Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition

Subject: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 07:51 PM

Bob Edwards has been sacked from Morning Edition! Personally, I find this incomprehensible. He doesn't seem to like it either. Visit www.npr.org to learn more.

I urge all who agree that this move is not a good idea to email both Morning Edition and the NPR Ombudsman with those sentiments.

Of course if you LIKE the idea of his removal, email that sentiment too!


CB

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 07:59 PM

Now justa darn minute there, Breath. I went to the NPR site moments agao, and it indicates that he has CHOSEN to leave in FAVOR of another position WITH NPR. There may be more tuit behind the scenes chatter that we don't know all of right now. But for the moment, it does not sound to me like he has been sacked.

I think we have to be a little more careful about fanning the flames of hysteria. If it turns out that there WAS a "sacking" then I will be right there with my hysterical emails and shouts. But until then, I will sit right here and stay calm, thenkyewveddymuch.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST,Guest (saulgoldie, like before--needa gnu co
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 08:09 PM

OK, so I found a CNN report and it confirmed that he was "moved" not according to hiw wishes. I am now hysterical, and will write the appropriate emails and "chain" all my like-minded friends, as well. The "official" report, unsurprisingly did not mention the coercion part.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Blackcatter
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 08:38 PM

Here's the links:

National Public Radio article link

CNN article link

NPR's Ombudsman's email

I don't know what I'm going to do, I've been waking up to Bob's voice since I was in middle school. I'm Definately going to register my feelings. I'll talk to the local station - I just happen to be on it's public board.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 09:01 PM

For those of you who "could not perform this operation because the default mail client is not properly installed" (Bill Gates words for "you didn't install our crappy Outlook Express email program") here is the mail address: [e-mail]

SRS

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Strick
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 10:21 PM

Heck, I still miss the Huntley-Brinkley Report (loved the seasons with the Second Movement of Beethovan's Nine for their theme).

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Blackcatter
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 12:18 AM

Sorry SRS - I don't use any mail client than Yahoo, so I would have been frustrated by my own link.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 08:24 PM

The New York Times had a very in depth article today on the subject. Though, I suspect, that it was not the entire story.

Bottom line---Edwards did not expect this (and the 25th anniv. of his being with the program at the start was coming up)and he is quoted as saying that he has not gotten quite ready to make a statement on the air about it.

They would not even let him, according to article, stick around for the celebration of the 25 yrs---which was also the beginning of Morning Ed. The ratings are through the roof. Best news program on the air today.

I find it strange that the "logo" voice--if you will--is being replaced for what--according to the news article---is "...a change in the sound of the program".   Sounds like the ads from airlines when the cram in more seats---"...for your convenience and flight availabity". Whatever that means. Or Banks---"..for your convenience and efficience we are eliminating +++++services and institing +++a charge for +++. Hope you like the improvement".

Being on the air myself I realize that changes are made. But when you are on top in your field one has to ask----WHY?.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Blackcatter
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 08:53 PM

The second most listened to national radio show - right after Rush. Maybe NPR should hire him ro replace Bob.

This is just sad. Who makes changes to one of the highest rated shows?

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST,Very Long TIme M.E. Listener
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 08:53 AM

These are absolute idiots making such a change. They expect to "refresh" this program to make it better? Better than what? Morning Edition already IS the best. I think the executives themselves are bored or perhaps have some unspoken personal dislike for Bob Edwards. This makes absolutely no sense at all. Fire the executives. Leave Edwards. I have already fired my letter off to them. They need more.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: saulgoldie
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 09:17 AM

This is a national version of when the local station (WAMU--Wash. D.C.) let go Lee Michael Dempsey some years back. I wrote several letters to different people within the station and even to AM.U. which sort of "owned" the station. I never got a REAL answer as to why they dislodged him *immediately* after their pledge drive after allowing us to pledge specifically to his show. It just felt very sinister and cynical. And abusive.

They have not gotten my money since. I have only recently begun to rethink my non-donation in light of the onslaught from "the right" to public broadcasting. And now...this. It all makes me wonder: If it's "public" then where do their supporters fit into the discussion?

Of course, I will write again. One HAS to write. One has to write in the face of any adversity. At least then they can't say that they don't know. Evil triumphs when good people sit quietly by. Thanks for announcing this issue, Coyote.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 09:30 AM

I also liked Huntley-Brinkley. I was a kid, and I don't know how many times I asked Dad "what's that music?" before the answer finally lodged in my head. Susan Stanberg and Bob Edwards used to do All Things Considered together before Edwards moved the mornings. Susan stepped down from the anchor job to do more interviews and other programming, and I still hear her, but not as much as I'd like.

If you follow another Brinkley program you'll see another unsettling unsettlement--when they replaced Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts to draw a younger crowd. I like George Stephanopolous (sp?) just fine, but Cokie! How could they ever think they were getting anything better than Cokie Roberts?

Why did I enjoy listening to the hearings this week so much on the radio? Because Linda Wertheimer was being her old self, the congressional correspondent, not just the news anchor. She knows so much about what is going on on Capitol Hill, yet we don't hear it from her much any more.

And those of you who are NPR junkies already know who is the third news-goddess in the NPR triumvirate: she's ________________________ .

Any guesses? (She's the one I always sit in the truck to listen to the end of her stories, what NPR calls "driveway moments.")

(I'll rant on about interview programs later. . .)

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: saulgoldie
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 11:12 AM

Terri Gross? And didn't she recently take some lumps over some of her work, like the O'Reilly thing? What the f*** is it with NPR these days?!!

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 11:35 AM

No, not Terry Gross. That's why I said I'd talk about interview programs later. Those "lumps" are extremely rare for Gross, and all she did was give him a taste of his own medicine. :/

Think news, hard news. Superior, even supreme news.

a clue

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Johnny in OKC
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 11:57 AM

I think he means SUSAN STAMBERG. Definitely not Terry Gross; all she does is puff pieces about authors and washed-up rock bands. Seldom a folk musician.

So what reason do they give for firing Bob Edwards?

I'm with you on the mealy mouthed "explanations" the big corps give, such as the classic Spend More Time with his Family ploy.

They sure came down hard on the NY Times when one of their reporters was writing phony stories. I'm sure Bob was guilty of anything like that.

Frankly, I still miss Robert MacNeil on PBS.

Love, Johnny

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: saulgoldie
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 12:00 PM

Nina Totenberg.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: saulgoldie
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 12:02 PM

And yes, she IS NPR royalty.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Johnny in OKC
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 12:04 PM

I'll have to admit Nina Totenberg is excellent,
but doesn't she cover the Supreme Court exclusively?

