BS: Fair and Balanced

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Peace
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 05:41 PM

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Understanding_Palestinian_Poverty.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Peace
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 05:39 PM

"ARAFAT'S CORRUPTION

But checks to terrorists are small change compared to Yassir Arafat's record of personal theft. Over the course of his 'revolutionary' career, Arafat has siphoned off hundreds of millions of dollars of international aid money intended to reach the Palestinian people.

Estimates of the degree of Arafat's wealth differ, but are all staggering. Last year, Forbes magazine listed Arafat in its annual list of the wealthiest 'Kings, Queens and Despots,' with a fortune of 'at least $300 million.' Israeli and US officials estimate Arafat's personal holdings between $1-3 billion. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the American Center for Democracy, arrives at a figure of $1.3 billion and laments:

This money is enough to a) feed 3 million Palestinians for 1 year, b) buy 1,000 mobile intensive care units, c) fund 10 hospitals for a decade, and d) would still leave $585 million to fund other social projects."

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Peace
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 05:37 PM

"The IMF report "Economic Performance and Reforms under Conflict Conditions," released in September 2003 in Abu Dhabi, was based on the same PA documents that the Israeli government had earlier provided to the European Parliament. The report concluded that $900 million in PA revenues from 69 commercial enterprises belonging to the PA in the West Bank, Gaza and abroad, "disappeared" between 1995 and 2000. The report also found that the 2003 budget for Arafat's office, which totaled $74 million, was missing $34 million that Arafat had transferred to pay unidentified "organizations" and "individuals." Furthermore, the report revealed that at least 8 percent ($135 million) of the PA's annual budget of $1.08 billion is being spent by Arafat at his sole discretion - and does not even take into account Arafat's control of 60 percent of the security-apparatus budget, which leaves him with at least $360 million per year to spend as he chooses."

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Peace
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 05:35 PM

"Last time you made that specious remark, Peace, it was only three million, not three hundred million. The story changes with each telling, I see."

You are so full of shit, Carol. I said $300,000,000 numerous times. And you know he stole the cash.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 05:06 PM

Sorry. Goofed up my second link above.

THIS should work.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 04:22 PM

"But when he unfolded a map that showed a Palestinian state made up of several unconnected cantons surrounded by Israeli troops, Arafat walked away."

The simple fact is, he did. Mike Shuster's report is accurate.

As I said—and as NPR reported—the intransigence of both sides led to the breakdown of the talks. Since they had reached an impasse, one of the two sides was going to blink first, and it was Arafat. But the NPR reports made it very plain that Arafat was not solely to blame for the breakdown of the talks. It was the bull-headedness of both parties.

In an interview with Bob Edwards, Shuster goes on to say, "Over the past century of conflict, it has always been hard for the two sides to perceive a path to peace. The great irony of the past decade is that almost like equal poles of a magnet, the closer the Israelis and Palestinians came to each other, the more violently they pulled away."

Now, did Shuster "lie?" Or did he give a pretty accurate report?

One might peruse THIS.

A rather telling paragraph here, excerpted from THIS analysis:

These compromises notwithstanding, the Palestinians never managed to rid themselves of their intransigent image. Indeed, the Palestinians' principal failing is that from the beginning of the Camp David summit onward they were unable either to say yes to the American ideas or to present a cogent and specific counterproposal of their own. In failing to do either, the Palestinians denied the US the leverage it felt it needed to test Barak's stated willingness to go the extra mile and thereby provoked the President's anger. When Abu Ala'a, a leading Palestinian negotiator, refused to work on a map to negotiate a possible solution, arguing that Israel first had to concede that any territorial agreement must be based on the line of June 4, 1967, the President burst out, "Don't simply say to the Israelis that their map is no good. Give me something better!" When Abu Ala'a again balked, the President stormed out: "This is a fraud. It is not a summit. I won't have the United States covering for negotiations in bad faith. Let's quit!" Toward the end of the summit, an irate Clinton would tell Arafat: "If the Israelis can make compromises and you can't, I should go home. You have been here fourteen days and said no to everything. These things have consequences; failure will mean the end of the peace process.... Let's let hell break loose and live with the consequences."

And then, there is this from aljazeera.net archives.

And then again, there is "CAMERA: the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America." [You can look it up yourself. I'm getting tired of making links, and I do have other things to do with my time.] They take the administration (any administration) and all of the American news services, including NPR and PBS, to task for their "blatantly pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian bias."

