BS: Fair and Balanced

Subject: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:03 PM

I'm sure that after watching this video, everyone here will join me in describing FOX news as the most fair and balanced of all the news organizations, and the one with the highest of journalistic standards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3kI8LNTqNo

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Emma B
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:17 PM

memo to self......think twice before accusing BBC of "bias" again.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:32 PM

As far as I am concerned, NPR and PBS are about the only truly "fair and balanced" news sources this country has. I am fully aware that our more conservative brethren with snort at that statement. Nevertheless, on any objective scale of correspondence between what goes on in the real world, and the reporting of what is going on, these two services come the closest. They at least try to be honest journalists, which is more than can be said for most of the "info-tainment" programs that pass for news these days.

And as far as Fox "News" Service is concerned, they are a blatant and obvious propaganda organ for the Right Wing. It's mind-boggling that some folks here can't seem to see the obvious.

Thanks for posting that, Carol. Out of their own mouths. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:39 PM

I don't share your opinion about NPR and PBS, Don (and the bias I see in those networks, I wouldn't at all describe as 'liberal'), but when we have networks like FOX to use as our point of comparison, I can understand how a lot of people would see them as fair and balanced.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 05:00 PM

EVERY news person has a viewpoint. If they don't express it directly, it comes out in simply the items they choose to cover and the amount of time they give them....and often in the guests they invite and the words they use to explain the story.


That being said, I can tell the difference between Daniel Schorr and Bill O'Reilley.
   Fox is merely a propaganda machine, with a vested interest in conscious distortion and ignoring certain areas. NPR, BBC, and others at least TRY to get the facts right, a a minimum, even if they have their views about interpreting them.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 05:11 PM

Programs like "Washington Week in Review" and "Bill Moyers' Journal" notwithstanding?

I didn't say they were "liberal," what I said was that they are about the only "fair and balanced" news services this country has right now. At the very least, they try. I also get much of my news from foreign sources, and no matter what the source (including NPR and PBS), I listen with my brain in gear.

But I'm not going to argue the point.

I wouldn't credit a blatantly liberal news service any more than I would credit a blatantly conservative service. News is supposed to be as unbiased as human journalists can keep it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 05:56 PM

My own opinion is that the public broadcasting people are also a part of the propaganda machine, and are not at all independent from the pressures that the rest of the major news media are subjected to. I think they are marketed to people who want more details and the appearance of having more in-depth coverage, and that's what they provide. But I catch them telling lies all the time, even on Washington Week in Review. I used to love the public broadcasting news, but now they just piss me off.

I saw a study quoted not too long ago (wish I could remember where). People were asked questions to learn how much of what they had been told by their preferred news source was misinformation. It showed that while people who watched FOX news had about 75 percent misinformation, the people who get their news from the public broadcasting people have about 25 percent misinformation. This may not seem like much, but it's a lot to me, especially if that 25 percent is really critical information, which in my opinion, it often is.

However, having said that, 25 percent is definitely better than 75 percent.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: pdq
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 06:14 PM

" People were asked questions to learn how much of what they had been told by their preferred news source was misinformation."

It is absolutely impossible for people to know what percent of their news is bogus. Knowing that would require a reference source that was certified 100% accurate by people who are both omniscient and 100% honest. {insert laughter here}

Fox owner Rupert Murdoch has been publicly endorsing Hillary for at least the last two years. Fox employees have routinely stated that stories (true or not) that might embarrass Ms. Clinton are spiked.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 06:37 PM

I think it's possible to ask questions for which there is a 100 percent probability of accuracy, pdq. If I can find the study, I'll post it here.

It doesn't surprise me at all that Murdoch is backing Hillary. Of the Democrats, she's the one most likely to be easily manipulated by the corporatocracy, and I imagine Murdoch, as well as a lot of the other neocons, realize that a Democratic president is probably inevitable this election.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 07:24 PM

"...she's the one most likely to be easily manipulated by the corporatocracy,..."

But why would this be so? Nothing in her speeches or record that I have read leads me to believe she is in bed with those folks. Could "most likely" still be 'not very likely'?

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: pdq
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 07:41 PM

"...she's the one most likely to be easily manipulated by the corporatocracy,..."

