- events
- /
- member info
- /
- support
- /
- shop
- /
- about us
- Become a Member
- Join Now
- Sustaining Members
- Member Benefits
- Match Your Contribution
- FAQ
- Existing Members
- Member Discounts
- Member Benefits
- Change of Address
- Tax Information
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Planned Giving
- Match Your Contribution
- Donate Stock
- Donate a Vehicle
- Become an Advocate
- Volunteer
- Become a Sponsor
- Radio Heartland
- Wonderground Radio
- Company Information
- Stations
- Public Insight Journalism
- Contact Info
- Press Room
- MPR People
- Career Opportunities
- Partners
- Educational Sponsors
- MPR Advocates Network
- Tapes & Transcripts
- Tower Rental
Five at 8 - 11/4/09: The volume of the conservative voice
Posted at 7:39 AM on November 4, 2009
by Bob Collins
(25 Comments)
1) Are fly-off-the-handle media stars deserving of a seat at the political discourse table at NPR, merely because they've excelled at becoming media stars? Here's Alicia Shepard, the ombudsman at National Public Radio with her view:
But if (Glenn) Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, Sarah Palin or any other prominent conservative firebrand is making headlines, NPR should report that as part of the news -- not to promote them but to include when putting news in context.
Three of the four she mentioned work in the media. Only Palin has traditional political standing.
Back to Shepard:
I've said it before, and I will reiterate it. NPR is a mainstream news outlet. Its duty is to inform the public of all that is going on -- and that means airing voices and stories that many listeners might not like or agree with.
Given the vacuous nature of most news these days, it's not a service to the listener to prove one's "mainstreamness" by trying to be just like everyone else. Besides, the issue isn't really about one's views. Conservative views, of course, should be heard. And if it's a conservative voice that NPR really wants -- and this goes for liberals, too -- why not make the ability to have an intelligent political dialog instead of a food fight, a qualification for a seat in the studio? To do otherwise creates the impression that all conservatives are loudmouthed fools, and that's simply not true. Example? Rep. John Kline's appearance on MPR's Midday last Friday to talk about Afghanistan -- and his give-and-take with callers who agreed and disagreed with him -- was everything Public Radio should be.
Again, with Shepard:
But listeners deserve exposure to all sorts of voices discussing a wide range of perspectives on NPR -- not just those that are palatable to them.
What listeners deserve is what public radio has promised them -- intelligent discussions delivered intelligently. You cannot expect the audience to be open to different ideas by listening to people who do not have the ability to get theirs across without a flamethrower. For NPR to suggest that conservative views cannot be expressed without lowering a standard of intelligent discourse -- the very underpinning of all that is good about public radio -- is beyond insulting to conservatives and liberals.
A worthwhile (and related) read: Justin Kowacki takes on "an increasing public resentment toward intellectuals, literature, complexity and complicated communications in general."
Discuss.
2) What word best describes your feeling about President Obama? The New York Times is tracking them from employed and unemployed people. If only I could get enough people to type NEWSCUT. But that would be wrong.
3) What's Right With Us Department: A grandmother is robbed and slashed by a knife-wielding assailant in Boston. A parking valet armed only with an umbrella and a laid-off construction worker jumped in to help. Jay King said he had no choice. "When someone needs help, you help them,'' he told the Boston Globe.
In Michigan, meanwhile, a judge has ruled a man can sue the people who beat him up and shot him after he robbed them. He's claiming excessive force.
4) It's magic! Scientists have realized that magicians know more about the workings of the human brain than they do, so two researchers are teaming up with some magicians. It could change the way disorders like autism are diagnosed.
In other magic news, Carl Ballantine has died.
5) Facts you can use to end those awkward silences with co-workers today: Crabs trade sex for protection.
The discovery of the sex-for-security trait helps to explain a surprising quirk: how it is that females defend their territory just as successfully as males despite their smaller claws. It is also the first known case of male and female neighbours teaming up to defend territory in any species, according to lead researcher Richard Milner of the Australian National University in Canberra.
TODAY'S QUESTION
The trial of businessman Tom Petters has focused in part of the testimony of a former friend and partner, who wore a wire to record their conversations. Have you ever considered informing on a friend?
WHAT WE'RE DOING
Midmorning (9-11 a.m.) - First hour: This year's off-year elections are taking on more significance than usual, revealing a split in the Republican Party that could have repercussions in 2010 and 2012. Midmorning looks at election results, and the future of the GOP.
Second hour: Kerri Miller talked with authors Maxine Hong Kingston and Annette Gordon-Reed, the featured speakers at the National Book Awards at Concordia College in Moorhead.
Midday (11 a.m. - 1 p.m.) - First hour: Political analysts Tom Horner and Todd Rapp analyze the election results.
Second hour: A new documentary from American Abroad, called "Taking on the Taliban."
Talk of the Nation (1-3 p.m. ) - First hour: NPR political editor Ken Rudin talks about yesterday's election and tries to say something a thousand other pundits haven't already said.
Second hour: We know what high fashion looks like -- fragile models wafting down a runway or photos retouched to cartoon proportions. But with more campaigns featuring so-called "real women", are skinny models passe? Washington Post fashion editor Robin Givhan and the editor-in-chief of Glamour magazine talk about sizing up in the world of fashion.
All Things Considered (3-6:30 p.m.) - Elizabeth Baier has the third installment in the MPR series, stress-testing the recovery. Minnesota's important manufacturing sector has shed nearly 43,000 jobs since the start of the recession, more than any other major industry. The pain of the manufacturing slump is acute in Albert Lea. The town has worked hard to diversify since a fire burned down the city's biggest employer, a food processing plant. Now with a relatively heavy reliance on factory jobs, which pay above average, the town has seen a spike in its jobless rate, but things are starting to look up.
MPR's Euan Kerr, the hardest working reporter in show business, profiles a Heart of the Beast play about peace activist Thich Nhat Hahn.
MPR's Tim Pugmire looks at politics' worst-kept secret: Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak's desire to be governor.
And Rupa Shenoy assesses the impact of a shortage of respiratory masks, and the fight over how the remaining devices will be distributed in the battle against H1N1. (Moved to tomorrow)
Comments (25)
As for conservative voices, why not get more conservative commentators, news analysts or interviews with conservatives who can express their views "without a flamethrower." George Will comes to mind but there are surely thousands of others out there maybe one or two out of work.
I do hear sometimes about Dick Cheney and his speeeches on NPR newscasts
Perhaps if Public Broadcasting acted as something other than an incubator for progressive/left politics, we might be able to enjoy a wide range of conservative thought when we flip the dial to MPR, NPR and PBS.
Could not agree with Shepherd less. Lindsay Lohan and Jon and Kate are also making headlines -- must we hear about them on MPR too?
I listen to get information and hear intelligent discussion of issues (I agree -- the Jon Kline show is a good example, even though I disagreed strongly with nearly everything he said). I do not listen to hear an increasingly circular conversation about whether the liberal or conservative brand is up or down this week, or what Olbermann said about what Limbaugh said about what Obama said about Fox News.
If I am curious about Olbermann, Maddow, Limbaugh, or Beck, my options for finding out are plentiful -- too plentiful.
I support Public Radio with my money because it offers me something I cannot get elsewhere -- substantive conversation, intelligent guests, and hosts more interested in asking questions than making shocking pronouncements to get themselves in headlines.
Why would MPR be eager to prove that it can be as dumbed-down and celebrity-focused as "mainstream" news outlets?
I'm with JP and Shauns. Balance is appropriate, but NPR should not make a habit of reporting on right or left wing nut jobs. They of course exist in both flavors. This network should be about intelligent discussions based on facts. If commentators can't do that they do not belong on NPR as guests. They only warrant NPR coverage at all to point out that they have a following despite their lies and distortions. And again, this should apply to left and right wing nut jobs!
Reporting on people making headlines is a service I expect from NPR. That is different from giving a Limbaugh/Beck type the microphone and carte blanche to host the same show they're currently doing on for-profit radio. Which is to remind us the point is likely moot: who among them would give up their current gig and work for an NPR salary?
So: reporting on a wide range of political views is good, particularly when coupled with fact-checking. Providing an unedited / unchecked podium from which to promote one view exclusive of others is not.
Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al express opinion. Not fact. Not policy. It's one thing to run a story on something a politician in office said - it's another thing entirely to comment on the commenters.
Limbaugh has said himself that he's in the *entertainment* industry, not politics. He's got 2 hours to fill every afternoon, and ratings to maintain. Of course he's going to say outlandish, foolish things.
In high school, I remember learning about some sort of law or court ruling that let a robber sue the people whose house he broke into because the homeowners fought back. I thought it was crazy back then, and I still think it's crazy.
Also, the story on magic and science was fascinating. I'm with the scientists though, I'm always watching the wrong thing in magic tricks.
Shepard is trippin'. I look to NPR for reasoned, thorough exploration of issues. If NPR's ultimate goal is to be in the middle of the "mainstream" media, God help us.
As long as NPR keeps the focus on discourse and not blind, raging hatred, we won't have to worry about Glenn Beck, et al getting any air time.
"Perhaps if Public Broadcasting acted as something other than an incubator for progressive/left politics..."
This is SO not true! MPR and NPR both bend over backwards to air conservative viewpoints. MPR especially is Tim Pawlenty's lapdog, reporting on every thought he has and every move he makes, usually without airing any other sides of the story. They often begin newscasts with "Tim Pawlenty thinks that..." as though what Pawlenty thinks about something is the most important news of the day. And they almost never give equal or comparable time to what anybody else thinks on the topic.
In the past, they were on Norm Coleman's lap. And it seems they really like Marty Seifert now, too. For example, they reported several times over a couple days on Seifert deciding not to run for re-election to his current office, but never reported in that way on even the Speaker of the MN House making the same decision. They mentioned at the ends of some of the Seifert stories that oh yeah, a couple other people -- the also-rans, in MPR's apparent view -- have made the same decision.
Right-wingers are really good at marketing and PR (just look at how they made most of the country believe the MYTH of the "liberal media," causing most news outlets to do the aforementioned bending over backwards), and MPR just laps up their marketing and spits it out for us in their news and program coverage.
"...who among them would give up their current gig and work for an NPR salary?
The flamethrowers may make more money than NPR staff, but it seems that NPR staff are doing very well. There's another column by the NPR ombudsman about people getting upset when they heard that Scott Simon makes over $300,000 a year -- for doing 2 shows a week. It upset me, too. Imagine what the 5-shows-a-week hosts make! It's obscene for a non-profit organization to pay their staff like that and then beg for money from us.
Look at this quote:
"To do otherwise creates the impression that all conservatives are loudmouthed fools, and that's simply not true. Example: Rep John Kline's ...."
It feels to me like author is saying, "Not ALL conservatives are loudmouth fools. We even found one who isn't."
Is author even aware of the insulting premise behind the comment? I did read the whole article and I do not think I'm taking the comment out of context.
It reminds me of Biden's comments a couple years ago,"[Barack Obama is] the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," He didn't even know he was being insulting to blacks generally and revealing the prejudices in his thinking.
Yep, Jamie. How about Bill Kling making more than a half million dollars a year? How many days of pledge drive is that? As I said last week on another post, he made enough in each of the couple years that I found data for to pay cash for my house, the one next door, and have my professional salary left over. But what would you expect when you look at the board of trustees? They are CEOs and chairs of major corporations to whom a half million dollar salary probably seems like peanuts. The rich get richer.
I'm a sustaining member because MPR provides an outstanding service, but I'm not sustaining at any higher level unless salaries are brought to a reasonable level. If they can afford Mr. Kling's salary, they clearly don't need my donation as much as they claim.
"It feels to me like author is saying, "Not ALL conservatives are loudmouth fools. We even found one who isn't."
One of the many interesting aspects of not growing up in Minnesota, is you get to notice how often people will react to what they feel someone is saying, rather than what they are saying.
// Is author even aware of the insulting premise behind the comment?
And you double the fun. You make up a comment I didn't make, and then ask if I'm aware of the insulting premise behind it. Or, to put it another way, "Are you aware of the insulting premise that exists behind a comment you did not make?"
