Further Proof NPR Caters to Extreme Left

Newsbusters.org ^ | 3/09/08 | Warner Todd Huston

[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 shouldn’t be so surprised when their audience settles in for their daily, left-wing indoctrination programming and lo and behold an eeeevil conservative’s 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 America’s 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.

[Mobile Vulgus]

The "people's" radio is as good as any old Soviet Politburo stuff!

[The South Texan]

Liberals= The most tolerant, intolerant people to walk the planet.

[gondramB]

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?

[jabonz08]

Who needs more proof?

[oblomov]

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.

[AnAmericanMother]

According to NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepard, more than 60 angry e-mails and phone calls arrived at the network . . .

. . . gosh, almost their entire listening audience! No wonder they're concerned!

[pnh102]

But I don’t see the point in attacking them ...

NPR is a waste of taxpayer money. That is all the justification I need to attack them.

[SampleMan]

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.

[dfwright]

"more than 60 angry e-mails and phone calls arrived at the network"

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!

[MrB]

But I don’t see the point in attacking them when they present real conservatives in unbiased light.

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.

[gondramB]

>>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.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

And they have a great sense of humor, too.

[gondramB]

>>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.

[billorites]

I heard those "Conversations with Conservatives" a couple weeks ago.

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.

[MrB]

The government is paying to promote ITS viewpoint - that it should thrive and grow in power and scope.

[SengirV]

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.

[JZelle]

“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.

[purpleraine]

60 complaints. What’s that 50% of the listenership?

[Fido969]

Hmmmm.... Same colors.

[ChiMark]

If NPR wants to reform it’s programming they should enter the free market and ween itself from public funding.