Skip to comments.
NPR Snobs Tired of War Coverage
NewsMax/com ^
| 3/31/03
| Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
Posted on 03/31/2003 3:41:55 PM PST by kattracks
Oh dear, when will this awful war coverage stop - it's simply too much to bear for all those elitist snobs who depend on National Public Radio (NPR) to protect them from having to listen to ...gasp ... commercial radio broadcasts as the common people do.
They want "thoughtful intelligence, that allows [NPR] listeners to live our lives from a reasonably aware perspective," as one unhappy listener wrote the public broadcasting network which is thoughtfully provided by U.S. taxpayers for those who need to be fed a diet of news slanted to satisfy its liberal and oh-so-superior audience.
"We seem to be an impatient people," wrote NPR's ombusdsman Jeffrey A. Dvorkin on the network's web site. "Some listeners are apparently anxious to know when the war in Iraq will be behind us," Dvorkin quotes several dissatisfied listeners who want the war over, and over now, so they can go back to listening to all that stimulating liberal claptrap NPR feeds them on the taxpayer's dollar.
"For over 20 years I have relied on NPR to do what no other news service does: provide a balanced and well thought-out analysis of events in our world," wrote one listener. "That approach requires a careful and complete analysis of the many aspects of an event. Therefore, it requires sufficient time for small events to mature and take some kind of real shape. You are not allowing that process to occur by giving nonstop coverage of the war against Iraq. Please go back to your regular programming until there is something of substance to report."
From another listener came this whining: "Enough constant war coverage. You're neither Fox nor CNN, and shouldn't pretend or aspire to be. What's the Congress doing about the budget, judicial nominees, Medicare, or almost anything? What's going on in the states and cities that is not war related? What happened to your environmental coverage? Where did your human interest stories go? The war can be covered without sacrificing everything else. Incessant war reportage desensitizes and de-emphasizes the other important things, and preempts wider coverage of the rest of the world."
Dvorkin has bad news for his select audience: "These are only a few of many, many e-mails like these -- serious e-mails from longtime listeners," he writes. "But the short answer for those who ask when will NPR resume "normal," (aka pre-Iraq) programming is, possibly not for a while -- if ever. In fact, it is likely that programming really ended on Sept. 11, 2001."
NPR regrets "not helping the listeners understand that it may be difficult -- even impossible -- to go back... that we may be in a new era of international politics, and journalism will have to follow," Dvorkin explained.
The poor dears, they simply didn't understand that wars can be sooo inconvenient, and NPR was so remiss in not telling them that before the bombs began to fall, and young Americans started to die, and in the process mess up NPR's usual broadcast menu.
In the meantime, Dvorkin says NPR worries about how it will do its journalistic duty over the coming months, specifically "How can NPR present both sides -- the American and the Iraqi positions fairly?" for example.
Well, they might start by hiring Peter Arnett to explain the "Iraqi positions fairly."
Concludes Dvorkin "A return to "normal programming" seems unlikely and even inappropriate for a while. At some point we need to hear again the sound-rich features and cultural stories that are NPR's hallmarks. But finding a place for solid domestic and investigative reporting is more important than ever. That may be the best -- and the closest -- NPR can or should come to "resuming normal programming."
War sure is Hell.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraqifreedom; leftwinghateradio; mediabias; npr; publicradio; talkradio; taxdollarsatwork; youpayforthis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
1
posted on
03/31/2003 3:41:55 PM PST
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
Ah, NPR...The same radio net that referred to the WTC collapse a few days after the attack on 9-11.
2
posted on
03/31/2003 3:43:40 PM PST
by
mewzilla
To: kattracks
I thought someone was setting up a new, liberal talk-radio network. Seems to me that if they are, NPR would be even more redundant and we thoughtful taxpayers could be relieved of the burden of having to provide NPR-style left-wing news to the liberal squish-head masses.
3
posted on
03/31/2003 3:47:20 PM PST
by
3AngelaD
To: kattracks
Somehow, I have no sympathy to anything related to NPR. Its like listing all the good things Stalin has done (sarcasm)
4
posted on
03/31/2003 3:49:29 PM PST
by
UCFRoadWarrior
(Anti-War Protestors: Our Own Home-Grown War Criminals)
To: kattracks
Please go back to your regular programming until there is something of substance to report... From another listener came this whining:... What's the Congress doing about the budget, judicial nominees, Medicare, or almost anything?... What happened to your environmental coverage? Where did your human interest stories go?
