Monday, December 03, 2007

Open Thread

NPR related comments welcomed.

6 comments:

Porter Melmoth said...

I was just re-reading Flavio's analysis of the Ydstie/Forero hobnob about Venezuela, and I was particularly struck with a new sense of questioning. How extensive and how sophisticated is the actual 'thinking' that goes on regarding some of the political stories on NPR? What I mean by that is, here's the loudmouth Forero, 'reporting' from Caracas, and Ydstie, oh-so-gentle Dakotan country boy, making these subtle but well-calculated comments. I wonder, how much intellectual effort is put into these stories in order to falsify them? Flavio itemizes the falsehoods, but where is the connective chain of minds that designs them at or for NPR? Now we're really getting into high-level strategies. NPR is most definitely anti-Chavez. Well, a lot of people are anti-Chavez, but NPR's approach is one of the more blatant displays from a supposedly objective public media service. I'm thinking out loud here, but the regular analysis of this blog, combined with links of distinction and trustworthiness, have made quite a case for the abuse of public funds that result in such a non-objective public service as NPR. The problem is, even with their outrageousness, NPR comes off as subtle and low key to the general audience. They're hardly the scandalous-appearing den of controversy that, say, the sports world is, what with steroids and such. What I'd love to see is some congressperson launching an investigation regarding NPR's use of public funds. I've implied this before, but if NPR could be exposed as a private sector-acting entity, fine, let them operate for profit, a la Fox News. But as a publicly-supported entity, they have violated, it seems to me, the public trust, and so, their public funding should be revoked. NPR, in exercising its agenda-driven actions, just might be getting a bit too bold to remain safe behind its perceived subtleties, as well as its ersatz 'thinking person's' methods. NPR is exposing its own BS, but is there someone of consequence who will do anything about it?

Anonymous said...

To porter melmoth:

Please search up
"Operation Mockingbird."

Then try
"Broadcast Board of Governors."

That should answer your questions and confirm your suspicions while explaining why no inqueries will be made.

Porter Melmoth said...

Indeed, we've been putting 2 and 2 together around here for quite some time as to what NPR is up to, and the postures they assume. The point of my questioning was not specifically about Latin American 'Dark Siding', but rather, about NPR's validity as a publicly-funded enterprise. We have all sorts of facts, theories and suspicions about the probable agenda of NPR and associated concerns. I'm just wondering if there's a case for review regarding their public funding. I'm sure NPR has to meet review demands, and that they are seen to regularly. The Bush-friendly Corp for Public B'casting would certainly protect NPR. I'd just like a Kucinich or a Waxman or a Barney Frank to take a look at this matter. Believe me, I'm not getting my hopes up that that will happen, given the tiny appeal such an undertaking has in light of really big issues. I just don't think NPR News, as it exists now, deserves any public monies, and that it should be spun off into the private sector, where it would probably fade into oblivion.

Anonymous said...

To my knowledge--and correct me if I am all wet, please!--Radio Martí and Voice of America do not get any public funding, and so shouldn't NPR, especially when they are in violation of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which prohibits the US gov't from propagandizing to its citizens (with public funds). That is, I think, the crux of the matter, and I wish some enterprising lawyer would get on it!

Regards,

Flávio

Porter Melmoth said...

Thanks again, Flávio. very interesting information! I was unaware of the Smith-Mundt Act. Subject for further research.

I would add that, I wish we had the same access to democracy as was recently demonstrated in Venezuela. Here in the US, we don't have any say in the president's process of amassing more power. And what about 'signing statements'? I don't think Chavez gets to do that stuff.

Finally, I'd like to welcome my good buddy, Paul Wolfowitz, back to a position of power (at State). I still have him to kick around!

big!pink!fuzzy!bunny! said...

Wolfukwitz. Yuck. Evil gnome that just won't go away.