There’s a huge hole in all of the public discussion about the reimposition of a "Fairness Doctrine" or a return to "localism" on the talk-radio format: What about National Public Radio? Liberals would like to "crush Rush" and his conservative compatriots by demanding each station balance its lineup ideologically. But since when has NPR ever felt any pressure to be balanced, even when a majority of taxpayers being forced to subsidize it are center-right?
Why no Fairness Doctrine attention to NPR? It is because those preaching "fairness" on the radio are hypocrites.
Conservatives argue that the media’s liberal bias drives people to talk radio for an opposing viewpoint. Limbaugh jokes: "I am the balance." But new numbers from NPR suggest its ratings may be nearly as imposing as Limbaugh’s: The cumulative audience for its daily news programs – "Morning Edition" and its evening counterpart, "All Things Considered" – has risen to 20.9 million per week.
It’s not just news that’s drawing listeners in. Talk-radio programs increasingly have become part of the nationally distributed NPR diet. Indeed, NPR’s developing talk-show lineup was an obvious factor in the commercial failure of competing liberal networks like Air America. One could argue that NPR’s audience gains came directly in response to liberal desires to vent about Team Bush.
Radio shows like "Fresh Air with Terry Gross" were a regular forum for Bush-bashing authors and experts, especially on the War on Terror and the liberation of Iraq. Gross was memorably upbraided by NPR’s ombudsman in 2003 for showing great hostility to Bill O’Reilly, in stark contrast to her giggly rapport with liberal Al Franken. Now NPR is touting that "Fresh Air" was NPR’s "first non-drive-time show in public radio to better 5 million weekly listeners" on over 300 stations.
NPR also sounded thrilled at the news that its afternoon show "Talk of the Nation" showed "remarkable gains," up 21 percent to 3.5 million listeners weekly. On Inauguration Day, that show featured NPR Baghdad Bureau Chief Lourdes Garcia-Navarro reporting that Iraqis wished good riddance to President Bush and hoped for change under Barack Obama. She said she had yet to find a single Iraqi who was grateful for the American defeat of Saddam Hussein. She asked many Iraqis: "Did this invasion, do you feel, give you a better life? And across the board, I didn't find one Iraqi who said to me, actually, I'm glad this happened."
Only on NPR does one hear journalism which calmly suspends logic.
The other talk show NPR publicists touted was "Tell Me More," hosted by Michel Martin, a former reporter for ABC. Martin recently told NPR listeners she is far too similar to Michelle Obama to feel objectively about her, and she thinks Rush Limbaugh is racist, and explains thusly: "Some people hate the federal government because they can't get past the fact that the government switched sides from being a weapon in the violent oppression of black and sometimes brown people, to being one of the tools creating opportunity for them, as well as other people."
NPR regularly airs liberal commentators (like former CBS reporter Daniel Schorr), and its idea of a conservative is David Brooks of the New York Times. A few weeks ago, in one of their regular evening political roundtables with liberal columnist E. J. Dionne, "All Things Considered" anchor Robert Siegel asked Brooks if he, as a moderate, was comfortable with Obama: "Are you getting more or less comfortable or more or less moderate?" Brooks replied candidly: "I'm getting less comfortable. I don't know about my gross ideological disposition these days."
Neither do conservatives, and yet Brooks is the man who’s supposed to represent us.
Public broadcasting has been incredibly hostile to anyone who would dare to police it for fairness and balance. Conservatives ought not forget what happened to Kenneth Tomlinson, the former board chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Fur flied when liberals discovered Tomlinson had conducted a private study to determine if PBS and NPR shows tilted to the left. An inspector general’s report suggested Tomlinson somehow had violated CPB by-laws and he was forced to resign.
Liberal congressman John Dingell insisted Tomlinson had "inserted politics" into public broadcasting, and yes, feel free to insert a laugh track at this point.
It’s only "inserting politics" when anyone bothers to object to the everyday liberal politics of NPR and PBS. Ever since Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, the nation’s taxpayer-funded news outlets have operated free of any real fear that someone would disturb their pattern of putting their big broadcasting thumb on the scale of liberalism
If NPR’s drawing a Limbaugh-sized audience, isn’t it time someone started asking why a "Fairness Doctrine" shouldn’t apply to them?




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
If the liberals want to
March 24, 2009 - 18:09 ET by ConservativeRexIf the liberals want to compare equal air space allowed, let's don't limit ourselves to just radio. If push comes to shove we'll be needing Conservatives on NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN. I would include MSNBC, but nobody watches that network as it is.
Fair is fair. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
Don't forget the news at the top of the hour
March 24, 2009 - 20:53 ET by BlueCat57While some stations use SRN and other more conservative news feeds, most of the stations use the same liberal MSM that puts out the TV news. That gives them almost 10 minutes an hour of liberal output. And then you've got to count the RINOs on talk radio. Dr. Laura might be more conservative than Rachel Maddow, but is she really a conservative voice? (I actually don't know anything about Dr. Laura other than she took some nude photos when she was younger. I used her name because I can't think of any RINO talkers off-hand. I think Mark Levin calls them back benchers, so I'm sure there are some out there that are conservative on some things but not on everything.)
X
March 24, 2009 - 18:15 ET by serfer62Once you tinker with "Free Speech" then anything can be controlled...I say let'er rip say what you want and PC be damned...
"Why no Fairness Doctrine
March 24, 2009 - 18:16 ET by Chris Norman"Why no Fairness Doctrine attention to NPR? "
Oooh - oooh - call me! Okay, because the liberals would hilariously have the country believe that NPR sets the standard for fairness?
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
I would suspect that if
March 24, 2009 - 18:25 ET by MidAmericaI would suspect that if NPR's audience is growing it's because aging rock 'n roll boomers are slowing down to the speed of those painfully slow programs on PBS.
NPR
March 24, 2009 - 19:01 ET by nolotrippenNew Pravda Radio
Cut 'em loose!
March 24, 2009 - 19:34 ET by BlueCat57If they're so damned hot, let them earn their own pay. Cut off ALL taxpayer support immediately. Let's see them prosper in the market. The only reason they even have an audience is because all the "higher" education stations buy their programming from them. Cut 'em loose. If they need money they can sell their stations. The only reason I listen to public radio is it's the only thing I can receive that isn't crappy music from the dark ages of music (70's and 80's). AM reception dissappears in my neck of the woods at sundown so FM is all there is. I try to keep CDs loaded with MP3s in the car but sometimes I just flip over to NPR. At least I can say I haven't contributed to them. So take that Terry Gross. Has anybody noticed how liberal Marketplace has become. I started listening to it from day one. Didn't listen for a few years and now, bam, they are a bunch of socialists.
I agree, Bluecat
March 24, 2009 - 21:57 ET by trak65I used to listen to NPR a lot. It sometimes struck me as slanted, but not over the top. I think things changed after the 2000 election. Now I consider Marketplace to be Marxistplace. I seldom listen except in the interest of oppo-research, and I find this "fairness" doctrine idea totally ludicrous when you consider the biased, publicly funded NPR might be excluded. Even when they puport to offer "balance" the conservative viewpoints are often either from RINOs or hicks that are hand-picked to bolster their stereotypes of conservatives. NPR should be cut loose from the public teat.
It seems like it got
March 24, 2009 - 22:58 ET by MANstreammediaIt seems like it got progressively (no pun intended) worse over that time period.
I'm with you today Brent
March 24, 2009 - 22:57 ET by MANstreammediaIf someone provided evidence that anyone on NPR wasn't on Xanax (or another sedative) during the broadcast I would be incredibly surprised. While sometimes the fluff/entertainment/(actual) educational pieces are interesting, I find it amazing that a public institution is allowed to have a liberal political slant. I also wonder how the hell people can listent to this biased, monotone "news reporting" while driving without passing out and having a wreck. It just may be more dangerous than cell phones.
I will listen to NPR if they are interviewing
March 25, 2009 - 00:26 ET by thebutlerdiditsomeone I want to hear from, i.e., a member of a band, and I like to listen to David Sedaris read from his stories on there. I have also wondered if they pass out xanax in the break room. That Terry Gross chick freaks me out a little. I was just listening to a clip she did with the lead singer of the group CAKE, and I thought she was going to slip in a coma, if someone didn't give her some FRESH AIR. I vote for no more public funds for NPR, PBS, or any arts or cinema. Take your chances, people, if you are good, someone will pay for it.
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke