The Drive Home
So, recently I began listening to NPR on my drive home (after Bjorn convinced me not to boycott it). Yesterday, while covering the $373B omnibus spending bill, NPR actually listed some pork projects, like federal money for building a city pool and some other big projects. Strangely, NPR didn’t list federal grants to NPR. Odd.
December 10th, 2003 at 11:06 am
As I’ve said before, I like a lot of NPR shows, but the news is biased against the war and Israel and the federal handouts irk me.
Did you see the C-SPAN coverage of the NPR hearings? Brutal stuff. The Republican senator was quoting out of Bias.
Now that NPR has been bequeathed a couple of hundred million, they ought to do the right thing and swear off federal money.
December 10th, 2003 at 2:12 pm
You can argue whether or not NPR should get federal money, but NPR does not technically qualify as “pork,” since “pork” is understood to be federal money for local constituency projects. NPR is a national organization, so its scope is wider than the “pork” classification.
I would also say that the only bias I can detect in NPR is that their commentators are usually (though not always) left-leaning. But I find that their news coverage is more even-handed than any other source out there. I even cited their recent NAFTA piece as an example.
Despite repeated challenges to various people to provide specific examples of an egregious liberal bias on NPR, no one has ever done so. They just say “NPR is liberal” as if it’s gospel, and as if providing any actual evidence to back up that claim would be beneath them.
I continue to hold that NPR news is the least biased major news source available. If there’s one that displays less bias, I’d be glad to know what it is and to give them a try.
December 10th, 2003 at 3:09 pm
Tom: One of the things that turned me off NPR’s news is their long-time refusal to call Hamas bombers “terrorists.” They refered to them as insurgents or resistors. Yet when the same activities took place elsewhere, NPR had no problem calling it terrorism. People who killed Israelis got a free pass from NPR.
Bias per se is not illegal or even immoral. Every news source has a bias (compare MTV News to the 700 Club News). What irks a lot of people is knowing that their tax dollars are paying for someone to spout a bias they don’t agree with.
December 11th, 2003 at 12:07 pm
My tax dollars pay GWB’s salary, and the salaries of all his advisers.
Re: NPR and Hamas, I’m almost certain I’ve heard NPR report on “terrorist attacks” for which Hamas claimed responsibility.
On the flip side, I don’t recall the news media ever calling the IRA a “terrorist group,” even though their tactics were remarkably similar to those used by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Apparently, you’re not a terrorist if you’re Christian…
Personally, I think the term “terrorism” is over-used, and that a lot of people claim “we know what it is,” but I’ve never found a definition that comes even close to consensus. Most people define terrorism like the Supreme Court defined “obscenity:” “I can’t define it, but I know what it is when I see it.”
December 11th, 2003 at 12:10 pm
Well, the only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is who wins.
December 11th, 2003 at 3:00 pm
Uncle:
That’s precisely my point. Who wins, or who’s side we’re on.
There really is no consensus on what terrorism is. I recall seeing a story a while back about a “terrorist attack” on a US military outpost in Iraq, and I couldn’t help but think “that’s not a terrorist attack.” If an occupying military force is the target of the attack, then that’s not terrorism, even if it was a car bomb.
To me, for something to qualify as “terrorism,” at a minimum, civilians must be involved, either as the target of the attack, or used as hostages in an attack/event. There simply can’t be a “terrorist” attack against a military target.
December 11th, 2003 at 3:10 pm
I guess bias is in the eye of the beholder. According to this guy, NPR is biased against the Palestinians, and has a rampant pro-Israel bias (and he documents specific examples).
Personally, I’ve found them to be exceptionally even-handed on the topic, especially considering how divisive it is. I think allegations of bias ring empty.
December 11th, 2003 at 3:36 pm
Tom: after they were called on it, NPR started applying the terrorism label to Hamas, Hezbollah, et al.
For a good definition of terrorism, see this letter from NPR’s new ombudsman. (I don’t agree with the statement that terrorism is always political, but that’s a minor nuance.) He also looks at how terrorism stories are framed in the media.
December 11th, 2003 at 5:34 pm
Les:
If they’ve rectified the situation, then where’s the beef?
Even if there were an “anti-Israel” bias, and I don’t believe there is, that would neither qualify as a leftist or rightist slant, because there are plenty of leftists who support Israel, and plenty of conservatives who oppose it.
December 11th, 2003 at 5:35 pm
I honestly haven’t given it much thought, but I can’t really come up with an example of terrorism used for non-political reasons.
December 11th, 2003 at 8:28 pm
“I honestly haven’t given it much thought, but I can’t really come up with an example of terrorism used for non-political reasons.”
I think much if not most terrorism is non-political in the sense that it isn’t really directed at any particular political change.
Quick: what was the purpose of the 9/11 attacks? What were they supposed to achieve? Different people will give vastly different answers to that question. The fact is that Al Qaeda never followed up up with any demands.
Al Qaeda’s Fanstasy Ideology
I agree with the author of that article. A lot of terrorism is actually structured around fantasy ideology. In the fantasy, the person wants to see themselves fighting for what they believe is the right side, but they have no clear political ends.
Tom, you and I rarely see eye-to-eye, but I think you’re a rational guy. As a rational person it’s natural to assume that other people are going to act rationally, but it ain’t always so.