BUSH WATCH
stories... issues... bushreport... comedy... site map... contact...

Terri Gross gave a talk in Phoenix about a year ago. Afterwards she solicited questions. I started mine by saying she was a hero of mine - which she was.

Shortly after that I stopped listening to her altogether. I'd sent her emails asking her - in the name of intelligent debate - to interview people who might criticize the DubyaAdministration. She never did. She either interviewed people aobut Isreal-Palestine or celebrities. Nothing about the rising anti-Dubya fervor here in the USA.

This past October I pledged to my local station. Today I asked them to remove me from their donor list - I will never give money to NPR again [I had been a loyal supporter for years].

When these people started NPR 25 years ago, they were young, hungry. They had something to say. They were rebels against the establishment. 25 years later, they all Are the Establishment. Now they read Dubya's press reports & call that news.

The policy decision at NPR not to say anything against Dubya, started right after 9/11. I even heard once-respected Daniel Schorr refer to Dubya as 'our fearless leader.' He may be Schorr's - he certainly isn't mine. And NPR is not public radio. --T. Quigly, 01.25.03

Terri Gross Distorts By Not Asking The Obvious Questions

I too was disgusted and appalled by the line of questioning by Terry Gross on her program about the anti-war movement. Of course NPR's swing to the right (of center) is nothing new, it's been more than noticeable in recent years and especially since 9/11. From blatant omissions during the news and All Things Not Considered to the biased panels on Talk of the Nation, it's clear that corporate sponsors like ADM and weapons manufacturer GE are having their say. And now National Republican Radio has become what Dan Rather admitted to the BBC last year about mainstream broadcast media, they've been reduced to reading White House press releases.

What was most offensive about the Terri Gross program, beyond the divisive questioning, was the lack of questions about the anti-war movement itself. Here we have the greatest political movement in this country in 30 years, uniting people from across the broad spectrum of American culture, and not one question about what's motivating the diverse groups to come together - an unjust war.

And speaking of "goofy", last week's panel on Talk of the Nation's show about the widening philosophical/political gap between Europe and America was an exercise in bias. Every comment they made began with "The problem with Europe is...". The problem with Europe is the people want peace and the media reports it!

I used to criticize Fresh Air for wasting too much air time on useless television actors and writers (of whom we get more than enough drivel from the mainstream media glut), and not enough time to political thinkers and writers. Better she stays with fluff.

John Jopson
Florence, Italy

On January 16, 2003, Terry Gross did an interview with George W. Lieberman. I listened to the entire segment as I was driving cross-state, and it wasn't until the end that I realized she didn't ask a single question about Israel and Palestine. However, she did waste about 10 minutes hammering away at Lieberman and his wife about their views on abortion.

Now, I don't know about you, but it seems the potential for a Middle East implosion and world-wide conflagration exists more in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict than in whether the Liebermans personally agree with abortion.

Considering that Mr. Lieberman seeks the highest office in the land, is of the Jewish faith, and is a Republican in Democratic clothing, it's of paramount importance to know how he would approach the conflict in the Holy Land. Sadly, in almost an hour of time with Lieberman, Ms. Gross couldn't muster one single question on the subject.

NPR is still the best radio "mainstream" news available, but it's increasingly filling time with fluff and infotainment. I will never forgive NPR for it's sycophantic and slobbering coverage of Bush's coronation. Despite the presence of Daniel Schorr, Ms. Prakash, and occasional appearances by very good guests, NPR still can't match the BBC and independent radio programs for in-depth, skeptical, or investigative reporting.

Mike Kress Spokane, WA

To Ombudsman of NPR:

I have been a longtime listener of NPR and never have I been so appalled as I was yesterday at the blatantly biased interview by Terri Gross talking with a representative from ANSWER, the organizer of the peace march on Washington, Win Without War, and some SDS 60s peacenik. She clearly had an agenda. The whole show was a set up to discredit ANSWER and the peace movement by tying it to extremist groups. The red-baiting was a throwback from the McCarthy era. Most of the questions were divisive. Ms. Gross sullied the name of former Attorney General Ramsey Clark by calling him "goofy" and tying him to Sadaam Hussein. This is a man of principle, and integrity, loved and respected around the world. She tried to make each guest denigrate ANSWER in a way that I have never heard anyone else speak. I have never heard anyone connected with the march raise the concerns she raised. The ANSWER representative was kept on the defensive the whole, short (I might add) time she was on, and could not even discuss any positive aspects of the march. Of all the historic things to talk about in this diverse, international anti-war movement, all she could think to do was trash it. NPR has finally shown its true colors. You have already had to apologize for your coverage of the last march. Your actions after this march speak sadly for themselves. Don't bother to explain. Marian Lee Smothers, Baltimore, MD, 01.24.03

For the NPR ombudsman's response to a previous letter on a similar theme, see below

From: Don Hynes
To: ombudsman@npr.org
Subject: Is it really public radio or corporate sponsored radio?

