NPR Commentary.

[JohnnyEgo]

I listen to NPR. I am aware that it makes me the devil to many here, but I don't care. I like knowing what the bias is, and I think they try harder to play against it. They had an interesting commentary on the AR-15 this evening on 'All Things Considered'. They had a former member of the ATF comment on why someone would want to own the rifle. Excusing the 'Rambo Effect' comment, he did a reasonably good job of explaining why it is the most popular rifle in America. He primarily cited the configurability for just about any purpose.

What irritated me was the incredulous tone as to why someone would wish to own such a rifle from the reporter. That seems to be the tone for the entirety of the news media these days. This is the email that I chose to respond with:


I listened to Melissa Block's interview with Malcolm Brady, formerly of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, where they discussed the popularity of the AR-15. While I thought Mr. Brady did a decent job of explaining why the AR15 is America's most popular rifle in terms of customization and function, I have a suggestion: Why not ask actual owners of these firearms why they own them? I also have a resource: your listener base.

Given the number of guns in circulation in the US, consider that the audience for NPR is likely to include millions of gun owners, many of whom own the most popular rifle in America. As one of that group, and a parent of a toddler, I can assure you that we feel the tragedy of this event just as deeply as those who do not choose to own a firearm. In addition, we face the constant implication that no good, law abiding citizen has a reason to own these rifles that we so enjoy, and that they serve no 'sporting purpose'. Instead of disenfranchising the millions of AR-15 owners in this country from the dialog, why not ask us why we choose to own these rifles, and how we think they may be kept out of the wrong hands? It shouldn't be that hard to find us. Just ask your audience.

It will likely not make it past the waste bin, but I gave it a try.

[blacklabel]

I think that's a great reply. It did a very good job of highlighting an issue with their reporting without being accusational. I listen to NPR as well so you're not alone there.

[Goodburbon]

I also listen to NPR. It's easy to spot the bias in the questions, the general direction of the investigation, the language used.


Just had a conversation with a co-worker from California who thought that NPR was the most unbiased network.

[PSS]

I listen tho NPR. Has decent world news coverage. The liberal slant is definitely there.

[wctriumph]

I too listen to NPR and they have become quite a bit more center than the hard left that they used to be. They are still left though, especially when they invite guests on and I feel that they try to choose their counterpoint guests that will be a centrist and non-offensive.

[Zigfried]

I heard the interview also while driving this PM. I got the "incredulity" of Ms Block also. People are frustrated so of course its easy to blame the instrumentality instead of the society that created the beast that used it. Or do they really care?

I heard another news item on NPR earlier that puzzled me. After an "interview" bemoaning gun violence in America and how we can end it with more laws, there was a story about 10 children blown up in Afghanistan while playing. No story about the poor parents, no "oh my how terrible, how could we (as participants in the warfare) allow this to happen?" Just a brief matter of fact story about ten young kids blown to bits in the blink of an eye. To bad, so sad! I'm thinking do these people in LA, DC and NYC, i.e., NPR, really care about innocent children being killed or are school shootings just good ratings?

[Bailey Guns]

I wouldn't want to own one.

[hatidua]

The thing that most recently irritated me about NPR was Kai Risdahl (SP?), host of Marketplace (business news), getting in on the anti-gun thing. Does the anti-gun banter need to permeate even the Wall St. numbers?!

[flan7211]

I love the human interest stories but I grow tired of All things considered and Democracy Now.

[stevelkinevil]

I love the human interest stories but I grow tired of All things considered and Democracy Now.

Just that name "democracy now" irritates the crap outta me. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY! we are a Republic! freakin idiot libtards. (sorry HUGE pet peeve of mine)

[Inspector Fowler]

I work mostly at night, so I mostly just get the BBC on NPR. I find their take on a lot of US politics sort of amusing, but usually pretty straight.

I also like hearing more about the world in general. We have a lot of international students I work with, and it helps me sort of relate to them when we have a thing or two to talk about in their home country.

[Ah Pook]

Does the anti-gun banter need to permeate even the Wall St. numbers?!
Or sports?

Listen to KCFR most of the time when in the car. I don't agree with everything I hear but feel that NPR puts more info out their. You can filter it however you want.

Didn't hear the commentary in question but have been surprised that some of the interviews have been insightful.

[merl]

very nice response. And you never know, maybe someone does read those things.

american news - NPR
middle east - christian science monitor
world news & non-US perspective - BBC

[Irving]

Another NPR listener.

[JohnnyEgo]

So I got an unexpected response. Matt Gouras, an AP reporter, read my comments and sent me an email to discuss the issue. Based on the email address he used to contact me, it appears he read them from this forum.