Manpulated by the corporatcracy? Hell, she is part of the corporatocracy, having served on the board of directors of many large companies including banks and even Wal-Mart.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: mg
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 07:47 PM

I would worry far less about Hillary being influenced by the corporoscopy or whatever it was than being bought by other countries with interests not totally convergent with those of the US. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 07:50 PM

But I catch them telling lies all the time, even on Washington Week in Review. I used to love the public broadcasting news, but now they just piss me off.

So where do you consider the news to be most accurate, and how do you know which news is "correct" and which is bogus? You haven't disclosed that here.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 08:10 PM

BillD, that's who is funding her campaign, and she's getting more money from them than anyone else. And already, her agenda is very much in line with theirs, as we can see from her health care plan.

pdq, good point.

mg, I worry about that also, and I figure that's also part of why Murdoch likes her.

I don't rely on any news sources for facts, SRS. If I'm going to state something as a fact, I prefer to go to source material if possible. If that's not possible, I will remain open to the possibility that what I'm reading or hearing is not true. Frequently, if I am subsequently able to get access to source material, I find out that what I had heard or read in the news was not true, or was presented in a way that was misleading.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 10:46 PM

Programs like the aforementioned, plus "Frontline," "NOW, with David Brancaccio," "POV," and others regularly cover stories that the corporations and the conservative minions would rather the Americam public not know about. They are the only major news services in the country that do.

Conservatives complain that NPR and PBS are "the worst of the liberally biased media." Hard-charging liberals complain that NPR and PBS aren't liberal enough to suit them, and theorize that they must be part of the corporated-influenced media.

Nobody's happy with them. So they must be doing something right.

But as I said, I don't take any of it as gospel. I listen and view with my brain engaged and often check other sources. And I keep my brain in gear while I'm checking those other sources, as well.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 11:03 PM

Well, I'm neither conservative nor liberal, and I can see from the perspective of someone who hasn't got a vested interest in either alignment. I don't like it when people lie to me. I don't care who they are. PBS lies, just like all the rest of them lie. Their lies may not be from the same slant as those of FOX news, nor as numerous, but lies are lies. And they're completely unnecessary unless someone's got a hidden agenda, which I would suggest all of the major media do have, including the public broadcasting networks.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 11:07 PM

hmmm... Hillary on the board of Wal Mart? Let me look....


Ok...I see. She was in Arkansas, where Wal-Mart started..
but...
February 3, 2006
"WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton gathered checks from Hollywood friends, John Kerry's wife and even a former Republican congressman, but records filed Friday show she returned cash from an even older ally -- Wal-Mart...

Clinton returned $5,000 to the political action committee of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., a company with long ties to the Clintons dating back to their days in Arkansas, where Wal-Mart is headquartered.

Clinton campaign spokeswoman Ann Lewis said the money was returned "because of serious differences with current company practices."

The senator served on the Wal-Mart board from 1986 to 1992, and was close with the Walton family that created the nation's largest retailer.

But the senator signaled a new stance on the company's business practices in a speech last week, when she told the U.S. Conference of Mayors that the company should provide better worker benefits."


------------------------------------------------------------------
The more one investigates, the more confusing it gets. With the internet to read, there are 27 positions and opinions on every issue. What IS a sincere voter to do in order to make an informed decision?

For some reason, lots of people are liking her...and yes, almost as many dislike her strongly. I have seen her roundly put down because she is *gasp* "ambitious"!! I don't believe I have seen any of the male candidates accused of that. Curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 11:15 PM

from this page>




"In Mrs. Clinton's complex relationship with Wal-Mart, there are echoes of the familiar themes that have defined much of her career: the trailblazing woman unafraid of challenging the men around her; the idealist pushing for complicated, at times expensive, reforms; and the political pragmatist, willing to accept policies she did not agree with to achieve her ends.

"Did Hillary like all of Wal-Mart practices? No," said Garry Mauro, a longtime friend and supporter of the Clintons who sat on the Wal-Mart Environmental Advisory Board with Mrs. Clinton in the late 1980s and worked with her on George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign.

"But," Mr. Mauro added, "was Wal-Mart a better company, with better practices, because Hillary was on the board? Yes."