You would expect National Public Radio to be better, but here's an interesting comment off the Democrats.com website: "While Pacifica radio devoted the entire day to coverage of the antiwar protests in DC and SF, "listener-supported" NPR spent exactly 2 minutes of its evening news coverage on the story. What did they cover instead? 10 minutes of idle transatlantic chitchat with a British journalist about the Queen's shocking public appearance in slacks following knee surgery.

From: Jeffrey Dvorkin
To: 'Don Hynes'
Subject: RE: Is it really public radio or corporate sponsored radio?

Dear Mr. Hynes,
It happens not to be true. But those who prefer their rumors second hand from democrats.com can expected this sort of nonsense.

Regards,
Jeffrey Dvorkin
NPR Ombudsman

Don,
The ombudsman's job in media organizations is thought to go to the fairest, most politic/polite member of the staff, right? Given such a hostile response from NPR's ombudsman, no wonder NPR is under siege by those in search of unbiased news.
Jerry Politex, 01.23.03

It's no secret that conservatives in Congress have sought to remove any government program that supports the arts and the media unless the government is able to control its political content. It's also no secret that the Bush Administration knows the propaganda value of the media and has sought to control it since its first day in office. The new Woodward book describes the personal relationship between the Fox boss and Bush, one of Bush's major campaign contributors owns the largest chain of radio stations in the country, and with Colin Powell's kid in charge of the FCC, our entire media network is fast becoming owned by fewer and fewer corporations more interested in making a buck than protecting the diversity of free speech. Now comes word from some Bush Watch readers that NPR is turning conservative. Are they right?

Is NPR turning conservative to appease its critics in Congress, has the Bush Administration gotten to NPR, or is NPR just being centrist? Whatever the reason, most, but not all, of our readers, some responding to an earlier letter by Kent Southard (see below), believe they are seeing the rise of a new, conservative NPR. Read their stories below and tell us what you think. --Politex, 11.20.02

NPR is the best we've got, and we should work/agitrate/contribute to making it better. Relief from depending on Congress for part of its funding would remove some of the rightward pressure. Check the Commonweal Institute's checklist for combatting the wingnuts; one of the first things is the independence of NPR.

By the way, Snigdha Prakash's analysis yesterday on All Things Considered was a very gutsy condemnation of the filthy connection between Big Pharma and the Repugs.

Terry Nelson
Green Valley, AZ

***

NPR has been drifting down a lazy river to the right for a long time. But lately it appears as though the raft has hit some rapids and heading toward a water fall. All one has to do to see the right wing bias in npr is to tune in to the Connection from Boston each morning. They've been having a steady stream of administration backers with either no dissenting views or a short interview with some wishy washy flunky.

We've emailed the show many times with no response. We have been life-long backers of NPR and PBS. but those two organizations have gotten the last donations we will ever give them.

Martin Freed and Ruta Vaskys
Fairbanks, Alaska

***

After reading the posted letters regarding NPR, I found myself grinning at seeing a well known truth finally revealed.

Deny it as many will, there has been an institutionalized media bias to the left for years. It is only recently, with the rise of talk radio and the birth of Fox, that there has been an alternative to the conventional left leaning coverage of years past. Much to the chagrin of those on the left, it has also proved to be quite popular. This fact has shocked many of those same people as they watch the media cushion they have had for years disappear.

Anyone who thinks NPR has become a right-wing outlet only shows themselves to be so slanted the other way that any balanced coverage seems unfair and biased. As NPR is a public entity financed in part by taxpayers dollars, it's role should always be to provide balanced coverage that presents views from both sides of the spectrum. The fact that so many of your readers are decrying it's recent trend towards fair coverage only proves that it has been left leaning for years.

