Stunned by NPR!

[TomServo92]

4.) It seems to have escaped everybody's notice here, but Ford had to recall some vehicles (a small number - about 2,000 - of small trucks I think) in China because they have gas pedal assemblies supplied by the same vendor. Shall we puff ourselves up and shit all over Ford for that one too? I didn't think so.

 

No, it didn't. It's already been discussed.

[Bizuce]

5. Wow, yes imagine a world without NPR...I don't think anyone could survive. Gag...I assume you agree with government subsidies for other media relics like newspapers as well.

[suv_guy_19]

NPR gets almost no government money, unlike most public broadcasters world wide (look to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as examples...or the BBC for a different kind of example).

 

NPR is a valuable service, even though most people will call it 'left wing' as they do to almost every public broadcaster the world over (except maybe Radio-Canada, the French language CBC, which is often accused of being right wing).

[Stray Kat]

 

6.) Stray Kat: This is what gets you exercised? Grow a skin fer crissakes. (Well, I will give you credit for even having the dial tuned to NPR - however briefly.)

 

Hannity, Limbaugh, etc admit their leanings. My problem with this is not so much that NPR is left leaning IMO. But rather that they don't question this dude when he makes a statement like that. C'mon the preferential treatment the imports got from the media when Detroit was dying was undeniable. I hate it that Toyota is facing this and more importantly that lives have been lost. Nothing is perfect and these things do happen. My point is don't sit there and bloviate that "it's not even Toyota's fault" but rather the AMERICAN company CTS that is to blame. Certainly there could be a problem with the CTS part vs. the Nippon part. I don't think anyones quite sure what is the root cause and extent of this. Which makes me wonder even more how this "expert" could make such a statement.

 

Now to line 6.) You give me credit for listening to NPR, with the caveat of "however briefly". What you're really doing here is placing yourself and other people that listen to NPR alot as somehow more enlightened. "Brief" and non- listeners of NPR are below your understanding of the issues. You are being very "intolerant" of my viewpoint and concerns. You're not being very "liberal" there retro-man. Or is it just me that has to be tolerant of you and your friends?

 

 

BTW, public radio is a preset on my radio, is Rush a preset on yours?

[stephenhawkings]

Hannity, Limbaugh, etc admit their leanings. My problem with this is not so much that NPR is left leaning IMO. But rather that they don't question this dude when he makes a statement like that. C'mon the preferential treatment the imports got from the media when Detroit was dying was undeniable. I hate it that Toyota is facing this and more importantly that lives have been lost. Nothing is perfect and these things do happen. My point is don't sit there and bloviate that "it's not even Toyota's fault" but rather the AMERICAN company CTS that is to blame. Certainly there could be a problem with the CTS part vs. the Nippon part. I don't think anyones quite sure what is the root cause and extent of this. Which makes me wonder even more how this "expert" could make such a statement.

 

Now to line 6.) You give me credit for listening to NPR, with the caveat of "however briefly". What you're really doing here is placing yourself and other people that listen to NPR alot as somehow more enlightened. "Brief" and non- listeners of NPR are below your understanding of the issues. You are being very "intolerant" of my viewpoint and concerns. You're not being very "liberal" there retro-man. Or is it just me that has to be tolerant of you and your friends?

 

 

BTW, public radio is a preset on my radio, is Rush a preset on yours?

is rush on the radio? or in rehab?AM maybe

[Stray Kat]

is rush on the radio? or in rehab?AM maybe

 

 

Does'nt Rush just piss you off!?

[RichardJensen]

5.) NPR is great and balanced. Imagine a world without NPR: listening to Rush and Sean bloviating between ads for Polydent, The Clapper, and Gold commemorative coins.

I have tried to give NPR credit for being 'balanced', and I simply cannot do it. They annoy me for precisely the same reason Stray Kat gave. NPR is not as left-leaning as Rush et al. are right leaning, but they are unmistakably left of center; and I don't like their pretense that they are not.

 

NPR annoys me, but I cannot stand Rush & co. any more than I can stand any other rabble-rousing extremist.

