Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Q Tips

NPR related comments welcomed.


Anonymous said...

Morning Edition 09/09/09 carried a piece about alcohol use/alcoholism in Mongolia.

Yes, that's just the info I've been waiting for. Like tens of millions of Americans, I've wondered for years about this, and finally NPR has satisfied my curiosity.

Sigh.....what on earth is going through the minds of NPR folks, to waste time with a piece like this? Or maybe the answer is, it's easier to do that kind of piece than something real, something that actually presents the news without wasting listeners' time with all sorts of idiotic, irrelevant details?

Anonymous said...

NPR has been "fashionably" critical of the Birthers, but has never done a REAL report like this one

NPR is basically an internet "news" organization, getting the vast majority of its "news' from wire reports from other MSM sources (AP, etc) How fitting that their new CEO has a background in "web presence" rather than journalism.

NPR "reporters" (Inskeep, Norris, Gonyea, Gross, Liasson, Williams, etc) are essentially a flock of (very noisy) parrots who would not know how to do an investigative story if their very lives depended on it.

biggerbox said...

I think the point of the Mongolian alcoholism piece was to keep the kissyface interview with (unethical disgraced politician, serial adulter) paid corporate lobbyist Newt Gingrich from bumping too hard into the confrontational, interrupting and rude interview with White House spokesman Gibbs.

They still want to be seen as Nice Polite Republicans, so there had to be a decent interval between giving a lobbyist free airtime for his propaganda and their mauling of a White House official, in part using that same propaganda.

Porter Melmoth said...

Plus, a story about drunkenness in Mongolia is a handy bit of feelgood Imperialist condescension that makes NPR sound like they're 'concerned' about the world's benighted masses. Just like Gwen Thompkins' shopping spree for stories down Africa way. So that listeners will 'understand' other cultures. All of them are worthless slop.

Indeed, Newt's best-behavior cameo this morn was to expand gentle NPR listeners' minds, facilitated by Renaay's softball probings, so that listeners might pause and think, 'you know, that Gingrich guy isn't a bad sort at all. He sounded so reasonable. I really kind of like him...' NPR assumes its listeners are suckers for the soft sell.

And the other day on ATC, Missy Blockead MADE SURE that we knew that Obama wasn't 'the only one' to talk to younger students. There followed a wistful stroll down GOP memory lane, with Raygun spouting some dimestore wisdom, and then Poppy Bush sounding like an insurance salesman, trying to 'relate' to young people by being a presidential sage.

Worthless, worthless, worthless...

PS: A Mongolian friend of mine ended up committing suicide, largely due to alcoholism. It is indeed a very grave problem in that rather remarkable country.

Porter Melmoth said...

There was an indication in the Mongolia report that the USSR conquered that country with the aid of cheap vodka.

While that's debatable (the heirs of Genghis Khan were hardly pushovers, but were impoverished and desperate for aid of any kind), it is perhaps worth knowing that American tobacco companies have been dumping their cheapest and most toxic product in several Asian countries for years. The rest of the equation need not be mentioned.

geoff said...

Right on, Porter, as usual.

I would only add that Mara Hari was close on the heels of Newt to put the finishing harpoon in any remnant of a "Robust public option" that may have been lingering in the recesses of a listener's Eustachian tubes.

big!pink!NoPRsnubbin'!bunny! said...

Well, despite typical NoPR dubious concern-trolling and mounting Ruskie exploitation of their lands by mining and such, the Mongolians (Tana Tuva, specifically) at least have their phenomenal tradition of throatsinging! (see the splendid doc 'Genghis Blues')


Pepe said...

First time commentor-
Not just 5 minutes ago, on Morning Edition 9/10/09, Steve Inskeep (sp) mentioned the booing and Joe Wilson's "You lie" exclaimation during the President's speech last night. Now he mentioned it by merely acknowledging the fact that it happened and kind of brushed it off. Immediately after that, he asked "Well, WAS the President telling the truth about illegal immigrants and health care?"


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

There was an indication in the Mongolia report that the USSR conquered that country with the aid of cheap vodka.

A century before, us Murkins pulled the same stunt on our indigenes with rot-gut...

Dang Russkis learned from the BEST!


Do they have a new sysop at I've gotten three of my comments scrubbed yesterday.

