NPR under the microscope

[TennNC]

Let's keep a running tally of how balanced or unbalanced NPR is - politically speaking, between conservative and liberal. Perhaps we'll do the same for other networks as well. I encourage all to listen to the network, particularly Morning Edition and All Things Considered, their two primary news-reporting shows. Let's keep any opinion-based shows off it for now for simplicity's sake.

Here's the deal - you hear or see a story via NPR you think is unbalanced, post it and let us know why. Also, you see or hear a story via NPR you think is balanced, post it and tell us why.

I'll start:

This morning on ME, a story on the two candidates and their positions on abortion.

Candidates Strongly Disagree On Abortion : NPR

The story gave equal airtime with reports on both and backlash from their base in terms of their positions and recent comments. It was equally unflattering on both.

Conclusion: balanced.

[crazyguy]

Great idea if this can somehow stay on topic....

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by TennNC

I'll start:

This morning on ME, a story on the two candidates and their positions on abortion.

Candidates Strongly Disagree On Abortion : NPR

The story gave equal airtime with reports on both and backlash from their base in terms of their positions and recent comments. It was equally unflattering on both.

Conclusion: balanced.

A few nitpicks:

McCain's position is portrayed as more problematic. It's called "difficult" and he's "very, very uncomfortable" while Obama's position is described as "a little trouble" which prompted "a few complaints". Perhaps that is entirely accurate.

Also, the pro-life group is referred to as anti-abortion while NAARL and PP are referred to as referred to as pro-choice and abortion rights. (loaded words)

Finally, NAARL and PP are referred to as "mainstream" organizations. No such reference for the pro-life group.

Overall, not much to quibble about but I'd lay odds that the author is a pro-choicer given the language used.

[volinbham]

Here's one on Mass's mandatory health insurance program.

Massachusetts Steps Forward On Health Coverage : NPR

In my view, it is much more positive about the program than negative and suggests the success relies on actions by Bush rather than any internal design issues.

Benefits get more attention and problems are referred to as "glitches" (a minimizing term).

Even the title "steps forward" suggests it is a move in the right direction.

Conclusion: Pro the plan.

[volinbham]

Here's one on legislation to address oil speculation. Pretty straight forward but a few questionable comments.

Legislation On Oil Speculation Advances In Senate : NPR

Speculation in the oil futures markets has exploded over the past few years, ever since a Republican-led Congress changed the rules so anyone could buy oil futures — not just those who actually intended to use that oil. As a result, the number of futures contracts has increased nearly 12-fold since 2001.

Not sure if the "republican-led" part is necessary. I'm curious if this author typically names the political majority of the Congress on past bills.

BTW - Clinton signed that bill into law.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued a report Tuesday cobbled together by various Bush administration agencies. The report concluded that supply and demand is indeed the problem — not speculation.

The language here suggests that the report is of questionable quality - a report that supports the Republican position.

Overall, not much but some interesting language choices. I'm curious if anyone sees similar language used against the Dems in this article that I may have missed.

[MG1968]

Climate Connections : NPR

NPR is clearly on Al Gore's side despite there clearly being no "consensus".

Global Warming Petition Project

[TennNC]

Originally Posted by volinbham

Here's one on Mass's mandatory health insurance program.

Massachusetts Steps Forward On Health Coverage : NPR

In my view, it is much more positive about the program than negative and suggests the success relies on actions by Bush rather than any internal design issues.

Benefits get more attention and problems are referred to as "glitches" (a minimizing term).

Even the title "steps forward" suggests it is a move in the right direction.

Conclusion: Pro the plan.

I agree that the title connotes a positive move, but I also read this in the first five paragraphs, which tells me a) the plan has obvious faults, and b) government-controlled health care has obvious faults:

"Anytime you start with the complex U.S. health system as it is and try to plug its gaping holes, you're going to end up with something very complicated.

That's what is happening in Massachusetts. And yes, Massachusetts health reform is very complicated."