Not certain how I feel about it. Instinct tells me that I have no control over the context that what I might have to say is presented. On the other hand, there have been very few opportunities for owners to voice their response. What say you, NPR loving gun owners?

[Goodburbon]

Dangerous to our rights at worst, maybe helpful.

It's a crapshoot, so much of our media is geared against us just because we've chosen to exercise a constitutional right for a hobby. We could easily be painted as self important, self centered, callous paranoid sociopaths. When the truth is the events that have happened nationally have impacted us deeply, at least me personally.

[Great-Kazoo]

Ask for a transcript of the interview before you give it, OR record it yourself. Other than that go for it. I'm waiting for the ok nod from the rest of my family before i go "public"

[asmo]

I would suggest you do this sort of thing via an email or IM exchange rather than verbally. Gives you a little more even playing field since you are not a trained public speaker.

[TFOGGER]

I would suggest you do this sort of thing via an email or IM exchange rather than verbally. Gives you a little more even playing field since you are not a trained public speaker.

Yes. I was infuriated by one of the local stations doing interviews in the parking lot of the Loveland gun show this last weekend. The obviously took pains to edit out any coherent responses, and showed only the least articulate and informed people they could find that would talk to them. They deliberately made gun show attendees look like ignorant, paranoid rednecks. [Rant1]

[JohnnyEgo]

I've thought about this for the last couple of hours. I asked for the opportunity for AR15 owners to be part of the dialog. Although not in the venue I expected, I am being taken up on my word. It would be hypocritical of me not to respond to the invitation.

[Goodburbon]

Yes. I was infuriated by one of the local stations doing interviews in the parking lot of the Loveland gun show this last weekend. The obviously took pains to edit out any coherent responses, and showed only the least articulate and informed people they could find that would talk to them. They deliberately made gun show attendees look like ignorant, paranoid rednecks. [Rant1]

I heard an interview on NPR that did the same thing to the Tea party.

[Goodburbon]

It would be hypocritical, yes.

Follow others advice, keep it written so you can choose your words carefully. Use correct spelling, the correct "your, you're", put forward an educated, concise opinion.


Record it, transcribe it. doesn't really matter. It's not like you have a venue to counter with the facts or actual transcript.

[Irving]

I commend you for responding Matt Gouras.

NPR attempted to play the other side of the coin tonight by playing a story about a school in Texas where the administrator decided to allow teachers to carry concealed, and talking about the bill that was pass less than 24 hours before the Conn. shooting allowing CCW in schools, churches, etc. They missed the mark in two obvious ways.

1) When talking about Michigan and the school in Texas, they set up their presentation by saying that people on the other side of the issue are for "arming schools." Neither of the examples that they spoke about concerned arming schools. Rather, both instances allowed people to arm themselves, and remain armed while at the school. The phrase "arming schools" suggests that guns are installed in the school for the specific purpose of defending from outside attacks. Rather, people who happen to be armed themselves, and inside of a school at the same time, is a different concept. Story could have been much less sensational than it was.

2) During the piece on Michigan, they were saying that open carry of firearms is currently allowed in schools, which I did not know. The problem is that one person went to clarify what "open carry" means, and he said something along the lines of, so you could go into a school holding a revolver, but not have it in a holster?. The other guy responded with, "Yes, if you have a gun in your purse, you'd have to take it out of your purse before going into the school." Unless Michigan has a very different definition of "open carry" than the rest of the country, they made the IMPORTANT mistake of talking about brandishing, and not open carry. Another irritating misstep as brandishing firearms is many levels more dramatic than open carrying them.

Matt Gouras, I'd write to NPR to explain their glaring mistake in example #2, but do not remember the program, nor the presenters. Would you mind contacting me on here with the program so I can correct this issue?

[JohnnyEgo]

Matt is with the Associated Press, not NPR. I don't know if he can help you with that one.

[Irving]

Ah yes, you did say he was from AP. Don't I look silly.

[XC700116]

Just that name "democracy now" irritates the crap outta me. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY! we are a Republic! freakin idiot libtards. (sorry HUGE pet peeve of mine)

You aren't alone on that one. Drives me up the friggen wall.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Just that name "democracy now" irritates the crap outta me. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY! we are a Republic! freakin idiot libtards. (sorry HUGE pet peeve of mine)

Not to mention it's a violation of Truth in Advertising as she doesn't want Democracy Now, she wants Communism Now.

[Kraven251]

Just that name "democracy now" irritates the crap outta me. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY! we are a Republic! freakin idiot libtards. (sorry HUGE pet peeve of mine)

But they have they have the White House and many state governments at the moment...I assure you they want it to be a Democracy.