The fist was under Renee's wet kiss interview with elder statesman and serial adultery and the other was under their puff piece dog piling on Gov. Sanford:

"Funny - Later in the program, a much worse serial adultery and liar, Newt Gingrich, is feted as a health care expert, elder statesman and NPR ask for his advice on health care."

Then under Mara Liasson piece I said:

Wow, who would have guessed that "Mara Liasson, a full time FOX News employee,, would say Obama's problem is we nasty "lefties"?

Uncritical profile of GOP Sen. Snowe, Newt (abandon your wife if she has cancer) Ginrich spreading death panel lies, Renee interruptions Gibbs wiht GOP talking points, it was a FOXtastic morning in America."

Only go one scrubbed in the prior month?

biggerbox said...

I can't tell which post-Obama's speech segment pissed me off more this morning.

First there was the "what did regular people think" piece where they visited 1)Libertarians (who are a small fringe politically and by definition guaranteed to hate any government proposal) and 2)Seniors (who already have their very own government sponsored health plan). These segments are silly random noise at the best of times, but could someone explain why they were picked at all? Like we care what those groups think?

But then there was the segment where Steve Inskeep supposedly had the details of the speech reviewed for him by NPR's health reporter Julie Rovner. Rovner accused Obama of a flip-flop on a position he changed before the general election, and also managed to slip a "well that's how they do it in Massachusetts" dog whistle (So he's dishonest in a Northeast-liberal way). Plus, while discussing how much the plan would cost, they studiously avoided mentioning either the parts of the speech comparing it to the Bush expenditures, AND the mechanism for requiring future budget cuts if the health plan costs more. So they close on the thought that the costs will be huge, and aren't worked out yet, and could balloon out of control.

I guess I should count my blessings that the did acknowledge that Congressman "You lie!" Wilson was wrong.

Anonymous said...

Obama may not have lied about the illegal immigrants and health care.

In fact, he may not have outright "lied" about anything, but dishonesty comes in many guises and many degrees.

Based on his own previous comments, Obama was being more than a little disingenuous in his comments about the "public option":

its impact shouldn't be exaggerated - by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end - and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal."

Others (some who know far more than Obama about health care) would disagree -- as would a somewhat (6 months?) younger Barak Obama.

Howard Dean (himself a doctor) has basically said that the "public option" is indispensable to reform:

The following is from AP article Former Gov. Dean calls public option indispensable

WASHINGTON – Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, a leading figure in the liberal wing of his party, said Monday he doubts there can be meaningful health care reform without a direct government role.

Dean urged the Obama administration to stand by statements made early on in the debate in which it steadfastly insisted that such a public option was indispensable to genuine change:"

Dean appeared on morning news shows Monday amid increasing indications the Obama White House is retreating from the public option in the face of vocal opposition from Republicans and some vocal participants at a town-hall-style meetings around the country."

Obama has gone from saying the public option is important to provide “a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep the insurance companies honest" to saying that it is "only one part of my plan" (recently he said "a sliver").

Obama apparently thinks we are all dumb enough to see that he himself has changed his position -- essentially retreated as a result of all the Republican tea parties.

Anonymous said...

should be "too dumb to see.."

OK, I admit I'm dumb, but not to dumb to see.

Porter Melmoth said...

Seconds after the Obama speech last night, Mawra Liarsson's maw was generously lubed with scrumptious Foxy acid, which she reserves for the most orgiastic moments - like pouncing - after some Dem makes a joint session speech. Missy Block seems actually quite demure in comparison.

larry, dfh said...

It's not teh tea parties, it's the flood of insurance/pharma/ama $$$ in the campaign coffers. Whores: will do anything for money.

Anonymous said...

The other dishonest thing that Obama did in his speech was essentially dismiss single payer as as every bit as radical (and goofy) as an 'every-man" for himself system.

Obama never gave single payer the time of day (never even allowed it to be debated in Congress), but he made sure to dismiss it as "radical" and therefore "unworkable" in his speech in which he effectively characterized single payer as a "fringe" idea.

In other words, he is using scare tactics (just like Bush) to get people to do what he wants them to do.

If that is not dishonest, I don't know what is.

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's -- (applause) -- where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everybody. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end employer-based systems and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I've said -- I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both these approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have.

I actually voted for the man, but I have to say that i have concluded over recent months that Obama is little more than a con man. A very good one, at that.

