Durham's Bull

[hodad]

anyone who denies the leftward bias of NPR is blind

An organization that receives substantial funding from the Walton Family Foundation, (once and possibly currently) from the Kochs, and from other wealthy patrons has an exclusively leftward bias? On some issues NPR leans left without doubt, but you'd have to be dumb (not necessarily blind though) to think those rich conservatives aren't getting something for their money.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

An organization that receives substantial funding from the Walton Family Foundation, (once and possibly currently) from the Kochs, and from other wealthy patrons has an exclusively leftward bias? On some issues NPR leans left without doubt, but you'd have to be dumb (not necessarily blind though) to think those rich conservatives aren't getting something for their money.

Maybe you could point out some examples of conservative bias on NPR for us. Corporate influence is not conservative influence, especially in the ESG polluted times we find ourselves in.

Edited to add:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterloeb/2020/10/07/walmarts-political-dichotomy-is-no-surprise/

 

[sodderboy]

Always remember this, folks:
"I'm here to get you to listen between the commercials" Neil Boortz, Atlanta AM Hate™ radio, ret.
I love radio over the Feevee. There is something about the imagery that drives me away, especially HD these days, "news", sit-com, movie- everything looks like a cheesy 80's soap. I think I like Trump more because I didn't see him all the time on TV, with the Orange American tan and that blond thing on his head. I only heard and read what he said, and experienced what he DID.

I listen to NPR morning drive. They occasionally have a R pol for an interview, seldom. The best comedy in the past fortnight were interviews with Arthur "Pinch" Sultzberger (NYT) lamenting on how difficult it is to be un-biased as a jerknalist, oh boo-hoo!, and one with the author of a George Soros biography about how he is a misunderstood humanitarian trying to save the world (while he shorts the currency of the target countries he is saving). Did not hear their post-Durham drivel this week.

Regressive Talk fails because the hosts are not entertaining, no one listens, and they cannot sell any vacuums or vitamins. Ed Schultz had a moment, but he was unlikeable. Al Franken was, uh, mmm, radio-ahhh, uh-death. He lasted less than two weeks with The Maharushie's format before he changed the show to an opinion/interview format. He had zero talent for taking calls. What to do after radio failure? Politics! Air America was financed, and the financiers finally pulled the plug. I welcomed them, but the hosts stunk except for Randi Rhodes. At the end they brought in "Lionel!" the political chameleon, but it was too little too late.

Back to the OT, Our Top Cops interfered with the 2016 election by using false evidence to obtain FISA warrants (where are the FISA judges that were tricked??), spying on an election team, AND pass that fake "evidence" off to the Drooler gang as grist to poison the presidency, they pre-bunked the Hunter HD in 2020 (what if it were Eric Trump's, hmmm?), and they are not going to stop their trajectory into 2024. The DOJ has nothing to do with Justice and everything to do with Orwellian present day reality.
Mike

 

[sodderboy]

An organization that receives substantial funding from the Walton Family Foundation, (once and possibly currently) from the Kochs, and from other wealthy patrons has an exclusively leftward bias? On some issues NPR leans left without doubt, but you'd have to be dumb (not necessarily blind though) to think those rich conservatives aren't getting something for their money.

They are playing both sides, just like Bill Gates was schooled in the 90's. He gave very little to politicians previously. They threw the DOJ at his azz, Microsoft Monopoly!! He started larding both parties, and whatever happened with that anti-trust case? Kinda went "poof". . .
Mike

 

[Recording Engineer]

No evidence has been seen.

I’ve shared my stance on the response to BLM, illegal immigration, what I think of CARB, I think of Newsom, Trump, Hillary, and more.

You've had time to write a lot and say very little, in my opinion.

Right back at ya… So what. Childish games is what I see often.

 

[Matador]

You've had time to write a lot and say very little, in my opinion.

He doesn't need anyone to manage his time or his effort. You make your choices and he'll make his.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I’ve shared my stance on the response to BLM, illegal immigration, what I think of CARB, I think of Newsom, Trump, Hillary, and more.