If you give an accurate report of what really happened, you're bound to tick somebody off.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 02:55 PM

Last time you made that specious remark, Peace, it was only three million, not three hundred million. The story changes with each telling, I see.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Peace
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 02:51 PM

"Perhaps the deal was already dead so he walked away."

He didn't walk away alone. He took $300,000,000 with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 02:51 PM

Ebbie, Begin was a different peace process. This one is the one where Barak was intransigent, and then Sharon after Barak was unseated. (And of course, Netanyahu was intransigent in between Begin and Barak, effectively trashing the Oslo accord that Begin signed.) But in 2000, it was Barak.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 02:46 PM

KB, he didn't walk away from it at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 02:14 PM

Those who hold the whip in their hand are usually more intransigent than those who don't. That's because they speak from a position of greater power.

Note the intransigence of the Bush administration, for instance, in regards to the rest of the world...

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 02:13 PM

Upon a podium made of pork with a pitcher of pig blood by his side
Arafat addressed the crowd in Muslim hell
"My fellow suicide bombers..."

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 02:07 PM

Jimmy Carter early on made it clear that it was not Arafat but Begin who was intransigent at Camp David.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 02:01 PM

Arafat is currently attending a suicide bomber convention.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 01:47 PM

That quote does not say that Arafat walking away is what killed the deal. Perhaps the deal was already dead so he walked away.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 01:11 PM

I didn't have to work hard at all. It was one of the top four hits on my first search. It doesn't really matter how old it is. It's a lie, I heard it repeated many, many times. It was (probably still is) the standard orthodoxy among the major media, including the public media.

If they lie, they have a hidden agenda. I get much better information with the kinds of sourced I use now than I ever got from the public news sources. You can continue to use them if you want, but I can't see any reason to use them myself.

You're not entitled to expect everyone else to subscribe to your view of the world, SRS. You're entitled to choose which sources you'll use for getting news. You're not entitled to tell me which sources I should use for that purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 11:07 AM

You worked really hard to find a five-year-old story with one line of eight words that you disagree with and call it a lie and consider it as something that NPR would sustain on some warped news-reporting kowtow to entities you hate. You use this to indict the entire operation forevermore.

Get a grip. No one is perfect. The majority of their news is excellent and accurate. If you disagree, you are welcome to write to them about it. They read letters every Thursday on their programs. I don't see any of the other networks doing that.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 12:23 AM

Here you go, Don. They're still doing it. (Or rather, they haven't corrected the lie they told all those years ago.)

Just one example...

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/history/history6.html

"Leader of Palestine Liberation Organization from 1969 to present. Believed to have been born in Cairo, Egypt. Attended University of Cairo, becoming a civil engineer. In the late 1950s he helped form Fatah, one of the Palestinian groups created to fight the state of Israel. Launched guerrilla operations against Israel in 1965. Tried but failed to organize insurrection against Israel's occupation of the West Bank after Six Day War in 1967. Spoke to the U.N. General Assembly on behalf of Palestinians in 1974. Established base in Beirut, but was ousted by Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Sent into exile in Tunisia. Supported Iraq's Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf War, but agreed to compromise with Israel after Iraq's defeat. Signed the Oslo Agreement with Israel in 1993 and was co-recipient of Nobel Peace Prize along with Shimon Peres, Israel's then foreign minister. Returned to Gaza and was elected president of Palestinian Authority in 1996. Walked away from Camp David negotiations in 2000. Now under siege in Ramallah by Israeli army.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 11:25 PM

That was nigh most seven years ago, so it's hard to be that specific now (I don't tape everything that comes over the air!), but I heard a number of different reporters and commentators on several programs, including "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered." They were following the progress (if it could be called that) of the negotiations, reported what people said (giving the proper attributions to each quote), then, in the end, offered the opinion (it might have been Daniel Schorr, but others as well) that each side insisted that the other make concessions that they were unwilling to make, and the failure of the talks was due to the intransigence of both sides. There was similar coverage on Jim Lehrer's evening news telecast.

I never heard anyone say that it was all Arafat's fault because he walked out—other than that there were some who thought that, but that was the opinion of some folks other than NPR personnel, and were properly attributed to the people who voiced that opinion.

Neither NPR nor PBS was pushing any agenda. They were reporting the news.

