Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.


peon said...

I just discovered NPR check and am thrilled in a macabre way. I have internet radio in my house so only listen to NPR when I am in my car. Now I have a vent for my outrage. You are forewarned.
Sometimes I am as outraged at what NPR doesn't say as what it does. Contrast their coverage of the street protests in Iran with their lack of coverage of the protests in Honduras. Or for that matter the teabaggers VS the anti war protests. Like I say my family will be relieved I discovered this blog. Now I have someplace else to rant.

Juan "Toss" Ensalada said...

Poll: Public Says Voice Not Heard In Health Debate
by Julie Rovner

Of course, the NPR/Kasier Poll won't tell us WHY the PUBLIC voice wasn't heard on PUBLIC radio.


Anonymous said...

Maybe it's my imagination -- but I woke up this morning to a mention of the "public voice" (AT LONG LAST ON NPR!!!) in the health care debate. One or 2 regular folks weighed in and used terms like the "HealthCare Industrial Complex".

Er ... Next item on the NPR agenda -- THE AUTUMN PLEDGE DRIVE -- in which we regular folks send NPR our hard earned cash (yes -- so they can continue the charge to war (this time it's Iran being set up).

Perhaps NPR program planners don't think we're listening -- or maybe they think the listeners are stupid. Either way NPR News programs are a scam.

Mytwords said...

Be sure to visit the Ombudsman's page at NPR. NPR donors seem to have a problem with Simon making 300,000+...duh..

I would heartily encourage adding comments there.

Porter Melmoth said...

In Missy Block's hip music segment, country star Miranda Lambert sings, 'I put a bullet through my radio'. The reviewer says that he feels the same way sometimes, but the wit of the moment was fumbled.

And Eleanor de Beardsley gave a report about workers who have committed suicide in France because of work stress. WHY DOES SHE TALK THE WAY SHE DOES?? If you were a producer at NPR, would you allow somebody to be so F-ING DISTRACTING? (Stupid question...) She treated this shocking story as if it were something, well I don't know, stupid. She sounded like a quacking duckling who thinks its cute.

Surely there are other more worthy unemployed reporters in Pahr-russ who can speak both American and French without any cartoon baggage attached.

Porter Melmoth said...

MTW,I take my hat off to ya yet again, calling the BS of the Simonizer's spreading his waxy yellow buildup over the airwaves.

Personally, I lack the will to slug it out in their comments department, because I would not be liked very much, and probably banned (big deal, big deal).

Like those of us who avoid Saturday morn NPR simply BECAUSE Simon's sermonettes pack the hour with agenda-laden filler, I'd rather err on the side of avoidance.

But bravo for balancing out the insipid Sheparding going on in order to protect the worthless broadcasting going on in the public's name.

And you can bet that there are plenty of NPR-niks who are constantly lobbying for salaries in the direction of Couric-level bucks, and increased ratings are their best weapons to get them.

Anonymous said...

NPR donors seem to have a problem with Simon making 300,000+...duh..

They obviously are not aware that Shepard gets paid 150K+ to make excuses for what people like Simon make.

I think we have all heard the excuse: people like Simon could be making far more in the private sector.

So, the obvious question is why don't they?

If they think they are actually doing any of us a favor, they are sadly mistaken.

So why don't they all just get lost?

I suspect it is because they could not get a real journalism job if their very life depended on it.

People like Simon and Shepard are dead enders.

gopey said...

I reiterate MTW's encouragement to chime in at ombot site re Simon. Scott comments about somebody else's comment there, so if you want a word with the Horseman of the Apocalypse's Ass himself, this is your chance!

JayV said...

Welcome to the blog, peon. We are a motley crew indeed; glad you've joined in the fray!

larry, dfh said...

I am eagerly awaiting hearing about this story on npr. Maybe I'll listen non-stop just to learn about it; maybe not.

Porter Melmoth said...

I was privy to a top summit this morn on ME, convened by the elite power triumvirate of Inskreep, G'jeltin 'n Goneyay, who were dictating Afghanistan policy. Tommy's grey-haired gravitas was obviously the superior voice, while the Gnome of the WH struggled to prove his dick size.

Typically, these three, especially Gjeltin, think they're wiser and hotter than the actual players they're pontificating about. But Tommy's got one foot in the Natural Gas Chamber, just to hedge his bets, should he be ousted by Octavius and/or Mark Antony. (Apologies to Shakespeare...)

Juan "Toss" Ensalada said...

Check out the NPR CYA here.

Notice that Gjelten files a piece ONLINE AFTER NPR's broadcast of its 3-part NatGas commercial on Morning Edition. This item was NEVER broadcast.

