Monday, May 25, 2009

Q Tips


NPR related comments welcomed.

26 comments:

larry, dfh said...

Saturday I was driving with mny BiL through the beautiful mountains of western MD, and had to shut off the public radio station TWICE as they were runing nealy back-to-back torture pieces. It sounded like they were going to get pretty gorey, abut alas, I couldn't bear it. What's with these sick perverts?
i didn't hear the insipid cheney-obama debate, but just the fact that npr could run such a 'comparison' shows how 'in the tank' they really are. I think they would be much more factually honest if they had run a point-by-point comparisopn, to show how much the two are actually the same.

biggerbox said...

Steve Inskeep couldn't seem to keep his mouth shut during the live coverage of the Supreme Court nomination announcement this morning. Two interruptions for program idents and then speaking over the President to describe the nominee's reaction. Someone needs to tell him we listen to live coverage to actually hear what's said, not to hear him.

MD said...

A letter to NPR News (Morning Edition)

On Tuesday May 26 in talking about the Sotomayor appointment, you used phrases like "judicial activist" to refer to justices with left-of-center opinions.

Yet the greatest act of "judicial activism" for the last 30 years was the conservative justices' stopping the counting of votes in Florida in 2000 to allow George Bush to become president.

Both sides are "activist"; what differs is the issues over which they are activists.

gopol said...

Inskeep showed his utter idiocy when claiming that a 2/3 majority is required to approve a SCOTUS nominee - Liarsin then "corrected" him: only 60 are required. This, of course, comes as a great relief to me because it means that Alito (approved 58-42) and Clarence Thomas (approved 52-48) are not really on the court and all those votes they participated in don't count and GWB was never president.

That sure takes a load off, doesn't it. Thanks, Mata.

Anonymous said...

Yet the greatest act of "judicial activism" for the last 30 years was the conservative justices' stopping the counting of votes in Florida in 2000 to allow George Bush to become president."Sorry to pick nits, but technically speaking, I believe that was "criminal [not judicial] activism", even though judges were involved.

See, for example, None dare call it treasonIn the words of one of America's most famous prosecutors (Vincent Bugliosi)
"That an election for an American President can be stolen by the highest court in the land under the deliberate pretext of an inapplicable constitutional provision has got to be one of the most frightening and dangerous events ever to have occurred in this country. Until this act--which is treasonous, though again not technically, in its sweeping implications--is somehow rectified (and I do not know how this can be done), can we be serene about continuing to place the adjective "great" before the name of this country? " //// end Bugliosi quote

The Boss of You said...

I heard one of them, probably Inskeep, talk about empathy as a toxic word. I think we can dispel any notion of neutrality nevermind being left leaning.

Porter Melmoth said...

Gopol, you mentioned 'Tosca' in another thread. Indeed, I'd take any operatic plot over the supposedly cleaver weavings that NPR spews forth.

Hell, 'Gotterdammerung' says more about Neocon characters than Yawn Williams could ever drool out (could Cheney fit into an Alberich costume??). And Prokofiev's 'War and Peace' makes rancid meatloaf out of NPR's 'War on Terror' toadying.

Funky comparisons, but when you're dealing with a propaganda machine passing as THE hip news source for needy Americans, all bets are off.

miranda said...

It's cringe-inducing to hear the NPR invited "experts" opine about Sotomayor's lack of "intellectual heft" (not sure what supports that view, but thanks is due to Jeffrey Rosen of The New Republic for starting that patronizing meme). I guess she's just "Sonia from the 'hood."

But listening to all the blather, including lots of tough talk against "affirmative action," I began to wonder how anyone can take the Court seriously after the travesty that was Bush v. Gore?

WarOnWarOff said...

Didn't hear it, but just read on Firedoglake that Cokie opined Sotomayor was dressed "very plainly" and "could be mistaken for someone’s secretary."

miranda said...

Or someone's maid?

"Oh dear me," laments Lady Cokington, "it's so hard to keep good help these days."

The condescension is pretty appalling and only underscores the need for a Court more representative of the electorate. You can quibble over Judge S.'s opinions (and they will), but fact is she has top-level academic and professional credentials.

WarOnWarOff said...

Okay, apparently it wasn't Cokie (this time), but Nina Tottenberg:

“…there were, if have to say, no airs; she was not dressed fancy [sic] at all; she could have passed… she was wearing a plain black suit with a yellow top; if you’d walked into an office, you could have thought that she was the judge or the secretary. But…”

Porter Melmoth said...

Trivia Korner:

'Totenberg' means 'dead mountain'. Nina stands on top, teen-sounding voice and all.

