[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Lets be clear about this. Enough pointlessness.

Two issues:

1) NPR has a "liberal" bias

Besides saying that people have this opinion or perception, there has been zero evidence to support it. Provide some or concede the point.

Students at the University of Kentucky were treated in early April to a fervent anti-war and anti-Bush diatribe by a national left-leaning celebrity. In an accusatory tone, the speaker claimed President George W. Bush had "offered an attractive bribe to Turkey in exchange for permission to use Turkey as a base from which to invade Northern Iraq" and charged that he had "told the rest of the world that the United States is ready to act alone in virtually every field." The celebrity railed against the press for allegedly not being as tough on Bush as it was on former president Bill Clinton, declaring: "The press didn't wait until the intern scandal to ask tough questions of Bill Clinton, so why is the incumbent getting a pass?"

The long, rambling speech, which was reprinted in the Louisville Courier-Journal and by the Media Research Center, also bashed radio stations for playing patriotic music as the United States went to war and even for playing the national anthem. Of particular concern to the speaker was the website of Washington's all-news radio station WTOP, which linked to armed-forces websites and forwarded e-mails to troops.

"Balancing all that were links to two peace groups," the speaker complained. The speaker then announced that public annoyance with the antimilitary pronunciamentos of celebrities such as the Dixie Chicks was symptomatic of a new McCarthyism.

"Witch burning is an ugly chapter in our history," he said. "It should not be revived, even if it's good for business."

Who was this celebrity? One of the febrile Hollywood left? Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen? No, the author of this rant was none other than newscaster Bob Edwards, host of "Morning Edition" on the "objective" National Public Radio, or NPR.

The speech came after he was inducted into the Kentucky Journalism Hall of Fame. And Edwards even used the platform to take a dig at his competitor, Clear Channel Communications Inc. He claimed that the Dixie Chicks' sagging album sales after the group's lead singer, Natalie Maines, said on foreign soil that she was "ashamed" of President Bush were not the result of listener disgust, but due to a conspiracy by San Antonio, Texas-based Clear Channel.

"Clear Channel loves George W. Bush," Edwards said. He offered no evidence for the alleged conspiracy, and Clear Channel repeatedly has denied requesting, directing or ordering its radio stations not to play the Dixie Chicks.

Responding to the NPR anchor's diatribe, Chris Chandler, a news anchor for Louisville's WHAS-AM, which is owned by Clear Channel, wrote in a letter to the media website Poynter.org: "Apparently, this brand of liberal reactionism is tolerated � or even expected � at NPR. ... If Edwards can deliver a speech like that and still expect to be taken seriously as an objective observer the next morning, somebody should really give him this message: Those who live in government-subsidized glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones."

But now NPR again is being accused of blatant bias, and this time not all the grumbling comes from conservatives. The critics accuse the network of peddling gross distortions and falsehoods about Israel and muzzling criticism of militant Islam. NPR appears, for instance, to have blacklisted Steven Emerson, a prominent critic of militant Islam who has testified as an expert witness before Congress. After Emerson was interviewed briefly in August 1998 on NPR's "Talk of the Nation," the network received angry e-mails from activists spurred on by the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, whose leaders have expressed support for the terrorist group Hamas. Producer Ellen Silva e-mailed one of the activists with this message: "You have my promise that he won't be used again. It is NPR policy."

One area critics say definitely needs improving is the network's reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When it comes to bias against Israel, "NPR's probably the worst. Worse than CNN, worse than ABC," says Alex Safian, associate director of the Boston-based watchdog group Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, or CAMERA. A CAMERA study of two months of NPR's Middle East coverage in the fall of 2000 found that, in 350 interviews, pro-Arab speakers received 77 percent more time than pro-Israeli speakers. The study also found that, for the same period of time, there were almost twice as many segments with only pro-Arab speakers as there were segments in which only Israelis were interviewed, and that the pro-Arab segments were nearly four times as long. Safian adds that even television's PBS network is less biased than NPR.

And NPR has refused to take responsibility when it falsely reports major facts, Safian says. He points to a story in the fall of 2001 describing the fatal shooting of a Palestinian girl working in an olive field. NPR reported that she was killed by Israeli settlers, when in fact her shooters were unknown and the shooting began when armed Palestinians hiding in the olive field opened fire on Israeli soldiers despite the presence of civilians.

"The New York Times covered it, the AP [Associated Press] covered it, and they all got it right," Safian says. "NPR got it wrong." Safian recalls that it took six weeks to get NPR to air a correction, after CAMERA brought it to the attention of network President and Chief Executive Officer Kevin Klose and several board members. And even then it was not really a correction. While NPR said it was wrong to report that Israeli settlers had killed the girl, it implied that the real culprits were Israeli soldiers. "They don't mention that the Palestinians were hiding in the olive grove and ambushed the soldiers," Safian remarks. "That they leave out entirely. ... They still didn't do an honest correction."

Safian adds that NPR rarely if ever refers to Palestinian suicide bombings as terrorism, and referred in June 2002 to Palestinians who invaded an Israeli home and killed a mother and three of her children as "commandos." CAMERA pointed out on its website that "to most people (and according to dictionaries), commandos are elite troops whose mission is characteristically to save lives and even to rescue hostages from terrorists � not to slaughter defenseless civilians in their homes." NPR did run a correction, admitting that Israeli officials did not refer to the gunmen as commandos, but the correction appeared on NPR's website and was not broadcast.