Okay. I showed you mine. Now you show me yours.

But beyond that, I don't care to continue this discussion. I've tried to explain to you how news services work and how attribution is always given and opinion is always labeled as such—save for Fox News, which is not news, it is a propaganda organ for the Bush administration. This labeling and attributing by legitimate news services is not just to be nice. It has legal implications. News services can be, and sometimes are, sued for libel unless those labels are rigorously applied. It reduces the legal liability of the news service.

So I've explained it yet again. If that's not good enough for you, well then, you're on your own. I'm getting tired of having to explain the same thing over and over again to someone who refuses to get it because it might mean that they said something in error without really knowing what they were talking about.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 09:19 PM

Which program(s), Don?

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 01:16 PM

But I did.

Goodbye.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 01:38 AM

It's good that you were reading a wide variety of sources, Don, because you wouldn't have gotten that information from the public TV and radio networks.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 01:36 AM

SRS, I have already said that others are entitled to their opinions. And that I am entitled to mine. You seem to think that others are entitled to tell me what my opinions ought to be. I happen to disagree with that idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 12:58 AM

From everything I have been able to find out--from a wide variety of sources--it was the intransigence of both parties that caused the talks to break down.

But partisans on both sides don't like that judgment. They're just as intransigent.

I'm outta here, too.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 11:26 PM

I'm familiar with a lot of this, Carol. I think the Palestinians got a horrible deal. You could refer folks to read some of the writings of the late Edward Said to get some thoughtful and balanced discussion. NPR and PBS are the next best thing to scholars like Said, hands down.

That said, this will be my last post on this thread. Because what I see here is Don and others bending over backwards trying to politely engage you in a discussion in which you will not move one jot. Not one tittle. You dismiss anything that isn't exactly your view of the world. (I can be accused of this also, but I make sure to cite some damned good and authoritative sources to keep me company, not this vague dismissal of everything--like we need to take your word for it that what you know is "fact.") And we all know what happens when people openly challenge you on your opinions. You go ballistic and the thread goes down the drain. You and I agree on many things, but your methods of arguing points are as closed-minded as anything O'Reilly can come up with, you're like mirror opposites in many ways. Which makes your arguments as hard to swallow as his.

Okay, I just carried this match into the firework stand. And I'm outta here.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 10:18 PM

Well then, Don. Explain to me please why you were unfamiliar with the fact that Arafat was not the one who ended the talks, if your source of information is so good.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 09:54 PM

From the book "The Best War Ever" by Rampton & Stauber:

"At the time of the Iraq war, Fox News had just 1,250 full-time and freelance employees and seventeen news bureaus, only six of them overseas, with operating costs of about $250 million. By contrast, CNN had four thousand employees and forty-two bureaus, thirty-one of them overseas, at a cost of about $800 million. In the Middle East, Fox had only fifteen correspondents, compared to at least one hundred apiece for ABC, CBS, NBC and BBC. As U.S. tanks rolled on Baghdad, Fox was forced to purchase video footage of Baghdad from Al Jazeera, the Arab network."

"We don't have the resources overseas that CNN and other networks have. We're going in with less money and equipment and people, and trying to do the same job. You might call it smoke and mirrors, but it's working." --Rick Leventhal, Fox correspondent

Fox News also alleged that France had actually assisted in smuggling Saddam out of Iraq. The accusation was made by Fox military stooge, Paul Vallely, a retired general. "Let me stop you," said billo, "Do you really believe there's going to be conclusive proof, General, do you believe there is going to be conclusive proof that France helped Saddam Hussein and his thugs escape? Do you believe that will come out?"

Vallely replied, "Absolutely. There is enough information, Bill, that I'm getting coming out that is going to bury and break the Chirac government."

"Wow!" exclaimed billo, eight months before a filthy, exhausted Hussein was found cowering in a spider-hole near Tikrit. Apparently, Saddam found France so not to his liking that he decided to return to his hometown.

Fox interviewed all kinds of conservative military and govt people to present the pro-war viewpoint but only interviewed celebrities as Susan Sarandon and Janeane Garofalo for the antiwar view. Tony Snow asked Garofalo if she thought Saddam was trying to obtain WMD. She replied that he probably did only because many leaders would like to have them. She pointed out that there was no evidence that Saddam actually had them however--that out of countries as North Korea, Iran and Pakistan, Saddam was the least likely to have them or be able to get them. She disagreed with Rick Santorum that the war would be cheap. "This is going to be economically devastating for us," she said. She also stated that it is action in Iraq rather than inaction that will make us less safe.