Brian Ish
New York, NY

***

The analysis of responder "Bakho" (below) to the issue of changed political leanings at NPR is correct, but it doesn't tell the whole story. The underlying but inescapable fact which is permitting the bias shift in the media (towards the Republicans) is that nobody has the courage to call the press biased. Everyone still assumes the old cliche' of liberal media bias is true. Not one prominent Democrat has yet had the courage to challenge the broadcast press. Not one Democrat has pointed out that the broadcast/cable press (the only relevant press left) has slanted its reporting towards the positions espoused by the Bush campaign and, later, his Administration in every subtle and unsubtle way imaginable.

By any fair analysis it is clear that the press elected Bush , who was given a free pass on every misrepresentation he made while Gore (who mis-identified the official who was at a disaster site with him at a particular time) earned the label "serial exaggerator". Since then, there has been unquestioning coverage of Bush's proposals, with nary an analysis of what those proposals are. Rove's genius is in calling a bill the "Save The Forests Bill," while the bill provides for cutting the forest down. Bush might even show up in a lumberjack shirt to photo-op for the bill. And that's the last time you'll see the issue covered. Bush was actually ready to veto the "Homeland Security Bill" solely over the issue of whether lower level employees in the new Department would continue their Civil Service protection, but the press coverage was all about DEMOCRAT impediments to the bill. Now, the Republicans have a tremendous new Department to play in, where contributors and supporters large and small can play patronage games. Pretty amazing stuff.

The media outlets are just an arm of larger business entities, all with an interest in matters which are subject to government regulation. An honest and thorough analysis of the books of these companies (leaving out Fox news, which only EXISTS for ideological reasons) would display millions (billions?) of reasons why they would be more "sympathetic" to the conservative line. Bush would have to rape a nun on camera and then lie about it to receive any sustained, intelligent criticism. Instead, all you see is uncritical reporting of every Republican proposal. And for "balance," on the Democratic side you get either clowns like Al Sharpton and Michael Moore (camera whores both) or the occasional Democratic Senator who knows he is in hostile territory and is too afraid to speak honestly.

This will take years to fix, and not just one or two election cycles, either. The word must get out, and be repeated, that the media is heavily biased toward the conservative side. It is fair to say that when differing viewpoints cannot be honestly aired, democracy suffers.

--Dyinglikeflies

***

Yes NPR has become more conservative. Reporting is becoming more and more conservative and right wing. In terms of a reporting career, look at all the NPR/public TV types that have made the jump to commercial venues. With the rise of Fox Network there are more TV jobs for conservatives and pseudoliberals than liberals. Reporters looking to a future career must look where the money is, right. The rightward tilt of the TV media drags all other media to the right. If NPR took a truly moderate position, they would stick out like a sore thumb. The right wing attack on the liberal media makes NPR more cautious. The cutback in public funding has made NPR more cautious and wary of offending their listeners. I think it is the wrong strategy; NPR should cutback on the length of programming and speak their mind.

Democrats are being totally outgunned in the think tank arena. Brookings is a mixture of viewpoints. Not everyone there is "liberal". PPI and others don't have the same stature. Heritage and Cato have zero liberals, just right wing and far right wing. Plus, the GOP proposals are winning, and the winning proposals always get more attention after they are enacted. If NPR is looking for multiple points of view, they may find a moderate one from Brookings and a right and far right opinion from Heritage and Cato. There is more funding for RW tanks so there are more RW cards in the Rolodex.

Politics is often driven by extreme positions, not by arguments between left of center / right of center. Minimum wage and 5 day work week were all EXTREME positions when first introduced. Where is the think tank that is putting out radical left wing proposals that can drive the center to the left? It is not there. The Right has the far right to drive the center to the right.

The Democratic Party ranges from Zell Miller to Ted Kennedy and often fails to deliver a coherent message. The GOP has much more unity of message and discipline in message delivery. Therefore, the same GOP message gets repeated over and over, while messages from Democrats can end up all over the map and may never be repeated. This dilutes the message. The GOP consistently repeats the same message whether it is true or not, and makes it difficult for NPR and other media to report the true GOP position. The GOP legislates right and talks moderate. The only way the media can respond is to ask tough questions about the legislation, but with Bush, his reaction to tough questions is to deny access. End of story.

