Boy, I don't like what I'm hearing about NPR. I've been listening to NPR for over 40 years and usually really like what I hear. However, firing Lisa Simeone and Juan Williams and others.... Means NPR seems no different from the CBC whose Barbara Budd is no longer on As It Happens. Public broadcasting--radio, TV, online--needs to realize that we, their listeners particularly, listen for reasonably unbiased news and reporting. I recoil in horror from Fox "news" and other biased media. If NPR staff are moonlighting at such networks as Fox, where's the objectivity? Unfortunately, such radio as BBC Worldservice is no longer broadcast via shortwave to the western hemisphere but only online. And just when we NEED relatively unbiased news and other reporting!

Well. Non-conforming diversity will not be tolerated.

"If large numbers of people believe in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech even if the law forbids it. But if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them." -- George Orwell

The Stranger recently reported:

"Here is a group purporting to give people a voice and cut through the bureaucratic layers of government and capitalism. Instead, they silenced speech, quashed ideas, and replaced it with their own bureaucratic process reserved for a minority that wanted power."

That group was:

a) The Democratic Party
b) NPR
c) Occupy Wall Street
d) All of the above

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/11/13/occupy-seattle-interrupts-pro-occupy-wall-street-forum-drives-away-supporters

An audience of Seattle liberal had to listen to a contrary point of view? Oh, the agony!!!!

An audience of Seattle liberals had to listen to a contrary point of view? Oh, the agony!!!

Carlson, as usual, misses the point. The issue is whether NPR has a double standard driven by its eagerness not to offend right-wing zealots -- a forgiving one for militarists and Wall Street apologists and a much harsher one for their critics. It's a pretty subtle distinction. No wonder Carlson missed it.

Woofer is right on.

In reality, NPR seems to tolerate conservative conflicts of interest and to quash progressive viewpoints to avoid conservatives' charge that it has a liberal bias, since NPR knows that progressives won't really complain. If conservatives can do one thing well, it is complain.

Maybe to free NPR from having to kowtow to conservatives, its appropriation should be ended.

Man, those NPR types are wordy. Curran's sign in the photo above could simply have said "Fraud has no place in business."

NPR shows its political correctness (under current standards) in the reporting of Robert Siegel, on All Things Considered, on any story about Israel-Palestine, or any story about the Middle East that involves Israel and/or Palestine (and most such stories do). Siegel invariably presents the Israel side of the story, and usually tends to ignore the facts about the situation or events being reported that would be relevant from the Palestinian point of view.

Why yes, that must be it! NPR has a previously unrevealed right wing bias!! Woofer and company are stuck on stupid.

That's what I like about NPR: they make a very deliberate distinction between journalist and "personality". Juan Williams and Mara Liasson have every right to speak their mind on current events at any venue they choose. But they can't and, more importantly should not, do so as an unofficial spokesperson for NPR.

This is why cable "news" has become an unbearable and embarrassing joke: it's nothing but a scramble for ratings using inflammatory hosts and ADD-friendly soundbites. I listen to NPR because they report stories and, for the most part, their journalists act as facilitators of discussion rather than as purveyors of "gotcha"/agenda-driven stories disguised as news.

NPR is not perfect by any means, but it's the best thing we've got.

NPR & PBS have both been themselves 'pressured' by 'conservatives' who wish to muzzle them and most of their dedicated audience. So, if these organizations -who I like and trust- can be co-opted into broadcasting a weaker, more simplistic opinions, one can see how that might translate into such acts as the author has noticed.
What is not acknowledged is all of the reporting -and logical conclusions therefrom- that continue to be broadcast remain valuable sources of information. It is easy to criticize the actions of others, but praise seems scarce at times.
I suspect if the incidences the author discusses were to be examined fairly, the excesses were ones of judgement on the part of the reporter; it's always nice to know one's limits within the system they work in.
Believing either NPR or PBS are utopian constructs is rather silly these days. No one is perfect, but I hear much more good stuff from these organizations than bad, and do not believe they are any more to blame for their policy determination than any dynamic, well-run groups anywhere.

Left or right -- either side can find the bias they're looking for when they put NPR under the microscope. You contend that NPR is quick to discipline those who express leftist points of view, and to let right-wing indiscretions slide. When you say that, you're willfully ignoring the fact that Juan Williams was fired for saying something conservative, i.e., that he had qualms about getting on a plane with people dressed in "Muslim garb." Ellen Weiss fired him instantly -- too instantly, it turned out, when you look at the tape of what he really said -- because of the perception of his right-wing bias.
The fact is, NPR is super-vigilant about expressions of bias on either side of the spectrum. You can argue that they're too vigilant, and too nervous about it, and I'd be inclined to agree... but at the same time, few news organizations seem that conscientious anymore about striving for the old-fashioned journalistic value of objectivity. (True objectivity is an unattainable goal, but there's still value in striving to achieve it.)

@Carlton Price: Really? You think NPR has a pro-Israel bias? Then why does the Israel lobby think NPR has a pro-Palestinian bias? Heck, this pro-Israel outfit organized a BOYCOTT of NPR...

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x;_outlet=28

In my experience (and I have a lot of experience on this score, believe me), people with a dog in a fight always, ALWAYS hear bias in a story about their pet issue. Especially in radio, where factors as minor as tone of voice are construed as conveying an opinion.

For that to be a "conservative" statement, you would have to posit that either:

1) Conservatives have a unique, innate distrust of people dressed in middle eastern attire; or,

2) Liberals and moderates are incapable of making prejudicial comments.