 

Back when I felt like spending an hour at a time on current events, instead of nibbling at them throughout the day, I enjoyed the News Hour because they invariably dug up rational people from both sides of an issue. IMO, the News Hour is (or was) a textbook lesson in how to analyze current events.

 

They have been criticized, I know, for being to collegial, but frankly, is that -really- a problem? I mean if two people want to be unreasonable about an issue, why put them at the same table? If neither party can concede validity to portions of the other party's position, what is the point in engaging them in discussion?

Edited January 30, 2010 by RichardJensen

[suv_guy_19]

I have tried to give NPR credit for being 'balanced', and I simply cannot do it. They annoy me for precisely the same reason Stray Kat gave. NPR is not as left-leaning as Rush et al. are right leaning, but they are unmistakably left of center; and I don't like their pretense that they are not.

 

Unmistakably...based on your particular position on the spectrum. As a rule in the western world, the entire Untied States in right of centre....for that matter, so is Canada from most perspectives. On the flip side, from the US perspective, Canada and Europe are different levels of either liberal or socialist. Whether you see something as 'balanced' depends entirely on where you in fact are on the spectrum....after all, some people find Schultz to be balanced.

[Noah Harbinger]

No this is not the report I heard. The person being interviewed said specifically "this is not even Toyota's fault". Just for the record, I'm not happy to see Toyota having problems. I've got no axe to grind. I've been watching and listening to media for a long time run hard on America and American matters. I feel that if there is a way to give this foreign manufacturer some slack the media pinheads will try. If it were Ford, I believe the whole attitude would be different. I've seen many examples of this type of bias. Just real sick of it.

 

Geeze do I have to do all your work for you? Is this it?

 

Transcript/Listen

 

 

Otherwise, find the frickin' segment! http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2&prgDate=01-27-2010

[Noah Harbinger]

As for NPR balance: It's just become a bastion of intellectualism, and let's face it: Apart from Objectivists and a few branches of economics (Chicago, Austrian), there are almost no right-wing intellectuals. (And even they want nothing to do with the Republican Party in the US, for the most part).

Edited January 30, 2010 by Noah Harbinger

[RichardJensen]

I'm not, generally, inclined to consider Objectivism a legitimate philosophy. I've read Ayn Rand, and if I could see through her premises as a high school student.

[kyle]

I heard the interview-think she was talking with Edmunds? How can you blame NPR? They are reporting the news and Toyota shifts blame to their supplier.

It was not a debate-they have that on other programs like "talk of the nation" etc.

 

I am an NPR junkie and find their news informative and accurate. They have certain programs where the goal is to dive deeper and these can be personally influenced since it is once person asking the qeustions-don't really consider this news but for the Fox junkies it seems like this is the only way you can relate.

 

The Market report that is on after the news has been very favorable of Ford's position lately-and has been equally critical of Toytota.

 

Please skip the conspiracy theory here and take it for what it was worth-the person answering the question indicated it was a vendor issue-Toyota's official policy.

Ford or anyone in this type of situation would of done the exact same thing-ever hear of Texas Instruments?

[RichardJensen]

for the Fox junkies it seems like this is the only way you can relate.

Right. Because right wingers are the only people who like their news with a healthy dose of bias.

[mettech]

I have tried to give NPR credit for being 'balanced', and I simply cannot do it. They annoy me for precisely the same reason Stray Kat gave. NPR is not as left-leaning as Rush et al. are right leaning, but they are unmistakably left of center; and I don't like their pretense that they are not.

 

NPR annoys me, but I cannot stand Rush & co. any more than I can stand any other rabble-rousing extremist.

 

Back when I felt like spending an hour at a time on current events, instead of nibbling at them throughout the day, I enjoyed the News Hour because they invariably dug up rational people from both sides of an issue. IMO, the News Hour is (or was) a textbook lesson in how to analyze current events.

 

They have been criticized, I know, for being to college, but frankly, is that -really- a problem? I mean if two people want to be unreasonable about an issue, why put them at the same table? If neither party can concede validity to portions of the other party's position, what is the point in engaging them in discussion?

 

Agree.