Anonymous said...

"she was not dressed fancy [sic] at all; she could have passed… she was wearing a plain black suit with a yellow top; if you’d walked into an office, you could have thought that she was the judge or the secretary."

Does Totenberg talk about male Supreme Court candidates this way?

Did she talk about Roberts this way?

Of course not.

It's pretty pathetic that any so-called "journalist" would talk about a Supreme Court candidate this way, but it is especially pathetic that a woman would.

It is also disgraceful.

miranda said...

It's true that Nina does sound similar to Lady Cokington.

One wonders what someone would wear that would look "judicial" and not "secretarial." They wear robes. For all we know, Nino wears ladies' underwear under his.

Tanna said...

I just heard the announcer at 8 AM
say that Sonia Sotomayor was born in Puerto Rico. Her parents were born there. She was born in the South Bronx.

Greg said...

Anyone else think David Greene, subbing this week for Renee Montagne, is way better than Inskeep or Montagne have ever been? My standards and my ability to notice things that early in the morning are perhaps not as high as other readers here, but it seems like I'm hearing a much more polished hosting job from Greene, even though he doesn't have a hosting job. I've never particularly thought that about other sub hosts I've heard on ME.

gopol said...

I think I've commented on David Greene before. He is not an honest reporter. He's shilled for McCain and, call it guilt by association, but he's got the inside track on accompanying Bush and Cheney on their secret missions just a bit too often. When Bush stiffed the press and made that secret (unannounced) visit to Iraq? Greene didn't get stiffed - he was with him. He also accompanied Cheney on similar escapades. I'd hazard a guess: you can't spell PNAC with about using 2/3 the letters of NPR with 2/3 those of CIA.

Porter Melmoth said...

Quite frankly, I don't think any host at NPR is going to be trustworthy. I compliment Philip Reeves regularly for his reportage, but if he were a host at NPR Central Control (a position he would no doubt loathe), I'm sure that the corrupting forces of molding would come down on him. I don't think you CAN be a host at NPR without utterly complying with what 'they' want you to be. And whether it's Greene or Shapiro or anyone else being groomed for ideal puppetry on the air for the big bucks (and you can imagine there are some who pant after the plum positions and would bump Inskreep 'n Mundane in a second), being a host means full cooperation with the propagandistic mandates from NPR heaven.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that the only honest people in public radio are way down on the totem pole -- precisely because they were not willing to sell out.

The ones at the top are those who were only too willing.

There is a name for such folks.

Porter Melmoth said...

And I would add that any honesty down at the bottom of the pole can be easily edited and/or suppressed by Central Control. You can imagine what some of the sensitive types out in the field have offered up (even from some whom we might consider corrupt) that never gets on the air.

Greg said...

LOL I guess I had forgotten that this is the place where NPR folks are only regarded as conservative shills. That would surprise a lot of conservatives, that's for sure, among other things. And I can't even imagine where we might find people who are actually worthy by those standards....

miranda said...

Yes, Greg, you have to be prepared to get trounced here if you say anything positive about anyone on NPR. I've had that happen too.

gopol said...

I will admit to liking Jackie Lyden. She seems to be fairly well read and not particularly prone to those nasty bait and switcheroo moves so many of the host do: you know, they feed you the story you might think the so-called-liberals want to hear and then in the last seconds say something that flips it and makes the so-called-liberals really question if they haven't given the like of Rush Limbaugh a fair shake.

Kevan Smith said...

Keep this in mind about all the major hosts and reporters you hear on NPR: they have all been extensively focus-group tested. NPR has a target audience, and they have studied extensively about them -- more than just income, employment, education and other demographic information. NPR has also compiled extensive psychographic data on values, morals, attitudes, opinions and the like. They actively shape their programming to reflect the information they have about their listeners. The news you hear on NPR is no less a product than the washing soap you buy in the grocery store.

I think it was in Manufacturing Consent that the theory is advanced that the real audience for news isn't those listening to it, but rather the 'advertisers.' A media company wants a large audience to attract more money from its sponsors. I don't think NPR differs much from that model. NPR listeners are a product the company delivers to its major funders.

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

That would surprise a lot of conservatives, that's for sure,Not that hard to do, when you figger most conservotards have IQ's in the room-temperature range...

byg!pynk!fuhzi!buhni! said...

The "Conservatards" can only rely on memes to base their assumptions on. So if Lim-blah or Colt-neck sez NPR's librul, then by golly it is; ditto-ditto & all the rest.

And I would not call the above rebuttal on Greene a "trounce" - just a revisitation into the good ol' back catalogue.