NPR = National PROGRESSIVE Radio
Four short segments of conservative views were enough to flood NPR with angry phone calls and email. So much for "fairness," writes Pam Meister.
Imagine you’re a typical NPR listener, tuning in as you sip your Starbucks Café Latte — made with skim milk and a shot of cinnamon — work the New York Times crossword puzzle, and think about how great it is that you don’t have to stop for gas on your way to work this morning because you drive a Prius. Suddenly, you’re jolted out of your comfortable morning routine by the unimaginable: a segment entitled “Conversations with Conservatives.”
Choking on your latte and misspelling “pestiferous” on your crossword, your head begins to spin as Rev. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, discusses the status of evangelical voters. But surely it’s just an anomaly. An early April Fool’s Day joke. Yeah, that must be it! And fortunately, it was only seven minutes.
But the next day, you hear Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform, talking about which fiscal policies appeal to Republican voters. And the day after that, radio talk show host and CNN personality Glenn Beck discusses core conservative values. And on the last day of February, you are treated to David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, blathering on about the challenges that Sen. John McCain faces when it comes to proving himself to the conservative base.
If there’s a reason to abolish Leap Year and February 29, then having David Keene spoil your Starbucks experience surely must be it. Who can you call? There has to be someone.
The Washington Times reports that for daring to air the views of conservatives on its morning drive show during the final four days of February, NPR fielded “more than 60 angry e-mails and phone calls … calling the programming ’shameful’ and a ‘lovefest with radical, right-wing nuts.’ There were only a few … that praised the series as ‘refreshing’ and ‘articulate,’ among other things.”
National Public Radio is funded in part by federal tax dollars. The last time I checked, both liberals AND conservatives are required to pay federal taxes. So what’s wrong with having four seven-minute segments out of the year where conservative ideas are brought forth? You know, throw them a Milk Bone once in a while to pretend you care about them while you spend their money on things like Garrison Keillor’s “Prairie Home Companion.”
The problem with many liberals is that while they say they espouse tolerance, love for your fellow man, and discussing problems instead of resorting to fisticuffs, when they’re actually expected to “walk the walk,” things get ugly. To them, just listening to conservative ideas is akin to Dracula finding out about a nationwide tainted blood supply. It’s painful when liberals realize that not everyone thinks the way that they do: that there are unenlightened souls out there who don’t recycle, who go to church once in a while, who respect our military, and who don’t think that the sun shines out of Barack Obama’s nether regions. So, being the enlightened, progressive types that they are, instead of listening respectfully to what the other side has to say — and possibly learning something new — they stick their fingers in their ears, chant “I can’t hear you,” and complain to the person in charge about how awful the experience was.
It’s sort of like the people who believe that vandalizing and bombing military recruiting stations is a great way to get their message of peace out to the masses.
They also institute “speech codes” at universities — ostensibly so that no college student will get his widdle feewings hurt — but in reality limiting students’ First Amendment rights in the name of keeping certain “unwanted speech” off campus.
In an ironic twist, the same people want to see the Fairness Doctrine brought back. They think that it’s a way to silence folks like Rush Limbaugh and Neil Boortz, whose very existence means that even driving that Prius isn’t enough to erase the negative feelings that must result from knowing these individuals are adding to the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere simply by existing. Wait a minute, that’s it: Rush Limbaugh causes global warming!
But the knife cuts both ways. Want the Fairness Doctrine? Fine, but be prepared to listen to more conservatives on NPR. In fact, NPR’s ombudsman Alicia Shepard has a wish list that includes “Thomas Sowell, Janice Shaw-Crouse, Shelby Steele, and the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez Jr. as possible guests.
“‘There are dozens of diverse conservative voices, but NPR and all news organizations need to work much harder to bring them into the conversation,’ Ms. Shepard noted.”
And if they don’t want conservatives on NPR, that’s fine too. Just send conservatives a refund for their portion of the taxes that support it.
Now that’s progressive.
Pam Meister is the editor of FamilySecurityMatters.org (the opinions she expresses here are her own), and her work has also been featured on American Thinker.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
36 Comments
1. Braden:The liberal Democrats wish to silence conservative talk radio personalities such as Rush, and yet, they scream bloody murder when NPR has conservatives on?
