NPR under the microscope

[TennNC]

1) 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.

2) 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?

1) Only if you choose to believe that speculation is part of the problem. The administration seems to be saying it isn't.

2) the value perhaps is in knowing where the idea for loosening the regulations originated and in understanding how cohesive the analysis that says the source of the problem is all supply/demand and not speculation.

And the story is about a bill to curb oil speculation, so by nature oil speculation is essentially "on trial" here.

 

[TennNC]

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.

you can be mainstream within a particular political stance. But to be absolutely fair, they should've used the exact same descriptor for each.

 

[volinbham]

What do you think?

I think the author did not look at the situation with a critical eye - I would guess the plan makes sense to the author.

1) Only if you choose to believe that speculation is part of the problem. The administration seems to be saying it isn't.

2) the value perhaps is in knowing where the idea for loosening the regulations originated and in understanding how cohesive the analysis that says the source of the problem is all supply/demand and not speculation.

And the story is about a bill to curb oil speculation, so by nature oil speculation is essentially "on trial" here.

The "cobbled together" is certainly a loaded "opinion" word that leaves a certain impression. I'm sure similar language could be used to describe some of the Dem actions in the story but such words were not used.

you can be mainstream within a particular political stance. But to be absolutely fair, they should've used the exact same descriptor for each.

Mainstream implies the views of the organization are widely held or the "normal" views of society. Calling "pro-choice organizations" mainstream implies they represent the prevailing views on the topic which I don't believe is true - particularly for NAARL. In short, it suggests that the views of these organizations are the "mainstream views" while the views of the pro-life organization are not mainstream.


Here's the larger point. I can find the "slant" indicators towards the left and left ideals but not the right. Fox is blasted as biased to the right (and it is). If you read their news reporting you would find same type indicators I've pointed out here albeit in the opposite direction. Here I'm speaking of news reporting. If you add commentary, we'd have to add commentary from NPR such as Fresh Air, etc.

Bias doesn't scream, it comes in language choices, perspective choices and "what to cover choices". I regard NPR as a quality news source but recognize that it frequently speaks from a certain perspective.

Maybe this is why NPR and Fox were tied in the Rasmussen poll I posted in another thread for most objective. Neither is bias free and both have a consistent directional bias. Most recognize the bias in both sources but those whose ideologies match the bias may not see it.

 

[TennNC]

I think the author did not look at the situation with a critical eye - I would guess the plan makes sense to the author.



The "cobbled together" is certainly a loaded "opinion" word that leaves a certain impression. I'm sure similar language could be used to describe some of the Dem actions in the story but such words were not used.



Mainstream implies the views of the organization are widely held or the "normal" views of society. Calling "pro-choice organizations" mainstream implies they represent the prevailing views on the topic which I don't believe is true - particularly for NAARL. In short, it suggests that the views of these organizations are the "mainstream views" while the views of the pro-life organization are not mainstream.


Here's the larger point. I can find the "slant" indicators towards the left and left ideals but not the right. Fox is blasted as biased to the right (and it is). If you read their news reporting you would find same type indicators I've pointed out here albeit in the opposite direction. Here I'm speaking of news reporting. If you add commentary, we'd have to add commentary from NPR such as Fresh Air, etc.

Bias doesn't scream, it comes in language choices, perspective choices and "what to cover choices". I regard NPR as a quality news source but recognize that it frequently speaks from a certain perspective.

Maybe this is why NPR and Fox were tied in the Rasmussen poll I posted in another thread for most objective. Neither is bias free and both have a consistent directional bias. Most recognize the bias in both sources but those whose ideologies match the bias may not see it.

I hear you.

Let's keep it going. Hear any stories this morning that struck you?

 

[TennNC]

BTW, I heard interviews on ME today with editors of papers in Berlin and somewhere in France (didn't catch the city) about Obama's trip. IMO it was an interesting story to get a feel for what the reactions of the German and French people think of this trip and of him. They talked very candidly about his trip, about the hype, and about how people will be disappointed in Obama once more policies start coming out. They could've stuck with softball questions about how he's a rock star, but they exposed some unflattering truths as well.

 

[volinbham]

I hear you.

Let's keep it going. Hear any stories this morning that struck you?

Haven't listened/read today.

 

[Smokefatty]

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?

I thought the point of the "Republican-led" language was to emphasize that the Democrats are trying to change legislation that was recently passed by Republicans.

The "cobbled together" phrase is a little more troubling, but I would need to know more about the report in question to make a judgment. The article says that various agencies were involved. If a committee was formed made up of representatives of each agency, then I think the characterization is unfair. If each agency worked separately and submitted distinct portions that were assemble into a report, then cobbled together sounds fairly accurate.

 

[volinbham]

I thought the point of the "Republican-led" language was to emphasize that the Democrats are trying to change legislation that was recently passed by Republicans.

My point is that it may have been passed by Republicans and Democrats eventhough the Congress was slightly controlled by Reps at the time. Also, it was signed into law by a Democratic president.

The "cobbled together" phrase is a little more troubling, but I would need to know more about the report in question to make a judgment. The article says that various agencies were involved. If a committee was formed made up of representatives of each agency, then I think the characterization is unfair. If each agency worked separately and submitted distinct portions that were assemble into a report, then cobbled together sounds fairly accurate.

It was report from a particular agency. Even if multiple agencies were involved the term "cobbled together" implies it was done without much thought or synthesis. The word "assembled" is more neutral in this situation.

Overall, neither instance screams bias but the use of the terms suggests the Rep side is the problem and making weak arguments to support their position. In other words, it suggests that the Dems are right on this issue.

 

[volinbham]

Just to continue beating this dead horse. Compare these 2 paragraphs.

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 Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued a report Tuesday concluding that supply and demand is indeed the problem — not speculation.

The conclusion of the report doesn't change but the first reading calls the conclusions into question while the second doesn't.

Is it the reporter's job in this case to question the veracity of the report? If so, shouldn't the veracity of Democratic claims of speculation also be questioned? My reading of this indicates the reporter sides with the "speculation is the problem" view.

 

[TennNC]

welcome to the thread, smokefatty.

volinbham and I see things through different lenses, but I appreciate his commentary, and he at least puts up with mine.