Some people who teach at Universities are liberal!"

 

Are you aware of how incredibly and undeniably weak the arguments you are laying out are?

 

As for what I do or do not know about Fox news or MSNBC, I have no desire to take your word for it, but here's a Pew Research poll on people's perceptions of the various news networks from October 2009:

I wouldnt really say CNN is more liberal than MSNBC, they're slightly left of center IMO.

 

I also laugh at those who thought Fox was mostly liberal.

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.

 

 

Definitely. College agendas are very liberal, professors are very liberal, and the voiciest of students on campus are very liberal. Of course that doesnt apply to everyone and to every university... but go ahead and spend a week on a college campus and you'll feel it.

Not FIU.

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.

 

 

I love how you seem to just think you know how I feel about every issue. On average, Fox News will report on stories that are more relevant to daily life, while Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow, etc. seem to open every show with some new Republican conspiracy theory about Obama that was just created. That is why, on average, I said that Fox News is a little less biased.

 

No, I don't support either of them. Watching both of them though is, I feel, the only way one can actually view objectively what is going on in the world.

 

I don't recall ever hearing guys like Limbaugh or Beck say that Obama wasn't born in this country, or saying that shariah law is taking over America, or that Obama is a communist. That sounds like something you would get from MSNBC.

 

The left-wing always tries to portray Limbaugh, Beck, and the rest as radicals while praising people like Michael Moore, Ed Schultz, etc. as "normal Americans." In reality, Beck has the mind of the average conservative. There have been several polls released that show that nearly half of Americans think Obama is a socialist, so I guess you would be calling nearly half of America "extreme." I'd like you to name one thing that Beck has advocated that an overwhelming majority of Americans would disagree with.

 

The point I am trying to make isn't so much as to their views compared to the average American's. I have asked you several times now though if there is a set standard as to what views can be considered "mainstream?" You haven't given me an answer.

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.washingto...-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.

 

You gave me one piece that has nothing to do with what I asked of you and has nothing specific to say about this discussion (the pew one), and one piece that does nothing to answer my question of whether or not the study's findings on NPR are incorrect or biased in some way.

 

Nobody on this thread has, as of yet, produced anything even resembling proof about the supposedly obvious bias in NPR's reporting, while the lone study cited that shows that NPR's reporting falls somewhere between the average Democrat and average Republican's views has been conveniently explained away with "That study is 5 years old!", "you also quoted a bit about how another organization disagreed even though you weren't using that to make your point", and "Some people who teach at Universities are liberal!"

 

Are you aware of how incredibly and undeniably weak the arguments you are laying out are?

 

As for what I do or do not know about Fox news or MSNBC, I have no desire to take your word for it, but here's a Pew Research poll on people's perceptions of the various news networks from October 2009:

 

 

 

 

You asked me if I could prove the professors in the study you used as your source were flawed, which is nothing but impossible to do. To counter, I gave you a source stating that nearly 3/4 of professors define themselves as "liberal", while only 1/5 of total Americans do so. Using the law of probability, the professors were likely to have some sort of liberal bias. I am not stating that is a fact, but I am generalizing with the average midset of a college professor.

 

You provided a source from a very liberal organization and tried to seem as if it was non-partisan and credible. NPR, to most people at least, is known for leaning towards the left, and I thought that common knowledge allowed me to not have to go digging to find statistics that prove NPR is in fact liberal.

 

I'd also like to know what your chart exactly proves. When the battle over favorability in baseball is between the Yankees and the rest of the MLB, the Yankees are going to be the most hated team. Fox News, in effect, is the Yankees of TV news.

Chart has nothing to do with favorability, it has to do with viewer's perceptions of the network's ideologies.

Also, I've explained multiple times now that the bit from FAIR was not the part I was trying to point out in that quote, it was the study showing that NPR's coverage falls somewhere between the average democrat and average republican. Why are you clinging to the FAIR quote that I've already told you wasn't what I was focusing on?

 

You're making it quite tough to continue discussing anything with you aren't going to even pay attention and acknowledge what I'm saying.

I love how you seem to just think you know how I feel about every issue. On average, Fox News will report on stories that are more relevant to daily life, while Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow, etc. seem to open every show with some new Republican conspiracy theory about Obama that was just created. That is why, on average, I said that Fox News is a little less biased.

 

No, I don't support either of them. Watching both of them though is, I feel, the only way one can actually view objectively what is going on in the world.

 

I don't recall ever hearing guys like Limbaugh or Beck say that Obama wasn't born in this country, or saying that shariah law is taking over America, or that Obama is a communist. That sounds like something you would get from MSNBC.

 

The left-wing always tries to portray Limbaugh, Beck, and the rest as radicals while praising people like Michael Moore, Ed Schultz, etc. as "normal Americans." In reality, Beck has the mind of the average conservative. There have been several polls released that show that nearly half of Americans think Obama is a socialist, so I guess you would be calling nearly half of America "extreme." I'd like you to name one thing that Beck has advocated that an overwhelming majority of Americans would disagree with.

 

The point I am trying to make isn't so much as to their views compared to the average American's. I have asked you several times now though if there is a set standard as to what views can be considered "mainstream?" You haven't given me an answer.

 

 

Rush Limbaugh has referenced the Birther conspiracies on more than one occasion, though in all fairness, I was incorrect in lumping Beck in with him in that regard.

 

There's this from Rush Limbaugh's radio program:

 

Anti-women's rights is a cause of the left. That's who's pushing Sharia in this country: The left. It's the left that wants a mosque at Ground Zero. It's left who thinks "America's chickensssss came home to roost" on 9/11. It's the American left that thinks we got what we deserved on 9/11. It's the American left that wants the mosque at Ground Zero. No one can be pro-women's rights and remain silent about the metastasizing cancer that Sharia law is on women's rights. They say that I am anti-equal rights for the races. I'm accused of racism every day of the week by the left, yet what do we see out of the NAALCP? We have videos at official NAALCP functions that are racist, that are divisive, filled with rage and anger. We have the New Black Panthers. We have "La Raza," The Race.

 

Glenn Beck has also taken part in the typical FNC fear mongering about the Park 51 community center, doing a segment on his show asking whether the imam behind the community center wants to bring Sharia law to the United States (it is pretty clear he does not).

 

As for Beck never calling Obama a communist:

 

 

As for whether there is a set standard of what is mainstream, no, I guess I can't provide you with that, so I hope you are willing to accept Michael Moore as mainstream as well.

 

And as for whether I believe Michael Moore to be mainstream, the answer is unequivocally no. He's just as fringe as Beck and Limbaugh in their beliefs and serves the same fear mongering role as they do, and I said as much earlier in the thread when I said "Michael Moore is the left wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh." I find him just as repulsive and hurtful to our country as Limaugh, so don't try to pass me off as someone who thinks he represents normal Americans.

 

 

 

I can't believe you actually need evidence of this stuff if you actually watch them as you say. They do this stuff on a regular basis. That's their job. They fling invective and divide people and appeal to our most base, ugly instincts because that is what gets viewers. Though I will say in fairness that Beck is significantly less harmful than either Moore or Limbaugh, though I think it's less for lack of trying and just because he's not as good at it as the other two, who are master manipulators of the highest order. Whatever else you want to say about Limbaugh or Moore, they are brilliant at what they do. It's just that what they do is awful.

 

And before you say it, YES OLBERMAN DOES THE SAME STUFF. Stop trying to make it seem like I'm the one defending anyone here, you are the one who is trying to defend Beck, Limbaugh et al as something different.

As for Beck never calling Obama a communist:

 

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=l46t_nrySg4

 

 

It's called satire.:whistle

Chart has nothing to do with favorability, it has to do with viewer's perceptions of the network's ideologies.

 

 

 

Laughable.

 

The average person's perception of specific media outlets doesn't work like that.

Also, I've explained multiple times now that the bit from FAIR was not the part I was trying to point out in that quote, it was the study showing that NPR's coverage falls somewhere between the average democrat and average republican. Why are you clinging to the FAIR quote that I've already told you wasn't what I was focusing on?

 

You're making it quite tough to continue discussing anything with you aren't going to even pay attention and acknowledge what I'm saying.