Johnny

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 12:25 PM

If Bob Edwards isn't to NPR's liking anymore, who's next? Scott Simon? The whole thing makes me sick.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 12:40 PM

Nina Totenburg is also on our Sunday morning TV panel show (NBC?) and has voiced live abject outrage at some of the drivel that drips from Krauthammer's mouth.

The new FCC rules now have a 6 second censor policy so I may not see the spontaniety of months past.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Mark Clark
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 01:05 PM

Maybe you haven't noticed but the think tank experts so often interviewed on NPR are now mostly from conservative cesspools of anti-knowledge. There used to be a great conservative outcry to kill NPR but you don't hear that any more. Do you think that's because NPR no longer exposes them for the empty suits they are?

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Bush administration or his puppeteers now control NPR funding and its editorial policy. I'm guessing that Edwards couldn't stomach the mindless repetitions of official government misinformation and made it clear that he wouldn't be controlled.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 01:18 PM

I was about to say the same thing, Mark. That is why I wrote and told them of my intent to withold all future donations until I determine the direction they are going. It appears to me that this is another right wing move to control the message. I will be listening with a very critical ear, and no money for now, maybe for good.

Bob Edwards is MORNING EDITION.

Mick

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 01:24 PM

Sorry about the Stamberg typo. Yes, I was thinking of Nina. When they had Nina, Cokey and Linda all covering their specialty areas of the Federal government NPR was at an all-time peak for me. They still have very good coverage, but I like these three the best.

Nina covered the supreme court during the Gore v. Bush hearings also, and it was interesting to hear the listener remarks that came in afterward. When presented with the printed text, some readers (myself included) still heard Totenberg's clear and measured speech when reading the transcripts. When presented with the hearings themselves, I had to chuckle at the realization that justices don't all sound like her.

SRS

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Blackcatter
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 05:37 PM

What about Sylvia Pujoli?

The President of my local Public Radio Station isn't saying anything. He says he doesn't know. Don't know if I believe him - he's pretty much an idiot anyway. Privately, the three main newsmen who do the local coverage during NPR broadcasts (including one you might know, Dave Pingenelli, who is NPR's primary Kennedy Space Center reporter) are all very upset about the Bob Edwards move.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 06:12 PM

I just read Bob Edwards note on the NPR web site. Gracious, but, I believe, if you read between the lines he is rather---for want of a beter word---miffed.   The NY Times article yesterday quoted him as saying that it would have been nice to come up with a great retort when he was told about the changes that will make him a "special" correspondent.

By the way---I respect and admire the women correszpondents mentioned. We have here, in my area, a wonderfully witty and sardonic host of a local music program--Steve Post. When they do fund raising he always uses an expression that says in effect---"...hey you know we have NPR and we give you Nina Totebag all the time---so pledge:.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: saulgoldie
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 03:43 PM

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 04:03 PM

WOW! I just got back, both to the PC and this forum and I am pleased to see the response.

I had hoped that maybe this was an elaborate April Fool's Joke.

Yeah, right!

Lets keep this going for a while since many seem to feel it is a both unwise and untimely move on the part of NPR.

I got a "thank you" for emailing as a response from the NPR Ominous Bud man but still nothing from anyone re the evaporation of Mr. Morning Ed.

CB

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 05:48 PM

Bob Edwards will be interviewed on the On The Media Program---I don't know when that airs in your areas. Here in the NY/NJ area it airs 10 AM on WNYC/FM (93.9)


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 06:01 PM

On The Media plays on Saturday afternoon at 2pm on KERA-FM (90.1) in the North Texas market. Thanks for the heads-up, Bill. More information here.

SRS

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 07:52 PM

Removing Bob Edwards is an insult to everyone that has listened to him for all these years. There needs to be a serious reaction--

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 10:37 PM

Sign the "Save Bob Edwards" petition at www.petitionsonline.com.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 11:33 PM

Good idea "Guest" I hadn't heard of that website but will go and check it out. I can't imagine that this is the only forum discussing the removal.

CB

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST,Rick
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 11:46 PM

"Natural Evolution?" Evolve into what? 25 years as host, Bob Edwards has personally evolved Morning Edition itno what it is today. NPR is really taking a shot at their creditability. It will be interesting to see what impact this has on the show's ratings.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 04:09 PM

If anybody ever writes a history of truly stupid decisions, the decision to replace Bob Edwards will rate alongside New Coke. Coca Cola was smart enough to reco.gnize their error. Will the NPR board do likewise? I am reminded Coca Cola stood New Coke until the demands of its customers became too loud to ignore.

I do agree it is time for a change at NPR: Jay Kernis and Bruce Drake should go. People with the capbility to make decisions as stupid as this cannot be trusted to be caretakers of a national treasure.

J

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 09:43 PM

The interview today was good. Edwards clearly wants NPR to keep growing, and is appalled that people would withhold their support because he is leaving. When asked about this job action, he said he wonders if he "maybe stuck around too long." But the listeners numbers have steadily grown, and he is like Edward R. Morrow such a respected and reliable voice, it is puzzling that NPR would take this move.

SRS

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST,Dashiell7
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 01:22 PM

Bob Edwards has a beautiful voice and a great time-slot. I always listen to him on my way to work. It's too bad he became such a prototypical mouthpiece for the anti-Bushies. Do you remember, immediately after 9/11, when he had that effeminate intellectual-sounding guest on his program who sniffed, "I like feeling that the president is smarter than I am: I don't feel that way about Bush." Yeah. That's what America needs. Good riddance, Bob. You are trashed.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 07:09 PM

Dashiell---this was surely not political. I see your political point though---probably best left for another thread. To me this is the most important election ever---and I am no kid. GWB--Dubya to those who least appreciate his (expletive deleted) actions---is someone I only hope has a happy life in Crawford TX.

But---the real reason for my posting this note. I too heard the OTM program today---it airs in my area on Sun. AM.

Gracious responses by Edwards---"....if it is good for NPR", "...perhaps I was on there too long".   HOwever, he did sort of let it slip a bit when asked if it is correct that management said it was ---something like--"... serving the listener" His reply was, basically, he thought he had---but if mgmt felt that instead of doubling the audience this might quadruple it then it is a good move. Otherwise---IT HURTS.   

I think that says it all.


Those of you who have written to NPR--as I have---probably have gotten the form letter reply from the facility.   

From a personal standpoint for Edwards his life will be physically easier. His salaray and pension are there. But for the public---well---you can weigh in on that.