What happened to their supposed believe in their beloved Fairness Doctrine their party leaders with to bring back? Where’s the fairness?
I thought the liberal philosophy was:
fairness
tolerance
peaceful
and love?
Just what am I missing here?
Oh wait! Hang on, I forgot to add the word “hypocritical” to the start of that list. My bad.
Allow me to repost that list:
hypocritical
fairness
tolerance
peaceful
and love
That’s better.
Mar 16, 2008 - 6:37 am 2. jvwalt:“More than 60 angry e-mails and phone calls”? In response to a program heard by MILLIONS of people every day? Wow. That’s amazing. That’s stupendous. That’s…. tiny.
I’d have to infer that the vast majority of NPR listeners reacted more modestly to this Invasion of the Right-Wingers. Perhaps they even realized that the interviews had merit.
It’s certainly unfair for you to characterize the entire liberal world as intolerant hypocrites, based on the reactions of a few dozen people.
Mar 16, 2008 - 6:38 am 3. jColes:Not many years ago I was the Chief of Media Relations and senior spokesman for a US military command located outside of the US. It was my practice to arrange media visits to our primary training areas when there was particularly cool training scheduled or when a new weapon system was introduced into the theater.
Those media days were popular with the resident international media and bureau media located in nearby countries. I always invited the NPR correspondent who was headquartered in the capital city of a nearby country — and she would almost always come over the day. She had exactly the same access to the same events as the rest of the media but somehow, her stories always came out differently from those filed by everyone else…it was almost as if she had gone to a different event than the one I had hosted.
Still, I liked this woman and we became friends so I felt free to tease her when she came to my house for dinner with my family & me…One evening at dinner I hit upon a nickname for NPR: Neo-Socialist People’s Radio, and I tried it on her…boy, what a reaction! She became irate…I knew I had hit a nerve.
As the years in that assignment rolled on I began to see that my joke had substance…this reporter and her main news desk routinely sought ways to diminish the work of our command while at the same time airing positive reports on nations that oppose the US presence in the area. When I raised the notion with her that either she or NPR were biased she became extremely defensive and indicated that she thought I was a propagandist for the military and a scare-monger regarding the nations that opposed our presence in the region.
Nothing I’ve heard on NPR or seen on PBS in the years since my return to the States persuades me that NPR should be called anything except Neo-Socialist People’s Radio.
Mar 16, 2008 - 8:05 am 4. venividivici:While I would also not make a mountain out of a molehill, jvwalt, the proper way to analyze “customer satisfaction” isn’t the absolute number, it’s the ratio of complaints to approval. The reason is that for every person who takes the time to complain, there are usually a large number who agree but don’t take the time to complain. This indicates that the NPR audience is skewed far to the left. That could only happen if the programming itself skewed far to the left, which itself indicates that there is something to the idea that NPR favors one side of the tax-paying public.
jvwalt’s comment is another great example of how liberals are simply incapable of fully analyzing even the most simple phenomena or data. That liberals consider themselves “intelligent” is a complete misunderstanding of the word.
Mar 16, 2008 - 8:34 am 5. Mohammed the Teddy-Bear:“It’s certainly unfair for you to characterize the entire liberal world as intolerant hypocrites, based on the reactions of a few dozen people.”
Yeah, but 121 cases of homicidal soldiers certainly means that ALL soldiers are murderous lunatics, right? The NYT (Penis-Butter-Upon their Face) said so!
So either NYT, et. al. makes things up, or they just ignore facts like winning Surge strategies in Iraq. Yeah…that’s the ticket!
Mar 16, 2008 - 8:34 am 6. Mel Park:An essential source of funds for public radio is listener donations. While these donations are made to local stations those local funds are, in large part, sent to NPR to pay for their various programs. Since NPR is dependent upon those funds, NPR must play to its listeners. If it doesn’t listener donations will fall. This is the most insidious influence on NPR content. It is much more a factor in determining what NPR broadcasts than the so-called corporate and advertiser interests that NPR (and PBS) claim as controlling commercial broadcast content.