 

 

 

If I remember correctly, the study you used as your source stated that Time and US News magazine leaned towards the left, and that NPR was rated more liberal than both of those. Am I wrong?

I love how you seem to just think you know how I feel about every issue. On average, Fox News will report on stories that are more relevant to daily life, while Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow, etc. seem to open every show with some new Republican conspiracy theory about Obama that was just created. That is why, on average, I said that Fox News is a little less biased.

 

No, I don't support either of them. Watching both of them though is, I feel, the only way one can actually view objectively what is going on in the world.

 

I don't recall ever hearing guys like Limbaugh or Beck say that Obama wasn't born in this country, or saying that shariah law is taking over America, or that Obama is a communist. That sounds like something you would get from MSNBC.

 

The left-wing always tries to portray Limbaugh, Beck, and the rest as radicals while praising people like Michael Moore, Ed Schultz, etc. as "normal Americans." In reality, Beck has the mind of the average conservative. There have been several polls released that show that nearly half of Americans think Obama is a socialist, so I guess you would be calling nearly half of America "extreme." I'd like you to name one thing that Beck has advocated that an overwhelming majority of Americans would disagree with.

 

The point I am trying to make isn't so much as to their views compared to the average American's. I have asked you several times now though if there is a set standard as to what views can be considered "mainstream?" You haven't given me an answer.

 

 

Rush Limbaugh has referenced the Birther conspiracies on more than one occasion, though in all fairness, I was incorrect in lumping Beck in with him in that regard.

 

There's this from Rush Limbaugh's radio program:

 

Anti-women's rights is a cause of the left. That's who's pushing Sharia in this country: The left. It's the left that wants a mosque at Ground Zero. It's left who thinks "America's chickensssss came home to roost" on 9/11. It's the American left that thinks we got what we deserved on 9/11. It's the American left that wants the mosque at Ground Zero. No one can be pro-women's rights and remain silent about the metastasizing cancer that Sharia law is on women's rights. They say that I am anti-equal rights for the races. I'm accused of racism every day of the week by the left, yet what do we see out of the NAALCP? We have videos at official NAALCP functions that are racist, that are divisive, filled with rage and anger. We have the New Black Panthers. We have "La Raza," The Race.

 

Glenn Beck has also taken part in the typical FNC fear mongering about the Park 51 community center, doing a segment on his show asking whether the imam behind the community center wants to bring Sharia law to the United States (it is pretty clear he does not).

 

As for Beck never calling Obama a communist:

 

 

As for whether there is a set standard of what is mainstream, no, I guess I can't provide you with that, so I hope you are willing to accept Michael Moore as mainstream as well.

 

And as for whether I believe Michael Moore to be mainstream, the answer is unequivocally no. He's just as fringe as Beck and Limbaugh in their beliefs and serves the same fear mongering role as they do, and I said as much earlier in the thread when I said "Michael Moore is the left wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh." I find him just as repulsive and hurtful to our country as Limaugh, so don't try to pass me off as someone who thinks he represents normal Americans.

 

 

 

I can't believe you actually need evidence of this stuff if you actually watch them as you say. They do this stuff on a regular basis. That's their job. They fling invective and divide people and appeal to our most base, ugly instincts because that is what gets viewers. Though I will say in fairness that Beck is significantly less harmful than either Moore or Limbaugh, though I think it's less for lack of trying and just because he's not as good at it as the other two, who are master manipulators of the highest order. Whatever else you want to say about Limbaugh or Moore, they are brilliant at what they do. It's just that what they do is awful.

 

And before you say it, YES OLBERMAN DOES THE SAME STUFF. Stop trying to make it seem like I'm the one defending anyone here, you are the one who is trying to defend Beck, Limbaugh et al as something different.

 

 

You have yet to prove either of them have said that Obama wasn't born in this country, that Obama is a communist (no, the video you posted actually doesn't say that), or that either of them think the country is being taken over by sharia law (and no, you can't distort Limbaugh's comments to make it seem like he did.) The only reasons why you make these accusations is because you listen to how Beck is perceived by the rest of the media (it goes without saying what their ideology is.) Since nearly every commentator that isn't on Fox News calls him the next Hitler, it's no surprise that half of America actally believes the stuff that comes out of your mouth.