By the way--I liked his comment about finding his own voice. On a smaller scale I know what he means---I found mine after trying to be what I thought I heard on the radio and tried to emulate.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 01:35 AM

The interview was very enlightening. Mr. Edwards clearly has NPR's "welfare" in mind.

I don't like this move at all but withold support? not at this time but I might if things regress further.

What I found most interesting was his not knowing why either. Something having to do with "listener's needs". I don't recall any one from NPR seeking to learn what our NEEDS are.

MY need is to hear balanced reporting with stories of events presented clearly. Edwards is the thread which ties NPR's Morning Edition together.

The term "listener's needs" is as fine an example of weasle words as I've seen in a while. I am now convinced that the decision was based upon something sleazy, some sort of low action designed to help the career of a mediocre talent, or to appease the anticipated negative reaction to a news piece by one of the corporate moron's tossing slops into NPR's hog trough.

CB

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST,Anne t
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:33 AM

Never before would I have thought that Bob Edwards would ever be replaced, and the insult of having absolutely no reason other than for the sake of change makes it that much worse What happened to loyalty, what happened to respect, what happened to recognizing an amazing talent?

So many of the articles I have read so far talk about needing younger listeners. That makes me smile. My sister (age 27) and I (age 34) listen every day to NPR because our parents listened every day. My children, ages 3 and 10 listen, and her kids so as well. Building loyalty happens over time, through quality and consistancy. When Mr. Edwards leaves, I do too, so does our financial support for NPR stations around the country.   

I think it is the only way a listener can register a complaint that will be heard. I HATE to do it, but it is the only way to get a message across.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST,nprgroupie
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:48 AM

Listening to Bob Edwards, and reading his incredibly classy words angers me even more.

His loyalty to the organization he helped build shows remarkable character. He sounds so blindsided, so shocked. I think everyone has been through a betrayal, but to have it happen in public, in such a shocking manner, is dispicable. How does he make sense of it?

I have yet to hear of a SINGLE person who is applauding this move. Being named senior correspondant, forced to watch someone younger and less talented take his baby, seems more like a way to get rid of him and appease listeners than actually making anything better. Shame on those too cowardly to step forward and tell us the real reasons. Is Bob a tad too old for today's 18-24 year olds? Perhaps NPR can hire itself a "morning zoo", complete with stunts and obscenities.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST,Not the Bob Edwards Groupie Guest
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 10:25 AM

I suppose this is the thread for those who are morally outraged that their morning radio listening routine has been challenged to change, and are mightily miffed they are being deprived of a celebration of a 25 year long morning routine.

So let me tell you why I welcome this shift. Then you all can attack me as the anti-christ. :)

First, I've never been a fan of Bob Edwards. I did try, 25 years ago, to be a fan of Morning Edition. I listened to it daily for about two years. But it was too fluffy for my hard news tastes, and it didn't hold a candle to All Things Considered. That is, All Things Considered 25 years ago.

Then, in the late '80s and early '90s, when the big news organizations in print, tv, and radio were making their hard turn to the right, I returned to Morning Edition in hopes that I would hear more balanced reporting without the conservative slant. I'd like to say that is just what I found, but it wasn't. But even worse than the creeping corporatism I found endemic in Morning Edition then, and throughout mainstream public radio now, but especially at NPR, was that Bob Edwards bored me to death. He put me right back to sleep.

At the time (late 80s, early 90s), I lived in what we used to call a movement household. We were all very politically and socially active, were raising kids, working, etc. We all agreed that Bob Edwards needed to go. I never looked back. It had been a long drought for news junkies like me. But now, we have something far superior to NPR. We have the Internet! Glory be, who needs NPR now? Certainly not me.

That said, I welcome the change at NPR, I just don't think it has gone far enough. I'm hoping both Morning Edition and All Things Considered get scrapped soon, despite their ratings. Why? They make for banal radio.

I love radio. With the advent of digital radio and all that money NPR is swimming in from corporados like the Krocs, they really should be kicking some radio ass. They aren't. They are making very conservative, change averse people like those posting here, feel safe, secure, and insulated in the routines and more tragically, in their thinking.

I loved Susan Stamberg as an anchor. When she was on All Things Considered, I listened all the time. I haven't listened since she left.

Mara Liasson, one of those NPR icons, now pushes bad ideology and bad news over on Faux. Cokie Roberts settled easily into her upper middle class life that stemmed from her upper middle class Washington upbringing, and is of course now one of the right wing ideologues over on ABC. Nina T is probably the last hold out at NPR, still kicking ass in her reporting. I did tune in to NPR during the 2000 election/Supreme Court debacle, just to get her insight. I still tune in to hear her spin, because she, unlike most other NPR correspondents, didn't sell out to live their charmed DC Beltway lives, and stayed an honest reporter. Considering how conservative NPR has become (along with the rest of the mainstream media), that can't have been an easy road for her, and she has my respect for that. Not that my respect means jack, but there you have it.

I wish someone would drop Terry Gross out of an airplane into Davy Jones' locker. She is awful.

So, despite my ranting about how bad NPR is, I am hopeful that all that money they got from the conservative Kroc family will, in the end, justify them selling out their souls for corporate donations in the 1980s, and that we might be embarking on a new, progressive era of public radio news and information programming now that they can afford to do good things.

Since I never donate money to them, I can't withhold my donations. But since they aren't worthy of my donations anyway, I certainly won't hold my breath, despite my hopeful optimism that this might well be a change for the better. Because it would have to get a whole shit load better radio for me to become a regular listener again.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST,Not the Bob Edwards Groupie Guest
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 10:48 AM

By the way, might I suggest, for those of you who will be shutting off the radio in rage, and storming off into the sunset, that you try a few excellent alternatives to NPR?

Like CBC if you can get it. Non-NPR spoonfed, independent public radio in your markets (for those of you who live in or near major metros), so you can pick up excellent news and information programming like Democracy Now.

I mean c'mon people. If you've been listening to Bob Edwards for a long time, isn't it time to shake up your routine? Anyone who has been doing the same damn thing every morning for 25 years ought to shot out of a canon to shake up their safe little world. I say thank you Bob, for going first.

Besides, when is the last time you heard great thinkers of our day like Chomsky or Nader in interviews on NPR?

Oh right--never!

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 11:49 AM

And for those of you who think you are getting unbiased, balanced news about national politics from NPR, you might want to educate yourselves about Mara Liasson, NPR's star national political correspondent.

When your major star in national political reporting goes on Faux and says criticizing the president is unacceptable behavior, it's time to send your donations elsewhere, don't you think?

