It seems like every time I switch to NPR, they are talking to some republican.

but taking their bullshit seriously is what gives me heartburn.

It is the only liberal thing about them.

I stopped listening to NPR during W's administration. None of my friends listens to or donates to NPR any longer.

It's gone right-winged for good. I've NO use for it any longer.

And yes, it was during W's administration, mostly after 9/11, that I turned NPR off and never listened again. If I want that crap, I'll watch Faux News.

didnt really take root till w, but, as you say, never went back.

NPR cheer-lead right along with the rest of the media. But yeah, they ramped it up during W's. Used to donate, but haven't for years.

Some of the locally-produced programming that I listened to in WI and MN had real Liberals on, but the debate at National NPR was not whether Iraq had WMD's, but whether the Army or Marines would reach Baghdad first.

Unfortunately, the Republicans know hey can use the threat of funding cuts to cajole NPR like they were a Ukrainian President.

"Some said" that he was actually running the show, and GW McIdiot was the face.

Cheney ran the show, A-Z for 8 years.

"I listened to Jonah Goldberg on Morning Edition today as he leveled a disgusting, shameless attack on Christine Blasey Ford accusing her of fabricating her story about Brett Kavanaugh for partisan reasons. And to allow this attack on Ford to go unchallenged was disgraceful to journalism. My family household is a very long term member and contributor to NPR and will seriously reconsider our membership should this type of shoddy, irresponsible journalism continue."

Some shows are more left leaning, including studio 1A. I love listening to my local Philly NPR station. makes my commute bearable!

Would you rather prefer a liberal version of rush limbaugh? I sure as hell dont.

you could go there (although CSPAN callers can be a bunch of freaks too )

but I finally had to mute it. I am sure DU will let me know when it starts up again.

turn when Murdoch bought a controlling interest. Before that the Koch's were the right's influence.

I don't watch tee vee anymore but I was getting sick way back when of the types of corporate sponsors they were accepting.

has taken a decidedly conservative tone too, I've noticed.

I thought NPR was government funded.
So is PBS.

Board of Fox Corp. and former House Speaker Paul Ryan is on the Board.

“Former House speaker Paul Ryan is joining the board of directors of the new Fox Corp. NPR's David Folkenflik told WBUR's "Here and Now" that Fox's decision to retain Ryan "is in keeping with the way in which Rupert Murdoch and his family has operated over the years, where they have acquired, essentially, a lot of major political heavyweights to be on their corporate boards, occasionally as top executives — essentially as a hedge" against the fairly heavy regulations that media companies sometimes face.”

Bold for emphasis.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/20/705009029/disney-officially-owns-21st-century-fox. Article is dated 3/20/19.

Hope this answers your query.

how is this controlling interest in NPR?

NPR is government funded, with corporate sponsorship from Disney & Fox,
but NPR is still not owned by anyone but the government.

it's the members of Congress who control our rights.

NPR is not a corporation.
I still don't understand how you think Murdoch "bought controlling interest"?

I'm sorry to be such a stick in the mud, no animosity intended.

Congress and any RW administration are the ones that are forcing the RW message.
Prior to GW McIdiot, Congress and all administrations, pretty much left NPR alone to
do what they do best.

Darth Cheney changed all that.

unit or the general public, according to Charity Navigator, https://www.charitynavigator.org NPR is organized as a non-profit with a 501(c)(3) filing status.

Corporations, organizations, etc., fall under this category. Except for acceptance of donations, there is not a lot of difference between a non-profit corporation and a non-profit organization -- both must comply with rules for corporations.

We need a serious discussion about media reform. Smart people can find a better solution than the way it is currently.

trying to get the most direct info is what their (and our) jobs should be.

dollars more and more. Corporations have deep pockets when it comes to buying media. Not listening hasn't worked. We need reform.

Years ago for that reason.

but they really got on my nerves just now.

They're scared of their own shadows because the GOP threatens their funding if they dare to report on the legitimacy of their bullshit.

Hoped it would stop whenn David Koch died, but no, so guessing he installed enough sycophants to keep distorting their programs to the right.

If they don't pander to the right wing, elected republicans will go after them and they will lose corporate funding.