You said you didn't like Newsom but failed to vote to recall him. You get what you vote for (or fail to vote against) which includes all of the California dysfunction (which has nothing to do with "right-wing" policies). And other than illegal immigration, these things you list are not really fundamental in any way. The politicians and fad groups are ephemeral.

Right back at ya… So what. Childish games is what I see often.

I'm not playing any games. I've stated my position and some rationale for it.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

He doesn't need anyone to manage his time or his effort. You make your choices and he'll make his.

When he (assumed gender) claims to not have time to "write a dissertation" after writing pages of non-commital word salad, I will point it out. I'm not trying to manage anything, I simply made an observation. Capiche?

 

[Recording Engineer]

When he (assumed gender) claims to not have time to "write a dissertation" after writing pages of non-commital word salad, I will point it out. I'm not trying to manage anything, I simply made an observation. Capiche?

Pages on various subjects and specific incidents, yes, but NOT on ONE thing… Individually, it’s no more than a few small paragraphs at max; much much less for most.

 

[Recording Engineer]

You said you didn't like Newsom but failed to vote to recall him.

How to deal Newsom then, we differ. So what! That certainly doesn’t mean I’m part of the problem or don’t believe in anything or can’t commit to anything or have no moral compass.

You seem to be looking for catch-all statements from me on fundamental political policies. How about what’s illegal and what’s not? Lets start there. I’d love to be naive-enough that that is enough. Still, that doesn’t really work at all either. Money goes about as far as how much you have, most of the time. That’s reality. That changes absolutely everything. So does the grader-good in each and everyone’s mind; and how far anyone’s willing to take it. This brings us to what should and should not be illegal. That’s what requires all-sorts of endless dissertations. I think we have enough “experts” on 24-hour “news” already!

 

[hodad]

They are playing both sides,

Yes. And while they may not directly ask for something in return for their money, there is going to be a burden felt within NPR not to do too much to tick off the megadonors (or, on the flip side, NPR might balance something that could offend megadonors with something that will please them.)

 

[sodderboy]

I think you listen to less NPR than I do. Read how you are twistering yourself to explain how they “might” change editorial because of a donor. Same as “right wingers” in the FBI. That’s not a green circle, my man, it’s my knickers.

Mike

 

[Matador]

Fox has news people and opinion people. Their opinion people are mostly conservative (I hear, I don't usually watch the pure opinion shows). Fox has numerous liberal news analysts (like Jessica Tarlov, and Harold Ford Jr.) around for balance on shows like the Five, but they are not what I would call extremists and often in the minority when on panels.

So this story is awesome.

Fox ran a story about how homeless veterans were kicked out of a hotel in order to make room for migrants in need of temporary housing. Queue the outrage machine: Fox covered this story online and in no less than 5 separate 'news' shows, including segments on Fox and Friends, Laura Ingram, Fox News Live, The Faulkner Focus, and Fox News Weekend. So a mix of "the opinion people" and "the news people". Over 17 hours of coverage were provided over a period of 5 days, and 13 "experts" opined during interview segments, and there were lots of "Biden hates the troops", etc. There were also 4 different stories run on Fox's web site, which was also picked up by OAN, The Daily Wire, and Breitbart.

So it turns out the story was 100% horseshit:

Cracks in the story emerged after an investigation by a local newspaper, the Mid Hudson News.

The managers of the hotel told the paper the story wasn’t true. A receipt purporting to show that the Crossroads Hotel had been paid $37,800 to house the veterans appeared to have been sloppily doctored.

In a follow-up report Friday, the Mid-Hudson News reported that several men staying at a homeless shelter in Poughkeepsie, New York, had come forward to say they were recruited to pretend they were among the veterans kicked out of the hotel. The paper quoted some of the men as saying they were offered $200, food and alcohol to take part in the ruse.

So this prompted Fox to issue a retraction, which was inserted into the last portion of Laura Ingraham's show:

"Alright, before we go, a little update on a story we brought you this week about homeless vets being displaced from hotels so that illegals could move in. Turns out the group behind the claim made it up. We have no clue as to why anyone would do such a thing, but we’ll bring you any updates should they come.”

Total air time spent of the retraction: 18 seconds.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

So this story is awesome.