The liberal positions tend to be more thoughtful and complex, while conservative positions often amount to not much more than sloganeering. It is much easier to repeat slogans that it is to analyze complex issues. Democrats need to look at the messages being delivered and not just blame NPR. (5 day work week! Protect Social Security! Clear uncomplicated messages.) If the GOP is delivering an easily understandable, consistent, coherent message, the Democrats need to respond with their own easily understandable consistent coherent message. The political genius of the Contract on America, no matter how repulsive the ideology, was a clear message about what the GOP stood for. Even though they were not the majority party, the GOP was proposing a clear alternative. Democrats need to work on their message pronto and make positive proposals, even if they are not going to go anywhere legislatively. If Democrats presented a clear coherent program, then NPR would have something to report. As it is the GOP sets the agenda and the Democrats get defensive. That is a sure way to let the opposition message dominate and fail to deliver your own message.

As the 2004 election approaches, the Democrats will get more coverage. It is already starting with the Gore interviews this week. Working against the Democrats is the short election cycle that ends long before the election and could push the Democratic winner out of the limelight. However, the election cycle will start sooner rather than later because the primaries are frontloaded. NPR will cover each of the Democratic candidates, and the Democrats as a whole will get more airtime than the GOP. The Democrats need to make some agreements among themselves on issues that differentiate Democrats from Bush and use the primary coverage to get that message across.

There is no doubt that the reliance on business support and donations have made NPR much more cautious and less willing to offend potential donors. The funding crunch also cuts out the ability to do more investigative reporting and causes reporters to rely more on wire and other canned sources. The expanded NPR 1.5 h format means they have more time to fill and less money for programming. That causes them to go to canned information. The Canadian program, As It Happens, is only a half hour, but it packs a lot of bite and hard-hitting, to-the-point interviews. It is more like the old NPR and a better listen.

As for Daniel Schorr, he hates Clinton. It is the same with the rest of the press corps. That does affect their reporting. They are not over it. In terms of treatment of Bush, NPR cuts Bush less slack than the other media. They do try to be fair and balanced. At least they are not Bush sycophants like WP's Michael Kelly. Yes, today's NPR is further to the right than the original NPR, for a variety of reasons. It helps to keep writing NPR, but complaints about conservative bias are going to have less effect than positive suggestions about liberal issues that should be covered but are not. --Bakho, 11.21.02

***

NPR has very clearly taken a right turn. I believe it has been happening for a long time but the main cause was when federal funding was yanked a few years back (thanks to our old friend Newt). Since then they have turned more and more to corporate sponsers. Have you noticed how the commercials for these sponsers have gotten longer and longer? It used to just be the name of the sponser. Then they added a tagline to the name. Now, some of them go on and on about their product line and what it will do for your life.

My feeling is that as these corporate sponsers sink there claws in deeper and deeper, they continue to gain more and more say over the content and the spin that is to be applied to the content. So what is our choice? If we pull our funding then they will have to depend even more on corporate sponsers. The real issue is that my tax dolloars now go to support prince dubya and his corporate cronies instead of public radio. I don't know what we can do except keep writing letters to both NPR and our local stations, such as they are.

Bob Davidson
Chapel Hill, NC

***

I look to NPR for a straight reading of the news, with balanced coverage of conflicting views. Most of the time NPR delivers exactly that, which is more than I can say for all other media (including independent media).

Eric Welsh

***

I’ve been listening for many years to Morning Edition and All Things Considered. I noticed a shift to the right in the 1992 timeframe, before the mid-term elections. I chalked it up to an attempt to be "newsworthy", finding something to report. After The Newt was in charge, the shift to the right became pretty obvious. The ridiculous coverage of the Florida coup in 2000 sealed it. To report the idiotic lies from the Republican operatives as facts, or at least unchallenged statements, was indicative of NPR's attempt to "prep" (protect) themselves for a potential change of power.

I finally ceased listening this year, as we are lucky enough to have a great classical radio station in LA, KUSC. They break at the hour with a brief NPR news update, so I do get to hear a little. I only tune into KCRW occasionally to hear ATC or ME.

I note today that the so-called Total Information Awareness system (TIA) is being covered on NPR as the hourly lead story; whereas, it has been buried in the LA Times. Problem is, the only guy quoted is saying "it’s just a trial system, and will only use simulated data, so people have no worries about any privacy infringement". Huh. Well, that certainly makes ME feel better, knowing that the everything-in-your-life data in the system will be simulated. I can’t believe NPR would not address the question: what’s to prevent these totalitarian control freaks from throwing the switch to REAL data and not reporting it on the basis of ‘national security’? I can’t believe anyone with half a brain would believe that we’d spend multi-millions on a super database and storage array to track every person in the country in real-time, and never use it. It’s like giving Osama a plane with a full tank of gas and expecting him to land as directed at LAX.