Here is just one example of the Mara talking out both sides her mealy mouth:

http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/mliasson.htm

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Blackcatter
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 12:06 PM

GUEST,Not the Bob Edwards Groupie Guest:

Well your right, there are people who don't like Bob Edwards and for them this is good, but you clearly have major problems with Morning Edition and NPR that removing Edwards isn't going to change.

You seem to assume that because we have posted on this thread about our dismay in Edwards' leaving the show that ME and NPR is the ONLY way we receive our news. Thank you for assuming the worst in people you don't know.

Most of us do get news from a myriad of sources, in fact, NPR may be the most main-stream source we regularly turn to.

I will continue to listen to ME. I will continue to support my local PBS station. What I object to and what instigated this thread was the seemingly poor way that NPR has treated Edwards, not that he's leaving. If he announced his leaving, it is quite possible that a thread here would not have even been started. If it was, it would have been filled with people saying thank you to him and sharing happy memories of 25 years of work by the man.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST,Not the Bob Edwards Groupie Guest
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 12:21 PM

So Blackcatter, is what you are saying (since you suggest that people posting to this thread get their news from more sources than just ME or NPR) is that ME isn't your main source of news, but maybe is your morning comfort food sort of news?

You all do know that corporate news organizations like NPR aren't exactly known for finesse, politeness, and grace when it comes to firing their news anchor asses, don't you? If so, then why the surprise? Isn't this sort of like the Jane Pauley backlash?
People want their morning news personalities to be fuzzy and familiar people who make them feel good while they fluff up their pillows, drink their coffee, and herd the children out the door before work?

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 01:13 PM

Guest Not the Bob Edwards Groupie--you haven't been watching morning television that calls itself "news," or dodging the trash chatter on the local FM and AM stations, have you? NBC goes for bad news/blood and guts, and though I liked Katie Couric, I couldn't after a while stand the tone she and Matt take as they shift from the fluff to the bad news bits of the program. CBS isn't too bad, just incredibly mild. They hired away one of the local news anchors to work that program, so sometimes I look in just to see what Renee is doing these days. I watch ABC now, but I still have to turn that off pretty regularly when they once again find some grieving person whose relative was murdered 37 minutes ago to stick a mike in their face and say "How are you feeling?"

Given all that is on in the mornings, Morning Edition is far superior. My problem with Morning Edition is that if you listen to it consistently and you listen to All Things Considered, you're hearing the same story reported at least a couple of times. So I stagger my listening.

Years ago when I lived near the Canadian border I used to listen to a radio program called As It Happens. It was the most interesting thing on the radio each evening and certainly a model that NPR programs follow. I also enjoyed Peter Gzowski and his interviews--I remember them as being second to none.

Those of you who are unhappy with NPR's even-handed programming and intellectual figures like Bob Edwards and Terry Gross need to tune your radios back to Rush Limbaugh. You'll feel better.

SRS

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST,Not the Bob Edwards Groupie Guest
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 01:30 PM

"Guest Not the Bob Edwards Groupie--you haven't been watching morning television that calls itself "news," or dodging the trash chatter on the local FM and AM stations, have you?"

Not usually, no. I figured out long ago that the mainstream media wasn't a source for news, but for ideological spin of the news. And I've never listened to talk radio. It's always been the National Equirer of radio.

Katie Couric--saw her gig during the 9/11 coverage. She is as disingenuous as Diane Sawyer, just has a harder edge. She looks like Cokie clone from the Midwest, don't you think?

The thing that is most deceptive nowadays is the "synergy" thing. Just one current example. The corporate parent of CBS owns the publisher of Richard Clarke's book, so Clarke "comes out" and 60 Minutes gets the "scoop". Good Morning America interviews whomever was kicked off the reality tv show on their network the night before. Apparently CBS is the current master at this game, as The Early Show is the standard all the "synergistic" infotainment news programs aspire to emulate. I understand NBC Dateline, the NBC newsmagazine flagship at NBC, recently did this (ie devoted a whole program to it) to promote The Donald's reality show on NBC.

This isn't news to thinking people. Nor are your "go listen to Rush Limbaugh" insults to anyone who challenges your obviously deeply ingrained assumptions about news reporting, hitting your intended mark.

There is nothing even handed about NPR's reporting. But I've got to say, your suggestion that Terry Gross is an intellectual is pretty funny. Got a good laugh out of that one. Bob Edwards might be smart, but he puts me to sleep.

The point you mention about ME & ATC being recycled news is proof positive of how the national media echo chamber effect works.

You seem to be a thoughtful person interested in getting at the truth, SRS. I just think you are a tad too lazy to go looking for it beyond your safe, secure mainstream media walls, is all.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Blackcatter
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 01:33 PM

GUEST,Not the Bob Edwards Groupie Guest

Why do you insist in assuming things I and others did not say? I wish you'd get over that issue.

ME is a source of news for me. That's it. It's nota main source, but I have no main source. I get news from radio, TV, print media, internet news sources, Mudcat discussions, email lists and talking to friends among other places. I don't work hard at it, but I get news from a whole bunch of different places.

ME is not "morning comfort food" for me, it is a source of news and to some extent entertainment. I listen to it while waking up. I often listen to BBC news at midnight as well for the other end of the day.

NPR is typically better that other news agencies from what I hear - and I've talked to several of their reporters/broadcasters over the years. But even if they weren't, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be angry when they act that way and try to encourage them to act better. Will it work - who knows.

Some people may want their morning people to be "fuzzy," but I don't and I doubt that Edwards could ever be descrbed that way. Just because one looks forward to hearing the same voice, doesn't mean that their not looking for serious news. And once again, you miss the point of this thread - we don't worship the guy, we're just saying it looks like he was treated unfairly and every time someone gets treated that way, people should stand up and say so.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 01:50 PM

"Why do you insist in assuming things I and others did not say? I wish you'd get over that issue."

We all make assumptions, Blackcatter. Assumptions aren't the problem. It is what we base them upon, and whether they are correct, that matters.

"Just because one looks forward to hearing the same voice, doesn't mean that their not looking for serious news."

Apparently my assumption that some here were upset that one of their favorite news anchors they've grown accustomed to hearing every morning (an assumption based upon what I head read in over 40 posts before making my contribution) is correct then, and your problem with it is...?

I never said people who have made ME and Bob Edwards a part of their morning ritual aren't interested in getting serious news. My assumption is they are more interested in keeping their comfortable morning ritual intact than they are in getting serious news in the morning. Because if people are most interested in serious news in the morning, they aren't listening to NPR's Morning Edition with Bob Edwards to get it.

That tells me something about them, about how they get information, process it (or passively consume it in the case of mainstream news), and thereby analyze it.