Another reason I think you conclude that the story is "pro plan" is that the plan has in fact exceeded its targets, and the fact that only 1 in 8 residents wants it repealed, which is the main point of the story. But they also report that the costs are much higher than expected too, and that creates problems, like finding doctors.

I think it has many more criticisms than you noted and would say that while it might be slightly pro-plan, it's pretty balanced.

[TennNC]

Originally Posted by volinbham

A few nitpicks:

McCain's position is portrayed as more problematic. It's called "difficult" and he's "very, very uncomfortable" while Obama's position is described as "a little trouble" which prompted "a few complaints". Perhaps that is entirely accurate. You have seen the youtube clip of McCain, right? I think at least right now it's more of an issue for him, given the one who made the statement that made him uncomfortable is a close advisor some have hinted might be his running mate.

Also, the pro-life group is referred to as anti-abortion while NAARL and PP are referred to as referred to as pro-choice and abortion rights. (loaded words). I agree they should be consistent and stick with objective terms, such as "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights" advocates. "Pro-life" and "pro choice" are loaded phrases. you're not suggesting they use those, are you? for that would imply anyone else is "anti-life" or "anti-freedom."

Finally, NAARL and PP are referred to as "mainstream" organizations. No such reference for the pro-life group. though they are referred to as the "biggest" such group.

Overall, not much to quibble about but I'd lay odds that the author is a pro-choicer given the language used. i actually used to work side-by-side with the author on Capitol Hill, and I think she's pretty fair when it comes to criticizing both sides.

a few nitpicks to your nitpicks noted above.

[TennNC]

Originally Posted by volinbham

Here's one on legislation to address oil speculation. Pretty straight forward but a few questionable comments.

Legislation On Oil Speculation Advances In Senate : NPR

Not sure if the "republican-led" part is necessary. I'm curious if this author typically names the political majority of the Congress on past bills.

BTW - Clinton signed that bill into law.

The language here suggests that the report is of questionable quality - a report that supports the Republican position.

Overall, not much but some interesting language choices. I'm curious if anyone sees similar language used against the Dems in this article that I may have missed.

on point 1, did the bill originate by Republicans in Congress? If so, I think the descriptor is fair. If not, perhaps it's questionable.

Cobbled together might be the most accurate term, given who worked on it and at what different stages. There has been a lot of turnover in the Bush administration during the past 8 years, no? So maybe it's accurate. But I see your point.

[TennNC]

Originally Posted by MG1968

Climate Connections : NPR

NPR is clearly on Al Gore's side despite there clearly being no "consensus".

Global Warming Petition Project

was there a specific story you were referencing?

[MG1968]

no specific story is needed. Other than the Timber Industry article, the entire front page contains articles that are clearly skewed toward the supposition that climate change/global warming are man made.

[TennNC]

Originally Posted by MG1968

no specific story is needed. Other than the Timber Industry article, the entire front page contains articles that are clearly skewed toward the supposition that climate change/global warming are man made.

Well, you should read or listen to the story before drawing a conclusion.

Why not just read one of the stories and let's comment on that?

[MG1968]

Life in the 'Burbs: Heavy Costs for Families, Climate : NPR

the first paragraph:

Millions of Americans have moved to the suburbs in the past 60 years, drawn by the lure of larger houses and cheaper prices. But until recently, few were aware of the impact those choices had on the environment.

further:

scientists say with so many people making the same choices, the planet is paying big costs — like shrinking arctic ice and more intense hurricanes, wildfires and droughts.

there is no real evidence linking "global warming" to any of those things

however, the general gist of the story is that commuters are "bad" because they pollute more and that people who decide to live within the city are "good".

[OrangeEmpire]

I do not know why, but this really strikes me as really funny!

31,072 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,021 with PhDs.

[MG1968]

Originally Posted by OrangeEmpire

I do not know why, but this really strikes me as really funny!

31,072 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,021 with PhDs.

I think that is included because Al Gore's "consensus" includes politicians and others who really aren't qualified to judge whether or not climate change/global warming is actually man made.