 

NPR panders to its base supporters that are involve and support the Arts.

 

Other than Ted Nugget and Mel Gibson, most of the Arts people lean or are extreme Left.

 

At times I really miss "Moses" and "The Gipper".

 

One of the "discussions" that my wife and I really disagree on is the government support of NPR and why should the government proved money to the Arts.

 

In High School, she was in the school band and went on to complete her degree in Journalism before she joined the Air Force.

 

I on the other hand, played several different Sports in High School and joined the Air Force then completed my degree in "Organizational Management".

 

I contend that the money sporting events earned should be kept for sport teams. The Band and other Art events should support theirself and not rely on the revenue from the Football and Basketball events.

 

I have spent several night on the couch after debating this issue with her.

[dante hicks]

 

I contend that the money sporting events earned should be kept for sport teams. The Band and other Art events should support theirself and not rely on the revenue from the Football and Basketball events.

 

 

Do you really think that the football and basketball teams support themselves, much less other programs (if anything, the band probably supports itself the best of all them). Face it, the state government supports high school athletics just like the federal government supports NPR.

[Edstock]

The Band and other Art events should support theirself and not rely on the revenue from the Football and Basketball events.

Sure, they can play weddings and Bar Mitzvahs.

 

In Canada, the federal government set up an Instrument Bank. It's a collection of Stradivarius and Guarnari violins, violas and cellos, plus other instruments made by the great masters.

 

These instruments are loaned to the students for one to two years, and give the students a chance to play with an instrument they could never, ever afford, no matter how many weddings and Bar Mitzvahs they might play.

 

http://www.canadacouncil.ca/prizes/musical_instrument_bank/pk127245482885000000.htm

[SVT_MAN]

As for NPR balance: It's just become a bastion of intellectualism, and let's face it: Apart from Objectivists and a few branches of economics (Chicago, Austrian), there are almost no right-wing intellectuals. (And even they want nothing to do with the Republican Party in the US, for the most part).

 

It's that exact, nose-in-the-air attitude of intellectual superiority that you carried in your post which drives me crazy when I've listened to NPR. (I had to, for several college classes.) It's the exact same attitude I also get from many Mac users (though not all - some Mac users on this forum are pretty honest with themselves when it comes to realizing that their hardware doesn't make them superior to a PC user and that is refreshing).

 

It's the attitude of "I have something you don't have (or know something that you don't know) therefore I am better than you." NPR exhibits that same attitude everytime I listen.

 

My belief is this: news media outlets feed their listeners what they want to hear. Whether we like it or not, news shows are driven, at least in part, by ratings. Shows are not going to get high ratings unless people are watching them. Anybody can understand that principle.

 

Conservatives want to hear things from a conservative viewpoint. Liberals wants to hear stuff from a liberal viewpoint. It's human nature to want your own opinion confirmed by those around you. (Hopefully you won't make me dig up my wretched psychology or sociology books to cite some lofty doctor saying that ...) Thus, whether it's Fox, CNN, or MSNBC, they all have their own biases. While it's clear (to me at least) that Fox is (typically) conservative, that does not mean they are always sharing the conservative viewpoint. There are plenty of liberal viewpoints shared on Fox as well. (Several chats have had liberal viewpoints on abortion, for instance.) Conversely, I've heard some conservative viewpoints on the more liberal-leaning MSNBC from time to time. That is why I try to watch several channels to compare and contrast their reports to see if there are any inaccuracies and / or biases present. Granted, this is not easy to do most of the time. It's time-consuming and hardly worth the effort most of the time. But, if something is truly important to me, I will take the time to do that. (One thing I can say is that I'm glad they post bills on the Internet now ... makes it harder to hide stuff from the lemmings!)

 

Back to the main topic at hand: I believe NPR is one of the most liberal of any major media outlet (excluding the NY Times). I think most here would agree with me. (Note: Yes, I realize that my statement has no research behind it - it's my gut feeling.) The Washington Post is, on the other hand, closer to center if not slightly right leaning. And I think most here would agree with that. Different publications for different folks ... doesn't it make sense that people will read what will tell them what they want to hear? It's crystal clear to me!