I find most consumers of mainstream news never analyze what they consume, they just repeat it almost verbatim in their discussions with people throughout the day, and in their posts in chat forums like this one. It's garbage in, garbage out, IMO. Doesn't take any work to do it. Morning Edition with Bob Edwards is easy listening news for the jaded Great White Appartchik Class.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST,Not the Bob Edwards Groupie Guest
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 01:59 PM

Apologies, the above was mine.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 02:57 PM

I have always liked Bob Edwards, and will continue to do so, regardless of what" GUEST, Not the Bob Edwards Fan" and the folks in his/her "Movement" household decided was best for us, all those years ago--

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:04 PM

My decisions about ME and Bob Edwards was never imposed upon anyone, much less readers here. We all make our own choices and decisions. Mine are different than yours. That doesn't make yours good and mine bad, or vice versa. I gave you my decisions and choices and my reasons for them. Don't like them? Then ignore them, judge them, do whatever you like with them.

But don't expect that making charges that a poster telling you why they make the choices they make is equivalent to them trying to impose their choices on you, will go by unchallenged, OK? Because that just don't fly.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:10 PM

There is no comparison between Cokie Roberts and Katie Couric. Couric is a featherweight compared to Roberts. I didn't watch Couric for her in-depth reporting, but simply because it was what was on in the mornings between the local cut ins with weather and traffic. 9/11 is what drove me completely away from NBC--they spent way too much time trying to pluck every heartstring, seemingly trying to make people feel worse and at the same time doing a knee-jerk patriotic form of reporting that didn't leave any room for those who don't buy the party line.

More information will come out regarding Edwards' removal from Morning Edition. I suspect some sort of over-reaching sponsorship influence had a hand here, as happened when Louis Rukeyser was given the bum's rush off of Wall Street Week, the program he founded. "Younger blood" was desired, the folks at Maryland Public Broadcasting said, when in fact Fortune magazine had leveraged a big interest in the program and wanted to put their own people and their own spin on things and hopefully don the mantle of respect and clout that Rukeyser had cultivated over the years. When Lou went ballistic and delivered his best shot on his last night, that original fiction was blasted onto front pages. Lou left in a huff and set up somewhere else, and WSW has never been the same since. I don't watch it any more, and you can hardly find it anyway. Setting up Bill Moyer in that time slot (in my market, at least) was a way to keep me watching PBS on Friday nights.

SRS

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 05:49 PM

Let me put it this way. I'm not going to lose any sleep about a corporate man being shoved out by the corporation. That is the nature of the game in those circles. To suggest anyone should be upset because the corporados weren't nice to Bob Edwards is laughable, IMO. That is how those guys conduct business. Despite his nice, soothing voice, polite demeanor, etc. I'm guessing Bob Edwards didn't get where he was and stayed there for 25 years by being a push over.

You don't get in those positions of power and influence and status by being a mild mannered, meek personality. No way, no how. You want to have power and wield influence in the world of corporate media and hang onto it for 25 years, you learn how to play all those Machiavellian games. I've no knowledge of the politics at NPR, but I'm guessing the politics there work pretty much the same way they do in any corporate environment. That is, dysfunctionally. And Bob probably has a pretty long enemies list himself.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 06:37 PM

I have selected the following excerpts from you generous postings--

Morning Edition with Bob Edwards is easy listening news for the jaded Great White Appartchik Class.

I never said people who have made ME and Bob Edwards a part of their morning ritual aren't interested in getting serious news. My assumption is they are more interested in keeping their comfortable morning ritual intact than they are in getting serious news in the morning.

You seem to be a thoughtful person interested in getting at the truth, SRS. I just think you are a tad too lazy to go looking for it beyond your safe, secure mainstream media walls, is all.

I mean c'mon people. If you've been listening to Bob Edwards for a long time, isn't it time to shake up your routine? Anyone who has been doing the same damn thing every morning for 25 years ought to shot out of a canon to shake up their safe little world.

I lived in what we used to call a movement household. We were all very politically and socially active, were raising kids, working, etc. We all agreed that Bob Edwards needed to go. I never looked back.

You seem to want to shake us all into a new awareness of the world--not to share an opinion--which is an imposition, though you may not think so--

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST,Lenore the wolverine
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 06:46 PM

Thanks for the insights and opinions, gang.

I ran across the following while Googling around the topic and found it instructive, a 1998 interview in "Current" magazine: http://www.current.org/people/p809e1.html

It's a bit of a puff piece, but I think it reinforces Not-Fan GUEST's comments about Edwards being well-adapted to his environment, along with the soothing-dependable-voice-in-the-morning aspect of his presentation. Also makes me want to read the NYTimes piece by the Pacifica News guy, Greil Marcus, they refer to.

My disclaimer: I'm addicted to ME rather like I am to my morning espresso. That is, I recognize it as an addiction but consider it fairly benign. I dislike seeing folks I listen to getting disrespected by their bosses - which seems to be what's happening with Edwards - but I don't have any special insight into what's going on at NPR, and I figure it's simply corporateness as usual.

So, did Juan Williams get similarly maneuvered out of "Talk of the Nation" a couple of years ago? (...since we're doing the dish here) I thought he was wonderful. Now he does rather ditsy interviews with high-profile newsmakers. A far cry from "Eyes on the Prize" IMO.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Blackcatter
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 07:01 PM

"jaded Great White Appartchik Class"

Well there you go - eventually all guest who like to flame without a real reason start calling names. Pity you're so predictable.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 07:38 PM

You forget the easy listening part, Blackcatter. That was my favorite part of that pithy line. I'm devastated.

Here ya go, folks:

Bob Edwards interview link from Lenore the wolverine's post

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: DougR
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 09:33 PM

However will I begin my day?

Lenore: you can still catch Juan Williams on the only fair and impartial cable news network, Fox News, you know.

DougR

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 10:15 PM

With regular commentators like Andrei Codrescu, Guillermo Gomez-Peña, and Bailey White (though I haven't heard her in ages) the "jaded Great White Appartchik Class" is a bit of a stretch.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 10:34 AM

There's the proof that "Not the Bob Edwards Groupie Guest" and his "movement' cohorts are looking out for our best interests--DougR listens to him!;-)


GUEST, thanks for posting the Bob Edwards Interview--it gives us a bit of insight into his relationship with the NPR folks--and perhaps the real reason for his dismissal--Bob views the show as radio, and the NPR folks view it as a charitable non-profit--

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: DougR
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 11:53 AM

Naw, MTed, I was just joshing. I never listened to him. I do listen to Diane Rhemes and All Things Considered from time to time though.