But nope, not a word.

Might as well listen to Rush, at least I’d get a laugh once in awhile.

Mark Galbraith
Santa Barbara

***

Bush Watch readers whining about a percieved drift to the right in NPR reporting, due to conservatives' attempts to cut funding, have a simple counter available. JOIN!!!! If people looking for unbiased reporting put their money where their mouth is, public broadcasting will need no Federal support, and will be free of Congressional intimidation.

A similar way of dealing with the NRA was suggested on The West Wing" a couple years ago. If all the gun registration advocates joined the NRA, they could turn its policies around in one leadership cycle.

I have felt for years that the perception of a "liberal media" ws the result of reporters on the scene reporting what they saw, instead of what some people want to believe is true. "I've made up my mind; don't confuse me with facts!" Liberals can be just as self absorbed and self righteous as conservatives, and seem to have descended into the same name-calling, simplistic, "us vs. them, choose a team" mentality. If you hear something on NPR that doesn't fit your worldview, just consider that perhaps you don't know everything. Republicans don't have a monopoly on cluelessness.

--Richard Peterson

***

NPR has been steadily drifting to the right for a long time now. But lately, it has become practically indistinguishable from the right-wing propaganda echo chamber that is commercial broadcasting.

Southard is correct in his observation that the rolodexes of NPR producers, who are compelled to fill their time slot with something, are brimming with dog-eared cards from the likes of Cato and Heritage. When NPR airs the views of these organizations, they NEVER characterize them for what they are ('conservative,' 'extremist' or 'right-wing') while they always use the term 'liberal' on the increasingly rare occasion they offer any opposing viewpoint at all.

But the interviews themselves show very clearly the conservative marching orders in place at the highest levels of NPR. How else can one explain, for example, Scott Simon's use of Andrew Sullivan as a commentator?

One example is an interview Bob Edwards did on Morning Edition on April 4, 2001. On that Wednesday morning, Edwards asked Elaine Chao, Bush's Department of Labor Secretary, about her Dikensian views. Strangely, she confidently said that the "election" of 2000 showed that "America has chosen a different path." Why would she utter such a lie? Were the two of them reading from a script? Why didn't Edwards counter that "America" had not only chosen a different president, but also a president whose "path" was completely at odds with Chao's?

One rare occasion where a critical tone was heard was on July 12, 2002. Bob Edwards was talking with James Doty, senior partner at Baker Boggs. In the 1980's, Doty was Bush's personal lawyer and helped arrange Bush's purchase of part-ownership of the Texas Rangers, then was named Securities and Exchange Commission General Counsel. Doty was at the SEC when it investigated the Harken Energy deal and decided to drop its probe to appease then-president Poppy Bush.

In this interview, Doty had the temerity to say that in the Harken deal, Bush "met not only the letter but the spirit of the law," and that he was and is "a compliant person." Doty said that the SEC had "exonerated" Bush.

This time, Edwards essentially started World War III. He said, "Let me find it. Let me find it," amid sounds of rustling paper. He then quoted directly from the letter, the line which said that the letter cannot be construed as an exoneration. This caused Doty to just sputter incoherently.

Shortly after this, as we all know, Bush decided that Saddam was indeed a very, very bad man. And the few remaining shreds of our cherished way of life, with its liberty and justice for all, was summarily scuttled.

NPR learned its lesson. Turn it on and, between stories about video games, all you hear is Armed Forces Radio and the latest Rove-penned script for the day.

Sally R.

***

I have been an avid listener and supporter of NPR since its inception, and have been sending emails to NPR and our local affiliate KLCC for years, complaining about the "think tank speak" every morning on NPR. It all started during the Clinton years, with constant criticism of the President and his policies. The same treatement has not been given to Bush, and even Karl Rove has appeared on Morning Edition. No coverage of the Enron affair either, or Harken, or Halliburton, or anything that could affect Bush approval ratings. After our local station manager forwarded my messages up the chain, I started to receive replies, which basically denied my concerns, asking me to be more "specific."...The right wing think tank speak continues, and I have stopped supporting NPR. I cannot take the anger and frustration that NPR introduces into my life each morning. Instead, I read Bush Watch on the 'net. Thanks.