The audience for NPR isn't you or I - it is the most insane members of congress and the most rightwing billioaires.

I had it on briefly during the intelligence committee hearings so I could listen in the car. During a break in testimony, the NPR people were heaping praise on Elise Stefanik!

And I remembered why I stopped listening.

"An now a first generation North Ireland immigrant's perspective on Trump's trade policy and the role of the EU as it pertains to export logistics." Sometimes a covfefe is just a covfefe, but I think their collective heads would explode if they were forced report verbatim without interjecting with monotone, overwrought analysis.

And now a Jazz interlude ♬

I donate to them, partly to keep their frequency clear of Christian broadcasters who are the other side of the hate radio coin.

I know a couple of smart journalism professors. But they drink their own bathwater and are constantly harping on how being "objective" means giving equal weight to "both sides" and letting the reader decide. I've argued with them that this creates false equivalency, that not all arguments are equal, and unequal arguments should not be portrayed as equal. For example, the creationist argument and the evolution argument are not equal. One has evidence, one does not. Climate change is not an issue with two equal sides. To treat them equal does the public a disservice. But they have a blind spot on this and insist "fairness" demands they not take a position. I just wind up banging my head against the wall.

This was during the W years, when she would go on an fellate W for what seemed like hours on end.

Haven't given them a dime since, and only listen to "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me!"

Last edited Wed Dec 4, 2019, 08:02 PM - Edit history (1)

NPR was de funded by the repukes and now have to beg crumbs from sleazy corporate donors who make sure they tow the line for conservatives.

I gave up on public broadcasting when Frontline did a show on cancer clusters near high tension wires. Guess who underwrote the show? G.E. Power systems. Ha! The investigation was misdirection into a study of low frequency EMF. Anyone who knows electronics can tell you this is not a thing and never will be. If this had been a real investigation, they would have been looking at all the herbicides used to keep trees from growing under the wires, or all ionized particles in the air created by the super high voltage going through the bare wires. I'm sure they would have found some correlation.

Do herbs normally make such digressions in their conversation?

Sad. It's as if you have never listened.
Sometimes it is useful to hear what the other side thinks, I know we all wish that were true for our own "other side".

That's also why I don't watch any traditional television.

Our TV plays DVDs and Netflix. That's all it does.

Reporting on issues not found any place else. The reporting on current music is worth the price

NPR has discredited itself long ago as a reliable news source. Sadly, large wealthy donors and AIPAC have had their influence.

Eff that.

Reportint both sides at face value (without interpretation) is not bias it is honest reporting. Expecting that "your" preferred media engage in bias and then fail so to so does not mean they are biased in the other direction.

There's a difference

that they brand themselves as 'news'. Opinions are not facts. Broadcasting lies as fact, and giving those lies validity is obviously...as we can all see..... dangerous. The last place I would look for facts is on any of those cable shows. Unless it's a live event that is being broadcast without opinions.

Creationism, for example, is utter bullshit.

So is white supremacy.

Claiming there's no grey is also a falsehood. I don't know where or when it happened but nuance appears to have become a foreign concept for far too many people.

both commentators/guests seemed to be conservative. the tendency too go overboard with "fairness" on bullshit like this contributes to ratios of only 50 percent wanting the idiot gone. as mentioned, some things really don't have two sides or don't deserve equal time and giving legitimacy to them does real harm.

I used to love On Point. Now I have to listen to two hours of the snooze fest "Texas Standard".


The other night, I had to listen to a bunch of stuff about Chicken Little. I went shopping and came out and they were still talking about Chicken Little and Duckie Man and Miss Piggy...

I wish I could find a classic rock station that didn't have a zillion commercials.

From their website... "The show is broadcast live on air from 10 a.m. to noon EST Monday through Friday, and airs again throughout the day and evening on more than 290 NPR stations coast to coast. The show is also available digitally through WBUR’s website, apps and its online archive, in addition to its regular podcast."


https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/about

I have tweeted/called my 2 local NPR station managers several times over the last years & have found them responsive, I also tell them I am a long term member.

Rumor has it the licensing was too expensive.
It's no longer airing in Texas.

That show is my don't miss

They aren't worth the time.