In addition, NPR groups an earlier story into the mix, from milquetoast Jeff Brady, as if HIS story was part of the series or the ANGA underwriting buy on NPR.

Clearly, the ANGA had it in mind to do public relations BECAUSE of falling natural gas prices and IN ADVANCE of legislation in front of Congress to booster "bridge" energies like NatGas.

That Jeff Brady shows up to blog comment on Gjelten's piece (while Gjelten is getting drilled) is further evidence of NPR's abject fear that listeners will accuse it of being biased. Thus, they perform an obvious balancing act, AFTER THE FACT.

If the Ombudsbot, once the Shepard gets done defending the Simonizer in her "column," takes on the NatGas issue, you can already see the insipid logic she will use to defend NPR actions.

And, the new-and-improved NPR blog provides the PERFECT medium to create evidence, after the fact. Propaganda done right.

NPR: Cover Your Ass Radio!

Porter Melmoth said...


Fascinating, seeing propaganda evolving, as if in a petri dish.

Naturally Paranoid Reactionaryradio isn't quite ready for prime time in the clever strategy dept. The bozo-ness of the new management is palpable, even with lofty personalities such as Gjeltin.

Anonymous said...

Just another example of the kind of vacuous nonsense that appears daily on Planet Monkey

Job Loss Rises. Spending, Too. What Gives? By Laura Conaway"

There are so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to even begin.

First, the relationship between employment and consumer spending is a complex one: depends on a lot of things.

"New unemployment claims" over a very brief period is NOT a good indicator of even the direction of spending (increase or decrease).

A (far) better indicator is the total number actually employed at any given time.

But even that is not a particularly reliable indicator of total consumer spending. It is quite possible for a relatively small number of employed people to spend more overall than a larger number did the month before.

The latter seems to have gone right over Goneaway's head.

Also, while she mentions the cash for clunkers program, Conaway seems oblivious to the fact that cash for clunkers is just one of many federal programs that have injected money into the economy -- and not even the biggest one (not by a long shot).

Cash for clunkers was something like $3 billion total (1 billion initially and 2 billion renewal)

That's a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions of dollars the government has injected into the economy over the past 6 months.

of course, not all that had its effect immediately and naturally, some of that is going to be spent eventually, but just when that happens depends on a lot of factors. To think otherwise (or to not even think about it at all) is just idiotic.

gopey said...

Hey, public radio is hard to do when you've got multiple masters to serve: ANGA, Chevron, BofA, Johnson&Johnson, Merck, and that's just a sampling of some private entities. It takes expert psychoanalysis to develop the right public therapies to mold opinions of millions of listeners to meet the many and varied needs of these sponsors and these needs are not always compatible with covering your ass in a timely fashion. So please excuse the occasional hairy cheek and be politely oblivious to the inevitable inadvertent factulances that will naturally erupt from time to time.

Juan "Toss" Ensalada said...

Sorry, here is the link to Gjelten's environmental CYA, "Water Contamination Concerns Linger For Shale Gas."

Of course, on The Diane Rehm Show, Gjelten dismissed a caller by accusing them of making an "anecdotal" environmental argument, after claiming that he knew essentially NOTHING about NatGas until a couple of months BEFORE NPR did the series. So, if the caller was just using false logic to make a point, then why did Gjelten do a story about just that?

NPR: Smarter than you. Just ask them.

Juan "Toss" Ensalada said...


I posted you comment about Planet Mon(k)ey. Good stuff.

As I see it, this is Conway's blogger technique:

1. A happens.
2. B happens.
3. Conway says, "What's up with THAT?"


Juan "Toss" Ensalada said...

From my buddy Cletus:

1. Planet Money Blog: Like Calculated Risk but really shitty.

2. Planet Money Blog: Public Happy Economic Fun Talk.

blig!plink!fluzzy!blunny! said...

Hmmm, pitchforks raised in revolt at Castle (or is it Ivory Tower) Simonstein, ya sez? Might have to don my 'Widdle Bwack 8-ball' disguise and aim for the corner pocket o'er there. If I'm gonna go down, may as well do it in a blaze of glory.

gopey said...

WiddleBlack Eightball (JusWubsNPRopaganda) wrote:

Hi Scottie! Hi Lishy! We wubz ya!

Thursday, October 01, 2009 6:58:52 PM

You will be Monkey Wrench Band for that!

Anonymous said...


I have to laugh at your comment: Conway says, "What's up with THAT?"

Perhaps you are aware of this, but "What's up with THAT?" is the name of a website that posts vacuous stuff --purportedly about climate science-- all the time.