(why I find it so hard to make decisions based on short bursts of data)

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 11:44 PM

Her stance on health care benefits the insurance industry, and not the consumers. Considering that her candidacy is being supported by the insurance industry, this is hardly surprising.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 12:08 AM

Carol, I'm not trying to be confrontational. This is an honest question. Can you tell me what lies specifically? Which programs and which newspersons or commentators?

I would really like to know.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 01:51 AM

For a long time they were saying that it was Arafat who 'walked away from' (their language) the Middle East peace process. We now know that that is far from the truth. And they all did it. Everyone in the public tv news arena, and everyone in all of the major media did it. They're probably still doing it, but since I don't watch them any more, I couldn't say for sure. That's a pretty striking example. But it's a chronic problem with them as well as with all of the major media. They all lie. Chronically.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 10:04 AM

'they'? 'their'? Are we back to Fox news...or is this now an indictment of ALL the media?

I am confused...if you don't watch them any more, what are you using for comparision & information?

   I am perfectly aware that news has to be double-checked and often 'taken with a grain of salt', but "they ALL lie....Chronically"???

and HOW do "We now know that that" Arafat did not "walk away"...etc?

As I said, it is hard work to sort out the facts from the propaganda and half-truths and just plain carelessness. I cannot see how anyone can be so sure that 'X' is true...or not true.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 01:18 PM

Carol, you cite one instance that you consider to be a lie (which I will check out for myself) and then you issue a blanket condemnation and simply write them off, saying that they do it all the time.

"All Indians walk in single file. At least, the one I saw did."

I echo Bill's question:   What news or information sources do you use--that you consider reliable?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 01:43 PM

Which peace negotiations did—NPR? PBS? Which? Or both?—say Arafat walked away from, the Madrid Conference of 1991, the 1993 Oslo Accords, or the 2000 Camp David Summit?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 05:58 PM

What news or information sources do you use--that you consider reliable?

I already answered this one. Please read the thread.

and HOW do "We now know that that" Arafat did not "walk away"...etc?

Bill Clinton says so in his book, My Life, and before that, some of the other high level negotiators in that process have said so.

Which peace negotiations did—NPR? PBS? Which? Or both?—say Arafat walked away from, the Madrid Conference of 1991, the 1993 Oslo Accords, or the 2000 Camp David Summit?

Camp David (2000) and Taba.

You asked for an example. I provided one. It's a big one, because all of the people on the public broadcasting networks did it when the subject was being discussed. And it's one that was ongoing for a very long time (years, and may even still be going on). If you can't refute this one, why are you asking for others?

Yes, I have stopped watching and listening to the news on the public broadcasting networks, for the most part. From time to time I will check in to see if anything has changed. Every time I do that I find that they have not. I don't keep a log of the lies when I hear them so that I can come here and list them for you. I used to value the public broadcasting networks' news programing quite a lot. I don't value it at all now. The reason is because they lie.

I'm not telling you that you shouldn't watch them, nor that you should agree with me. You are entitled to your opinions. I am entitled to mine. You have voiced your opinion on the subject. I am voicing mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 06:26 PM

Fair enough. But I'm still curious to know where you get news and information that you consider to be reliabls. If I need enlightenment, then please enlighten me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 07:03 PM

See my 20 Oct 07 - 08:10 PM post, Don. I've already answered that question.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 07:59 PM

Well ya' know.......I am still a Bill Clinton fan but he has not always been a beacon of truth in every case, often just bending things a bit, but still an untruth is an untruth. Yet you are willing to take his word on this.   He may be correct and truthful, but can you verify it?

Too often the truth is so subjective and is simply the perceived truth of each individual which is the truth we each know. The actual truth may be and often is something different that matches nothing you or I believe it to be.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 08:47 PM

Actually, Spaw, I became incredibly disillusioned with Bill Clinton, because early on, he actually was silent, and even complicit in the spread of that lie. And he did it to help Hillary get elected to Congress. But there were other witnesses to that event who challenged this version, and he has eventually come around to being more honest about it. I used to see him in a very different light, but now I see him and Hillary both as political opportunists who will tell any kind of lie to gain power. People say that the difference between Clinton and Bush is that when Bush lied, people died. Well, when Clinton helped to promote this lie, a lot of people died.