 

And no, I wouldn't refer to Michael Moore as mainstream. However, I wouldn't classify him as extreme or a radical either, because those labels are idiotic and serve no purpose except to use them for political gain. You are not the one who is able to judge how "extreme" one's political views are, and no one else is either. In this country, a conservative is labeled extreme if they want to privatize social security, and a liberal is labeled extreme if they think the second amendment doesn't mean what most people think it means today. The terms are nothing but useless.

 

Yet, you still seem to be missing the point. Even if both Limbaugh and Beck had stated all of those things at some point in time, a large portion of the American public would probably agree with them. When half of America has a certain opinion, would you still define that as "radical?" The word "socialist" hasn't been used as often as it is used today in a while, but that is mainly because we haven't had a president who was as liberal as Obama is in a while. Polls show that around 40% of Americans think Obama is a socialist. Polls also show that around 40% of Americans want to legalize gay marriage. I guess we would have to define those guys as radicals too.

 

I don't need any evidence that guys like Beck and Limbaugh imply that Obama is a socialist, because they do it nearly every day. Not to mention that I never even denied that they have called him a socialist before. Guys like them will do whatever they can in order to draw the highest ratings. And how do they do that? They simply have to appeal to the average conservative voter.

 

I will defend anyone against attacks that are nothing but poor efforts at trying to destroy someone's image. Beck and Limbaugh are talk-show hosts that appeal to the average conservative. That is why one of them has the highest-rated morning radio show and the other one has the highest rated cable news TV show. They are nothing more than that, and nothing less.

Someone needs to conduct a poll to see what Americans believe the definition of 'socialist' even is, because I guarantee 80%+ will not get it right. So I personally ignore the polls saying that 40% or whatever of polled Americans called him a socialist.

 

As someone who is pretty far left myself, Obama isn't even halfway to being a true socialist. His policies have been maybe an inch left of center on average. On some issues he's to the right. This is true for a lot of presidents, however.

He's a mainstream American politician.

He's a mainstream American politician.

 

 

I think that's what most people miss out on. He's not any more driven than any other politician would be as president.

Also, I've explained multiple times now that the bit from FAIR was not the part I was trying to point out in that quote, it was the study showing that NPR's coverage falls somewhere between the average democrat and average republican. Why are you clinging to the FAIR quote that I've already told you wasn't what I was focusing on?

 

You're making it quite tough to continue discussing anything with you aren't going to even pay attention and acknowledge what I'm saying.

 

 

 

If I remember correctly, the study you used as your source stated that Time and US News magazine leaned towards the left, and that NPR was rated more liberal than both of those. Am I wrong?

 

You are wrong:

 

A 2005 study conducted by researchers at UCLA and the University of Missouri found that NPR leans left. Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's."[28] It found NPR to be more liberal than the average U.S. voter of the time of the study and more conservative than the average U.S. Democrat of the time.

I don't need any evidence that guys like Beck and Limbaugh imply that Obama is a socialist, because they do it nearly every day. Not to mention that I never even denied that they have called him a socialist before. Guys like them will do whatever they can in order to draw the highest ratings. And how do they do that? They simply have to appeal to the average conservative voter.

 

 

I would argue they fear monger more than they appeal, but you make some fair points.

 

Radical is a relative term, however, the conversation started because you said NPR counters what Limbaugh and them do. I think that's unfair to NPR, and I think you have to try really hard to justify that. NPR is a legitimate news gathering organization that, regardless of any potential biases that can be found (and which, by the available data, is slight), tries to be objective in their reporting, while Limbaugh and Beck, regardless of what you think of their politics, flaunt their biases and make no claims for objectivity. That's the key distinction that I think you miss in what you originally said.

Not FIU.

 

 

Do you ever go around the Green Library? You've got these overly happy people constantly hounding you for signatures and asking you if you 'have a minute for women's rights.' Couple that with the (ironically) fat kids who, admittedly only occasionally, pass out PETA pamphlets near ECS and the fruity everglades people (cousin of the overly happy women's rights group) outside of GC and you've got yourself a pretty hefty army of annoying activists. Sometimes you just want to be really mean to them and tell them you don't believe in women's rights and that you want to create the world's largest shopping mall over the everglades, but constrain yourself at the last minute because that may be too mean.

