NPR under the microscope

#1
TennNC

TennNC

a lover, not a fighter
Joined
Dec 7, 2006
Messages
5,669
Likes
0
#1
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.
 
#3
#3
TennNC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
#4
#4
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.
 
#5
#5
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
#7
#7
volinbham said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#8
#8
volinbham said:
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.
Click to expand...

a few nitpicks to your nitpicks noted above.
 
#9
#9
volinbham said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#11
#11
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.
 
#12
#12
MG1968 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
#13
#13
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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".
 
#14
#14
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.
 
#15
#15
OrangeEmpire said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#16
#16
TennNC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Overall, the tone is positive about the plan no?

If the story spent more time on the problems(perhaps interviewed folks that have had to wait) and spent less time talking about it's success would you still consider it to be balanced?

In each of these cases, the bias is not blatant but in the 3 examples so far, the language choices all go in the same direction.
 
#17
#17
TennNC said:
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.
Click to expand...

It did originate with Republicans but that's not to say that it wasn't supported by Democrats. It was afterall enacted during the Clinton administration.

The cobbled together is completely unecessary. Why not say the Commission issued a report. Why use 2 "qualifiers" on the report (cobbled to together and Bush administration agencies). That phrase certainly calls the conclusion of the report (one that runs counter to the Democrat view) into question does it not?
 
#18
#18
volinbham said:
It did originate with Republicans but that's not to say that it wasn't supported by Democrats. It was afterall enacted during the Clinton administration.

The cobbled together is completely unecessary. Why not say the Commission issued a report. Why use 2 "qualifiers" on the report (cobbled to together and Bush administration agencies). That phrase certainly calls the conclusion of the report (one that runs counter to the Democrat view) into question does it not?
Click to expand...

you're right - that is picky.
 
#19
#19
volinbham said:
If the story spent more time on the problems(perhaps interviewed folks that have had to wait) and spent less time talking about it's success would you still consider it to be balanced?
Click to expand...

Yes. It would still be balanced. And it probably wouldn't be as good. What would that add?

"I've had to wait a long time for health insurance," said John Smith. "I want it, but I wish it didn't take so long."

"Yeah, the waiting part really sucks," added Jane Doe. "What's taking them so long?"
 
#20
#20
MG1968 said:
Life in the 'Burbs: Heavy Costs for Families, Climate : NPR

the first paragraph:



further:



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".
Click to expand...

I wish they'd quoted a scientist about the link. But they could've left that paragraph out IMO. It was a bit random and unnecessary.

IMO you're interpreting the article as them saying you're bad if you live in the burbs - they're pointing out if you live in the burbs you're more likely to use more of the earth's resources. that's a fact. does that make you feel uneasy? if not, keep burning. if so, perhaps the story made an impact.
 
#21
#21
TennNC said:
Yes. It would still be balanced. And it probably wouldn't be as good. What would that add?

"I've had to wait a long time for health insurance," said John Smith. "I want it, but I wish it didn't take so long."

"Yeah, the waiting part really sucks," added Jane Doe. "What's taking them so long?"
Click to expand...

You are missing the point - the story emphasized the positives via about amount of positive vs negative points addressed and terminology (e.g. glitches).

It could have just as easily spent more time on the negatives than positives. It could have defined success in ways other than # of people signed up, etc.

The story can be told a number of ways - in this case it leaves the impression that the program overall is a success. Is that the truth or is that the perspective?
 
#22
#22
TennNC said:
you're right - that is picky.
Click to expand...

The larger point is that the Republicans the culprit for the problem (no mention of Democrats playing a role) and current information suggesting that it may not be such a big problem is minimized by questioning the quality and objectivity of the report.

If similar slights occurred against the Democratic view then I would say it is balanced. I haven't found those slights.

Put another way - what is the value of saying "Republican-led" congress and cobbled together? What does that add to the story other than the suggestions I've alluded to above?
 
#23
#23
In your response to my nitpicks on the abortion story - saying something is the "biggest such group" is quite different than calling a group "mainstream". I could find the "biggest Nazi party group" but that certainly wouldn't make them "mainstream". The term mainstream implies that the views held by NAARL are the widely held views of the public.
 
#24
#24
TennNC said:
I wish they'd quoted a scientist about the link. But they could've left that paragraph out IMO. It was a bit random and unnecessary.

IMO you're interpreting the article as them saying you're bad if you live in the burbs - they're pointing out if you live in the burbs you're more likely to use more of the earth's resources. that's a fact. does that make you feel uneasy? if not, keep burning. if so, perhaps the story made an impact.
Click to expand...

Explain further......
 
#25
#25
volinbham said:
You are missing the point - the story emphasized the positives via about amount of positive vs negative points addressed and terminology (e.g. glitches).

It could have just as easily spent more time on the negatives than positives. It could have defined success in ways other than # of people signed up, etc.

The story can be told a number of ways - in this case it leaves the impression that the program overall is a success. Is that the truth or is that the perspective?
Click to expand...

What do you think?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top