This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 |

« Zero Sum | Main | O Canadian Utopia! »
I admit it - I haven't been listening to NPR in the last couple of weeks, and I have no idea what's going on there. But I am having a hard time buying that it has gone right-wing since I went on vacation. Yet that's exactly what MediaMatters.org is claiming, based on comments by NPR ombudsman Jeffrey A. Dvorkin.
Now, it is true that if we take two of Mr Dvorkin's comments and place them in a vacuum for comparison, he appears to contradict himself.
Dec 14:
NPR does not lean on the so-called conservative think tanks as many in the audience seem to think.
I will state it again: I believe NPR relies too much on think tanks in general and on conservative think tanks.
I am a regular listener, the last two weeks or so notwithstanding. I have no idea how objective listeners could think that NPR leans on conservative think tanks - the key word being objective. Most likely, the think tanks in question are simply farther to the right than the complaining members of the NPR audience. This will be easy to fix - let's just fire off some letters to Mr Dvorkin complaining that the tanks are to the left of Atlas Blogged and its readers, and the whole thing will balance out.
But what about Mr Dvorkin contradicting himself? Well, let's take a look at his comments with a slightly different boldfaced emphasis than did MediaMatters.org...
Mr Dvorkin first says that NPR does not lean on the so-called conservative think tanks as many in the audience seem to think, and goes on in that same column to spell out a conservative think tank bias of "Right 239, Left 141". Evidently this is not as much of a rightward lean as the audience thought. In addition, Mr Dvorkin's December 14 column spells out reasons why there might be an imbalance in think tank quotes - for example, an inherent bias in the story itself. NPR Pentagon Correspondent John Hendren spells it out in particular with reference to a report on November 30 about the Department of Defense planting pro-U.S. stories in Iraqi newspapers.
using a lone conservative was not merely justifiable in the story, it was necessary for balance. Out of four sources whose voices were heard in that story, two were critical of the military's policy of planting news stories in Iraqi papers, and a third was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld talking about Iraq's "free media" before news of the program was disclosed. To neglect a point of view of a significant segment of the public, and certainly a significant segment of defense analysts, would slant the story.
Back to Mr Dvorkin:
So I'm with the listeners who complain about NPR’s decision not to more fully identify the think tanks. For many, the lack of a political context can sound too much like "inside-the-Beltway" reporting and I agree. NPR also needs to be consistent about how think tanks are identified; too often conservative institutions are identified as such but liberal ones are not.
More importantly, NPR needs to make sure that it is presenting an appropriate range of ideas and not just from one side of the debate.
Now to the column on the 19th:
So, for those who missed it, I will state it again: I believe NPR relies too much on think tanks in general and on conservative think tanks in particular -- especially when it comes to economics, and defense policy issues. NPR must make sure there is a better balance between liberal and conservative experts in these partisan and contentious areas.
As expected, this is all about context. Taken out of context, these two comments are nearly identical. Kept in context, they actually make sense.
MediaMatters further blinds the horse by failing to recognize Mr Dvorkin's overall theme on Dec 19; Some listeners complain about everything. The conservatives complain about Terry Gross. The liberals complain about quoting the Cato institute in economic pieces. Atlas Blogged complains about this all being funded by the government. You can't please everybody.
Others blogging on this topic include Life, Liberty, and Property fisks the numbers (and has a great name), K Marx The Spot (you have to see this)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.atlasblogged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/170
NPR's lib listenership is just concerned about having conservative cooties insinuating their way into their cherished leftist oasis. I can't log into eLibrary tonight to check, but I'm pretty sure that NPR is usually careful to label the conservative thinktanks as such. That is, the Brookings Institute is always just the Brookings Institute; NOW is always just NOW; even International ANSWER needs no spoilerage. But the adjective (*koff*, *koff*, warning label *koff*) "conservative" is firmly attached to their right wing counterparts.
Posted by: The Sanity Inspector at December 24, 2005 11:00 PM
Haha! "Conservative Cooties." I'm going to steal that.
Posted by: rammage at December 26, 2005 12:05 PM
What?! I have to listen to that radio station every f-ing day on the bus!! That is the most absurd thing that I have heard in a long long time, and I write about the UN! Sorry for all the exclamation marks but this is really absurd.
Posted by: Isiah of buffalo at December 27, 2005 8:30 AM
I couldnt find what you meant wolf.
Posted by: Isiah of buffalo at December 28, 2005 8:23 AM
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)