[mtik00]

I listen to NPR a lot, although I don't quite have the stomach for Democracy Now. Most news shows, either on the radio or TV, are biased one way or another. The trick is not believe everything one show says. It makes me sad to think that so many people see something/hear something/read something, and take it at face value.

Well put, JonnyEgo.

[Kraven251]

I listen to NPR a lot, although I don't quite have the stomach for Democracy Now. Most news shows, either on the radio or TV, are biased one way or another. The trick is not believe everything one show says. It makes me sad to think that so many people see something/hear something/read something, and take it at face value.

Well put, JonnyEgo.

There was a time when news was in fact the news, and folks could trust what was being reported and for the most part they were right. That time is unfortunately long gone.

[Goodburbon]

Last night I was listening to NPR while on the road. Here's an example of their bias.

NPR NEWS update (paraphrased)
Congress will be taking up gun control first thing in the new session.
(commentary from Feinstein) ARs aren't hunting weapons, any hunter worth his salt will tell you that, only a piss poor hunter would use an AR Assault weapons either, assault weapons aren't even good for defense.
most republicans are expected to oppose the legislation.


END.


So, present the story, allow one side to put out a bunch of misinformation and garbage. To make it fair, mention that there's another side and that they oppose. NEWS DONE!

[BREATHER]

I listen to CPR/NPR regularly but I refuse to support them financially. Their reports many time are skewed. They do take federal funds and what does that mean ???? They slant their commentary towards the feds. Even if 100% of people listening donated they would still take funding from the feds.

Any researcher who takes government funds will skew their findings to keep funding coming in...

[BREATHER]

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for dinner. Freedom is a well armed lamb disputing the decision.

[PSS]

Last night I was listening to NPR while on the road. Here's an example of their bias.

NPR NEWS update (paraphrased)
Congress will be taking up gun control first thing in the new session.
(commentary from Feinstein) ARs aren't hunting weapons, any hunter worth his salt will tell you that, only a piss poor hunter would use an AR Assault weapons either, assault weapons aren't even good for defense.
most republicans are expected to oppose the legislation.


END.


So, present the story, allow one side to put out a bunch of misinformation and garbage. To make it fair, mention that there's another side and that they oppose. NEWS DONE!


The other day a couple of guys actually made a stab at appearing unbiased. They mentioned that AR type rifles had become popular for hunting and that crime went up during the AWB and down after the sunset of the AWB proving that there wasn't a clear benefit to the AWB. They also mentioned the fact that so called "assault rifles" were used in a very small percentage of murders. I won't support NPR financially because they are too far left. But I was pleasantly surprised at that token gesture. I believe Ken Ruden of the Political Junkie

[cstone]

News carries the slant of reporters and editors regardless of it's source. Understand the people who you get your news from and you will have a decent filter for determining the bias of how information is presented or not presented.

I sometimes listen to NPR. I sometimes listen to Democracy Now. I sometimes listen to Stephen Colbert. I sometimes find all of them funny.

I would no more rely on Mara Liasson or Amy Goodman than I would on Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly for providing me with my opinions about the world. The world is a jigsaw puzzle. I don't assume that the people bringing me the pieces have all of them or are working from the same perspective on the picture that I am.

The issue actually now extends into how we search for information on the Internet. Here is an interesting article on "filter bubbles" http://www.searchenginejournal.com/the-google-filter-bubble-and-its-problems/29879/ I don't necessarily agree with everything in the article, but it highlights how our own actions, interacting with search algorithms can isolate and insulate our world view. There clearly isn't anything new about people seeking the company of those who share their point of view on key issues. This has been true since we started babbling to each other. I don't see it changing anytime in the near future.

Be safe.

[Ah Pook]

Last night I was listening to NPR while on the road. Here's an example of their bias.

NPR NEWS update (paraphrased)
Congress will be taking up gun control first thing in the new session.
(commentary from Feinstein) ARs aren't hunting weapons, any hunter worth his salt will tell you that, only a piss poor hunter would use an AR Assault weapons either, assault weapons aren't even good for defense.
most republicans are expected to oppose the legislation.


END.


So, present the story, allow one side to put out a bunch of misinformation and garbage. To make it fair, mention that there's another side and that they oppose. NEWS DONE!
Sounds pretty even handed to me.

Congress is going to pay lipservice
DIFI is a one trick pony who is also an idiot
The Republicans will do the right thing

Give'm enough rope...

[Byte Stryke]

Just that name "democracy now" irritates the crap outta me. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY! we are a Republic! freakin idiot libtards. (sorry HUGE pet peeve of mine)
Technically I think at this point we are allot closer to a Socialist police state than a Republic
Happy "affordable Healthcare" day