The website owner (Anthony watts) has no clue what he is talking about nor do the vast majority of the "guest" posters.

The site won "Best science blog" by virtue only of the fact that it got a flood of votes from the faithful nitwits who frequent it.

It's the climate science version of Planet Monkey.

Both are total rubbish.

Erik said...

This morning I called in to the Fall Fundraiser. I told the woman staffing the phone on the other end to tell Alicia Shepard that I took all the money I was going to give NPR and donated it to Glenn Greenwald ( because of the torture/"enhanced interrogation" Orweillian nonsense. She promised to pass the message on. I recommend everyone call in to the Fall Fundraiser and let the people know they should send a message to Alicia Shepard saying hello from NPR watch.

Yesterday morning I got to hear them say "And thanks for our coverage of the healthcare debate goes to MetLife Mutual Insurance..."

Corporate owned, corporate controlled "listener radio."

biggerbox said...

I'm seriously considering just not listening to Morning Edition anymore. I can find something less infuriating to play in the background while I make breakfast and get ready for work. It's not just that they are biased and clumsy at propagandizing, they are also just bad at constructing stories. Today's example, Mary Louise Kelly, who wanted to do a story about public support for our involvement in Afghanistan.

I'm sure she thought it would seem intelligent and well-informed to start by quoting the Powell Doctrine. So she mentions that it calls for 1. a clear exit strategy, 2. overwhelming force, and 3. public support.

Then she went on to talk about number 3, public support, since that was what she really wanted to talk about in the first place. She completely ignored 1 and 2, both of which are even more in question in Afghanistan than 3.

She didn't have to raise them, but having done so, leaving those points floating was just, so, well, high-school-freshman-essay-level poor writing. Why get the listener thinking about them if you aren't going to talk about them? Arrgh.

These people actually get paid for this?

Porter Melmoth said...

Yes indeed, biggerbox, I too am up against the wall (yet again) in facing a sanity-based boycott of NPR, particularly ME (Blob & Missy are a cinch to dump in the afternoon's All Thinktanks Considered).

Being so superficially sensitive (hey, it's a self-protecting thing: the annoying voices and personalities attack me first, clearing the way for hardier souls to deconstruct the actual toxic substances of NPR), I 'get mad' right from the start. It seems that I am so naturally WRONG for NPR-assimilation, as I do not have the proper DNA package to fall in line behind and be a good little listener (uh...duh!).

So, I'm just giving myself a peptalk: wanna actually feel a bit better about the world in general? DON'T TOUCH THAT NPR-ACTIVATOR DIAL.

It's not a question of 'don't worry, be happy'. It's just common sense. Why expose onesself to shitty media when it's not really necessary?? We have the choice.

larry, dfh said...

Erik: send them your cancelled check.

Anonymous said...

"Powell Doctrine...calls for 1. a clear exit strategy, 2. overwhelming force, and 3. public support."

Too bad Colin Powell did not practice what he preaches in Iraq.

Powell is like NPR in one important regard: he waits till long after he could have made an impact to state the obvious.

He's actually rather pathetic.

Unfortunately, "Yes men" like Powell who don't rock the boat are the ones who are promoted to the top.

Those who speak their conscience are shown the door.

gopolganger said...

Main Entry:fact£u£lence

1 : the quality or state of pulling facts out of one's ass
2 : facts that smell like they've been expelled through the anus

Anonymous said...

Economist Dean Baker points out
"The Economy Loses 824,000 Jobs and the Post [comment added: and Planet Monkeys] Doesn't Notice"

"One of the big pieces of news in the September jobs report released by the Labor Department yesterday was that the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) preliminary benchmark revisions showed that job loss had been 824,000 greater through March of 2009 than had been previously reported. This is a really big deal. It means that job loss averaged almost 70,000 more than originally reported each month over the year from March 2008 to March 2009."

-- end of Dean Baker quote

So, while Lauro "Brain" Goneaway Adumb Davidson and David Kestenbaum talk about how things are looking up ("not as bad as expected"), the reality is actually opposite what they areport.

They have no clue about economics and no business reporting on it.

NPR would do no worse than these 3 quacks by hiring a randomly selected person off the street to report on economics. My guess is the random person would probably do better because he/she would realize that he/she is not an expert and would therefore listen to real experts like Dena baker, Joe Stiglitz and paul Krugman.

Instead, we get the poop from the 3 know-it-alls.

gopolganger said...

Instead, we get the poop from the 3 know-it-alls.

As long as we're getting all scatological:

Main Entry:6 poop
Etymology:perhaps from 4 poop
Date:circa 1941


Main Entry:4 poop


But how could the etymology of a 1941 word be from 1965?