Skip to comments.Further Proof NPR Caters to Extreme Left
Posted on 03/10/2008 6:29:47 AM PDT by Mobile Vulgus
Jennifer Harper, Washington Times reporter and friend of Newsbusters, gives us a revealing look at how far left our taxpayer funded National Public Radio network has gotten itself these days. Even when they try to go a little toward the conservative side of the debate, they get lambasted by their audience, angered that they had the temerity to air conservative views. Of course, the only reason they would get such a rude reception from their own audience is because they have garnered only a far left listenership as a result of their far left programming. After all, if they had a balanced listenership they wouldn't get deluged by angry emails when they aired conservative content.
Apparently, at the end of February, the NPR program "Morning Edition" took the unusual move of airing four consecutive days of interviews with conservative thinkers in a segment they dubbed "Conversations with Conservatives."
The roster consisted of the Rev. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission; Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform; talk-radio host Glenn Beck; and David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union.
Each of these conservatives had their own focus, religion, taxes, and the like. But, as Harper discovered, "NPR listeners were not especially pleased in the aftermath of the broadcast segments."
According to NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepard, more than 60 angry e-mails and phone calls arrived at the network, calling the programming "shameful" and a "lovefest with radical, right-wing nuts." There were only a few, she said, that praised the series as "refreshing" and "articulate," among other things.
For his part, program host Steve Inskeep admitted he made a portion of his audience mad.
"We did annoy our listeners, but if we do our job right, we function as a personal intelligence agency for them. Hopefully, they hear allies and enemies and everybody in between. We have to learn from a wide range of people," he said.
So, are we supposed to celebrate how brave NPR is for this decision to give us the "other side"?
And, who can doubt that he meant "opposition research" as opposed to learning from a "wide range of people"? After all, his audience only cares about conservative opinion as far as it alerts them to the opinion of the enemy and not because it will "help" them "learn" anything useful with which they can make a balanced decision of their own.
And here is the main point. The NPR audience would not have gotten so exercised against this scant few hours that NPR devoted to a conservative viewpoint if that audience hadn't become assured by past programming that they wouldn't be accosted by those views inimical to leftist group think.
NPR may have seemed surprised by the negative response to their foray to the right, but no one who has heard the constantly left leaning content of NPR should be. After all, when one creates an audience based on programming that is just so, one should not be surprised when programming that deviates from that past record upsets the regulars.
Imagine, if you will, that a stadium full of baseball fans were to take their seats only to find that a football game had begun? There might be a few disgruntled fans in the stands at that rate.
So, NPR shouldnt be so surprised when their audience settles in for their daily, left-wing indoctrination programming and lo and behold an eeeevil conservatives opinions are wafting out of the radio to assault those shocked listeners delicate eardrums.
No wonder they got mad!
But just remember this last thing. The taxes of ALL of Americas citizens is paying for this left-wing indoctrination, not just that tax money from those left-wing Americans who support NPR.
See more at Newsbusters.org.
NPR is throughly liberal. But I don’t see the point in attacking them when they present real conservatives in unbiased light. If there is ever to be improvement at NPR that’s the way it will likely start.
And if it upsets some longtime liberal listeners who only want to hear one side, that’s really a good thing rather than bad, yes?
Who needs more proof?
I finally gave up on NPR and decided to get XM Satellite radio. At least with XM I have a choice of news sources from across the political spectrum.
. . . gosh, almost their entire listening audience! No wonder they're concerned!
NPR is a waste of taxpayer money. That is all the justification I need to attack them.
National Proletariat Radio. Socialism served with a healthy dose of pretentiousness. Its like a warm security blanket to every pinko that listens, assuring them that their views are mainstream, middle of the road, reasoned thought. Pravda with a cup of tea.
Oooh. Sixty angry emails. They make it sound like there was an open revolt from their listeners. Is 60 a large percentage of the listenership? lol
It's certainly a GOOD reason to never make the mistake of airing conservative thought again, whew! 60 emails!