But it is a fact that Barak was the one who ended it (to spend more time campaigning to stay in office), and Arafat is on record as wanting to keep the process going.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 08:47 PM

But that's not what this thread is about.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 10:52 PM

Carol, I did read what your said, but that doesn't answer the question. You say you go to "source material." That's pretty vague.

I'm asking you--what source material is that? And where do you find it?

Perhaps you are unaware of this, but I worked for some years in the broadcast industry, mostly "on the air." I have some acquaintance with broadcasting news departments, including having been the news director at a network affiliated station.

So I get prettty skeptical when someone refers to "sources," especially when they seem reluctant to specify them.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 11:29 PM

Don, source material comes in many forms. It can be official documents, like for instance UN resolutions, or government documents. It can be memoirs and autobiographies, it can be papers, essays, articles and books written by participants giving accounts of their direct experience, eye witnesses accounts. It can be scientific papers or journals, legal documents, treaties, correspondences between people (for instance, letters from Thomas Jefferson to George Washington would be considered source material). Source material is what journalists are supposed to get their information from. It seems to me that if you are familiar with the process of gathering news, you ought to know this.

Here's an example of source material. It's an essay written by two of the high level negotiators in the peace process that included Camp David in 2000 and ended after Taba. It has not passed through the filter of any news media. It comes directly from the source...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15502

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 11:48 PM

I am quite adept at news gathering and checking sources.

What I'm trying to establish is what, exactly, you mean when you say "source material." Some folks mean Wikipedia or any of a number of e-mail newsletters.

Naturally I don't accept any newscast or news commentary at face value. Not even NPR and PBS. But of all the broadcasting services, I have found them (after thorough checking) to be the most accurate and reliable of all the available services. Also, by far the most thorough. Lengthy interviews with parties representing all sides of an issue rather than the usual 30" sound-bite.

As an example of the kind of thing I can get from NPR, I was put onto Naomi Wolf's book just a few days ago when she was interviewed on NPR.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 12:03 AM

Yes, they are probably more so. But not enough so for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 12:33 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-eyuFBrWHs&mode=related&search=Fox%20News%20Neil%20Cavuto%20Rebecca%20Gomez%20Boobs%20Strippers%

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 12:50 PM

To keep it brief, I agree with everything Carol has said on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 01:00 PM

Another concern is what's not being reported, what agencies have either choosen or been told what to leave out of the news. Will we one day wake up to the headlines telling US that we live under a new system of government & wonder why we are now just hearing of his. We stilldon't know who drafted up uor energy policy does anyone think that we'll be completely informed about news that could change the course of ouur nation? I do believe that NPR & PBS do try but they are not privy to all sources & they can be kept out of the loop when there's the need.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 01:36 PM

Hmm. Can't resist elaborating, can I? Okay...

The purpose of "the News" as it exists now is not to inform the people, it is to mould them, condition them, and direct them in order that they will do what the $ySStem wants them to do, cooperate, and remain largely ignorant of what is actually occurring. It is also a form of daily entertainment for minds seeking something to chew on, of course...but that's secondary.

The News is crafted to maintain compliance and manufacture consent. It is also crafted to keep alive and foment various hostile divisions between different groups (such as Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics...or Republicans and Democrats...or liberals and conservatives...or religious people and atheists...or straights and gays). A public constantly divided against itself is a public that can be more easily controlled from the top down, and their anger and frustration can then be periodically directed against each other rather than against the $ySStem...and the $ySStem can impose increased "security" measures and augment its police powers to deal with those outbreaks, thus extending its overall power and control.

As Boss Tweed said, "You can always get one half of the poor to kill the other half for you." If it gets out of hand, you send in the army and declare martial law.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 02:48 PM

To say that NPR or PBS "lied" is a bit unspecific, considering the nature of the kind of news coverage these services do. They have reporters in the field, they have readers, reporters, and interviewers in their studios in Washington, D. C. and other places, and commentators and news analysts, such as Daniel Schorr and Ted Koppel, whose remarks are clearly labeled as "commentary," not "hard news." Some individual reporter or commentator may make an inaccurate statement (often caught and corrected in a later broadcast), but it is certainly not a matter of editorial policy.

To claim that NPR or PBS "lied" is much too general a statement. What is required is identifying who made the statement that one disagrees with. Was it a reporter? Was it a commentator? Or was it a guest being interviewed?