Perhaps the "C-word" that best characterizes Williams' comment is "candor", a trait that is looked upon with distrust in the bureaucracies of both government and business (and broadcasting).

I wasn't in the audience for the library talk, but I did hear Simon go on and on on air about how great the Iraq War was as it was unfolding. I haven't listened to his program since. I also dropped my subscription to The Economist for their support of the war and the lies that led to it. I realize of course that neither Simon's weekend program nor the magazine misses me, but such a course of 'action' seemed appropriate, and still does

Olaf, a couple of comments back..

Please don't assume that I was saying that NPR has a pro-Israel bias. In his NEWS reports on All Things Considered, Robert Siegel AS AN INDIVIDUAL tends to report only from the Israeli point of view, which often lead to statements contrary to fact or to his ignoring facts that would be considered relevant by Palestinian sources. Similarly, for Stephen Erlanger and Isabel Kershner of the NY Times in their NEWS reports. Their respective employers seem to be comfortable with that.

P.S. It's Charlton, not Carlton.

Bluelight has an interesting idea.

If NPR had to float on its own bottom -- through advertising which it already does -- then it would be freed to do better (I.e. more liberal ) programming.

And there are plenty of advertisers who would be happy to reach the NPR demographic.

What hold up NPR is fear of people like Carlson (and much much worse, of course!) If I were a conservative, my biggest fear would be to unleash NPR by cutting its budget and forcing it into the free enterprise system where it would prosper.

And I am not joking.

Absolutely, David. He who pays the piper calls the tune, no? I believe NPR should shake loose the chains of federal subsidy and be the press their fans want them to be. Let's call Patty and tell her.

NPR engages in typical Orwellian doublethink. The say that they only rely on government for a small fraction of their operating expenses, and yet they also claim that the fact that they are supported by taxpayer dollars makes them pure and above the fray of other broadcast outlets. I get most of my radio news from NPR, and I have always maintained that cutting their ties with government would free them from accusations of being "America's Pravda". I might even contribute to a pledge drive, now that I could no longer say "I gave at the office."

@CHarlton:

Robert Siegel isn't a reporter. He's a host. He reads the introductions to stories by other reporters (the reporters also write the introductions.) Occasionally, he does a two-way (host interview) with a guest in studio, but even his questions are the product of a team of producers, and the resulting interview is edited down by other producers. So when you say Robert Siegel is biased, you mean NPR/All Things Considered is biased, because whatever you hear him saying on the air is the work of the organization as a whole.

I sure hope you're not singling him out as pro-Israeli because of some personal characteristic of his.

Okay, pointsOlaf.. taken. But as an anchor he is reading NEWS, sometimes followed by an interview.. So let's say that his writers of the news leads are writing from the Israeli point of view, and apparently usually not consulting Palestinian sources.

CP

David, you write as if Air America didn't exist (actually, maybe it doesn't anymore).

Come on Carlson, you can do better than (just) snide and petulant can't you? Seriously.

snide AND petulant > snide

Because everybody can do that.

As you've shown, Tom.

Wow ::laughing::

NPR: "National Petroleum Radio", a liberal bias! Hah! These guys couldn't break a story on progressive issues if they tried. As a progressive I agree with BlueLight and their government funding should be cut off. The government has no business funding the media.

A few years ago I called Simon on a Saturday afternoon. Amazingly he answered the phone. I told him that I had a brother serving his third tour in Iraq and that I worked with a guy whose son had been killed in Iraq that week. I went on to ask him if it was true that he supported the invasion of Iraq. He responded no.

Calling somebody "stupid" because you disagree with them ought to be beneath you, John Carlson. You don't have a better argument than that?

Sometimes "stupid" fits. It has a meaning you know. Nothing like PC to stall a good discussion.

I'm liberal and maybe PBS should be cut loose. I heard it supported small towns where funds were less available. If we were any other country, we'd have a free press that was expected to keep government honest, provide diversity and promote transparency. The best we seem to be able to do is promote "free enterprise" whatever that means.

And I think the aftermath of the whole Iraq disaster should live in Simon's reputation for the rest of his sorry life.

Sometime back in the mid-90's before satellite radio, AM radio was pretty much all I could get driving across the Cascades. Listening to Rush rage radio one time, Scott Simon called in. I forget the subject discussed, but I remember Rush was just gushing over the impromptu presence of a "personality" delivering long, grammatically correct sentences (apparently unrehearsed), on his show that he could contribute to the conversation hardly more than a "oh yes, Scott, I definitely agree". It may not have been the first, or last, time Simon called the Rushbo show, but it's not hard to understand how Simon gets away with a public face like that at the librarian's gig when rage-a-holics like Limbaugh genuflect to his every semicoloned thought. Gawd I wish I could find the archive of that broadcast.

Up until the last four months or so, a check of the radio log of Weekend Edition Saturday would reveal a decided right-wing/libertarian slant to Mr.Simon, first in his after 8 a.m. "news analysis" interludes with Juan Williams in which they delightfully trashed President Obama from about his first day in office; then after Mr. Williams justifiable departure from NPR airwaves (raise your hand if you miss him; raise two hands if you follow him on FOX news or anywhere), the after 8 slot was taken over by any number of whom could be arguably called "wacko" Republicans aligned with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Tea Party members were among the leading guests. Thankfully, especially in the last two weeks of his absence, and about the last two to three months I've been spared such right-wing onslaught and caught a few more balanced, non-partisan pieces, the ones at which Mr. Simon excels. Maybe, hopefully, NPR finally noticed and sent him The Memo.

-- mrscribe