Fox ran a story about how homeless veterans were kicked out of a hotel in order to make room for migrants in need of temporary housing. Queue the outrage machine: Fox covered this story online and in no less than 5 separate 'news' shows, including segments on Fox and Friends, Laura Ingram, Fox News Live, The Faulkner Focus, and Fox News Weekend. So a mix of "the opinion people" and "the news people". Over 17 hours of coverage were provided over a period of 5 days, and 13 "experts" opined during interview segments, and there were lots of "Biden hates the troops", etc. There were also 4 different stories run on Fox's web site, which was also picked up by OAN, The Daily Wire, and Breitbart.

So it turns out the story was 100% horseshit:



So this prompted Fox to issue a retraction, which was inserted into the last portion of Laura Ingraham's show:



Total air time spent of the retraction: 18 seconds.

How would you prefer they handled retractions? I recall Tucker correcting at least two stories that had run on his show in the past year or two. How much time have CNN and MSNBC spent retracting the various false stories they've run (sometimes for weeks and months)? Your sword appears to have only a single edge.

 

[crazydoc]

By running a story as fact without any verification, Fux News again demonstrates its total lack of competence (or maybe just purposeful outright misinformation). In any case, it would be well worth ignoring except it influences so many gullibles out there.

 

[Matador]

How would you prefer they handled retractions? I recall Tucker correcting at least two stories that had run on his show in the past year or two. How much time have CNN and MSNBC spent retracting the various false stories they've run (sometimes for weeks and months)? Your sword appears to have only a single edge.

False dilemma fallacy. Tu Quoque Fallacy (whataboutism), ad hominem.

 

[fallout]

By running a story as fact without any verification, Fux News again demonstrates its total lack of competence (or maybe just purposeful outright misinformation). In any case, it would be well worth ignoring except it influences so many gullibles out there.

Kinda like CNN and the rest of the media spewing the Trump/Russia nonsense for YEARS. Gullible indeed..

Perhaps it was 'just purposeful outright misinformation'?

 

[JohnRoberts]

So this story is awesome.

so you caught Fox in a mistake,,, lots of fake news going around

Fox ran a story about how homeless veterans were kicked out of a hotel in order to make room for migrants in need of temporary housing. Queue the outrage machine: Fox covered this story online and in no less than 5 separate 'news' shows, including segments on Fox and Friends, Laura Ingram, Fox News Live, The Faulkner Focus, and Fox News Weekend. So a mix of "the opinion people" and "the news people". Over 17 hours of coverage were provided over a period of 5 days, and 13 "experts" opined during interview segments, and there were lots of "Biden hates the troops", etc. There were also 4 different stories run on Fox's web site, which was also picked up by OAN, The Daily Wire, and Breitbart.

So it turns out the story was 100% horseshit:

my sense of the story was that NYC was offering to pay more per room to house overflow migrants, than the hotels were getting to support homeless veterans. It is easy to predict how this will play out, not so easy to encapsulate into SOT for TV.

OK digging a little deeper there were apparently two different viral stories, one based in upstate NY and another inside NYC. Both stories have been debunked as false. Lots of fake news going around, I expect more with the election next year.

So this prompted Fox to issue a retraction, which was inserted into the last portion of Laura Ingraham's show:

as they should

Total air time spent of the retraction: 18 seconds.

I'm shocked....

There are some remarkable statistics on how disproportionate mass media coverage is for partisan topics (like whistle blowers?).


JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

False dilemma fallacy. Tu Quoque Fallacy (whataboutism), ad hominem.

Wrong. I did not introduce a false dichotomy. I also did not attack you. I made an accurate observation regarding your double standard. Yes, FNC has made poor decisions on some stories it has aired. I don't see anyone here denying that. But your inability to criticize any other outlet for the same or worse offense says a lot about you. Jusse Smollett? Covington School kids (Nick Sandmann)? Mostly peaceful protests? Russia collusion narrative? I could go on.

 

[Recording Engineer]

Maybe first acknowledge the BS that has been called out, then add a tiny side-note that both sides are regularly are guilty of such things, and move on?