Yes, Yes we want more of those real NPR formula pieces:
We need more funding for: (fill in the blank)
Yolinda, here, is clearly a victim of: (fill in the blank)
To: kattracks
I laughed a week ago Saturday. They were doing their weekend phone in thingy with Daniel Schorr (sp?). They interviewed some Iraqi exiles who had good things to say about the Allied action in Iraq. (Yes, I was amazed) and then one of their regulars called up almost in tears saying "This whole show has been nothing but a whitewash..."
Amazing, how dare NPR actually listen to the victim.
Ha Ha
6
posted on
03/31/2003 3:53:51 PM PST
by
Rippin
To: kattracks
I vividly remember listening to NPR on 9/11. At about 7:15, their little reporter-boy had something to say at length about President Bush's economic plan, and not once referred to him as 'President Bush', only 'Mister Bush' in the smarmyest of tones, over and over, to drive home his underlying point that President Bush was illegitimate.
So now NPR is having to suck at the teat of commercial sponsors because America no longer wants to provide a platform for blatant liberal thought? Now they have to provide content that middle Americans find of interest (the War on Terror)?
Awwwwwww.... What a shame.... NOT!
7
posted on
03/31/2003 3:53:56 PM PST
by
hnorris
To: kattracks
What is an NPR? And, why are tax dollars funding it?
8
posted on
03/31/2003 3:55:18 PM PST
by
ApesForEvolution
(Yes, let us allow the economies of gerdung, frunk, mexiztlan, chirushcom and canadastan to wither...)
To: kattracks
If liberals need a radio outlet, they should be funding it themselves. The American people should not be subsidizing their propaganda!
NPR has one advantage in the DC area....it is on FM radio and the signal comes in good at night. Not so with AM radio.
All this will change with direct satelite radio. People will have choices as they do with the internet. I expect NPR to end up in the garbage can, where it belongs.
9
posted on
03/31/2003 3:57:13 PM PST
by
TheLion
To: kattracks
At some point we need to hear again the sound-rich features and cultural stories that are NPR's hallmarks...I quit listening to NPR about 15 years ago, when it seemed like every report was accompanied by phoney background atmospherics of babies crying or people shouting.
10
posted on
03/31/2003 3:57:20 PM PST
by
js1138
To: kattracks
NPR is the network whose management declared Steve Emerson persona non grata several years ago.
To: kattracks
Doesn't this REQUIRE a barf alert!!!
12
posted on
03/31/2003 4:02:00 PM PST
by
CyberAnt
To: CyberAnt
Doesn't this REQUIRE a barf alert!!!Nawww...It had NPR in the title.
Same thing.
To: TheLion
"If liberals need a radio outlet, they should be funding it themselves". Uh, if they funded anything themselves, they wouldn't be liberals!
To: kattracks
N.P.R. folks want the war over so they can go back to their real agenda, which is pushing the liberal and homosexual agendas.
Pisses me off that I am forced to pay for their crap.
To: eddie willers
Oh yeah, guess I should have realized that ... sorry!
16
posted on
03/31/2003 4:09:23 PM PST
by
CyberAnt
To: kattracks
On March 21st, 2003 on All Things Considered I heard an Interview with William Cohen.
His remarks were so supportive of what W is doing he could easily be a freeper!
He said that this is part of the terrorist battle, that had the trade leaks not occurred by the security council members we would not have to be in a war.
But that the war is justified as sanctions would never work as long as the UN Security Council allowed the leaks.
And guess what March 21st is missing from NPRs site!!!
17
posted on
03/31/2003 4:11:56 PM PST
by
Kay Soze
(France is a terrorist nation - "The country where the worms live above ground")
To: mewzilla
18
posted on
03/31/2003 4:13:46 PM PST
by
sonofatpatcher2
(Live Long & Prosper: Buy Defense Stocks! };^)
To: kattracks
It's bad enough that our tax dollars fund NPR and their left wing slant. What's worse however, is that TAX dollars also fund the Pacifica stations to the tune of $1.3 million.
Pacifica doesn't just slant the news, they organize and moblize the anti-war radicals who are protesting in the streets.
19
posted on
03/31/2003 4:14:19 PM PST
by
Drango
(Two wrongs don't make a right...but three lefts do!)
Comment #20 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson