Monday, June 08, 2009

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.

12 comments:

RepubLiecan said...

Congratulations to NPR Check! You've been linked to by one of the blogs I read daily. Glenn Greenwald on Salon.com. A well deserved acknowledgement that will bring a few more NPR listeners around to using a critical ear when listening to National Propaganda Radio. Thank you for efforts.

bgi!pnki!fzzyu!bnnyu! said...

Guess that means they'll not be contacting Glenn G for an insights and analysis spot (holds nasal passages for effect) "anytime soon?"

Archtype said...

I read Glennzilla everyday, too. In fact, Glenn was kind enought to give me a hat tip for bringing up NPR Check in the comments.

Anonymous said...

Guess that means they'll not be contacting Glenn G for an insights and analysis spot "anytime soon?"

NPR only acknowledges Greenwald when they are forced to do so in order to "rebut" his claims (read: dimiss his claims out of hand) as hack NPR news Blogger Tom Regan does here

Regan obviously thinks he is being very funny (and clever) when he calls Greenwald the "lasher in chief".

Oh, boy are these NPR clowns ever funny.

Anonymous said...

First, NPR gives us wall to wall coverage of reporter Saberi who was detained in Iran.

Now, they give us wall to wall coverage of the reporters sentenced to 12 year prison terms in N. Korea.

Meanwhile, still no mention of Reuters photographer Ibrahim Jassam who was jailed by US in Iraq and is still being held, despite the fact that "An Iraqi court concluded in November 30 2008 that there is no evidence against photojournalist Ibrahim Jassam Mohammed, and ordered him released from U.S. military custody[2]" -- wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Jassam

What NPR leaves out (glaringly in this case) says FAR more than their actual coverage.

biggerbox said...

Was I the only one to find it weird that NPR spent an entire segment on the story of a young 20-something who is having a hard time finding a job after college, and is living with relatives while trying to make a go of it in New York City?

I mean, the young woman seemed charming and intelligent, but her situation is not at all novel or unusual. Ms. Woodruff, does the phrase "If I can make it there, I can make it anywhere," ring any bells? It says nothing about this generation, or the current economic situation, that one woman is having a hard time making ends meet in NYC.

I'm all for human interest stories, but what was interesting here?

What next, a story from LA about how many aspiring scriptwriters and actresses are having to find jobs as waiters and bartenders?

JD said...

I am so thrilled to come upon this blog (I saw it mentioned on Greenwald's blog, which I read every day). Not a day goes by when I am not appalled by something I hear on NPR. I've also been irritated by their non-coverage of the photographer being held illegally by us.They are so terrified of being labeled "liberal" that they bend over backwards to favor the Right, which ends up skewing their coverage toward the innacurate.

Heinrich Mencken said...

June Sunday 7 2009 (15h36) :
Obama’s Major Gaffe in Cairo / By Heinrich Mencken


Nobody caught this in the Western media—or the world media in general.

That is because those who have had a good grounding in general history in the mainstream media, and in the wider public, are few and far between, and because the mainstream media, and the popular conscience are conditioned by the short-term memory of the 24-hour news cycle.

I’m referring to a major, major gaffe in Obama’s Cairo speech that concerns the history of Muslims in Spain. I quote:

"Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition."

Holy crap!!! When I heard the POTUS bracket the history of Islam in Spain within the period of the Spanish Inquisition (by use of the adverb "during"), I nearly choked on my granola!

For my historical explanation, go here:

http://tinyurl.com/ldtx5o

For the complete text of the speech and video, go here:

http://tinyurl.com/r75abg

miranda said...

So pleased to see the Greenwald mention, and all the resulting new readers. This excellent blog deserves a wide audience of thinkers and critical NPR listeners.

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

Heinrich, we also didn't merely 'contribute to the overthrow of Mossadeq. We led the whold thing and delivered the man into the hands of the Shah's assassins.

That it happened during the cold war is of no more or less relevance than the suppression of the Hungarians in '56 or the Czechs in '68...

He played fast and loose, the way a demagogue does. I think the Chimps smirk has been replaced by "ThePrez's" shit-eatin grin...but that's all the change worth mention...

Anonymous said...

They are so terrified of being labeled "liberal" that they bend over backwards to favor the Right, which ends up skewing their coverage toward the innacurate."

I used to think that was the case as well, but I think it is something far more insidious.

It's pretty clear that NPR has an agenda.

They cover some things with a certain slant and omit others (like the jailed Reuters photographer and the Downing Street Minutes which said the pre-war intelligence was being "fixed" around the policy) entirely.

I don't believe this is due to some fear of being labeled "Liberal".

Not is it accident.

You really have to look at the PEOPLE who have molded NPR to their own liking over the past decade or so, people like Kevin Klose, who spent 3 years as head of the US's main propaganda outlet.

It is no accident that NPR's transformation took place under the direction of people like Klose.

From wikipedia: "From 1994 to 1997, he served as president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL).

"Some criticized the choice of Kevin Klose to be the head of NPR because he "used to be the director of all major worldwide US government propaganda dissemination broadcast media including VOA, Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Worldnet Television and the anti-Castro Radio/TV Marti." [3]

jaytingle said...

Nina Totenberg, typically, made reference to "both sides" in an unidentified debate over the Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality of elected judges who hear cases involving parties who have contributed to their campaigns. NPR is in the vanguard of lazy journalism built around the dubious premise of there being two sides to every issue. This premise is made more bizarre by the apparent assumption that it is the same two sides that participate in the "debate" of each and every issue. The two sides that spar over abortion are the same two that duke it out over anthropogenic global warming. The same two adversaries are head to head arguing restrictions on mining. How is this possible? NPR engages the services of various "think tanks," which are conservative/GOP-based by a ratio of 2-1 over non-conservative "foundations"which provide analysis to NPR. These think tanks take it upon themselves to have position papers written for every issue, even the Armenian genocide. Thus when the Supreme Court decides that it's not constitutional to bribe a judge, Nina still manages to find two sides to help keep the debate honest. Lord knows Nina doesn't want to cast aspersions upon the beliefs of dissenting jurists in this case.