 

And, finally, to address your assertion that conservatives are unintelligent: to assert that there are almost no intellectual conservatives is ludicrous. Commensurate with my original point about you and NPR: Why is it that you feel entitled to act like you are above everybody else because your viewpoints are liberal? That is your implication.

 

I would never argue that most liberals are unintelligent. It's an argument you can't win. Much the same, I don't believe you can win the argument that most conservatives are unintelligent. Why can't you win that argument, you ask? It's pretty simple really: We have all met unintelligent conservatives, and several unintelligent liberals. Heck, there are plenty examples just on this board - and those I know you have encountered because I've seen them in your posts! Conversely, there are plenty of intelligent conservatives and liberals on this board as well.

 

Regardless of if a person was liberal or conservative though, I would argue that they aren't unintelligent because of their place on the spectrum. They are unintelligent because of a combination of things, none of which is a result of where they stand politically.

 

What does your position on the political spectrum say, then? I think it is reasonable and safe to say that where you fall on the political spectrum has far more to say about your values and principles as a human being than your intelligence level. And thus ...

 

25% of you just read that and said "DUH!" ....

25% of you just read that and said "YOU STUPID CONSERVATIVE! CLEARLY YOU HAVE PROVEN HOW UNINTELLIGENT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE WITH YOUR WORTHLESS CONSERVATIVE DRIVEL!" ...

and the other 50% of you are apathetic and just left the room to drink your Starbucks double, yet tripled, latte mocha with a super-sized cinnamon scone ...

 

I love America.

 

"And, on that bombshell, that's the end of our show!"

 

Edstock: That's pretty cool. I've always been in support of the arts. They enhance life and culture. As a cellist myself (although not accomplished), I would have loved to have had a decent instrument to play on when I was in high school. The instrument I own is OK. I did one of those rent-to-buy programs.

 

The only thing that I see wrong with the instrument bank is .. who do you choose to play the instrument? Other than that, it's pretty neat.

Edited January 31, 2010 by SVT_MAN

[mettech]

Do you really think that the football and basketball teams support themselves, much less other programs (if anything, the band probably supports itself the best of all them). Face it, the state government supports high school athletics just like the federal government supports NPR.

 

Yes, that is what I am saying.

 

The private school that I graduated from , the basketball revenue paid for all of the sports that the school offered. My school did not have a football team or a band.

 

The High School that my wife teaches at, the basketball and football revenue together pays for the other sports. If money is not avalable, then a sport program gets cut.

[dante hicks]

Yes, that is what I am saying.

 

The private school that I graduated from , the basketball revenue paid for all of the sports that the school offered. My school did not have a football team or a band.

 

The High School that my wife teaches at, the basketball and football revenue together pays for the other sports. If money is not avalable, then a sport program gets cut.

 

Certainly none of the tuition from that private school supported athletics. The high school that your wife teaches at must not be in a school of choice system. If the high school I teach at were to cut a sport (and the Title IX counterpart), we'd lose students to schools that still offer them. I do not believe that the revenue from football and basketball pay for the other sports. Your wife's district's athletic director (and any other staff in his/her office) is paid for by revenue from football and basketball? The coaches' pay, uniforms, transportation, and field maintenance are all paid for by revenue from football and basketball? How many people go to those games, and how much are tickets? It's possible that some athletic departments are self-sustaining, but I promise you that the majority are not.

 

EDIT:

I just looked at my district's budget online. Last year, ticket sales and pay to play brought in about 150,000 dollars. The total athletic budget was almost 650,000. Ticket sales for all sports (in my district, hockey probably surpasses basketball) make up about 12 percent of the budget.

Edited January 31, 2010 by dante hicks

[Noah Harbinger]

Do you really think that the football and basketball teams support themselves, much less other programs (if anything, the band probably supports itself the best of all them). Face it, the state government supports high school athletics just like the federal government supports NPR.

 

Not to mention the eightnine-figure subsidies cities give their sports teams for stadiums...

