Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.
Posted by Mytwords at 6:28 AM
Labels:

14 comments:

Woody (Tokin Librul/Rogue Scholar/ Helluvafella!) said...

Colloquy?

There follows the entire conversation between me and the NPR Ombuds' office:
Date Created: 5/1/2009 12:40 PM EDT
Subject: Identifying Commentators
Body: I noticed this morning that when ME introduced movie critic Kenneth Horan, the announcer mentioned that Horan also writes for the LA Times.

So why, when Juan Williams is introduced as an NPR "senior correspondent", do his introductions NOT mention the gallons of murky water he carries for the GOP on Fox News? Surely, there's no possibility to claim Fox is anything but the private-property propaganda arm of the GOP, is there?

Seriously. Why not note that Williams is a notorious hack for Rupert Murdoch's empire? Do you think it irrelevant? Incidental? How much, comparatively, does Williams earn from NPR versus from Fox?

And, yes, I am pretty sure most NPR listeners know of Williams' connection to Fox. But why hide it, disguise it, camouflage it? Aren't you proud of his other media contributions, too? Obviously, this couldn't be answered honestly, as today's reply demonstrates:

Dear John,

Thank you for contacting NPR.

We regret if our programming has not met your expectations. We strive to offer the highest quality of news and information available. Listener feedback helps us to accomplish this goal.

We welcome both criticism and praise, and your thoughts will be taken into consideration.

Thank you for listening, and for your continued support of public broadcasting. For the latest news and information, visit NPR.org.

Sincerely,
Axxxxxx
NPR Services

5/5/09, 8:51 AM
biggerbox said...

Thank goodness for Tom Gjelten! Without him, I might have missed the position paper from the US Chamber of Commerce on why overseas tax havens are good. But there was good old reliable Tom to read it verbatim to me over the radio this morning on ME! Hooray! And he even had tape from people saying how good they are, so you know it must be true, right? Oh, and did you know that those "tax loopholes" are actually fair, and that closing them would be against the G20 commitments? Golly!

Now I can go back to paying more taxes as an individual than multi-million dollar corporations do, secure in knowing that our tax system is just as it should be! Thanks, Tom!

5/5/09, 9:34 AM
geoff said...

Ombot comes in peace to freely transport you to our paradise like planet. Our hope is to serve man.

5/5/09, 9:35 AM
Anonymous said...

Thank you for listening, and for your continued support of public broadcasting. For the latest news and information, visit NPR.org.


I call this condescension. You obviously are not a supporter yet the robot reply thinks the only people that commuicate with NPR Ombudsman must be a listener and supporter.

edk

5/5/09, 10:28 AM
Anonymous said...

I have also started a Iggy Pop Watch. How many times will NPR play a snatch of I Want to Be Your Dog? I doubt anyone at NPR has really listened to the song - they just had it on an album somewhere when they were at the NPR Training Academy. Sitting around with their hip friends, gettin high and groovin to the Stooges.

I got three in the last year. Cause NPR wants to be totally hip with the young people don't you know?

edk

5/5/09, 10:35 AM
Porter Melmoth said...

Well gang, something tells me that NPR just ain't gonna
'get it' as far as their current conduct/trends are concerned. The more criticism is aimed at them, the more likely they'll be more defensive. Opening themselves up to comments/feedback has shown that listeners (who make the effort to comment) are more dissatisfied with NPR News than otherwise. I'm sure they regret the move.

Plus, as we've seen, others in the sluggish media are taking note of NPR's less than worthless offerings (i.e. the Cokie Factor).

I read that bit of eloquence from the Ombot, 'defending' Yawn Williams, and it was a prime example of NPR's girding itself for more onslaughts. It was very Bushistic. Acknowledge a few points, offer no conclusions or perspectives, but just continue doing what's come before. I think that NPR feels that Williams is Fox's sword-swinging 'liberal' (they'd never use the term 'token') player amongst the Foxy friends. (The limpness of his 'jousting' with, say, Bloody Bill Kristol on Fox has to be seen to be believed, and Williams' fake 'indignant' displays are, well, fake.)

And yes, NPR's protection of Garrels was worse than the NYT's defense of Judith Miller.

NPR is scarcely a news source to be taken seriously.

5/5/09, 10:41 AM
Anonymous said...

I was going to complain about that tax haven story but I didn't until now know how to spell "Gjelten." That was an amazing piece of propaganda this morning -- NPR actually wanted listeners to believe that there is absolutely no upside to closing or regulating offshore tax havens, no way, no how, in no circumstances. Repeat: Tax havens good! Regulation bad!

5/5/09, 11:53 AM
WarOnWarOff said...

Our hope is to serve man.It's an alien zoo!

5/5/09, 1:00 PM
Anonymous said...

"And yes, NPR's protection of Garrels was worse than the NYT's defense of Judith Miller."

Not only that, NYT actually held Miller accountable for her major screwups. They FIRED her.

Garrels?

No such luck -- for us, for the people of Iraq, or for the rest of the world's people.

It's hard to say who was more disgusting in that case: Garrels herself, for taping the torture victims (not duct taping, of course) and then making excuses after people criticized her, NPR management for allowing Garrels to air the torture victims or Inskreep for giving Garrels the chance to make excuses and for attempting to divert the focus away from the criticisms sent in by listeners (all documented by FAIR.NPR's new ombudsman rightly criticized Garrels, but anyone with any clue at all about journalistic ethics would have done the same.

Shepard should have gone further: demanded Garrels' resignation. What Garrels did was a major breach of journalistic ethics -- perhaps one of (if not THE) worst.

but of course, that would not have gone over well with the management at NPR. An upstart new ombudsman actually doing her job? Some nerve.

5/5/09, 2:56 PM
Anonymous said...

Edk says "You obviously are not a supporter yet the robot reply thinks the only people that communicate with NPR Ombudsman must be a listener and supporter."

..and that there is actually "news and information at NPR.org."

More apt might be "views and disinformation".

And, unless i am mistaken, the "robot reply" is from the ombotswoman.

5/5/09, 3:28 PM
Whit said...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103769774&ps=cprs

NPR sponsors more of teh menz concern trolling.

5/5/09, 3:29 PM
Anonymous said...

Dear Yernotasmartasweare:

Thank you for contacting NPR.

We regret if you are not bright enough to understand our award-winning programming and pity you if you actually believe that there is anything better. We offer the highest quality news and information that the Universe has to offer (take it up with God if it does not meet your expectations). Listener feedback is usually pretty lame (especially the criticism) and is un-cerimoniously relegated to the spam file.

We welcome both praise and Praise, and your thoughts will be taken into consideration (as long as they amount to praise).

Thank you for listening, and for your continued support ($$$$) of public broadcasting. (It allowed me to buy a new Hummer, sucker). For the latest news and information, visit Fox...I mean NPR.org.

Sincerely,
Ombotswoman

5/5/09, 5:07 PM
bubba!pubba!fubba!bunnuba! said...

I would slightly append a sentence from P. Melmoth's input above:

The more criticism is aimed at them, the more likely they'll try to act all oblivious about it.

uN-emPiRically yours,
Bunny

5/5/09, 5:24 PM
Porter Melmoth said...

Gung ho, bubba! Ye speak the probable truth!

5/5/09, 8:18 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)