If your emotion-based ideology was so weak that it couldn't stand exposure to question or an opposing viewpoint, you'd get upset, too.
>>NPR is a waste of taxpayer money. That is all the justification I need to attack them.<<
Absolutely make the argument that the government should not pay for one sides political viewpoints. Or even that the government should not pay for news at all.
But on this occasion, when they are balanced for once, I don’t think the author is being helpful attacking them for that.
And they have a great sense of humor, too.
>>If your emotion-based ideology was so weak that it couldn’t stand exposure to question or an opposing viewpoint, you’d get upset, too.<<
Right. I understand why the liberals who listen are upset at conservative balance. I don’t understand why the conservative author would pick NPRs effort to add balance as an excuse to complain.
There is plenty of regular stuff (like their tax payer funding) that merits complain without complaining that new had some real conservatives on.
I'm not surprised that NPR's listeners would go ballistic. NPR listeners are those people you see driving Prius's covered in Kucinich stickers.
The radio segments themselves were perfectly fine, if a bit too short.
The interview with Grover Norquist was particularly good I thought.
The government is paying to promote ITS viewpoint - that it should thrive and grow in power and scope.
Well, to be honest. I’d like to know the true ratio there. All the “proof” in this article is that 60 people complained and an unknown number supported it.
“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.” —Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779.
60 complaints. What’s that 50% of the listenership?
Hmmmm.... Same colors.
If NPR wants to reform it’s programming they should enter the free market and ween itself from public funding.
“Further proof” is piling on. About two days worth of programming is more than sufficient.
XM Satellite???? What is that? Sounds really interesting. I need something to listen to when Rush isn’t on while I do my work...how much?
What was the audience reaction to the segment, "Conversations with Liberals"? What? They never had such a thing? It's always Conversations with Liberals, you say?
....more than 60 angry e-mails and phone calls arrived at the network,
60 angry e-mails constitute a deluge? I guess if you only have 75 listeners, it is.
I got XM free with my Saturn and decided to keep the subscription - any recommendations for good right-talk shows?
If they were complaining about these guys being right-wing nuts, extremists, etc., there would be mass suicides in the "blue" parts of county if NPR so much as ran a preview of a segment featuring Michael Savage or Ann Coulter.
The Clintonization of the left. Everybody who doesn't agree is an 'enemy', to be crushed and annihilated.
Such lovely people.
npr is on in over 600 stations, but without federal funds, and subject to market forces, it would have the same number of stations and audience as err America.
-- William F. Buckley, Jr..
NPR is the extreme left. A conservative President would have killed NPR.
NPR- the NYT of the airwaves.
NPR = National Propaganda Radio.
I gave up on it when they called the Pope “obstructionist” for standing up for human life about a decade ago. Certainly, taxpayers deserve better for our money.
There are only 2-times I will tunes into MPR. For Click and Clack the Tappit Brothers (Car Talk) - and in the early part of the day they play some pretty good music. But after 3:00 PM its lefty news radio and its banned from my home.
I love the tappit brothers...funniest program on radio and the program would do just fine if they syndicated it for non NPR distribution.
>>If NPR wants to reform its programming they should enter the free market and ween itself from public funding.<<
So until then they shouldn’t have any conservatives on?
How do you like the XM? Can you pick up Rush, Hannity, Savage, and (God help me) Art Bell?
Can you pick up radio signal in hills?
Is Rush and the rest on at their usual times?
I drive 2 hours to work and back and I barely get any reception for most of that.
How dare they use public funds to air...um... the public..?
only LIBERAL viewpoints are allowed with public funding!
National Propaganda Radio, let me count the ways I despise it.
I like country/folk/traditional music, so I make a slight exception for Prairie Home Companion. Its music only though, can’t stand the one who runs it, extreme leftist Garrison Keillor.
Where is it listed in the Constitution that the Federal Government is supposed to pay for radio stations?
Cutting federal funding for NPR, as well as other useless programs, such as the NEA and such, would go a long way towards balancing the federal budget.
The GOP needs some “NCPR”, that’s for sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.