Anonymous said...

As was to be predicted, Morning Edition reviewed the full spectrum of reaction from Lindsey Graham on the Right to the Blue Dogs on the ... what? the left of the Right? Like Barack the Nobama, Morning Edition places the ideological center of America somewhere between Joe the Plumber and Joe the Goldman Sachs attorney. Guess my country really did leave kick me out on the side of the highway somewhere around 1980.

Anonymous said...

The latest from the Planet Monkeys: "Professor: Economics Isn't Changing Enough After The Crisis"

Small wonder with Obama, Congress and Planet Monkeys like Conaway, Kestenbaum and Davidson and the rest of the mainstream media cheerleading for the current system on a daily basis.

And of course, NPR has to provide the appearance of "balance" (even though these clowns have been the biggest cheerleaders on the planet for the Wall Street bailout, have trashed Elizabeth Warren on air and rarely air anything critical of Summers, Geithner and the rest)

On Friday, we'll post a different view from Simon Johnson, who teaches economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

By my calculations, I figure they have to interview about a thousand economists critical of the current system just to make up for all their grovelling to Larry Summers and Tim geithner over the past year before they interview even one more economist with a "different view" (ie, with the view that the Panet Monkeys hold).

If they were really interested in providing 'balance" to all their one-sided cheerleading (and grovelling), they might start by interviewing economics Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman.

but at NPR, "balance" is merely a buzz word that lacks any meaning (just as at Fox news).

geoff said...

Counterspin was good this week. The following is a transcription compliments of moi:
{perky young female voice}

PBS viewers around the country may have heard announcements like the one caught recently by Bay Area blogger John Caruso for a local restaurant review program. Have a listen.
{perky young female voice}
"If you're seeking a unique sponsorship opportunity for your business and want to reach a prime demographic group through multiple platforms email us today..."

Viewers who heard something like that might also have felt as Caruso put it on the site, A tiny Revolution, "Come on guys, we're sitting right here. Can't you do us the courtesy of being subtle about the fact that, as far as you're concerned, we're nothing but pairs of ears for corporate sponsors?"

Well Counterspin has talked for years about the encroachment of corporate underwriting, or, enhanced underwriting, or, expanded enhanced underwriting, at what are nominally public broadcasting stations. As with advertising on commercial networks, the concern is not just the obvious aggravation of ads crowding out programming, but the behind the scenes influence that advertisers, even if you call them underwriters, have on what shows get produced or don't get produced in the first place. Overt shilling for private sector dollars like that on KQED is galling in itself. The fact that public broadcasting was specifically designed to avoid the need for such shilling, and the compromising and conflicts it brings, makes the whole public thing sort of seem like a bad joke. Perhaps as Caruso says, the station might consider just changing its name, but "perhaps, "Supplier of demographic groups to underwriters through multiple platforms" doesn't quite have the same ring.

geoff said...

oops, first "{perky female voice}" doesn't belong.

Anonymous said...

From the web site

Linda Gradstein Has Done It Again on Gaza.

A good read.

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

oops, first "{perky female voice}" doesn't belong.

9/12/09 2:16 AM

It's sometimes hard to discern the gender of Peter Hart from his 'perky' voice...

larry, dfh said...

Yeah, I know, it's pri and not npr, BUT there was a truly awful interview w/ larry summers Fri. evening on 'markeplace'. And the funny part was that it focused on regulation of the financial sector. Not a SINGLE FUCKING MENTION that summers was #1 in getting rid of financial regulation, including Glass-Stegall. Educating the public, presenting news, is so secondary on 'marketplace', just ginning up sympathy for wall-streeters seems to be their overriding sense of duty. The interview was to barf for.

geoff said...

Re: The outrageous stupidity of having Sharpton and Gingrich on to talk about anything, but worst of all, to talk about education, I will hold my ink and suggest you listen to Black Agenda Report: Send In the Clowns: 3 Stooges, Gingrich, Sharpton & Duncan Hit the Road For Corporate “School Reform”

larry, dfh said...

Thanks so much for the link, Gopey. I smelled a rat when I heard the 'piece' (of crap) tha A.M., but was somewhat ignorant of the fackts. It was nice to find out as to who is paying sharpton. Gingrigh, of course, is so white he's transparent.