Steve Burkle
Yachats, OR

***

If you really think that NPR is conservative.....I don't even know what to say to a statement like that. I suppose your website is fair and balanced then.

Jim Roletter

***

I absolutely agree that NPR is no longer of any use to anyone left of, say, Bill Clinton. I don't find this is just a recent thing however. I believe the drift to the right started in 1994 when Newt's Raider's began slashing and threatening to defund any public groups that wouldn't fall into line. NPR began falling promptly. I recently had a discussion with Antonia Zerbisias of the Toronto Star and Globe&Mail on this: she was not aware of how bad it is getting. Even the old lion Dan Schorr is useless as a commentator anymore. If he can't work in some reference to the heroic days when he was on Nixon's enemy list, he hardly has anything to say at all.

I concur with all the posted letters detailing specifics of this dismaying dereliction of duty by what used to be a valuable public asset.

Larry Rinehart
Pennsylvania Green Party

***

I noticed some time ago that NPR had taken on a decidely rightward slant. I was a long-time supporter of WNYC in New York, which is the primary NPR outlet here in the NY Metro area, but no longer. I heard the shift begin after Selection 2000 and I believe it really took hold after the Jeffords move.

Sept.11 closed the deal and NPR pretty much has become another propaganda outlet. I guess that's what people want to hear and I'm sure NPR wants to keep the money flowing.

As if this wasn't bad enough, the local outlet discontinued much of their classical music programming. At one time NPR was somewhat an alternative, both for news and music. There are now many non-commercial stations in the metro areas that carry the same NPR programming. Radio, a once vibrant communications medium, is now only a shell. College radio, long an alternative, is increasingly becoming commercialized if not closed down. Programming is being computerized with no local content as the Clear Channel monopoly takes over. It is really a sad state of affairs.

I have returned to the local Pacifica station as that is the only alternative voice left.

Paul Neuman

***

I think Kent Southard is right on target. Sick of NPR's coverage of current events I dashed off the following email to NPR's morning edition entitled "OK,NPR-Where'sTheDebateGone?". Didn't get a reply, of course. [Their answer MIGHT be along the lines of "Well, there seems to BE no debate; are the news services obliged to lead the charge? After all, the so-called democratic 'opposition' doesn't seem to object to Bush policies". They might even have a point.]

"I listened to the "listener opinions" this morning and -- quite frankly -- find it impossible to believe that all we have on our minds is "Muppets" and the "origins of Elvis". After all -- this is now a country where the economy is in sharp decline with one outrage following another while our "government" would have us sign off on a wicked war on false pretenses -- so they can nab some oil fields for themselves and their well-connected friends. A far cry from the Clinton era when you ensured that every move was dissected and examined. To listen to NPR, one could be forgiven for believing that there EXISTS NO DEBATE on these urgent matters from any quarter in the US. This is an unqualified and absolute disgrace.

There is little or no difference between NPR and the cowed, cowardly, and coopted main-stream media. The price you are paying is total loss of credibility. I, for one, am wondering why NPR exists. Given the current situation (which I glean from foreign sources, by the way), I can't be the only one, surely."

R. Pates
Albemarle, VA

***

Far be it from me to comment on other people's ideas of "conservative" vs. "liberal" in connection with NPR. My own opinion....and I've been listening to it for 20 years....is that it remains one of the few sources of news that does NOT slant the news...in either direction. Is it possible that some people are overly sensitive to this sort of thing? I don't expect NPR to be a cheerleader for ANY side of the political spectrum. In my opinion, it is, along with PBS, a superb source of news.

Jan Overstreet
Murphys, CA

***

I couldn't believe the leading story on your website this morning! It's as if you read my mind! I noticed NPR's slant to the right a few months' ago, and have written them questioning it. (They've never responded.)

One morning I woke to the announcer on NPR "reporting" on the N.J. Senate race between Forester and Lautenberg. The announcer was stating whom the local newspapers were endorsing in the senate race. This was fine, until they ended with the NY Post's endorsement, which was for Forester. The station then took things a step further. After reading the Post's endorsement, as they had done for the other papers, they went on to read the reasons why the NY Post would not endorse Lautenberg. It was incredibly ugly and negative -- a little bit shocking, as the Post is wont to be. I waited, but the story ended. There was absolutely nothing negative reported about Forester to "balance" the story. I was appalled.

I tune in less and less to NPR -- and to all media -- except the Internet.

