Saturday, December 29, 2007

Open Thread

NPR related comments welcomed.


Porter Melmoth said...

I tend to praise Philip Reeves on these pages quite a bit because, in spite of his colleagues, he refuses to give an NPR spin to his reportage from South Asia.

This morning it was sort of strange, in a good way, to hear him covering the jolting post-Bhutto events in Pakistan, because he sticks to what is known and what he has observed rather than getting mucked up in a bunch of speculative gobbledegook. I suppose that's old-fashioned. Works for me, though.

The NPR Spin always seems to try and have stuff 'figured out', as if they're one step ahead of the players in current events. It's always so show-offy and mock-clever. Is that what 'in depth' reporting is supposed to be? Can you imagine having Ari-Conditioned Shapiro or Mara-Mara Liarson in Karachi right now??

Contrasted with Linda Wertheimer's martini-glass-and-cigarette-holder drawl (who does she wannabe, Tallulah Bankhead??), Mr Reeves sounds traditionally straight-as-an-old-BBC-arrow in his objective reports. A clear and steady voice is needed in the current turmoil, and Reeves is the man. He's the only reason that I'm following Pak events on NPR right now. He isn't buying in to this Frank Luntz-ish 'Most Dangerous Nation' classification BS.

(I ask you, WHO is the most dangerous nation in the world?)

PS: As most of us would agree, there are worse chattering pieholes at NPR than Dame Linda, like, surprise, surprise, Little Bobby Siegel and his sickening attempts at sounding like some super-intellectual transatlantic don - or whuteveh. I know, you think I've got it in for Sir Robert, but I just had to squeeze that in.

Anonymous said...

I don't have the patience to maintain a blog, so I don't have a blogger ID.

But today NPR tested my patience again through their incredibly cynical treatment of Chávez´s attempt to broker the freeing of the FARC hostages.

Apparently, NPR isn´t happy with this. So how do they cover this story? Well, they take jabs at Chávez.

On the hourly segment, they proceeded (1) to minimize the hostages being freed--implying in essence that they weren´t the most important (Ingrid Betancourt and three US contractors)--(2)to dig into Chávez by saying he was opportunistically using this to take a jab at that crack whore Uribe and (3) in what was the height of childish reporting, reminding listeners--seriously!--that Chávez was left-wing and anti-US and Uribe was right-wing and pro-US.

This is the tenor of reporting over at National Propaganda Radio.

I wanted to throw my radio against the wall, I was so incensed. And then I realized my radio wasn´t at fault and refrained. It is a good Grunding radio and they cost money.


Anonymous said...

Ok. My gripe today is about how on Morning Edition they talk as if Bush actually vetoed some defense spending bill that Congress delivered 10 days ago....

Hellllooooo NPR. If you're implying there was a "pocket veto" why not just make that false claim?

The problem with NPR's false claim is that it is regurgitation of Bush's deluded mind that Congress is in recess. The House may be, but the Senate is in constant pro-forma session to keep Bush from making disastrous recess appointments without the Senate's advice or consent!

Does anyone in NPR have a copy of the beloved Constitution before Bush ripped it to shreds?

Anonymous said...

Whenever NPR reports on an increase on the minimum wage in any given state, the thrust is always what a contentious issue this rate increase is, and how it will hurt businesses, or small business owners, the economy, the employment rate, etc. Tonight, it was how it will hurt... farmers.

Why on earth should I support increases in the minimum wage rate when I repeatedly learn via NPR just how dangerous and unfair it is? Obviously, any increase in the bare minimum rate we pay the least well off in America is a VERY BAD THING.