rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (10/17/85)
Subject: NPR loves KGB ? :-)
National Public Radio has taken some heat recently for
its alleged liberal bias. Since I tend to a have a
jaundiced view of the whole journalistic enterprise
(except those rags/stations that agree with me :-)),
I thought I would listen to NPR and try to be objective.
Golly, the first "story" I heard this morning (10/17)
concerned cigarette smoking and women. We got the basic
lowdown on all the nasty things that smoking does to
women, young girls, and especially the unborn.
Now to this point I agreed because like most reasonable
people, I think smoking is just plain dumb.( I am an ex-smoker
and we're the worst kind.)
But, inserted in this "news story" or feature or whatever
we had this little political gem thrown in when they were
discussing cigarette advertising along the lines of
"You've come a long way baby.." -
"Women are in a real sense victims of cigarette advertising."
Is this the proper kind of comment for a news feature ?
Doesn't this kind of material belong on the Editorial page ?
Now notice the reporter didn't say children or girls but
women - GROWN UP HUMAN PERSONS. While I'm no advocate of
Land Raping, Robber Baron Capitalism, I see right away the
political stance of the reporter. S/he made the context clear
that the advertising and by implication the System is to
blame for the problem.
Now that is just one lil' ol' rain drop....but a bunch of these
gives rise to the charges about NPR bias.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (10/19/85)
In article <1746@akgua.UUCP> rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) writes: >Subject: NPR loves KGB ? :-) > ... >I thought I would listen to NPR and try to be objective. > ... > >But, inserted in this "news story" or feature or whatever >we had this little political gem thrown in when they were >discussing cigarette advertising along the lines of >"You've come a long way baby.." - > >"Women are in a real sense victims of cigarette advertising." > >Is this the proper kind of comment for a news feature ? >Doesn't this kind of material belong on the Editorial page ? > >Now notice the reporter didn't say children or girls but >women - GROWN UP HUMAN PERSONS. While I'm no advocate of >Land Raping, Robber Baron Capitalism, I see right away the >political stance of the reporter. S/he made the context clear >that the advertising and by implication the System is to >blame for the problem. I think s/he (this is rediculous, you are referring to a specific individual and not to some generic human) was probably referring to 'women' generally including little girls too. The term 'females' could likely have been substituted, but I could excuse the use of 'women' because 'females' sounds a bit sterile. The real question is whether she backed it up with any proof. Did s/he? > >Now that is just one lil' ol' rain drop....but a bunch of these >gives rise to the charges about NPR bias. > > >Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura Compuserve: 72205,541 MTS at WU: GKL6
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/24/85)
I think it is the fact that NPR examines issues in depth which
leads to conclusions that it is "liberally biased".
There are many "facts" presented in the media by such unbiased
sources as Ronald Reagan which are never questioned by the
mainstream media. Ronald Reagan says over and over and over and over
again:
"The U.S. unilaterally disarmed in the 70's"
The media reports that Reagan said:
"The U.S. unilaterally disarmed in the 70's"
Ask the typical American person, "did the US disarm in the 70's"
most will answer (in my experience of talking to hundreds of people
about the arms race issue): "Yes"
Yet if one examines the *facts* rather than Ronald Reagan's pronouncements
then one finds that, yes, to comply with arms treaties the US dismantled
some older weapons systems, just as the Soviets also dismantled some
older weapons systems. Yet these systems were more than replaced
by new and more dangerous weapons so that in 1970 the US had 4000
strategic nuclear weapons, while in 1980 the US had 10,000 strategic
nuclear weapons. NPR reports things like that. The mainstream media
DO NOT. To simply parrot official statements and positions without
critically examining them and also presenting the facts is irresponsible
and dangerous journalism.
One notes NPR's coverage of both sides of issues with its extensive
coverage of the State of Emergency in Nicaragua. The mainstream media
have scarcely mentioned it. NPR has given it extensive coverage.
NPR also presents opinions from all sides of the political spectrum-
conservatives Kevin Phillips and John Mcloughlin(spelling?) as
well as Democratic Socialist, Michael Harrington.
This is a refreshing change from the bland never too daring commentary
on the major networks.
Moreover what is "liberal" and "conservative"? Is it "conservative"
to believe in the absurdity of Creationism? Is presenting the
massive evidence in favor of evolution proof of liberal bias?
Or is one to only present quotations from the Bible irrespective of
scientific evidence?
On the other hand is it proof of conservative bias to point out
the problems with collective agriculture? Or to report persecutions
of Soviet dissidents?
I think NPR does an excellent job of covering many issues neglected
by the mainstream media. Such indepth coverage and broad spectrum
of opinion is invaluable.
tim sevener whuxn!orb