Re: NPR bias

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 shadowman-IfOL7F/[email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Niel M. Bornstein wrote:
> >
> > > It irritates me (and this is not just an NPR thing) when they talk about
> > > the change in power in Afghanistan being "bloodless".

i have read estimates that the civilian deaths in Afghanistan are around
3200.  but according to Rumsfield, "civilian deaths are not news".  maybe
not to him...

> >
> > A few months ago, I saw a full page ad in a national newspaper (can't
> > rememeber which one) that criticized NPR for unbalanced airtime in favor
> > of the Palestinian perspective.
>
> Note: that has *nothing* to do with calling the Afghan shift
> "bloodless". I assume it's in response to my initial post.

you're right and it was.

>
> >  I suspect they responded to the
> > accusation by going too far the other way.
>
> That presumes that the ad was correct. It's standard practice for groups
> like FLAME to accues the US media for being pro-Palestinian. That just
> isn't true.

Being a daily listener to NPR, I had first-hand experience that the ad was
correct.  Only thing is, that's WHY I was listening to it.

>
> > At the time, it was true that
> > they did have more guests with a pro-Palestinian perspective and I was
> > pleased with that.
>
> Really? Overall? I'm *very* skeptical.

once again, that's why i was listening.  i wanted to hear the palestinian
perspective.

>
> The FAIR numbers are hard.
>
> >  I felt that it was necessary in order to balance out
> > the heavy pro-Israeli position that permeates most mainstream media.  It
> > was one of the main reasons I became an avid listener.
>
> If only they did actually balanced reporting!

btw, i sent an email to [email protected] allowing him to refute the
statistics that were cited.  i don't doubt their accuracy, though.  i
urged him to correct the problem.


>
> It'd be interesting if certain programs (I know Democracy Now, a non-npr
> program) had balanced or corrective coverage. But, alas, that doesn't mean
> that their straight news reporting is fair. And that's a *much worse*
> problem, imho.
>
> > I suspect that NPR is caught in the middle and is trying desperately to
> > give both sides equal airtime.
>
> Why is this hard? And what's "desparate" about reporting death tolls
> accurately? Or saying that a period of time is "violence free" in a an
> area if there are only palistinean deaths? That's not perspective or tilt,
> that's *foul lying distortion*.

i agree that it should not be hard, but it is definitely RARE.

>
> >  I listen to NPR everyday all day long and
> > while I disagree with some of the positions they take and the ways in
> > which they characterize the news, I am at a loss to listen to anything
> > else that takes a more balanced perspective.
>
> Just because everyone else is worse doesn't mean they're OK.

agreed.

>
> Send a letter to the NPR guy. Did you *see* the reportage imablances?
>
> > At least, there's nothing
> > better in my local area.  As far as I am concerned, they do as good a job
> > reporting the news fairly as anybody.
>
> Well, if that's the standard, then they're ok. After all, Fox News is the
> measure.

i'm not sure what standard you are referring to.  believe me, liberal
radio is scarce in my neck of the woods.

>
> (It's not *entirely* unknown for a major news org to run a piece critical
> of Israel, though they standardly take a *lot* of flak for it. But the
> more pervasive problem is things like these casualty reports and calling a
> period of great violence "calm" until one Israeli is killed (about a
> period where *26* palistineans, mostly *KIDS*, are killed). This conceals
> the basic *facts* of the situation! It's morally grotesque! It's
> completely racist.)

this implies some sort of conspiracy and that makes me skeptical.  i don't
question your facts, i just fail to see a motive as to why they would
deliberately conceal something like this.  obviously they did conceal the
facts, but what did they have to gain?  are you implying that they have
something to gain by characterizing Palestinian deaths as a "great calm"?
i'm no pollyana, but i cannot agree that the whole of NPR is racist.  (i
understand that you are not implying that). i think that would be a
sweeping generalization.  making a racist statement is not the same as
being a racist.  i trust NPR to give accurate and balanced reporting and I
am just as upset as you are that they have not been providing me with
that.


>
> If you *are* an avid NPR listener, write in. Threaten to stop supporting
> them (you can still listen, after all :)).

i did.  see previous comment.


respectfully,
hugh

> _______________________________________________
> Bonobos maillist  -  Bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
> http://monkeyfist.com/mailman/listinfo/bonobos
>