// I did read the whole article and I do not think I'm taking the comment out of context.
Well, you're not taking it out of context because the comment you're saying you're not taking out of context didn't even exist.
Here's what I said:
Conservative views, of course, should be heard. And if it's a conservative voice that NPR really wants -- and this goes for liberals, too -- why not make the ability to have an intelligent political dialog instead of a food fight, a qualification for a seat in the studio? To do otherwise creates the impression that all conservatives are loudmouthed fools, and that's simply not true.
And here's exactly what that comment means:
Conservative views, of course, should be heard. And if it's a conservative voice that NPR really wants -- and this goes for liberals, too -- why not make the ability to have an intelligent political dialog instead of a food fight, a qualification for a seat in the studio? To do otherwise creates the impression that all conservatives are loudmouthed fools, and that's simply not true.
Trust me, I'm pretty good at writing. If I wanted to convey your interpretation, I would have written it exactly that way and -- if I'd shared your interpretation -- would have had no trouble doing so.
The thing I like most about MPR (and one very big reason I am a member) is that it is a source for intelligent balanced information and dilogue on a variety of issues. On these issues, I hear guests with varying opinions and callers don't get yelled at or hung up on if the host disagrees with them. (Sadly, that's incredibly refreshing in this day and age.) I don't mind when there are guests from differing ideologies, because I've never heard them get a free pass to simply spout their opinion without being asked thoughtful follow up questions that draw the other side of the issue into the discussion. Also, unlike many media sources, the discussions are generally based primarily on the issue itself rather than an argument about whoses values are superior. We need more examples of this type of constructive dialogue.
Our nation doesn't need another platform for unsubstantiated political opinions (from any ideology) to be shouted from the rooftops. If I wanted to hear the latest pundit battle, yelling, name calling, and hyperbole, I already have a number of cable tv channels and political talk radio stations to choose from. There's a reason I'm not tuning into them.
Bob Collins,
After re-reading the article a couple times - as well as the Alicia Shepard piece once - I can accept your claims that I misinterpretted. It is still true that our own mistakes are the hardest to see.
wrt to using qualifying phrases like, 'I feel', 'I think', 'I believe', etc, Maybe its part of the fabeled Minnesota Nice. I (we MN's?) want public discourse to be civil. Qualifying phrases like those leave more room for civil discussion. I assume you know this, but maybe some blog readers don't or need reminding.
First Lou Jacobi, now Carl Ballentine. The world is loosing its great characters.
"This is SO not true! MPR and NPR both bend over backwards to air conservative viewpoints."
Both bend over backward to air the progressive/liberal interpretation of what a conservative is, hense the rather large photo of Glenn Beck headlining this article.
"Right-wingers are really good at marketing and PR (just look at how they made most of the country believe the MYTH of the "liberal media," causing most news outlets to do the aforementioned bending over backwards), and MPR just laps up their marketing and spits it out for us in their news and program coverage."
A Gallop poll in October revealed: "Americans' views about bias in the news are also fairly steady over the past few years. Currently, 45% say the media are too liberal, while 15% say too conservative and 35% say they are just about right. None of these percentages have budged more than three or four points since 2005."
Which may be why "Less than half of Americans (45%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in the media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly -- on par with last year's record-low 43%. About 2 in 10 Americans (18%) have no confidence in the media at all -- which is also among the worst grades Gallup has recorded."
Oh yeah, that's just the result of GOP "right-wing marketing"
See http://www.gallup.com/poll/123365/Americans-Remain-Distrusting-News-Media.aspx
"...MPR and NPR both bend over backwards to air conservative viewpoints."
"Both bend over backward to air the progressive/liberal interpretation of what a conservative is, hense the rather large photo of Glenn Beck headlining this article.
That photo of Glenn Beck looks like a promotional photo FOR Glenn Beck, and he looks like he's happy to be posing for that photo. We're discussing the likes of Glenn Beck, so why shouldn't there be a photo of him?
"Gallop poll in October ... None of these percentages have budged more than three or four points since 2005."
