I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Uh...you have heard of Google, yahoo!, etc.? Type in NPR and "right wing" and you'll get the same stories I got about conservatives mounting an offensive to bring NPR over to their side. I went there, seeking to find out if it truly was left wing, because I listen to it every single day, and I've heard from Republicans and Democrats equally on it. I've heard some of the most compelling, informative, factual, unbiased stories I've ever heard in 50 years. So I have a hard time seeing it as taking one side or another.

When I grew up, news organizations weren't allowed to take sides. They were only allowed to report. That's how I learned in college in the 70s and 80s as a writer. We were not allowed to insert our own personal feelings or emotions into a story - only report. The rest was reserved for the editorial section.

As far as I can tell, NPR still follows the old rules of observer reporting.

And fwiw, I'm an independent. I think both 'sides' are full of it.

MizzJuneBug


As did I, and I'll be watching the next one this coming week as well..

What in the WORLD does this have to do with left wing bias at NPR?? How will a google search tell me anything? I think the fact that you don't discern a left wing bias probably reflects your own worldview, catperson, rather than an objective view since even commentators at NPR will admit there is a liberal slant.

I have observed some very liberal views in your posts, catperson, not independent views. [whatever that may be] Your belief that NPR is "unbiased" sort of confirms that. Is there some reason why you would avoid just calling yourself a liberal when you so clearly trend that way?

I have observed some very liberal views in your posts, catperson, not independent views. [whatever that may be] Your belief that NPR is "unbiased" sort of confirms that. Is there some reason why you would avoid just calling yourself a liberal when you so clearly trend that way?
***********************************************************

I assume it means she is a registered independent voter, not republican or democrat.
I have been accused of being a "liberal" when I lived in a very religious conservative area.
Socially, my views are much more liberal than the religious right, yet much more conservative than any liberal I know. (they have accused me of being a republican) I happen to be a registered Independent voter who has voted republican for president 4 out of the last 5 elections. I try to vote the issues, not the parties. In the past that led me to vote republican. This year has been difficult. I finally got comfortable w/ McCain but I think Sarah Palin was an irresponsible choice for VP.

What do you consider independent views?

On the legal status of abortion:
Obama defends the status quo (um zero change) which polls have revealed for decades is not what the citizens endorse;
most citizens favor legalized abortion with some restrictions - not abortion on demand even in the third trimester of pregnancy AND THEN if the baby miraculousy survives the abortionist's assualt leaving the baby to die of neglect, hunger and cold.
(Roe v Wade legalized third trimester abortion for 'maternal health' reasons... Doe v Bolton defined 'maternal health' to include non-medical-emergency things like finances, career plans, relationship problems...)
Obama sides with the abortion industry vs the women and babies.
Obama opposes citizen efforts to at least clean up the abortion industry, to at least pass some of those health and safety measures that were promised would come with legalized abortion.

Now it is also true that very few citizens agree with Palin's views on abortion - a total ban on abortion even in cases of rape and incest. But it is myth that reversing Roe v Wade would result in a sudden and total ban on abortions. The truth is that would only return the right to choose the legal status of abortion to the citizens of each state, where it used to be before the judicial branch overstepped their jurisdiction in a violation of the checks and balances designed into our government to prevent such abuses of power. The exact legal status of abortion is a legislative issue, not a constitutional one. The abortion industry benefits, and women and babies are endangered, when the legal status of abortion is left up to only 9 judges and the abortion industry to decide vs all the voting citizens of each state. McCain wants to see the right to choose the legal status of abortion returned to the state legislatures. Some states will then allow their citizens to choose the legal status of abortion by referendum vote. The lie that reversing Roe v Wade would result in a total and immediate nationwide ban on abortions has been told and believed long enough - it's time for the citizens of this country to stop believing that lie and to take the responsibility to participate in the legislative process to choose the legal status of abortion, to at least protect the women by passing some health and safety regulations and patient protection rights, to at least protect near and full term babies from the brutality of abortion. Sure, some people will vote to keep abortion in their state as extreme, unsafe, and unregulated as it is now (um those who are employed in the abortion industry and those who are regular customers like the pimps and the bosses of naked nightclub dancers), and some will vote like Sarah Palin for a total ban on abortion, but most people would vote for something in between. VERY FEW citizens really support the status quo when it comes to abortion - Obama does - he wants zero change when it comes to the legal status of abortion even though most citizens would support change.