Among other things, both NPR and PBS air programs and interviews that other news services wouldn't touch—for whatever reasons.

This morning, on my NPR affiliate station:

I heard an hour-long interview with Helen Caldecott discussing the dangers of nuclear power plants and their contribution to environmental pollution. There was also a side discussion in which she talked about the Pentagon's hush-hush program to militarize space, despite treaties we have signed.

Following that was an hour-long interview with Hans Blix (interview taped on Friday, played this morning) about the resurgence of the arms race and America's role in restarting it.

That, in the first two hours following "Morning Edition" this morning.

A few days back, I heard an hour-long interview with Naomi Wolf, discussion her book, The End of America.

Where else?

Certainly not Fox News Service, where their main talking head tells guests to "SHADDAP!!" whenever they say something he disagrees with or when they even approach a subject he doesn't want talked about. And although they occasionally do a bit of hard news from time to time, their selection of what to report and what to omit, is, in itself, a form of propaganda.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 03:01 PM

It is an interesting and sometimes enlightening pastime to sift through the News, because one can definitely find some accurate and useful information there, Don. The more outlets one consults, the better, if that's what you're after. In a system so enormous and complex as our present social order it's simply not possible for those intent on establishing a dictatorship to control everything and everyone. In fact, it's far from possible. There are too many individuals involved, and individuals are unpredictable, they have free will, and some of them have high moral and ethical standards too.

This must worry Bush and his people, and I'm sure that they are working on ways to deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 03:14 PM

Those folks who say things like "All the news media are nothing but a government propaganda" or "They're all the same, so it doesn't make any difference who you vote for," are a) extremely cynical (whether they think so or not) and b) not really paying attention.

It's an easy way avoid a citizen's responsibility to participate in the political system. One can just throw up one's hands and say "Why bother? What's the use!??"

This is a way of saying "Let George do it." Well, here's a news flash! George is doing it!

I don't think sitting back and "viewing with alarm" while trying to remain smug and aloof is helping the situation much.

Don Firth

P. S. (Not addressed to anyone specifically, but those who fit know who they are) Are you going to your party caucus to argue for the candidate of your choice? Oh! That's right! All the candidates are the same, so what's the point? Besides, you don't belong to a party.

"I'd rather just sit HERE and grouse."

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 04:20 PM

Funny how the slamming of the news media in general is being done by Carol, who admits she seldom listens to it anymore, and Little Hawk, who admits to not owning a TV.

There is a well-known admonition to "know thine enemy", and IF you are unhappy with some aspect of news coverage, it seems to me it behooves you to follow it well enough to keep track of what they are doing!...maybe YOU can provide some details about where they have gone wrong.

"They ALL lie and distort and their goal "is to mould them, condition them, and direct them"...".... seems like hardly a clear accusation that *I* can follow up on.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 05:48 PM

The author of Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, James Loewen, was on a local NPR radio talkshow at noon today. A wonderful line he pronounced and I scribbled down was:

"Everyone has a right to their own opinion but you don't have a right to your own facts."

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 06:28 PM

I've been watching KCTS-TV (PBS affiliate) and listening to KUOW-FM (NPR affiliate) since these stations first got started in the 1950s. I had an even more intimate relationship with KCTS-TV in 1959, because I did a series of television programs on folk songs and ballads, called "Ballads and Books" and funded by the Seattle Public Library on KCTS. KUOW was a charter member of NPR when it first formed in 1970. It is the second most listened to radio station in the Seattle-Tacoma market and the most listened to news radio station in the state. It is a service of the University of Washington. I know some of its on-the-air personnel and I know them to be dedicated journalists and people of integrity. As interviewers, they often ask the tough questions.

I've already mentioned programs like "NOW, with David Brancaccio," "Bill Moyers' Journal," "Frontline," and "POV." These programs deal with stories in depth, usually with lengthy interviews with the people involved. "Washington Week in Review" covers (as the name implies) what's been going on in Congress and other very current issues (a discussion, with a moderator and several reporters, each covering a specific beat), and "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" every evening. For those who don't know, this is hour news program beginning with a news summary followed by (usually) three stories in some depth, often with interviews with the parties involve. Then, a brief but usually fairly polite conversation between a conservative commentator and a liberal commentator. This is a substantial cut above the relatively slap-dash news coverage (half-hour in length) offered by the commercial networks.

