Monday, July 27, 2009

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.


Anonymous said...

Take a look at NPR's new website. In particular, look at the Ombudsman's page and note how comments more than 2 weeks old are now being removed. Also, I have been monitoring NPR's programs and have noticed that many corporate sponsors are not being credited on-air, as required by FCC regulations (unless I am mistaken).

Kevan Smith said...

Anon, I'm hoping that's just a glitch with the site relaunch.

Andy Carvin with their tech department wrote, "We relaunched the website last night and it's possible that older comments haven't gotten rebuilt onto the new pages yet.

"It's not our policy to remove comments after two weeks, though the discussion threads on blogs do close after that period. The only comments that should be removed are ones that violate our terms of use. Otherwise, the archives are intended to be permanent."

We'll see.

Anonymous said...

and it's possible that older comments haven't gotten rebuilt onto the new pages yet."

If I am not mistaken, that's what Karl Rove said when he "lost" millions of White House emails.

"We're rebuilding the governm...I mean website"


Dean Baker at Beat the Press, as good take down of NPR's sloppy coverage on China's economic policies.

"NPR Misleds Listeners About U.S. and China, Again"

As I recall, Ms. Shepard (not an)Ombudsman was bragging about her meeting the Chinesse government radio. Wonder if there's any cause and affect?

(P.S. great post today!)

gope said...

In the story about Leonard Peltier Siegel and correspondent both pronounce his name "pell-TEER" rather than the "pell-tee-AIR" or "pell-tee-AY" that I've always heard. What's up with that?

gope said...

ok- nevermind, I just heard Bill Means pronounce it "pell-TEER"

The link is from today's "Flashpoints" and is at about 44 minutes.

If NPR had Bill Means on I would have given the pronunciation more credence. Maybe he's hard to get a hold of. Plus Means may have wanted to talk more than 30 seconds and his commentary on the WOT may not sit well with NPR's Agency and DHS sponsors.

Kevan Smith said...

All my good podcasts came in overnight, so this morning I'm skipping ME. Ahh, it feels so good! I certainly wasn't in the mood for that NPR brand of smug today.

RepubLiecan said...

Glenn Greenwald nails both Juan Williams and Cokie Roberts in the same post. I guess you can include Bill Kristol, I'm sure he has pontificated for Now Promoting Republiecans.

gope said...

Not sure what to make of David Wessel. In this article, Linda Wertheimer gladly cedes "The Fourth Estate" to the Fed, allowing Weasel to establish the Fed as the "fourth branch of government." Never mind that the fed is comprised entirely of private banks and that only a few of its officers are appointed by the government. That he's a WSJ editor casts a giant cloud over him, of course, and Wessel is known for repeating key Republican talking points. That his degree from Stanford is in mathematical psychology suggests that he is an expert liar. Indeed, his main point in this NPR piece is that Lehman should have been bailed out too. So the big mistake the government made in the recent fiscal crisis was not giving the banksters enough tax dollars. Yeah, right.

Anonymous said...

I didn't take notes as to who and when because I was in the car, but on the NPR "news" this afternoon they had one of the "housing crises is over" realestate wankers on for a quick quote.

Anonymous said...

his main point in this NPR piece is that Lehman should have been bailed out too.

I hate to say it, but he has a point.

If former treasury Secretary and Goldman Sachs CEO Paulson had been consistent, he would NOT have let Lehman brothers go under.

Some speculate that he did not save lehman because they were on of goldman's chief competitors.

but we all know there is absolutely NOTHING to such speculation, of course because Paulson only made half a billion dollars from Goldman during his tenure there.

Why would he risk the appearance of a conflict of interest over such a pittance?

krameroneill said...

Can anybody tell me if I imagined this? I heard a report on "Marketplace" last week (Thursday, I think), but was unable to find it on their site the next day. It was about arbitration between credit card companies and their debtors, and it began as a quasi-exposé about how disproportionately often arbitrators found in favor of the credit card companies.

So far, so good. But then, in the later segment, the story started highlighting some successful, class-action lawsuits that had gone against the card issuers, and came to the conclusion that bringing cases against credit card companies was a bad idea, since, if they kept losing money, they may make credit more difficult to get. As per NPR, I heard no context (like, say, were the suits brought because APRs were being illegally raised to 30-40%?), nor any information about how credit could be made "more difficult" to get (personally, I think of a 30-40% APR as qualifying as "difficult").

Did anyone else hear this? It was really something. I was actually game to give NPR another chance, but this bizarre love letter to the same banks on whom we just threw away our collective future was bizarre, disgusting, and condescending. Unless, of course, I imagined the whole thing...?