Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: NPR Bias?
Message-ID: <738@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 13:50:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxl.738
Posted: Thu Oct 24 13:50:45 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 06:34:51 EDT
References: <1746@akgua.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 52

I think it is the fact that NPR examines issues in depth which
leads to conclusions that it is "liberally biased".
There are many "facts" presented in the media by such unbiased
sources as Ronald Reagan which are never questioned by the
mainstream media.  Ronald Reagan says over and over and over and over
again:
 
"The U.S. unilaterally disarmed in the 70's"
 
The media reports that Reagan said:
 
"The U.S. unilaterally disarmed in the 70's"
 
Ask the typical American person, "did the US disarm in the 70's"
most will answer (in my experience of talking to hundreds of people
about the arms race issue): "Yes"
 
Yet if one examines the *facts* rather than Ronald Reagan's pronouncements
then one finds that, yes, to comply with arms treaties the US dismantled
some older weapons systems, just as the Soviets also dismantled some
older weapons systems.  Yet these systems were more than replaced
by new and more dangerous weapons so that in 1970 the US had 4000
strategic nuclear weapons, while in 1980 the US had 10,000 strategic
nuclear weapons.  NPR reports things like that.  The mainstream media
DO NOT.  To simply parrot official statements and positions without
critically examining them and also presenting the facts is irresponsible
and dangerous journalism.
 
One notes NPR's coverage of both sides of issues with its extensive
coverage of the State of Emergency in Nicaragua.  The mainstream media
have scarcely mentioned it.  NPR has given it extensive coverage.
 
NPR also presents opinions from all sides of the political spectrum-
conservatives Kevin Phillips and John Mcloughlin(spelling?) as
well as Democratic Socialist, Michael Harrington.
This is a refreshing change from the bland never too daring commentary
on the major networks.
 
Moreover what is "liberal" and "conservative"?  Is it "conservative"
to believe in the absurdity of Creationism?  Is presenting the
massive evidence in favor of evolution proof of liberal bias?
Or is one to only present quotations from the Bible irrespective of
scientific evidence?
 
On the other hand is it proof of conservative bias to point out
the problems with collective agriculture?  Or to report persecutions
of Soviet dissidents?
 
I think NPR does an excellent job of covering many issues neglected
by the mainstream media.  Such indepth coverage and broad spectrum
of opinion is invaluable.
      tim sevener  whuxn!orb