Mar 16, 2008 - 10:45 am 7. Fontessa:60 callers may not seem like a large number, but in fact it represents a ratio of about 1:1200. That’s right: Each one who actually takes the time to make the call or write the letter represents 1200 individuals who WANTED to make contact but who for a variety of reasons did not/could not. That’s an average. Actual results may vary and images in your mirror are closer than you think.
Yup, these are the same folks who are demanding the fairness doctrine, then chip a tooth when the “other side” shows up on the federally funded THEIR National Public Radio.
Mar 16, 2008 - 12:49 pm 8. Major Bill:I’ve always felt that it should be called National Propaganda Radio. Part of the reason I listen to it, is to see what the enemy is up to. I’m to the point where I feel like their “reporters” have the DNC on their speed dial, and call them to get the official party line before writing a story. I know that sounds harsh, but that’s the way their reporting comes across.
Mar 16, 2008 - 1:27 pm 9. Irish Cicero:It’s shocking to find out how much we conservatives are feared and loathed. I’ve had well-meaning friends either nudge me into silence, or outright question my sanity, or my goodwill.
Are these folks American?
Mar 16, 2008 - 8:22 pm 10. P. Ami:If the ratio Fontessa proposes is a fair one then 72,000 folks felt just as those who expressed a complaint felt. What percentage of total listeners is that? As long as we want to analyze the scenario, we might as well use that formula before deciding the general characteristics of a NPR listener.
I happen to know plenty of NPR listeners, living here in Portland, Oregon and lets just say I would assume that anyone who can stomach much of their programming is going to find it difficult to hear any sense in conservative views. That said, I know of one who is going to vote McCain. You see, not all NPR listeners are monkeys.
Mar 17, 2008 - 12:39 am 11. Wellspring:Spot on. To the commenter who says that this is anecdotal: sure, of course this particular incident is, but you can haul out a pretty truck-full and build quite a rigorous case if you prefer. In general, the Left will resort to whatever means are necessary to suppress conservative voices.
It is to my mind very telling that the most liberal voice on the airwaves is a government mandate. What sense does it make to have public broadcasting in the first place? Should the Discovery Channel, A&E, the History Channel and the Learning Channel all be forced to finance another competitor? Because that’s what they’re doing.
Where I take issue with Pam Meister’s point is where she gets into the Orwellian Fairness Doctrine. Call me old-fashioned, but the tattered and much-abused First Amendment still means something to me. Second, you don’t honestly think that turn-around will actually happen, do you? Don’t be naive. During the days when it was around, the bureaucrats who administered it found numerous ways to exempt liberal programming from the requirement. And what “opposing views” did make it onto the air were designed to be unpalatable straw men.
Just look at what the FEC does. They rule election year propaganda movies by Michael Moore to be just fine, while banning conservative films for violating McCain Feingold by expressing an opinion in an election year.
Pragmatism and principle line up perfectly here.
Mar 17, 2008 - 5:29 am 12. Bob Hawkins:William F. Buckley once observed, “Liberals say they want to give opposing views a fair hearing. Then they are surprised and shocked to learn that there are opposing views.”
Mar 17, 2008 - 5:51 am 13. Judasmac:NPR news has its virtues. It’s a great format for one. Good for getting dressed and making coffee, making dinner. And yes, it is decidedly biased. About the same degree as Fox, I’d say, though with a different style as well as a different bias. What they need, more than simply airing conservative views, is a conservative on staff, someone capable of even noticing the one-sidedness of the reporting.
As for NPR beyond the news, can we all give a cheer for “Wait, Wait”? Roy Blount, Jr!
Mar 17, 2008 - 6:02 am 14. anonymous:“NPR fielded “more than 60 angry e-mails and phone calls … ”
Is that an unusually high (or unusually low) number?
Mar 17, 2008 - 6:02 am 15. JackT:“60 angry e-mails and phone calls” is a “flood”? That’s not very many, it seems to me. Perhaps it’s a typo?
Mar 17, 2008 - 6:32 am 16. MickP:Out of the millions of listeners of NPR, 60-some complain about a particular segment and this proves, um, something. Rather than toss ad hominem barbs at comic-book stereotypes, why not look at NPR’s actual funding? The vast majority of public (i.e. taxpayers’) money is to stations and networks in sparsely populated rural areas; very little goes to stations in markets with a wide range of broadcast choices. If you actually listen to NPR programs, you’ll hear lots of “underwriting” commercials from companies, foundations, et al., which represent the bulk of funding.