Another area where Obama is for zero change is government schools. He is alligned with the teacher's union, not in favor of needed and desired changes like school choice. He opposes change and endorses the status quo so much that when it comes to education he wants the government and teacher's unions to have MORE control over how our children are educated - not just the same but MORE of the same is his notion of 'change' when it comes to education.

Obama is also in favor of the dangerous trend toward our country's sovereignty being destroyed and replaced with a world government (which he apparently is already campaigning to be in charge of, campaigning to the Germans for example). He is not in favor of opposing or changing this trend, rather he's all for it. He has stated that if he had to choose between his country and Islam, he'd choose Islam. So I guess he's already campaigning for all those votes too, eh? This is a trend that the voting citizens of this country have not been given the right to vote on, whether or not we want the U.S. to remain a country, or to be absorbed into some world government (under Obama's control?). Obama doesn't want to challenge or change this unpopular dangerous trend, he hopes to benefit personally from it. In his ego-infested mind he is not merely campaigning for the presidency of the U.S. but to be leader of the world, AFTER he hands our country over to a world government (I think he maybe watched a tad too much Pinky & The Brain).

What 'change' is Obama for?
Well, he's not in charge of the counry let alone the world yet,
and he's hoping to change that.

Wow..this is SAD to know..along with learning that lots here are so conservative in their thinking..and evidently I am not...

I am most definitely a LIBERAL...

Actually, I'm not so SAD about the CONSERVATISM as much as it SEEMS that those of us with different viewpoints are really not ACCEPTED...which to me seems JUDGMENTAL when we have been advocating against DISRESPECTFUL JUDGMENTS.

He has stated that if he had to choose between his country and Islam, he'd choose Islam.
*****************************************

when and where did he say that?

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!

Cat, as an everyday listener of NPR and a registered independent, I can say, without any doubt that NPR is very liberal both in content and intent.

******************************************************

It sounds ridiculous to me too, which is why I'd like to know where and when he supposedly said that. There have been an awful lot of quotes attributed to obama that I have researched and found to be incorrect or downright lies.
I can understand an anti-abortion anti-barak stand but I find the smear tactics offensive.

EXACTLY!!

Good Grief! Could you please give us the exact speech where Obama said this? Apparently the mainstream press, Congress and the Republican party are all on cahoots to cover up the fact that Obama is planning to have a one world government. I feel certain the Republicans would have made mention of this by now.

Here is Obama's speech in Berlin. I couldn't find anywhere where he mentions a one world govt. Although he does talk about how we 'as global citizens' need to band together to fight terrorism and world hunger.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5442292&page=2

Since we're talking about the media, here is an interesting study about where Americans get their news and how source of news is directly related to how many misperceptions Americans believe. This study was done by the University of Maryland (yeah,yeah, I know..our universities are a cesspool of liberal bias) and relates to the Iraq war.


Here's the link to the full text, in case anyone is interested:

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2920

As we all know, it turns out there was no Al-qaeda-Iraq link, nor were there any weapons of mass destruction.


Also, as for the Investor Business Daily editorials linked at the beginning of this thread. Well, it turns out the IBD is a very conservative publication.



This was sourced from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor's_Business_Daily

Thats very interesting. Bias is almost impossible to measure, but this political scientist at UCLA did about the most objective job I have ever seen, by using ADA tracking measures that are used to measure members of congress:

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
By Meg Sullivan| 12/14/2005 5:36:31 PM
While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the [b]most centrist news outlet.[/b] Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

<snip>
Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

entire article here

Mel,

I am interested in how you define an independent.
Not looking to debate you....just trying to get a better idea of who other people (particularly ones not from the northeast) classify an Independent.

nia, I haven't the slightest idea how an "independent" would be defined, and I think that is the point. They don't WANT to be defined because they don't want to have to defend themselves. I have found that most are simply lazy thinkers who want to be thought "objective" without really earning that title. I am EXCEPTING the Libertarian minded in that mix, they have pretty distinct views and tend to be constitutionalists.

What I do know is that catperson has expressed LIBERAL views on this forum, so I don't know why she is afraid to just say what she is.

Are you saying that having LIBERAL VIEWS is not ACCEPTABLE on this FORUM?