Foxnews.com picked up my NewsBusters blog post on National Public Radio's pagan-witch correspondent Margot Adler suggesting she just happened upon the president of the New York City Atheists in front of a "prayer booth" art project in New York City. An NPR publicist suggested NewsBusters was "absurd" and found nothing biased in the story at all:
NPR vehemently denied that its coverage was opposed to prayer or organized religion.
"There's no bias in this story and to imply that there is because of a reporter's religious beliefs is absurd," said Anna Christopher, an NPR spokeswoman. "[Adler] spoke with several different people with several different viewpoints on the booth."
Fox did report that Adler spoke to a young girl about praying for her dog, so I should correct my assumption that the seven-year-old person with the first name "Avery" was a boy. But NPR’s defense really grew shaky when it started downplaying its federal funding:
Asked whether their reporter was taking snipes at the faithful on the government dime, NPR was adamant that she wasn't and explained that only a minuscule amount of its funding comes from the government.
"Less than two percent [of NPR's budget] comes from competitive grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the National Endowment for the Arts," Christopher said. "There's no disrespect for religion at all. Our reporters are able to separate their private practices ... and their standards as journalists, and in no way does [Adler's] religious affiliation affect that."
This is actually the company line. As the NPR website states:
A very small percentage -- between one percent to two percent of NPR's annual budget -- comes from competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded organizations, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts.
This is clever, but the impression it leaves is not accurate. Isolating "competitive grants" is no measure of NPR’s federal funding. NPR receives substantial money from the CPB – through member stations. The 2007 financial statement of NPR Inc. shows under "Revenues" that $65 million of its $169 million in reported revenues come from "Station programming fees," and another $2 million comes from "membership dues." Member stations receive grants through CPB, which they send back to Washington for dues and programming.
NPR claims the member stations receive only 13 percent of their revenue (on average) from CPB, but the federal funds sloshing through the NPR system are substantial, not a "miniscule" fraction of their operating support.
When we have suggested cutting federal funds for public broadcasting, NPR’s spokesmen and executives wail to Congress (and shamelessly lobby the public) over any budgetary fraction that would be chiseled away, making a special point of stations in "underserved" minority communities.
As for Adler's pagan beliefs, my point was simply that the story didn't include any real rebuttal of the atheist's strange claim that religion can't be practiced in "public space," and that it was hard to believe that the meeting between Adler and the atheist was a complete fluke.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Sure, the meeting was a
November 25, 2008 - 17:52 ET by SickofLibsSure, the meeting was a complete fluke, just a co-inky-dink.
I'm willing to bet there are more Incas roaming around Manhattan than pagan-witch-journalists.
You know...
November 25, 2008 - 22:53 ET by Mike Bratton"I'm willing to bet there are more Incas roaming around Manhattan than pagan-witch-journalists."
...there's a comment or two I could make right about now, but I just got back from church, so I should be nice...
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
What's sad is, at it
November 25, 2008 - 18:18 ET by RR GOPWhat's sad is, at it appears to be, that these Lib MSM 'journalists' don't even know they are being biased.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall in their analysts' offices.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
RR... Heck with that..I'd
November 25, 2008 - 18:33 ET by bigtimerRR...
Heck with that..I'd love to be their analyst and collect their money...
Proof positive it isn't helping them whatsoever...we see/hear/read that everyday.
Leftist La-La-Land indeed.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Of course it isn't biased!
November 25, 2008 - 18:29 ET by niner-four-whiskeyOf course the story wasn't biased. It agrees with all of NPR's own internal belief systems, praise Gaia.
Environmentalism is a Religion to them
November 26, 2008 - 08:13 ET by PopularTechEnvironmentalism as Religion (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)
Censored Global Warming Videos
So take NPR at their word,
November 25, 2008 - 19:13 ET by HockeyKidSo take NPR at their word, and cut off public funding. If it's only 1-2% of their budget, they won't miss it at all.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
I am willing...
November 25, 2008 - 21:11 ET by The DistributistI am willing to believe the meeting was a fluke, but only if we employ a dictionary definition:
fluke 2
noun
1. a parasitic flatworm that typically has suckers and hooks for attachment to the host
We da taxpayer be da host... NPR's Adler be da flatworm... Po' li'l Avery be da sucker.
"Modern man is staggering and losing his balance because he is being pelted with little pieces of alleged fact which are native to the newspapers; and, if they turn out not to be facts, that is still more native to newspapers." -GKC
One of my greatest disappointments in the Republicans is that
November 26, 2008 - 01:01 ET by DaMavthey didn't completely eliminate the travesty of our tax dollars supporting NPR and its ilk. I remember bringing this up to a Republican Congressman at a meeting when the Repubs ran Congress and basically being told that instead they were going to make sure NPR was more balanced. I was polite but steam probably shot out of my ears. It was a key moment for me because I knew then and there that big government Republicanism had triumphed. 15 years ago conservatives said they would get rid of the Education Department. Now we had Republicans who didn't even want to defund freaking NPR.
NPR is a tax supported voice of the very far left (they frequently feature such nuggets as a one hour speech by Angela Davis), and their regular programming leans far to the left. They don't even try to appear balanced.
They are also complete frauds, repeatedly claiming "commercial free broadcasting" while bombarding the listener with 10 to 20 second spots from their donors. These are obviously commercials, bought and paid for. I don't run or own a radio station, but I can't help but wonder how their competitors feel about the government funding NPR.
There is no excuse at all for NPR continuing to suck on the public teat. Subsidizing broadcasting is, regardless of the bias, utterly uncalled for as a government expense.
This is a no brainer. If we can't get rid of subsidized broadcasting, good luck with getting rid of anything else the government wants to do. It's the canary in the coal mine.
The funding of NPR
November 27, 2008 - 07:36 ET by ahusserIs very similar to the handouts er bailout er loans to the Corporations on the brink.
Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. (On a Poster)
From The Bee Movie . . . .
November 26, 2008 - 02:25 ET by DoktorFrankenI like when the guys in the truck turn on the radio you hear:
''For NPR News in Washington, I’m Carl Kasell.''
And later when Barry B Benson is screaming along with another bug grasping onto antennas, the guys in the truck say:
DRIVER: You hear something?
TRUCKER PASSENGER: Like what?
DRIVER: Like tiny screaming.
TRUCKER PASSENGER: Turn off the radio.
Coincidence? I think not.
Lets take them at their word then...
November 26, 2008 - 08:48 ET by c5thenIf only 2% of their funding comes from "Government" sources, then they can't really complain about losing it, can they? Let's eliminate the CPB since it is so insignificant and let's also eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts since it's not an endowment at all but a budget line item.
As for the bias of the reporter...what are the odds that she would "run into" an atheist activist just at the moment when she happened to swing by the corner where the story takes place? He was obviously called and told to be there at a certain time. That is where the bias comes in. If they were really fair and ballanced NPR would have told her to get the views from all sides. Also you would think that any reporter in the United States of America would be able to point out when a spokesperson for any organization makes a statement that is so obviously unconstitutional as the atheist did here that religion should not be practiced in public but be relegated to only private areas. The first amendment clearly states that there can be no government established religion and no prohibitions on the free exercise of any religion. Isn't it incumbent on any journalist to document when any idea is counter to our Constitution and risks our liberties.
The story itself is trivial and meaningless, the concept whereby any individual group is allowed to espouce anti-constitutional ideas without even a counter argument is the dangerous point.
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012
Absurdity
November 26, 2008 - 10:02 ET by KC MulvilleNPR is just pounding the table. Their response is little more than saying, "Aw come on, we're not biased."
Not long ago, on NB, there was a story about a little fracas between Obama's spokesman Bill Burton and Megyn Kelly of FoxNews. The short of it was that Burton ignored Kelly, and simply rattled off his talking points. At one point, Burton abandoned all sense of respect for Kelly, and just kept talking while she tried to ask a question. One commenter, who happened to be a debate teacher, pointed out that Burton's behavior was common among a new trend of debaters.
I see that technique all the time, especially in the NYTimes. Both sides of the cultural divide are included (which the reporters use to cover their unfairness), but the liberal side makes accusations that the other side aren't allowed to address.
Hmmm,
November 26, 2008 - 13:57 ET by HillbillyKingI fail to see, Mr. Graham, how this;
As for Adler's pagan beliefs, my point was simply that the story didn't
include any real rebuttal of the atheist's strange claim that religion
can't be practiced in "public space," and that it was hard to believe
that the meeting between Adler and the atheist was a complete fluke
explains your inclusion of linked references to Ms. Adlers religous beliefs in your previous two articles regarding Ms. Adler.
As I posted in the your original NPR prayer article, I fail to see the relevance of including Ms. Adlers religious beliefs, while leaving out the fact that the artist responsible for the prayer booths, Dylan Mortimer, is a Christian Pastor at this Church.
In your SpongeBob waterboarding article, I can find no legitimate purpose whatsoever as to why you would include a linked reference to Ms. Adlers religious beliefs.
So why even mention Ms. Adlers religious beliefs at all Mr. Graham?
Seriously, the points you were making in both articles are easily made without the inclusion of Ms. Adlers religious beliefs. Which leaves me questioning the motive behind their inclusion.
I welcome all thoughts on this subject.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937