Mar 17, 2008 - 6:59 am 17. Immolate:I think the outrage stems from the perception that NPR is the only reliable talk radio station for liberal/progressive viewpoints that is still around.
It makes me wonder why it is so difficult for a talented, witty, happy editorialist with a liberal viewpoint to make it in the radio bizz. Is it possible that there is no such thing?
Mar 17, 2008 - 7:21 am 18. Insufficiently Sensitive:It’s certainly unfair for you to characterize the entire liberal world as intolerant hypocrites, based on the reactions of a few dozen people.
Oh? Look past the reactions, then, to the entire spectrum of NPR programming. Notice any gaping black holes where information isn’t provided in oh-so-eloquent tones on certain unwelcome subjects?
Where’s the reasoned argument from this tolerant broadcast agency in favor of reducing government intrusion into business practices? In favor of owner control of private acreage? Exposing the enormous expense of light rail transportation, and shining a light on the partisan beneficiaries? In favor of unhampered property exchanges between consenting adults? Investigating the excess of school administrators over teachers? Doing an in-depth series about the damage done by political correctness to the body politic?
Is there anything hypocritical about NPR’s slant on life? How about calling its most unctuous program “All Things Considered” when those gaping black holes are screaming for attention?
There, you don’t have to play “All Commenters Considered” to find a few flies in the ointment.
Mar 17, 2008 - 8:06 am 19. PJ:Mel Park.. If they appealed to a larger audience and had more people of every persuassion. They would have a larger group of listeners and more potential donors. (After all the conservatives have all of the money, right.:) ) And they shouldn’t have to ask for money as often, but we all know how the left if addicted to other people’s money.
Mar 17, 2008 - 8:38 am 20. Morton Doodslag:I stopped listening to NPR altogether when they featured a “Hamas Men’s Singing Choir” and presented them as similar in every way to Western style choirs. The “music” these Hamas terrorists chanted was pure fascist swill – devoid, of course, of any artistry or similarity to the notion of “choir” or choristers in the West. The show was another attempt by the cultural marxist radicals to normalize the fascism they love, and degrade the Western traditions they loathe.
I wrote an angry but measured email, and got a befuddled response (at least I got a response, I suppose) which amounted to “What’s all your fuss about? We’re simply trying to give them a fair hearing”. Yeah — I know — and that’s a big part of the problem.
Mar 17, 2008 - 9:21 am 21. Bugs:As for corporations donating – could that have anything to do with tax breaks?
Interesting how leftists are always forcing the government and fellow citizens to tolerate vileness as a test of loyalty to American principles. If you don’t object to the vileness, you’re complicit in vileness; if you do object, you’re discriminating. Does something about that not make sense? Would you want a wife or husband who constantly insisted that you prove how much you love them no matter what they do? So why do we always fall for this tactic?
Mar 17, 2008 - 9:28 am 22. meta4head:Hey, liberal here.
One little question–why is is it that conservatives don’t recycle? Why would you be proud of that?
Lemme tell you something about liberals.
We KNOW that others have different opinions– that is our weakness. Our flaw is that we think conservatives can be reasoned with.
Newt and Karl and Rush and Ann have shown that destroying the left wing is their goal. We liberals don’t think that way. We want to work together with you; that’s why we lose all the time. We think we are playing a cooperative game, and you are playing to destroy us.
We think we are entering a negotiation in good faith, but in fact are entering a knife or gunfight.
You got what you wanted– Bush. You can have him. You have hitched the world’s destiny to your star.
Hopefully we will elect a Democrat to clean up your mess.
Mar 17, 2008 - 9:45 am 23. Anthony:A great radio station, with many talented broadcasters and lots of fine content, but let’s not kid ourselves about the bias. I always thought NPR stood for “National Pinko Radio.”
Mar 17, 2008 - 9:49 am 24. Mark Falcoff:I have been on NPR twice and on both occasions they were flooded by emails from angry listeners demanding to know why I was allowed on. NPR is actually better than its listeners, or at least more open minded.