Also, are the news stations' political leanings relevant at all? Regardless how centrist or leftist or fascist or socialist or whatever NPR is, you either have A to say about what happened to Juan Williams or B.

He's a mainstream American politician.

 

Sadly, yes.

Someone needs to conduct a poll to see what Americans believe the definition of 'socialist' even is, because I guarantee 80%+ will not get it right. So I personally ignore the polls saying that 40% or whatever of polled Americans called him a socialist.

 

As someone who is pretty far left myself, Obama isn't even halfway to being a true socialist. His policies have been maybe an inch left of center on average. On some issues he's to the right. This is true for a lot of presidents, however.

 

 

 

I think in order to make a judgement, one needs to differentiate between policies that he has advocated for in the past and the actual policies he has implemented.

 

For example, he has stated numerous times in the past that he is in favor of a universal healthcare system, which many would characterize as socialist-leaning. However, the actual healthcare bill that passed is clearly not sociallist. And neither are the financial regulations.

 

Of course, this isn't to say that Obama believes in true socialism by any means (I'm also not saying that he doesn't believe in socialism.) But don't give me that crap that his policies might be just an inch left of center though, because he is not a moderate by any means according to average American standards.

 

I do agree with you, however, that close to 90% of Americans don't even know what socialism is, but the fact that the average American at least pretends to know what it is allows my point to stand.

Also, I've explained multiple times now that the bit from FAIR was not the part I was trying to point out in that quote, it was the study showing that NPR's coverage falls somewhere between the average democrat and average republican. Why are you clinging to the FAIR quote that I've already told you wasn't what I was focusing on?

 

You're making it quite tough to continue discussing anything with you aren't going to even pay attention and acknowledge what I'm saying.

 

 

 

If I remember correctly, the study you used as your source stated that Time and US News magazine leaned towards the left, and that NPR was rated more liberal than both of those. Am I wrong?

 

You are wrong:

 

A 2005 study conducted by researchers at UCLA and the University of Missouri found that NPR leans left. Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's."[28] It found NPR to be more liberal than the average U.S. voter of the time of the study and more conservative than the average U.S. Democrat of the time.

 

 

Are you forgetting this part?

 

 

"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."

I don't need any evidence that guys like Beck and Limbaugh imply that Obama is a socialist, because they do it nearly every day. Not to mention that I never even denied that they have called him a socialist before. Guys like them will do whatever they can in order to draw the highest ratings. And how do they do that? They simply have to appeal to the average conservative voter.

 

 

I would argue they fear monger more than they appeal, but you make some fair points.

 

Radical is a relative term, however, the conversation started because you said NPR counters what Limbaugh and them do. I think that's unfair to NPR, and I think you have to try really hard to justify that. NPR is a legitimate news gathering organization that, regardless of any potential biases that can be found (and which, by the available data, is slight), tries to be objective in their reporting, while Limbaugh and Beck, regardless of what you think of their politics, flaunt their biases and make no claims for objectivity. That's the key distinction that I think you miss in what you originally said.

 

 

When I say that they are there to counter the other side, that doesn't necessarily mean that they need to go as far to the left as Limbaugh is as far to the right. They simply need to give left-leaning people something they like to listen to.

 

For example, on TV, Fox News started leaning to the right before MSNBC started to really lean towards the left. Now, however, MSNBC has seemed to have gone even further to the left than Fox news has gone to the right, as MSNBC doesn't have one prime-time commentator that isn't liberal.

 

On the radio, it is the opposite.

 

You have to differ between stations like NPR and guys like Limbaugh and Beck though. NPR is a (at least in part) publicly funded station that is mainly there just to give people a round-up of what is making headlines. On the other hand, Limbaugh's and Beck's shows are opinionated, and they will admit that. That is how they are designed to be. Neither of them describe themselves as newscasters, unlike NPR, which means that they don't necessarily have to try to be objectionable and unbiased.

That is the show Morning Edition.

 

Either way, a "lean left" =/= what Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck are.