Edited January 31, 2010 by Noah Harbinger

[Noah Harbinger]

Regardless of if a person was liberal or conservative though, I would argue that they aren't unintelligent because of their place on the spectrum. They are unintelligent because of a combination of things, none of which is a result of where they stand politically.

 

I never said conservatives weren't intelligent; there's a world of difference between "intellectual" and "intelligent".

 

I also didn't say liberals are all intellectual, nor even that they are all intelligent. Some of the dumbest things I've heard have come from liberals - there are a lot of anti-intellectuals in the left's camp, especially in the animal rights, environmentalist, and feminist categories. (God I hate listening to people rail against Monsanto...)

 

Intellectualism is more about how you use your intelligence. Intellectualism means studying problems, often abstract ones, just because you want to answer them - even though they may not seem to have any immediate effect on your life or anyone's life. It's where thinking is an end in and of itself.

 

It's studying physiology and phylogeny to come up with a theory of natural selection

It's collecting billions of points of climate data to try to figure out if global warming is real and what is causing it

It's studying the ground creeping millimeter by millimeter to figure out plate tectonics

It's building dialog with even your worst enemies

 

That attitude is something I have rarely seen among conservatives, and never with any that identified strongly with the Republican party.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Noah Harbinger

[Noah Harbinger]

I contend that the money sporting events earned should be kept for sport teams. The Band and other Art events should support theirself and not rely on the revenue from the Football and Basketball events.

 

In my high school, the band was entirely self supporting, apart from the band instructor's salary (i.e. uniforms, travel to competitions, buying the more expensive instruments like Sousaphones). Everyone had to pay dues, by fundraising or writing a check if you're lazy.

[Swizco]

Intellectualism is more about how you use your intelligence. Intellectualism means studying problems, often abstract ones, just because you want to answer them - even though they may not seem to have any immediate effect on your life or anyone's life. It's where thinking is an end in and of itself.

 

It's studying physiology and phylogeny to come up with a theory of natural selection

It's collecting billions of points of climate data to try to figure out if global warming is real and what is causing it

It's studying the ground creeping millimeter by millimeter to figure out plate tectonics

It's building dialog with even your worst enemies

 

That attitude is something I have rarely seen among conservatives, and never with any that identified strongly with the Republican party.

 

Ooo! I want to play!

 

What was that problem of efficient distribution of scarce resources? I think the guy was Milton Friedman...? You know, that nobody that between him and William F. Buckley, Jr. (another nobody), gave birth to the ideology that underlies the entire modern conservative movement?

 

But you're right. Conservatives are dumb.

 

Swizco

[SVT_MAN]

I never said conservatives weren't intelligent; there's a world of difference between "intellectual" and "intelligent".

 

I also didn't say liberals are all intellectual, nor even that they are all intelligent. Some of the dumbest things I've heard have come from liberals - there are a lot of anti-intellectuals in the left's camp, especially in the animal rights, environmentalist, and feminist categories. (God I hate listening to people rail against Monsanto...)

 

That attitude is something I have rarely seen among conservatives, and never with any that identified strongly with the Republican party.

 

True. There is a distinction, and I should have been more careful in my word choice. I agree with you on this now that I read it again. (I have to apologize to have slammed your comments like that - suffering from a bad head cold at the moment and this is a low impact activity for me today.)

 

I don't think many conservatives are in fact intellectuals, at least by your definition. I view them as trying to look for more practical solutions to problems and many of them feel that not everything can be explained through reason. I personally value that, but I realize others will always try to figure out the reason for something due to our inquisitive human spirit.

[RichardJensen]

Intellectualism is more about how you use your intelligence. Intellectualism means studying problems, often abstract ones, just because you want to answer them - even though they may not seem to have any immediate effect on your life or anyone's life. It's where thinking is an end in and of itself.

There's another side to this:

 

Firstly, I don't consider 'intellectualism' to be a compliment.

 

Secondly, I think you've missed the fascination with novelty that seems a stereotypical part of 'intellectualism'. People that are always looking for 'new' solutions are unlikely to be conservatives.

 

Additionally, 'intellectuals' are subject to pressure to conform just like any other group of people.