Mar 17, 2008 - 9:52 am 25. anonymous:“why is is it that conservatives don’t recycle?”
Because recycling is Bulls**t.
Mar 17, 2008 - 10:03 am 26. Grey Fox:“Our flaw is that we think conservatives can be reasoned with.”
I suppose that makes sense if you consider “Bush Lied, People Died” to be a rational argument.
Mar 17, 2008 - 10:06 am 27. doug l:The press, whether in electronic media or the printed page, thrives on the conroversy. We are lead to believe that they want to help, and they do; to your attention which they sell or use to further inculcate themselves. It’s our own fault. We should be tempering our consumption of it with knowledge for a variety of sources. The case you cite is regarding conservatives on public radio but the same sort of reaction but from the other side of the spectrum occurs when we see liberals on conservative outlets, often of a different tone but it’s relative level of shrillness or ridicule is neither here nor there. In fact most of the listeners on either side are uninformed as to the history of the right versus left paradigm that we are so confused about. I always recommend people explore the topic of the full political spectrum as exemplified lately at wikipedia’s site entitled “political spectrum” to find out about the Pounelle Axes. Good way to alleviate confusion and to do so in a civil manner. You might find allies in surprising places one might not have expected. I know I have.
Mar 17, 2008 - 11:09 am 28. DirtCrashr:Despite their peaceful protestations and protestations of peacefulness, Liberals don’t want to walk the walk as much as march the March. Onward to the Kool-Aid!
Mar 17, 2008 - 11:15 am 29. listener:I listen to NPR because it is the one station I can wake up to without having to endure any “clever” or “funny” DJs. No ads. Long stories. Interesting bits. Great music. Does it have a slant? You betcha. I can hear the slant and it hasn’t turned me into a liberal yet. I would much rather listen to NPR with a judicious ear than listen to Fox News and get lulled into not thinking at all because it echoes the way I think.
Mar 17, 2008 - 1:08 pm 30. Nicodemus:Of course. Tolerance is for other people.
Mar 17, 2008 - 1:31 pm 31. djr:I listen to NPR b/c it’s the only game in town – having killed all other news radio with mounds of looted $s. It has some good stuff – like the Glenn Beck interview – from time to time. Yet, even if it were all conservative (or better yet, all pro-freedom / individual rights…), it could not be; it’s a contradiction to expect a looting entity to be somehow great while operating via evil means.
Mar 17, 2008 - 6:13 pm 32. Mister Snitch!:There’s no doubt that NPR is heavily biased. I’d imagine this is about as hard on NPR employees as it is on its listeners.
Good.
Mar 17, 2008 - 6:40 pm 33. BH:Let’s see if I have this straight:
1) NPR airs a series featuring conservative views
2) The NPR Ombudsman lists more conservatives she would like to bring in and notes, “There are dozens of diverse conservative voices, but NPR and all news organizations need to work much harder to bring them into the conversation”
3)NPR fields 60–ONLY 60– angry emails.
WTF?
Mar 17, 2008 - 7:26 pm 34. Jack Tyler:Yes, a national broadcast garners a whole SIXTY complaints and Pam Meister tries to make it sound as if the entire listening audience is up in arms.
If anyone had any doubts about the lack of integrity in the right-wing blogosphere, this should put them to rest. Or for that matter, doubts about the lack of intelligence….
Utterly shameless!
Mar 17, 2008 - 9:31 pm 35. Elizabeth Burnett:That NPR had 60 listeners much less callers is surprising to me.
To them it looks like a high demographic perk!
Mar 18, 2008 - 4:53 am 36. Pervy Grin:I think the most telling part is that NPR had a segment entitled “Conversations with Conservatives” at all. The MSM always gives itself away by treating conservatives as “the other”, an exotic, primitive tribe that the enlightened liberals study as if it was an anthropology project. Can you imagine them ever airing a segment called “Conversations with Liberals”? First of all, a segment like that would be indistinguishable from 90% of their reporting and commentary, and secondly, most of their listernership is liberal and already knows what liberals think, so such a segment would be redundant and unnecessary.
Mar 18, 2008 - 2:05 pm