People who have avoided the Mind****ers' brainwashing.

On 5 Jan 2005 09:35:19 -0800, "RHF"
wrote:

BR,
.
NPR is very good at 'presenting' "Selected" Information
that they 'feel' is "News" for their Target Audiance*.
.
* Progressive {Liberal} and Enlightened {Educated} Citizens
.
~ RHF
.

David wrote:

We have entered Bizarro World.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.

War is peace.

And 'tardism is 'tardism. You are mentally ill.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

dxAce writes:

Brian Running wrote:

I think journalism has reached such a state in America that people
don't recognize good journalism anymore. They want everything
presented to them with a slant, so it's safe and appealing to
them, whatever their particular position on the political
spectrum.

Unfortunately, NPR is not good journalism. Any, and I repeat, any,
discerning individual can hear that.

Many must have their blinders on.

(This is probably a very foolish moment to delurk, but I am after all
very foolish.)

Hello, everyone! I just got a Morphy Richards 27007 (apparently the
new branding of the former Radio Shack Self-Powered model) for
Christmas, which presumably guarantees me last place in any gearhead
credibility contests, and I've been having lots of fun scouring the
ether for shortwave programmes from central and eastern Europe. (I'm
in the UK.)

I must say I was surprised by Radio Ukraine's open and vigorous
backing of the recent semi-revolution there, and Radios Romania,
Hungary and Slovakia also have all also been following agendas not
that out of line with my decadent western European liberal
sympathies.

I'm not entirely sold on the Voice of Russia, mind.

But all that and this thread prompts me to ask: what would various
persons here suggest as models of excellence in shortwave journalism?

Des
can't get the BBC World Service, hilariously

Tom Betz wrote:

Offbreed wrote in news:W56dneUGYNZFoEHcRVn-
:


NPR may have had a good scare thrown in it as a result of attempts to
cut off federal dollars and Bush II being elected,


Please de-fund the CPB! It was invented by Spiro Agnew as a means of
keeping the Presidential thumb on public broadcasters. I'm sick and
tired of National Pentagon Radio and the Pentagon Broadcast System
consistently presenting the pro-war Republican party line as gospel

Excellent ironic humor!

because some of the people running them are deathly afraid of losing the
pittance they now suck from the public teat.

(shrug) That makes them different, how?

The best thing that could possibly happen to NPR and PBS is the
dissolution of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Of course, then
we'd have to deal with their funding from international corporations,
which exert a similar influence... but it would be a start, anyway.


If you want freedom on the airwaves, push for a return to the rules that
allowed the micro powered local stations, like the college and high
school stations.

Those rules were changed to allow the CPUSA backed CPB/NPR/PBS to gain
centralized control of the alternative news channels. Control through
NEA was not enough.


Of course, the internet is making that a moot questions. So long as
Hillary does not get her way.

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,10230,00.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1998/02/22/BUSINESS904.dtl

So many "liberals" are like teenage rebels. They talk about freedom, but
mean they want freedom to do what they want, and that means slavery for
everyone else.

"David" wrote in message
...
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Rush appeals to people who
''think'' they're smart.

Just as Al Franken appeals to people who don't think.

"David" wrote in message
...
It's well-documented that if Fox News is your primary source of
current events information you are seriously misinformed.

Then why don't you document it? What an idiotic statement.

"David" wrote in message
...
You wouldn't recognize a ''True Conservative'' if you tripped over
one.

And you would?

DaviD,
..
Obviously 'you' Have Not . . .
..
As Evidenced By the Choice of 'your' Language.
..
When the Dreamer "Sees-the-Dream" - It is a Dream.
..
When the Dreamer "Feels-the-Dream" - It is an Illusion.
..
When the Dreamer "Lives-the-Dream" - It is an Delusion !
..
DaviD - dream on, Dream On. DREAM ON ! ~ RHF
..
..

What a crock! Fox reported it EXACTLY the same way.

That may be -- let me re-phrase: NPR was the only news source that I was
aware of that reported it that way. But, the point remains the same, that
if NPR had such a serious left-wing slant, I don't believe it would have
presented the story in the way it did, which struck me as very fair. And,
as you pointed out, it reported the story the same way that Fox did, which
also seems to discredit the notion that NPR is purely left-biased. I wish
NPR bashers would actually listen before judging.

I'll say this about NPR, though -- Daniel Schorr's editorials just drive me
over the edge. He is clearly far-left in his opinions, and proud to slant
his comments severely. But, it's editorial, not reporting, and even though
I disagree with him most of the time, any news source will have editorials.
It's important to hear a wide range of opinions before forming your own.

As for NPR presenting both sides of the political spectrum, I can think of
some liberal (Nina Totenberg, Mara Liasson, Daniel Schorr, etc. ) or
ultra-liberal (Bill Moyers) reporters with NPR -- exactly who do you say
is
presenting the conservative point of view there?

That's the point, Stinger. When news is presented on NPR, it isn't
presented with respect to a point of view. The facts are reported,
completely and in depth. I agree that when there are editorials, in
particular, Daniel Schorr's, they are generally of a liberal nature. Daniel
Schorr usually gets me to shout at the radio a few times each week. But,
when it comes to widespread, general coverage of topics that are truly
important both domestically and internationally, no one covers them better
than NPR. My own feeling is that I don't need anyone's editorial comment,
period, and I wish they'd do away with them in all the media. Other
major-media outlets in the US are mainly editorial; in my opinion, NPR is
the least editorialized news source there is. There doesn't need to be a
presentation of a liberal or conservative point of view -- and I find NPR to
be refreshingly free of it, for the most part. News programs that present
the news in the context of a shouting match between ideological opponents
are absolutely the lowest form of journalism that exists.