I also notice Saturday Night Live leaning way right this season -- and they're totally not funny.

L. Harrison

Bucks County, PA

***

Letter to NPR

I've found myself listening to NPR less and less, as it seems you've become little more than the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute Op-Ed network; no doubt due to long-standing GOP control of your budget and operations, control which even now is eviscerating your news staff. Yesterday morning was a case in point - tuning in to see what might be said in regards to Nancy Pelosi I was saddened, if not shocked, by the obviously Karl Rove scripted attack on her as 'too liberal for America.'

Why not a feature on her counterpart Tom DeLay: 'Too conservative for America?' DeLay is a Christian Reconstructionist, after all, and has told the Washington Post that he believes our government should be replaced by 'government by the Bible.' But no, we get nothing of this from you.

Your continued debasement has sunk to rank cowardice and betrayal of the American people and our nation's ideals. If you don't have the guts to stand up for what's right, then you should quit, otherwise you're just becoming willing accomplices of the fascism already well underway.

Kent Southard, 11.18.02

***

we were listening to NPR last evening and could not believe what we were hearing. we do not intend to tune in anymore. how sad.

--Joan Murphy

***

I have always been a little bit dubious about Kent Southard's credentials as an opinion writer, but today's letter to NPR shows that he is essentially a raving lunatic who deserves to be classified in the same category as idiots like Rush Limbaugh and Chris Matthews. The idea that NPR has some sort of conservative, Republican agenda is patently absurd. In fact, last night I went to bed listening to a program on NPR about the history of the Freedom Summer in Mississippi in 1964. Does Kent think that a program like this would be aired on a station that has a conservative bias? Does Kent think that a station that broadcasts Daniel Schorr and myriad other liberal voices has a conservative bias? What kind of idiot is this guy? Just because he happened to turn the radio on and hear some comment (likely taken out of context) that didn't match up with point of view doesn't mean that NPR is being run by Tom DeLay. This kind of comment is the same thing you would hear from people like Limbaugh, Matthews,and other morons like Sean Hannity. Do yourself a favor and tell Kent to take his unsupported and factually inaccurate conspiratorial rantings to some other website.

I otherwise think your site in fantastic.

-Rice Fuller

***

We asked Kent to respond to the above letter.

I think this guy doth protesteth too much. Just a week or so ago, NPR's sole investigative reporter (Daniel Zwordling? or something like) got sacked, and the reason given was 'to preserve NPR's core mission.' Seems to me their core mission more often than not anymore is to provide a radio forum for Scaiffe's front groups. Did you hear the Pelosi interview? The guy started out exactly like this - 'You voted against war on Iraq, you voted against Homeland Security, you're in favor of gay marriage - don't you think you're too liberal for mainstream America?' (With great emphasis on 'mainstream') To her great credit, Pelosi called him on his framing her like that, and he stuttered a bit, but his intent (and marching orders) couldn't have been more obvious. I got mad. I've been mad at NPR for a while, but now I got more so.

-- Kent

***

Thank you, Kent Southard. I have been listening to NPR for more than 20 years. Sometime ago I began noticing the shift to the right. They solicit an opinion from the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Enterprise Institute and NEVER balance that with an opinion from the other side. I see bias and it has crept into ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, MORNING EDITION, AND WEEKEND MORNING EDITION. You can hear it in the commentators voices. Last week, someone interviewed Nancy Pelosi and it was not a balanced interview but, I'm happy to say, she put him in his place!

I wrote a letter to the President of NPR and, of course, did not receive a response. Sent one also to the ombudsman. Again no response. Finally, I called my local NPR station and withdrew my membership. I listen to NPR because it's the only game in town but a lot of their stuff I discount. It is biased.

I'm glad to know that other people are hearing what I am hearing!

--Molly Karpin

***

While this one is not focused on the above discussion, it seems relevant.

I agree whole-heartedly with the need for Democrats to get their own media outlets. but in the meantime, let's support the few we have. The reason that Donahue is being killed in the ratings by O'reilly is that people on the political left tend to be wary of answering polls and participating in surveys. If only Republicans are answering it is only narural that Fox will win. Please take the time to participate if you are asked. Also sign up for the viewer email alerts from Crossfire, Donahue etc. and send emails to the programs often. That is another way that the networks gauge viewer loyalty. Don't let the Republicans be the only ones who support their media.

--Elizabeth McCarthy

***