I'm talking about the campaign that conservatives have waged against the news media starting in about 1980. They didn't like the news media telling us the TRUTH (at least a lot of the time), so they decided that demonizing them and lying and calling them "liberal" could perhaps make viewers/ readers/ listeners doubt what they heard or read. And their campaign worked. Because they're really good at marketing. It worked not only on many consumers of the news,. but also on news media establishments and reporters, too. They have been so afraid of being part of the mythic "liberal media" that they have "bent over backwards..."
That's just one example of how good they are at marketing.
If the goal is to raise the media profile of NPR, this might be a good track. A brouhaha over global cooling will probably generate more traffic than a considered scientifc presentation on climatology.
Please don't pander.
"They didn't like the news media telling us the TRUTH"
There is a rule, perhaps in the The Chicago Manual of Style, that says never put the word truth in caps.
Let's talk about one area where "other voices" would be helpful.
Take the recent UBS Forum by the climate evangelist Tim Flannery, which MPR promoted and aired. Mr. Flannery delivered a speech that bore the title of his book, "Now, or Never."
Did Mr. Flannery cite any science at all to support the urgency of cutting green-house emissions?
No.
Instead he simply re-enforced a pop-progressive-ignorance of passes in the media as climate science.
Here is what a conservative would have said, "Dr. Tim, we understand you are not a climatologist, but since you are urging the world to spend $Trillions, can you at least explain the basics?
Tell us about the behavior of water-vapor in the mid-latitude upper-troposphere?
Oh, you never heard of it?
Don't feel too bad because neither has nearly anyone else, but please read the IPCC reports volume 1 through 4, and understand that without this variable all the caterwauling about climate change comes to naught.
If you read up on the subject you will learn that water-vapor in the mid-latitude upper-troposphere is what is called a positive feed-back that amplifies the minor warming of carbon-dioxide into something major, but no one understands it – at all.
It is the primary variable in the models you cite and is simply slopped into place by the modelers.
But more than that, would you speak to the scandal regarding the lead authors of IPCC AR4 Chapter 6, who after eight years of refusing to archive their data, were forced to do so by the Royal Society and where subsequently proved to be frauds in less than two days. (Google – Briffa Scandal).
Or about the refusal of NOAA, NASA, HADCRU and The Met to honor Freedom of Information requests and share RAW climate data with the public?
You would think people who are demanding $Trillions in carbon trading schemes would at least be open with OUR data – or maybe not.
But let's not stop there, will you also speak to the fact that we cannot get an accurate measure of historic climate in Minnesota, least of all the world, because of the poor quality of our climate monitoring network?
Haven't heard about that?
Go to www.surfacestations.org and look at the pictures of how pathetic the network is. You will see an air-conditioner in Detroit Lakes exhausting hot air into a MMTS sensor. You will see sensors located over hot asphalt. You will see every violation of NOAA/NWS standards.
Now tell us about “Now or Never.”
"There is a rule, perhaps in the The Chicago Manual of Style, that says never put the word truth in caps."
What is that, a joke? It's not funny. Just a typical conservative response to something he can't refute. They dismiss or marginalize what they dislike or can't deny. Or they present a lot of half-truths mixed up with gobbledee-gook like your following comment.
Don't make me close comments, folks. Debate the issue not the commenters.
| November 2009 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 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 | |||||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- The Weekly Quiz
- We're #24!
- After the fact policing
- The Future of News redux
- Five at 8 -11/20/09: Things to do while reading the health care bill
- FAA computer outage had little impact at MSP
- An economy-to-English translation
- Five at 8 - 11/18/09: 'Down in front!'
- Fresh Eye on the Radio: The things we do to ourselves
- Breaking: Tour bus crash in Austin
Categories
- Arts
- Bridges and roads
- Crime and Justice
- Disasters
- Economy
- Energy
- Floods
- Health
- Icons
- Life
- Marketing and advertising
- Media
- News
- News Cut on Campus
- Northwest Airlines
- Pawlenty
- Politics
- Race
- Regional history
- Religion
- Schools
- Science
- Sports
- Surveys and trivia
- Tech
- The jobs we do
- The political conventions
- The Quiz
- The Unemployed series
- Things that are puzzling
- War
- Weather
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Fundraising Credentials
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock