My understanding of the problems plaguing today's news media outlets is as follows: The majority of American news consumers are not interested in unbiased, objective reporting no matter how good it is. They would much prefer to listen to someone who is going to cater to their ignorance, and tell them what they already believe to be true. Hence, the popularity of personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. There is no commercial market for something like NPR so it relies on public funding and corporate sponsors. That it no way reflects on the product; simply the realities of the marketplace. Just because something is popular and profitable does not mean it has any inherent value, other then as a commodity. Right-wing media, as a rule, dispenses with any pretense of objectivity or even civility. That formula will always win out over reasoned and dispassionate discourse. We desperately need a new approach because the current one is not working...
Yes, we need more "objective" journalists like Keith Olberman (currently looking for work), Rachel maddow, and Chris Mathews.
ReplyDeleteTo call NPR "objective" is ludacris, asiude from "click and clack" it is merey hours of left-wing rant, presented in an overly-relaxed tone more appropriate for a library than radio.
For God's sake, Juan Williams was too far-right for the powers-that-be at NPR!
My question is not why this network needs my tax dollars, that is simply due to its offering a bad product, my question is: How does one remain awake while listening to its shows.
With the exception of Juan Williams, none of the journalists you mention worked at NPR. And NPR fired Williams precisely because his employers believed that he had compromised his objectivity by appearing on Fox, and confessing his fear of Muslims when boarding a plane.
ReplyDeleteThe marketplace is an extremely poor arbiter of quality. Most television programming is beyond dreadful, but I'm told uncounted millions eagerly consume this garbage. NPR delivers news and information in a conversational tone. I like it that way. Perhaps you prefer someone screaming at you. To each their own...
The marketplace does not guaranty quality; however, allowing the government to be the arbiter of quality will just about guaranty the product will be garbage.
ReplyDeleteNPR is self-described "National Palestinian Radio". Hatdly a ringing endorsement of its "independence."
Remember the Yugo? Built to the highest standards of a centralized government. How about that New York subway system, yes a vision of government beauty, eh? Oh yes, and fannie and Freddie certainly provided a safe and high quality mortgage backed security industry.
The problem is that you have endless faith in your government. You believe in the narcissisists in Washington.
All you will get with government funded media is a media that reflects the views of the government, it must be so to ensure further and increased funding. To believe that a government media outlet is somehow "independent" is ludicris. Remember Pravda? Hardly an independent voice.
If you like NPR so much, I recommend that you and those who agree with you pay for it. I have no problem with its existence, I just am not sure why I am forced to pay for a product I do not use, gain nothing from, and frankly dislike.
I only ask that the left stop coming to me to pay for its entertainment, inreturn I will ask nothing of the left.
Fair enough?
The original IRT Subway Line was built by a private concern. Likewise for the BMT (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit). Competing concerns. Guess what that led to? A dearth of convenient ways to transfer from one line to the other. Why? Well, for the quite obvious reason that they didn't want to encourage people to patronize their competition. You also had the inefficiency of duplicate routes. It wasn't until the city built the IND, and merged it with the other two lines, that some semblance of logic was applied to the system.
ReplyDelete