Thursday, April 24, 2008

Open Thread

Comments on NPR? Put 'em here.


Anonymous said...

A while back, Talk of the nation's Neil Conan stated that the Maoist rebels of Nepal had a lot in common with the Khmer Rouge. Of course, no reason was given for this extraordinary claim.

Ever since it became clear that the Maoists would be the winners of the democratic election, I've been waiting for nationwide NPR to cover this. (Those Nepalese must be crazy to elect fans of mass murderer Pol-pot, right Neil?) One week has passed and I'm still waiting.

Today my search did find this:

"World: A Look at the Man Who Will Rule Nepal
Apr-23-2008, All Things Considered"

But the link does not work and the segment is not listed on the All Things Considered. Anyone who knows what is up with that?


Anonymous said...

Haven't been able to stomach NPR lately, but was wondering if anybody's heard them address the military media trojan horse controversy yet? Just did a Google check and apparently nothing so far.

Anonymous said...

listened to the piece now:

NPR managed to cover a story about a big win for a political party without interview a single supporter of that party, and without giving any clue as to why this party has won. Good job.


Anonymous said...

Oh and also, one of the two voters they interview is a man who manages a boutique that sells "high end Rolex watches" in one of Katmandu's most exclusive neighborhoods. This in a country where one third of the population lives on under a dollar a day.

Anonymous said...

It's only natural - they report on a) what they're told to report and b)that which suits them, and hence their market. The rest is just too much like some semblance to hard work.

I only tune in for about a half hour, to mimic their pansy-ass voices - but then that starts to get tiresome, and gives me cause for concern about my mental state (or desperation for "edumatainment").

Porter Melmoth said...

Well, all I have to say is that I've been to Kathmandu and I have grave doubts as to whether many of these NPR reporters are actually in touch with many of the places they are supposedly reporting from. Why, even a Fox News reporter can bring more life into a given locale than these supposedly 'intelligent' but boring NPR hacks can. They can spin suppositions for their sponsors and their prospective audience, but THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO REPORT STORIES because they are so preoccupied with their spin assignments and how they're going to 'creatively write' their assignment, so they're unable to objectively observe and communicate. You know, like reporters are supposed to do. They think they're (a right wing) Joseph Conrad instead of what they should be: a relatively anonymous conveyer of news.

I might add, it was a member of the royal Nepalese household who bumped off most of the royal family. Their genes are deleterious. Move on to a republic, despite it being branded as 'Maoist'. What does 'Maoist' actually mean any more, anyway? Perhaps a movement that selects a name from a neighboring country to imply CHANGE? Keep in mind, in China, the official line goes something like: 'Mao was 30% right and 70% wrong'; however, from the Nepalese side, Mao is a figure who actually made change happen, and it has lasted. But Mao was a commie, wasn't he? Americans have to realize what a mixed bag events in history are. I doubt if anyone at NPR could explain that very fact with anything less than a smirk. For this and so many other reasons, I cannot bring myself to forgive NPR for the damage they've caused. Rather like the Bush Administration (ALL of 'em!)

Anonymous said...

Please keep up the good work and keep monitoring the mind-numbing spin of "journalists" like Inskeep and Westervelt. Their slanted garbage has been coming for years - and it continually begs the question: who the hell at NPR comes up with the laughable spin and puff-pieces? It's a joke.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone hear one of the hourly news briefs where they reported on the failed legislation that was drafted related to the recent split Supreme Court ruling of the former Goodyear employee sued for discrimination (unfair pay compared to her male counterparts)? The court ruled in favor of Goodyear on the basis that she waited too long to sue.

The report failed to mentioned that the reason she waited so long was she didn't know it was going on. I think failing to mention this fact gives undeserved credence to the Court's Decision.

To give NPR some credit, they did mention this on a lengthier report during their afternoon news-hour. But this seems like an important fact that shouldn't be left out.