DougR

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 01:45 PM

Big sigh of relief here, DougR--you shouldn't joke about things like that, though, as most of us Bleeding Heart Liberals have no sense of humor when it comes to things like this.

Anyway, I was pretty sure that you started your day right here with Mrs. Sullivan's First Grade Class

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 04:56 PM

Well, well, well. The issue brings some interesting points of view to the surface, doesn't it. I don't know just what listening to BE on ME means in the Grand Scheme of Things. I doubt discussing it from one "position" or another should be considered a litmus test for political awareness (or corectness).

I believe that all news sources should be viewed with suspicion as to their veracity. If you care to know what is truly going on in the world, a variety of news sources is essential to understanding. The most important aspect of achieving awareness of the meaning of events in our culture is THINKING critically about those events. Listening to NPR alone is no better a tool for that thinking than only reading the supermarket tabloids or listening solely to Rush Limbaugh. Every product of our information infrastructure needs to be examined and with the proverbial grain of salt.

NPR's treatment of Bob Edwards is indicative of the attitudes of news producers throughout the US. What the NPR or CBS corporate flunkies feel is important is limited to audience ratings and the executive's tenure.

Edwards was removed. No one wants to tell "us" why. It pisses me off.

So called public broadcasting is the pampered darling of a limited number of people. Contributers and supporters whose big donations command big demonstration's of gratitude. My assumption (speaking of making assumptions) is Edwards pissed one of those contributers/supporters off.

Best news source I have ever come across is The Anderson Valley Advertiser. Seek it out.

In the meantime I feel we must insist that NPR explain itself.

CB

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 05:28 PM

Just a brief thought---re: Guest who is not a Bob Edwards Groupie.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 05:36 PM

Looks like I bumped into the "submit" button too soon.

SO--back to the brief thought re: Guest Who is not a Bob Edwards Groupie.

Your comment that you cannot ---if you really did care for him---withhold money for NPR since you never donate anyway. You go on to say that you won't listen to the program in any case.

So--my thought is this: are the powers that be supposed to have been flattered if you did listen. And, when you did you never supported the programming in any case.   I recall some sort of cliche about "putting one's money somewhere---where was that?

As to interviews of substance on EM, ATC==and also OTM. Believe me there have been many---our local station (WNYC) calls such interviews and feature pieces "driveway moments".   And here I thought was alone in sitting in my car in the driveway wanting to hear the end of a great feature piece.

That is radio that grabs you---unlike so much else on the air today.

My comments of support for Edwards appeared earlier

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: DougR
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 05:54 PM

MTed: well that DOES look abit like my first grade class in 1936.

DougR

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 06:50 PM

And a bit like mine in 1956--

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 08:29 AM

Revealing about your station's use of the phrase "Driveway Moments", ours here in St. Louis does too. Must be a "trend".

Kevin Close, CEO of NPR was in St. Louis yesterday and his comments on the removal of Bob Edwards shed no more light on the event than the response to my email by Jay Kernis. I got the response from NPR with a letter from Bob Edwards attached. Edwards letter can be accessed at a Save Bob Edwards website: www.savebobedwards.com. I can't figure out how to make a blicky so just type what I wrote. I signed the petition. According to a USA Today item over 22,000 negative responses have been made to NPR. The petition site reports over 11,000 signatures. It seems that NPR isn't going to back down. Kernis declares that this will all be forgotten a year from now. They spoke of huge audience increases after 9/11 and I guess that they are looking to increase audience even more and decided that Bob Edwards wasn't "dynamic" enough.

I understand the words they say but not the intent. According to the Save Bob Edwards website there are quite a few local NPR stations who also feel this move is wrong. Perhaps it IS just another milestone in the destruction of non-comercial radio. The ultimate goal?

CB

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 08:45 AM

I do support public radio, just not the National Public Radio network, the Minnesota Public Radio Network or MPR's offshoot, Public Radio International.

I support two local public radio stations, KFAI (a progressive community public access station) and WCAL (a classical, jazz, and folk college station). I'm also a big fan of the Wisconsin public radio network, but don't listen to it much these days.

I either watch (on my local cable access) but more often listen to the streaming web broadcast of Democracy Now Monday through Fridays. KFAI doesn't air it at times convenient for me to listen.

I think those of you who are looking for new alternatives now that yer man is going off ME, really ought to give Democracy Now a try. It is excellent.

Just a suggestion, BTW. God forbid, I should FORCE Amy Goodman on you.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 05:12 PM

Is that the same very intelligent and very slanted news person one gets here on our local outlet for such type of broadcasting--WBAI.

I wonder if WBAI stands for We Be All but Impartial.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 06:24 PM

Jay Kernis (NPR COmmunications) has just sent another e mail that I rcvd not 5 minutes ago.   He wants to answer questions since he (or the corp) feels they did not properly communicate with the public. On Mon. 4/5 they are hosting an online discussion on the subject at 1 PM EDT. I guess you can find out the details at the NPR website.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: BK Lick
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 06:45 PM

Save Bob Edwards website: click here

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 07:25 PM

Yes Bill Hahn, that is the very one I mean. Imagine, a network with programming that doesn't promote corporate and government interests, mainstream social, economic, and cultural values (such as they are) and who actually talk intelligently about the world from a perspective that is challenges conventional, conservative mainstream middle class values.

Like yours, apparently.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST,Horace
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 03:44 PM

I kept on wondering why? --and why NOW ?? A few months before his 25th anniversary, just before the fundraising, AND half a year before the elections ...
I spent an hour googling and reading blogs and also searching within those blogs for the term 'election' (found nothing so far) .
I would consider Bob Edwards a very balanced journalist -- only people who's frame of reference is far out may call him liberal. So what do we know about the planned replacement?   How does that new profile responds to the questions above?

Thinking back at what we learned about the 2000 election, and how the exclusion of minority voters in Florida happened on just too many levels to be an accident, one has to be suspicious...
... Maybe I am just paranoid?

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 06:45 PM

A few points.   

Frrst---Guest---WBAI is the opposite of Fox and "fair and balanced". Not that Fox is. It is quite slanted in the direction you may well be happy with---and as to its program hosts---well, "unbalanced" would be a kind word for them. I think here of people such as dear old Grandpa (remember Munsters and Car 54's Schnauzer?)----Goodman is intelligent--no doubt. Is she biased---surely. Is she biased in your direction---I would suppose so.   Now---if she balanced her Israeli/Palestinian issues ala NPR that would be balanced.

WBAI is truly the soap box that neurotic and paranoid speakers used to use in parks---and now we have it electronically. That is not a bad thing--but, please, do not take it for fair and balanced broadcasting. Or even for good radio.