On my NPR affiliate, in addition to programs like "Alternative Radio," on which you hear some notable person speak or be interviewed, and it's up to you to decide whether they are crackers or right on the mark, I have heard interviews with authors such as Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, George Lakoff, Helen Caldecott, Richard Clarke, Michelle Golberg (before I learned that she's Charlie Noble's niece), Naomi Wolf (the interview I heard was on the morning of the day she spoke in Kane Hall at the U. of W.—Carol's link at the beginning of this thread), John Perkins (Confessions of an Economic Hit Man), Paul Woodruff (First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea), Lee Iacocca (Where Have All the Leaders Gone?), and, just this morning, Helen Caldecott again, followed by Hans Blix. These and many, many more. Lengthy interviews with people, some of whom I may have never heard of had it not been for NPR.

To cut oneself off from a source of information like that is. . . .

Well, you fill in the appropriate adjective.

Don Firth

P. S. And I might also mention programs they do other than politics, for example, "Masterpiece Theatre," "Mystery," other drama programs, science programs like "Nova," and the arts, such as "Live From Lincoln Center" and many others on PBS. And the interviews and previews that my local NPR affiliate, KUOW, does with people in the arts (theater, opera, ballet, local musicians of all genres, and musicians passing through, writers of fiction and poetry).

You can't find programming of that breadth and quality on commercial television and radio!

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 06:34 PM

Like I said, Bill, I check in every now and then to see if things have changed (ever hopeful for some silly reason), but they never have.


Don, I don't know which part of "all of them" you don't understand. The premise that Arafat rejected the peace process is the standard orthodoxy in all of the major news media (or at least was for several years... so that's several years worth of lying). All of the anchors and commentators promoted this idea. They never had any guests on who refuted this idea (or at least they never did while I was watching, and believe me, I used to watch and listen to those networks a lot).

A real journalist would not only have reported the version of events that Clinton and Barak were asserting. A real journalist would have also asked what the Palestinians had to say about it, and reported that with the same frequency as they reported the other version. They did not. The fact that they did not even acknowledge that there might be another version shows that they had no interest in real journalism, and were simply supplying propaganda to people who were willing to believe whatever they said without ever bothering to check it out.

The fact that so few people (possibly no people) who watch or listen to the public networks are even aware that there is another narrative of those events, is more than ample proof of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 06:34 PM

. . . And I watch and listen to all of this with my brain engaged, which is what public broadcasting is all about. They expect you to think, not just swallow everything like a baby bird.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 06:47 PM

To cut oneself off from a source of information like that is. . . .

Well, you fill in the appropriate adjective.

And yet I find myself more informed on many of the important issues of the day than a lot of people who watch and listen to these outlets. So this one doesn't wash.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 06:58 PM

Ignorance is NOT bliss, although it may ease one's mind. 'Tis my notion that when one wilfully cuts off avenues of information that others have access to one is deliberately blinkering oneself.

It is why, for instance, I make myself listen to Bush and/or read the text of whatever speech he has made. I must say that I rarely listen all the way through a Fox News show but when an issue comes up I do search archives. And when the likes of O'Reilly or Coulter show up on one of the talk shows, I listen alertly- and take notes.

To create wide blanket statements and cast them as though they were presenting the accurate view(s), to me, is not only cynical but dangerously naive. Sorry, George, much as I am discomfitted by the heresy your take on many political matters strikes me as shallow and superficial.

Far from being bliss, ignorance can kill.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 07:07 PM

There is nothing about this that I don't understand, Carol.

Of course there is another narrative to those events.

There always is. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 07:10 PM

I get my news every day on the Net and in the newspapers, Bill. I find the reporting a lot more indepth when it's in print, and I don't have to suffer through three minutes of obnoxious commercial interruptions for every five minutes of actual program, like on TV. I get the program, period. No commercials.

I frankly can't understand why anyone would want to watch the TV for their news, but then, I can't understand why they all want to drink coffee all the time either or why people buy movie magazines that are obsessed with slagging Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie... ;-)

I'm just a conscientious objector to modern marketing techniques, Bill. Like you are to religion. We all have our quirks.