David Brooks: 'NPR Was Really Biased Ten Years Ago - Now It's Pretty Straight'
As NewsBusters has been reporting, liberal media members have been out in force the past few days defending NPR.
On this weekend's "The Chris Matthews Show," New York Times columnist David Brooks said, "I thought it was really biased ten years ago, but now I think it’s pretty straight" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
KATTY KAY, BBC: I don't think actually most Republicans object so much to the sums, because as you point out they're very small. It is the idea that you are funding public broadcasting that they believe has a bias. There is an argument for public broadcasting, you have to make very sure that your news reporting is seen as objective.
DAVID BROOKS, NEW YORK TIMES: I think NPR’s done a good job over the last ten years of reducing that bias. I thought it was really biased ten years ago, but now I think it’s pretty straight, and the federal money for NPR doesn't so much go for the big stations. It goes so they can go out to the rural parts of the country which wouldn’t have those stations otherwise.
Ten years ago, Brooks was working for the Weekly Standard. He joined the New York Times in September 2003.
Think becoming a New York Times "conservative" may have changed his view of NPR?
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
So instead of having lunch
Submitted by Thoreau on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 2:27pm.
So instead of having lunch with the Muslim Brotherhood today, they were having lunch with al Qaeda 10 years ago?Yeah, and you are pretty goofy, David.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 2:32pm.
Is that crease in Obama's pants still a turn on to you?See David got the talking points about the loss of NPR to the RURAL stations if Federal money to NPR yanked.
Brooksie's revealed himself!
Submitted by neutron on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 4:45pm.
Davie Brooksie's observation that NPR seemed (to him) more liberal a decade ago than now simply reveals how liberal Brooksie has become in the last decade, and that he cannot be reliably counted on as a Watchman (but we've known that he lost his conservatism for a long time).Since when does Tingles have
Submitted by VBaxter on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 2:33pm.
Since when does Tingles have TWO shows??? Anyway, I guess David has been drinking the NYT Kool-Aid these past 8 years.Ron Paul 2012
Had Obama loving and Obama
Submitted by TE on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 2:35pm.
Had Obama loving and Obama worshipping loon, cultist and moron David "Gergen" Brooks been asked ten years ago about NPR he would have also comically asserted that National Peoples' Radio was "pretty straight". Only now when it's convenient for Brooks does he claim that NPR ever had any bias. Don't ever buy anything that David Brooks sells.Brooks is the staff "conservative" of the NY Times . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 2:39pm.
. . . He's not a real conservative, and his take on NPR's liberal bias is skewed, accordingly. What the defenders of NPR tactically avoid is discussion of NPR's "rural" audience. Who is it?- Now It's Pretty Straight
Submitted by Miss_Me_Yet on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 2:41pm.
- Now It's Pretty Straight ', sort of in the same way Dylan Ratigan, Contessa Brewer and Anderson Cooper are pretty straight.
Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...
NPR defends itself
Submitted by Model850 on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 2:46pm.
This morning on Weekend Edition NPR ran a lengthy piece about the James O'Keefe video that set off the recent controversy about bias. The story claimed the recording was heavily edited to present certain quotes from Schiller out of context and made it appear he was saying things he didn't really say.
A lot of what was presented sounded credible and damaging to O'Keefe, but then it was coming from NPR and of course they are circling the wagons and looking to defend themselves. Still, I hope NB posts something about this alleged editing so as to present another viewpoint.
edit: TypoThis story broke almost a week ago and NPR is only now trotting
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 3:22pm.
out the "clever editing/taken out of context" excuse? And only AFTER both of the Schiller grand poo-bahs of NPR quit or were forced out? The timing doesn't strike you as convenient or suspicious?I don't think it has anything
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 3:39pm.
I don't think it has anything to do with timing. Timing is not important to liberal defenses -- they become important only when liberals levy charges against conservatives. When liberals get in trouble, it's a matter of spin, coupled with the fact that no other liberal outlet will point out the obvious deceit, duplication, and timing problems associated with their spin. It's like every statement is the beginning of the argument -- that all previous statements weren't made, and therefore aren't relevant.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Suspicious timing
Submitted by Model850 on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 5:33pm.
I'm not sure the timing is really relevant. The fact that the editing/out of context defense is being trotted out is what's important, and what needs to be refuted. It's also important to note that the primary source of this editing allegation was The Blaze, which states on its "About" link, "The Blaze is a news, information and opinion site brought to you by Glenn Beck and a dedicated team of writers, journalists & video producers." So I think these allegations might be more than just the usual lefty damage control.How so? This isn't some cog in the govt machinery like Sherrod
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 6:54pm.
that got forced out of their jobs, these were two head honchos at NPR making serious money. Again, where was the wailing and gnashing of teeth from either of them about out-of-context editing when the story first broke? Sherrod at least stuck to those guns from the beginning. There was no such reference or innuendo in any of the Schillers' public statements to my knowledge. Maybe I'm missing something, but I never heard this claim during the week, and among all of the endless media punditry and coverage, this is the first time I've seen this even suggested. Why force them out first and ask editing questions later? Given the shenanigans with Breitbart and the Sherrod video, I'd be more inclined to give credence to their claim had it been made from the beginning, but that ship has long ago sailed. Furthermore, why does this allegation "need to be refuted" just because NPR and some media group say so several days late and many dollars short? Liberals don't get to force their "seriousness of the charge" BS on the rest of us just because they want to. The burden of proof is on the accuser to prove their claim, not vice-versa. If NPR isn't prepared to offer any solid evidence, it's going to get the public reaction it deserves, i.e., that it's a transparent, desperate CYA attempt. And why in the world would a group with Glenn Beck's official seal of approval ever want to defend NPR?I guess I wasn't clear
Submitted by Model850 on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 10:47pm.
It is not NPR making the claims of out-of-context editing, it is the "group with Glenn Beck's official seal of approval" that analyzed the video and has said it appears to be edited. So, since as you say such a group wouldn't rush to NPR's defense, it makes the allegations "important" and, if not refuted at least examined more closely.
If these claims had originated with NPR and/or the ousted persons then, yes, I would agree that it's suspect and and "days late." As to why Schiller didn't raise the issue when the video first surfaced I have no idea. He would have to explain that. But since the issue of suspect editing was raised by a group no one would call a friend of NPR, I think it makes the charge a little damaging to O'Keefe's credibility, at least in this instance. You may -- and likely will -- disagree with me on that, but the fact remains that a conservative group has called this video into question.
Not lefties. Not NPR. Not the Schillers. Glenn Beck and associates have questioned this video. That troubles me and gives me pause to reconsider the contents of the video and its authenticity. I just cannot this development as "late to the party" damage control since the damaged parties really had no part in the allegations being raised. I still believe NB should at least comment on the issue and put it out there for the larger NB audience to evaluate. If you feel differently, that's your opinion and I respect that. We'll agree to disagree about things.
Link to story on The Blaze
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-raw-video-of-npr-expose-reveal-ques...
Not much to hang their hats on here
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 11:30pm.
I can respect your concerns about the video, and honestly I'm rather uncomfortable with these sorts of sting operation videos in general. While bringing up one or two salient points about context, other parts of the analysis range from ridiculous straw-grasping (speculation as to what the NPR execs did or didn't know), to the level of conspiracy theory (implying that O'Keefe intentionally altered/removed exculpatory audio). The only decent point I saw was their unedited view toward Republicans and conservatives. If anything I would've loved it if that portion had remained in the edited version so we'd know that 2 senior Republicans thought of the Tea Party as hicks and voted for Obama. The point about defunding local stations has already been brought up in subsequent coverage. In short I don't see anything here that lets the Schiller twins, or NPR for that matter, off the hook. Frankly, the political leanings of NPR are a moot point anyway, since the argument has largely shifted more toward whether taxpayers should continue to fund such a supposedly robust, flourishing news organization during a time of record deficits.March 13, 2021
Submitted by GregE on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 2:50pm.
In an interview today, David Brooks said of NPR: "...."I thought it was really biased ten years ago, but now I think it’s pretty straight...."David Brooks echoing the left
Submitted by Reaver on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 3:02pm.
David Brooks echoing the left wing talking point about underserviced rural areas is about as surprising as Katty Kay, from the government funded BBC, arguing in favor of government funding of broadcasters.Left Outed?
Submitted by fstaff on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 3:08pm.
Why do we still heed this weak minded CINO? I wrote him off, finally, and disgustingly, after his adoring description of Obama’s trouser creases.
Brooks is not a CINO
Submitted by libBuster on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 9:53am.
I would not call Brooks a CINO. I think "faux conservative" is more apt.Leftist media hacks behaving like firemen
Submitted by ChrisNH on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 3:21pm.
The metaphor is perfect. Here these leftist media hacks are, coming out to pour water on a blazing inferno. They are taking care to 'evacuate' and 'protect' fellow Leftist hacks on NPR and PBS while attempting to 'save the building.' There is no evidence that it's working.Another "House Conservative"
Submitted by BW222 on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 3:27pm.
Like so many "house conservatives" employed by the liberal media, Brooks makes big bucks playing a conservative on TV. Sure, George Will was critical of NPR today, so he will pen an anti-Palin article this week to placate his liberal masters.So I guess that makes Krauthammer
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 5:11pm.
a "house conservative" too. Good to know.Jer
Krauthammer has wandered off the reservation before,
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 7:03pm.
most notably chastising Delaware Republicans for not holding their nose and voting for eco-profiteering Mike Castle so the GOP would get some imaginary theoretical Senate majority. I mean, that tactic worked out so well with McCain, right?Exactly.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 7:09pm.
That Jer is ignorant of this fact tells you all about his vaunted "intelligence", which all liberals pride themselves on having. Krauthammer is probably about 1/6th of the way down the path to becoming David Brooks. Usually over the years, conservative media types become less and less conservative, while liberals media types turn from seemingly moderate into rabid nutcases.Visions and Principles blog
Krauthammer is better than most,
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 7:21pm.
and when he's on, he can be devastating. Same goes for George Will (usually). But I wonder if he still tends to see politics through the lens of the D vs R Washington "game", like who controls what committee chairs, who has the votes to pass or stall important bills, who drafts legislation X to get amount of pork Y for their states, who raises Z amount of money for the party and their reelection bids, etc., and not fully recognizing the political significance of the Tea Party.I did not see it.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 9:04pm.
Uncle Jer is the coolest guy in the room and I luz him. How do you know he is ignorant of that fact? You know, Uncle Jer and I share a room. Surely, he would have advised me of his fact ignorance by now. Is Uncle Jer having an affair? How is it you are more aware of what he knows than I? Something ain't right here. Were you the one that called last night and hung up the phone when I answered? Is this why you suddenly got all hostile on me? Is someone jealous?You continue to embarrass yourself, Tenebrous...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 11:04pm.
That you would simply presume (incorrectly) I am unaware of Krauthammer's position on the Castle/O'Donnell primary race--or for that matter his views on a broad range of issues--tells us all we need to know about your level of common sense [it is remarkably low] as well as your ability to divine what facts may or may not be known by another [it sucks].
It may surprise you to learn that I have been an admirer of Krauthammer--and an enthusiastic reader of his essays and opinion pieces for nearly thirty years--from the time he was a regular contributor to The New Republic and continuing to the present day. And his shift to the right--and that has been the direction of his ideological trajectory (despite your ignorant implications to the contrary) --while a bit disappointing, hasn't dampened my respect for his towering intellect one iota.
None of which has anything to do with my intelligence and everything to do with my desire and willingness to open my mind to a variety of ideas and colliding viewpoints from across the entire political spectrum. Maybe you should try it sometime.
Jer
As to the Castle/O'Donnel primary race.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 11:16pm.
Dr. Krauthammer was correct. I said it then. I say it today. At least a RINO Mike Castle would vote with us some of the time. A Democrat, the one that was elected, is completely useless to us.
Putting on my GOP thinking cap, Vet...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 11:43pm.
And at the risk of getting us both skewered by agreeing with you, Dr. Krauthammer and you are right. Even the most liberal Republican member of Congress will uniformly have a higher conservative rating than 90% of the Democrats [and vice versa] and will join with his or her party on the vast majority of votes and procedural measures.I concede there are reasonable counterarguments, but not convincing ones.
Jer
Remember all those conservative Blue-Dog Democrats
Submitted by lsudolemite on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 12:00am.
that stood up to Pelosi on Obama's signature legislation? Oh wait.Sure do, Isudolemite...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 12:16am.
Just exactly why do you think the public option got ripped out of the Health Reform bill? It was mostly due to the objections of the blue dogs.Jer
Yeah but they were paid off
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 1:56am.
Yeah but they were paid off like all good Democrats. Blood liable money.Then you'd think their constituents would've been more grateful
Submitted by lsudolemite on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 8:26pm.
last November for such a principled stand, no? All that token "opposition" accomplished was turning the heat up slowly on the frog in the pot of water, rather than all at once.The stand was in some cases principled...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 8:36pm.
and in other cases it was classic save-your-ass [and your seat in Congress] politics. And in some cases it helped, and in others it didn't.Jer
Oh dear heavens full of playful puppies and cute kittens.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 12:04am.
But. But. But. Carl Rove was right about Christine O'Donnel and got skewered for that. Turns out backing an unelectable conservative only gets you an elected Democrat and the hatred of the Obama haters like Tenebrous and barack_must_go.
And oh sweet mana laying about the rocks waiting to be picked up, don't ever ever ever admit you are not a birther in front of the racist barack_must_go and his butt boy tenebrous. They will throw a fit. It matters not that the man has locked in 26 months of a 48 month gig and has only 22 months to go. Let's continue to push a dead issue that makes us all look nuts OK?
Yeah, some of us realized that having a Republican majority in the House of Representatives means the Obama agenda has stalled on all unfinished business. But no, Gawd forbid we relax a little and get friendly with the Uncle Jer. NO. Let's up the rhetoric. Let's advocate armed rebellion, whip out all the racist comments and accuse every liberal we meet of being a pedophile while dropping F bomb after F bomb. And if we aren't doing that, let's backbite, snipe, and moan about the people that abhor that behavoir.
PS: I luz Uncle Jer. Luz him to bits. So up yours Tenebrous you backbiting little snit coward. Now prove I lied.
TROLL ALERT: Ad hominem is
Submitted by Miss_Me_Yet on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 3:16am.
.
Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 11:15am.
Pegged. You gonna finish that thought?
...advocate armed rebellion, whip out all the racist comments and accuse every liberal we meet of being a pedophile while dropping F bomb after F bomb.
Pretty apt description of you.
Merely sowing the seeds of future defeat and Dem political cover
Submitted by lsudolemite on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 11:57pm.
I'm sure I can rely on him to overturn the light-bulb ban that he heavily supported, or remain a rock-ribbed fiscal conservative when the present economic crisis has passed, right? How about the hard work on entitlement reform that will have to happen for long-term solvency? What future hare-brained legislation would Castle and his ilk sponsor or vote for, purely in the name of bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle, only to give credible cover to Democrats when the results are predictably disastrous. No, if Obama is intent on driving the national car out of the ditch and over the cliff with his pet legislation, then make the Dems own it, no escape hatch. By the way, how's Scott Brown doing representing the Republican brand these days, as well? By the time he figures it out, it'll be too late, b/c the former Republican representative Joseph Cao from here in Louisiana discovered the same thing. It won't matter how much he panders to liberals or left-leaning independents, because those people will vote in the real thing in a Democrat each and every time over a Dem-lite RINO. An upset in a special election can happen once in a blue moon, but it won't happen in a true general election, and the Tea Party people who pushed him over the finish line will stay home and make it happen.Those people out in the rural
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 3:36pm.
Those people out in the rural parts of the country, according to Brooks and his ilk, are a bunch of ignorant, toothless inbreds. And now he's saying those are people that NPR is eager to reach?
<snort>
When "it's for the children"
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 3:48pm.
When "it's for the children" doesn't work, or needs to be bolstered, then "oh, the humanity" needs to be trotted out. It's all in the playbook,:Chapter 4, Section 19.131, Paragraph e.__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Doctors left the proctoscope inside this moron,...
Submitted by BBallleaper on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 5:13pm.
and he loves it! What a complete and utter ass! God, why hast thou forsaken us and kept this idiot alive to harass us with his inane drivel! Save us O Lord!I don't think there has been
Submitted by shannon76 on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 5:58pm.
I don't think there has been anyone in all of human existence who screams the words GIANT WUSSY more than David Brooks. (and, yes, i was being polite with that 'W'). His Burkean notions of moderation will get us all killed.So What? David Brooks has changed, not NPR.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 7:10pm.
More evidence for the liberalization of house conservatives.Visions and Principles blog
Translation:
Submitted by needle on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 8:57pm.
Ten years ago David Brooks had at least some conservative “creds”; now he is a Kool-Aid drinking Liberal, and, just like the rest of NPR, cannot see the Liberal bias he is drowning in, like the sweaty stevedore who cannot smell his own body order.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
Think becoming a New York
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 9:11pm.
Think becoming a New York Times "conservative" may have changed his view of NPR?
LOL - That would put him about one step to the right of Uncle Ho.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
That's weird
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 9:27pm.
I was replying on another thread entirely"Now It's Pretty Straight'. Ha! NPR was gay 10 years ago and it
Submitted by Rush Fan on Sun, 03/13/2011 - 11:53pm.
is gay now (not that there is anything wrong with that)!Let me see if I get this NPR Rural thingy - we have to fund...
Submitted by acaiguana on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 6:27am.
NPR has absolutely no market appeal to doners to support rural oriented radio stations and therefore needs tax dollars to keep broadcasting on rural stations. Is that right? And NPR does not need tax dollars to keep broadcasting in the Blue Belt Coastal High population density SMA region. Is that right? So, the only way to keep NPR broadcasting its 'message' to the uneducated toothless red-necked crackers is to redistribute the wealth through the awesome power of the Federal Government's taxing authority. Is that right? WTF?? Does it matter whether the 'rural' audience doesn't bother to listen to their NY and LA drivel? ACA...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
That's funny...we used to think Brooks was pretty straight
Submitted by redright88 on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 8:44am.
10 years ago. Now we know he's just another liberal media mouthpiece