Second--and back to Bob Edwards---remember the thread?--part of the e mail rcvd yesterday stated that they want to turn to a 2 anchor format==one in DC and one West Coast. I e mailed back that it begs the question since Bob Edwards could have been one of the anchors.

In my locker room after tennis today many people were talking and being dismayed by his most ungracious "kicking" upstairs.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 06:58 PM

I don't believe corporate radio is balanced Bill Hahn, and NPR is corporate sponsored radio, just like the the for-profit stations.

What you don't seem to understand is that without news, debate, and opinion from across the political spectrum, nothing is balanced.

Because you like to think of NPR as being "in the middle" doesn't make it a balanced view. Intelligent, thoughtful people aren't using Fox News as the yardstick by which we measure accurate, fair, or balanced reporting, any more than we are using WBAI to do the same.

Amy Goodman's program is the only place I have heard people like Edward Said. Now, if Edward Said is too "unbalanced" for you, so be it. But he was (and is) considered a great thinker by many people around the world.

American news and opinion media is hopelessly imbalanced right now because of corporate influences. It is very rare, even on NPR, for any kind of reporting that challenges the Beltway line of thinking, to appear in the American media. Americans have no idea what frames debates on issues from a variety of international perspectives, for instance, because the only voices from non-US sources we ever get are British.

I'm not going to argue with an NPR supporter about how unbalanced any news that comes from outside their small, little world is. Because it is the typical NPR listener, just like the typical PBS viewer, or ABC viewer, etc that is out of balance and out of touch with the rest of the world. Not the other way around.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 07:30 PM

GUEST: I am sorry about Mr. Said's passing. That said---how do you explain his rock throwing in Israel?   So much for his intelletcualism.

On NPR I have heard a discussion with young children from Israel and the Palestinian children.

On NPR I have heard of the schooling of young minds to teach hatred---and at the same time the antithesis to that. Be it in the Middle East or Africa.

On Ms Goodman's program I have heard, pretty much, one side espoused. I, for one, find her a truly intelligent person. One that can capture a listener by being as erudite as she is. But--and this is the big BUT---she has an agenda and she slants her programs to that agenda.


You may find more balance in the 2 late night shows on TV---Letterman and Leno. Letterman is totally anti Bush---Leno, seems to me, to be quite pro.   Now--neither is balanced. Neither should be thought of as arbiters of political (or any deep) thought.

My point is that NPR may have faults---but it is the best we have. BAI is not, Shock Jocks are not, and most AM talk shows are rant and rave outlets for the crazies.


We are, by the way, fortunate in the NY area to have the likes or a Brian Lehrer on WNYC to present a balanced and intelligent view of things. His listeners also---they call in with--in the most part--serious thoughts.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 12:23 AM

Just "replied" to the Jay Kernis email. After all the babble about NPR's goals for the future and their dedication to dynamic news reporting he said NOTHING that would explain just how removing Bob Edwards will help NPR achieve its goals!

I explained to him that it wasn't Mr. Edwards removal or his moving on that was upsetting it was that we heard about it from CNN or from USA Today or other sources than NPR and that NPR dodged and is still dodgeing the sticky questions and doesn't seem to want to address the true reasons for their actions.

So I suggested that maybe HE, Kernis, had a personal problem with Bob Edwards or that maybe Walmart didn't like him. I asked him if Edwards pissed someone off.

I doubt that he will respond.

I've never seen Jay Kernis but I suspect he has the appearence of a weasle.

CB

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 11:15 AM

Bill Hahn, I don't know how you think people can form good opinions without listening to news and opinion presented from broad spectrum. To suggest there is only one place on the radio dial that presents news "properly" (as I feel you are suggesting), is ludicrous. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people reporting news and opinion that reflects their beliefs and values. For those of us old enough and educated enough to remember, newspapers all have what is known as an editorial slant. Readers know (or at least they should know) what that editorial slant is, so when reading that paper, they can make up their minds accordingly about what they are reading.

Now then, just because a newspaper has an editorial slant, doesn't mean that can't do an excellent (though that is getting more rare, IMO0 job of reporting the news, presenting the facts, and providing analysis from their ideological point of view. That is precisely what smart, thinking people do to inform themselves, and engage in thoughtful, public debate. So why you are suggesting that WBAI, or Fox News, are bad sources of news, analysis, and editorial opinions, just because they have an editorial slant. We know their editorial slant. I don't have a problem with their editorial slant, unless it is combined with factually inaccurate, deliberately misleading, or bombastic, sensationalized reportage.

I don't think Democracy Now is guilty of that. I do think Fox News is often guilty of deliberately misleading their viewers and of bombastic and sensationalized reportage. However, I will give Fox News this. They do a fairly decent job (for a 24/7 cable news outlet) of reporting accurately, sometimes more accurately than either CNN or MSNBC.

Living in this world where all of our news, analysis, and opinion sources are measured by the 24/7 cable news and bombastic talk radio show standards, it is tremendously frustrating to try and discuss news, current events, public policy, etc. with people who insist that there should be no editorial "bias" (as they refer to it) in any news sources. To suggest that is ludicrous. Humans all have biases, and so do individual programs and the networks that carry them, including NPR, ABC, CBS, and NBC. That is as it should be.

We should always get news, analysis, and opinion from the broad spectrum, know what the editorial slant is of our source, and make up our own minds, instead of allowing ourselves to be spoonfed predigested news, which is what I believe people like you, who look down your noses at all information sources you have deemed "unbalanced" or "biased", are looking for.

IMO, it is our duty as public citizens in a democracy, to hear news, analysis, and opinion from as wide a variety of sources on the political spectrum as possible in our daily lives. We need to be educated and savvy consumers and analyzers of our media sources, and not just "the news". We need to know enough about how the media operates and functions, to know how to discern good from bad sources of news, analysis, and opinion.

There is no more biased source of news, analysis, and opinion in the world today, than the Washington Beltway punditocracy, and the corporate media outlets who employ them. Their reporting and analysis is tainted by the bias and prejudices of a wealthy ruling elite (the class from which most of them come), who function solely as tattlers gossping in the echo chamber from the corridors of power in the imperial capitol. They have been espousing their corporate and political doctrines as fact, and their opinions as analysis.

They also have a number of fallacious propaganda lines that most gullible American consumers of news have swallowed hook, line, and sinker. One is that the punditocracy are providing a public service (they aren't, they are in it for the personal status, money, and power) to our democracy as a "free press". Another is that they are providing fair, accurate, and balanced news, analysis, and opinion. They most certainly are not. They function as the mouthpiece of our corporate dominated government. The corporate controlled media have failed in their public duty to act as a fourth estate, and IMO, can only marginally be trusted as sources of legitimate news, analysis, and opinion.

It is essential in a democratic society, for the citizenry to have access to a plurality of voices to inform our public debate, and form the basis of our values as a democratic republic. This isn't happening today, because of the domination of media sources that are corporate owned and controlled, and because we as citizens have failed to educate ourselves on how best to get the information we need to act as an informed citizenry.

I don't fear WBAI anymore than I fear Fox News. In an open and free society, I will fight to defend them both as legitimate sources of news, analysis, and opinion, so long as they meet the criteria I outlined above. I am not a regular listener to WBAI, so I cannot comment on that station. But I am a regular listener to Democracy Now. I also read the National Review weekly. I rarely rely upon network news, or cable news, for my news. Because the 24/7 reporting world has become so distorted (they report much too quickly, without due consideration to what is fact and what isn't, nor do they allow news stories to unfold in a way that makes them digestable to us in any meaningful way), that I rely almost exclusively on the online newspapers and magazines for my daily news.

I do watch public affairs programming regularly, and I consider that to be about as much information as I am willing to get from network news sources, and that includes PBS and NPR. I watch Washington Week and occassionally catch a Sunday morning show. I occassionally watch 60 Minutes. For instance, I watched Clarke's interview, but not Rice's interview--I needed to hear what Clarke had to say because I'd never heard what he had to say. But Rice had already been all over the media for the week prior to her appearance, so I didn't need to see her parroting her previous remarks. I watch those sorts of shows strictly to glean how the Beltway echo chamber is SPINNING the news, but I never EVER watch it as a source of unbiased news or analysis. Programs like that are just as biased as the nightly network news programs and the 24/7 cable news channels.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 02:37 PM

Guest: Without diverging more from the Bob Edwards intent of this thread I will just comment your thoughts about the editorial slants of newspapers. Quite true----but, supposedly, that should be on the editorial and Op Ed pages. The news pages are supposedly factual. I grant you that many tabloids do not adhere to that.

That said I wonder if you have ever heard a "newscast" on BAI---as opposed to its "talk" or "interview" programs. I do believe that there you can see a lot of the selection of items and how they are presented to adhere to the station's agenda. But, I guess this should all be for another thread and I, for one, still have the opinion that PBS and NPR are what one can call "fair and balanced"   That, I suppose, is what makes a horse race---as they say about differences of opinion.

Now---shall we return the original intent of the thread---I recall it was the "kicking upstairs" of Mr. Edwards.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: saulgoldie
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 02:57 PM

Is there anything new, other than a regurgitation of their previous non-statements?

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 01:44 PM

Well, I could swear I heard him on NPR this a.m., but it WAS 5 in the morning and I might have been hallucinating. Anyone else share this particular hallucination? Or is he going to be on the air for a while before going "upstairs?"

--WW

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST,Lenore the Wolverine
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 03:06 PM

Oooohhhh! Creepy, creepy! I have to admit, this whole BE v. NPR thing makes me feel very naive. Either no journalists consider BE's ouster "news," or NPR has so effectively closed ranks that anyone interested in investigating meets with the same slimy blandishments Jay Kernis extrudes in NPR's official forums.

One print journalist's plain talk (Robert P. Laurence of the San Diego "Tribune" - another naif?): "Now, NPR is acting like any other big, powerful, dumb, clumsy, unfeeling, implacable, stonewalling, soulless bureaucracy that doesn't know or care what its constituents need or want."

"One Public Radio Manager's Take on NPR's Replacement of Bob Edwards as Host of Morning Edition" by Dr. Jim King, Director of Radio, WVXU, Cincinnati

"Booting Radio Host Costs SLC Station Funds," by Glen Warchol in The Salt Lake "Tribune"

Jolly and emetic    (Just look at that face, by golly!)

Another corporate spokesweasel who hasn't learned that you allay fears by addressing them -- or that "news" requires *data* (Hey, Jay, it's easy to be transparent when there's no substance to what you're saying!)

Meanwhile, at "NPR News Code of Ethics and Practices, II. Statement of Purpose. Credibility":
"....The purpose of having a code of ethics and practices is to protect the credibility of NPR news programming by ensuring high standards of honesty, integrity, impartiality and conduct of staff...."

Har! I do love a good joke - especially first thing in the morning.

Ah, well! Time to break my espresso habit. I knew I should have been listening to music instead.

LW

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Merritt
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 06:24 PM

Last Friday on Wisconsin Public Radio, the Media Talk call-in show focused on The Bob and his pseudo-ouster. You can listen (hopefully) here:

http://clipcast.wpr.org:8080/ramgen/wpr/mtk/mtk040402m.rm

Program Description: The former director of Wisconsin Public Radio, Jack Mitchell, joins Dave Berkman, after five, to discuss Bob Edwards departure from NPR's Morning Edition. Guest: Jack Mitchell is the former director of Wisconsin Public Radio and held various positions with NPR. He's currently a professor of journalism and mass communications at UW–Madison. Berkman, the interviewer, is a retired professor of Mass Communications at UW-Milwaukee, writes a weekly media column for The Shepherd Express, and spent the early years of his career working in public broadcasting at the national level.

If the above link doesn't work, go here, select program listing for April 2, 2004, and scroll down to Media Talk:

http://wpr.org/ideas/programnotes.cfm

Personally, altho I appreciate and actively support some programs on Wisconsin Public Radio, Bob Edwards plodding style is not for me. IMHO when Steve Inskeep and Renee Montagne co-hosted for a few weeks last year, the energy level rose exponentially without drifting into hype-fest territory. Regarding the NPR news content discussion, like a lot of folks here I depend on many sources to try to figure what the heck is going on. NPR/WPR provide part of the picture.

- Merritt

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 05:22 AM

It's stupid i've grown up on Bob Edwars amd Morning Edition . I understanf that change is need. But why just tell us why. This is so stupid.

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 12:38 AM

Well Kernis has defeated me, at least. I simply can't penetrate his dense logic and have been losing both interest and energy. Do what you want Jay, There are more important things aborning.

The debacle in Iraq certainly. Seems that when we defeated the Iraqi Army we were only defeating Hussain's army. The real army seems to have made an appearance this week! I guess it ain't over 'til it's over.

CB

Subject: RE: Bob Edwards removed from Morning Edition
From: saulgoldie
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 04:09 PM

They recently played the Baxter Black piece about his sheep calling out for "Baaab, Baaab." D'you think they were somehow trying to convey some sort of message about us Bob Edwards supporters being sheep?