Despite Fox's attempts to paint antiwar people as a bunch of liberal democratic pantywaists who listen to know-nothing celebrities, Garofalo proved herself more knowledgeable than the White House and Pentagon put together. And they have Fox News to thank for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2KU02lsfH8

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 09:36 PM

My apologies.

My mistake. In a post above, I mention Carol's link to the address given by Naomi Wolf at the top of this thread. That is not correct. It's the first post in the thread entitled "RE: BS: Naomi Wolf - The End of America."

By all means, listen to what Naomi Wolf has to say.

HERE

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 09:21 PM

There is the all-important matter of attribution. It is standard practice for the news reporter to attribute comments or statements of opinion or belief to the person who made the statement. For example, "According to President Clinton, the cause of the failure of the conference was Arafat himself." If the reporter simply said, "The cause of the failure of the conference was Arafat himself," he or she is not reporting, they are editorializing. Now just because they report what Clinton said does not mean that they are biased or that they are lying. They are reporting a fact:   this is what Clinton said. Now, if someone contradicts that, the reporter will report that, too—and tell you who said it.

This is basic journalistic practice, and I never hear PBS or NPR news people departing from that practice.

When someone has a strong opinion about an issue, sometimes this can blind that person to what the reporter is saying, especially if they disagree—and they miss the fact that the statement is attributed to some source and is not necessarily the opinion of the reporter. Or of the news service he or she is working for. Or they fail to distinguish between who is a reporter and who is a commentator. If Daniel Schorr, for example, said, "The cause of the failure of the conference was Arafat himself," there should be no problem with that, because what Schorr says on the air is clearly labeled as commentary, or "news analysis," which is the same thing. However, you will never hear Dan Schorr say anything that flat-out. He would say, "In my opinion, the cause of the failure of the conference was Arafat himself."

As long as the reporter says, "According to. . . ." or the commentator says, "In my opinion. . . ." or words to that effect, to characterize the entire news service as "lying" is neither reasonable nor realistic.

Don Firth

P. S. Sometimes this sort of thing can go to extremes. I recall an incident on my first radio job. The station was "easy listening:" elevator music. With a two minute news and weather break at the top of the hour. Not brilliant radio, but it was my first broadcasting job as an announcer.

One afternoon I was reading the very brief headline version of the four top national news stories, freshly ripped off the AP wire service teletype. One of the stories gave the American casualty figures in Vietnam for that week (you don't hear anything about the weekly casualty figures in Iraq these days—except on PBS and NPR).

A few moments after finished the local weather report and started the next record, the phone rang. An irate listener. He was very upset—with me! How could I read those casualty figures and simply move on to the weather report without saying something about the death of these brave men? Without some sort of eulogy? Well, it seems his son was one of those figures, and in his grief, he had to lash out at something or someone. I was it. I was a cold, heartless, unfeeling son-of-a-bitch and he was going to have me fired! As far as he was concerned, my expressing my sympathy and condolences to him at that point was too late! I should, he shouted, have done it when I was on the air! And he reiterated what he thought of me before he slammed down the phone.

I knew that a) it would be out of place for me to say anything beyond matter-of-factly—but somberly—reading the copy I had in my hand; and b) for me to have made any comments on my own about the story would be editorializing, and would just get me into trouble with some other listener. I told the program director about it and he said, "Yeah, that sort of thing happens. Better get used to it."

If he's still around, I'm quite sure that grieving father still thinks I'm a cold, heartless, unfeeling son-of-a-bitch.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Oct 07 - 07:32 PM

They had some catchy slogan on the gates of Auschwitz too. I think it was "Work Makes You Free".

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

NOT to defend FOX, but showing examples of well known opinionated hosts acting, well, opinionated, weakens the argument that there is nothing fair and balanced on FOX. If the Youtube cut distinguished between those representing themselves as journalists and those who run 'shows' it would make its point stronger.

"Fair and Balanced" on FOX is a kind of trademark like that erstwhile village in the orient named "usa" so it could be marketed as "made in usa".

I have long felt that there is only one thing about Fox TV that is fair and balanced: The Simpsons.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:34 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 - 06:28 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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 - 12:50 PM

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

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: 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: 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: 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