In NPR's paradigm, say critics of this contrivance, the real terrorists are conservative Christians. Last year, without any evidence whatsoever, NPR correspondent David Kestenbaum linked the conservative Traditional Values Coalition, or TVC, to anthrax attacks on Congress. In January 2002, Kestenbaum called TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty to ask if she had been contacted by the FBI yet. The reason he gave for introducing this ugly innuendo was that TVC had put out a press release criticizing then-majority leader of the Senate Tom Daschle, D-S.D,) and then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., for dropping the phrase "so help me God" from the oaths of Senate witnesses.

"Reporter Kestenbaum's tone was very clear," Lafferty recalled in testimony before the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. "He actually believed that I, [the] Traditional Values Coalition, our members and other Christians and conservatives we associate with would mail anthrax to those with whom we disagree."

Kestenbaum then aired a report about anthrax which included the charge that the TVC "had a gripe with Messrs. Daschle and Leahy." The report also discussed the Unabomber and cited Planned Parenthood's allegations that hoaxers sent it white powder in the mail. Said an editorial in the Washington Times, "In essence, NPR was linking the TVC with anthrax hoaxers and a serial killer based solely on the fact it had criticized the senators' position on the prayer."

It took NPR more than a year to issue an apology as part of the settlement of legal action by the TVC. Coalition spokesman Jim Lafferty, Andrea Lafferty's husband, says he is forbidden to disclose the terms of the settlement, although he confirmed that NPR paid TVC an undisclosed amount for damages. NPR declined to confirm or deny payment or settlement terms.

From this article

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It works out to 50 cents a year per American.

As for the rest of your spiel, I stated my opinion: NPR, with it's large listener base, could very well become a private entity. Furthermore, I do not want the US government owning or subsidizing media outlets as a matter of principle, irregardless of the outlet's content.

hm. but you apparently DO want media outlets that are government yesmen (FOX) who have relatives of the president in influential positions, deciding how news is covered....right?

I don't see you objecting to THAT as a conflict of interest, but somehow NPR strikes you as such. The very odd thing is, you feel NPR is anti-the bush administration...if there were being influenced by the funding,..er..don'cha think they be influenced in the opposite direction?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
hm. but you apparently DO want media outlets that are government yesmen (FOX) who have relatives of the president in influential positions, deciding how news is covered....right?

I don't see you objecting to THAT as a conflict of interest, but somehow NPR strikes you as such. The very odd thing is, you feel NPR is anti-the bush administration...if there were being influenced by the funding,..er..don'cha think they be influenced in the opposite direction?

I repeat for the third time....

NPR, with it's large listener base, could very well become a private entity. Furthermore, I do not want the US government owning or subsidizing media outlets as a matter of principle, irregardless of the outlet's content.

That is my position. What part of that do you not understand?

You are making unfounded accusations and assumptions, when I have specifically and clearly stated my position on government funding of media outlets.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
From this article

Spacefreak, you posted what appears to be an editorial, not an article. Secondly, despite all the hoo-ha in the editorial, I don't find what Bob Edwards said inflammatory, like if he had said "Bush sucks" or "Get him out of office".

If you want inflammatory, how about "CAIR, whose leaders have expressed support for the terrorist group Hamas." The whole editorial reads like a pissed-off conservatives venom and has its own bias; it's not "objective news".

I see what you are trying to do, but I think NPR is liberal like liberal education is liberal: open to new ideas. NPR often has all sides of the debate and offers what many percieve to be the best news.

Hell, it's the best 50 cents I ever spent.

[thunderous_funker]

3 claims:

1) Bob Woodward is biased
2) blacklisting of a Emerson
3) CAMERA accuses them of pro-Arab slant on mid east coverage

Let see now.

1) One biased man does not a biased network make. Regardless of that obvious fact, he is free to express his opinion on his own time. He was a guest speaker at a function to honor him. The comments that your article cites as "anti-war diatribe" didn't appear on NPR.

2) Emerson is hardly an "expert" by any measure. He is a journalist with a very very dodgy record of false statements, plagarism, deeply bias and often just flat out wrong in his "expert" analysis.

Whether or not he was "blacklisted" by NPR seems questionable, but even if he had been there is a good argument for why his opinion shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.

3) If you didn't already know, CAMERA is pro-Israel lobby group. Link

E for effort, but this doesn't even come close.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Spacefreak, you posted what appears to be an editorial, not an article.

I quoted that piece because it provided well-documented examples of NPR bias.

I see what you are trying to do.

All I am doing is giving my opinion and position. Hopefully, that is what you see.

Hell, it's the best 50 cents I ever spent.

That's great - you should have no problems then supporting a 'privatized' NPR.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
If you didn't already know, CAMERA is pro-Israel lobby group.

So you are prepared to provide evidence contradicting their findings?...

A CAMERA study of two months of NPR's Middle East coverage in the fall of 2000 found that, in 350 interviews, pro-Arab speakers received 77 percent more time than pro-Israeli speakers. The study also found that, for the same period of time, there were almost twice as many segments with only pro-Arab speakers as there were segments in which only Israelis were interviewed, and that the pro-Arab segments were nearly four times as long.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
All I am doing is giving my opinion and position. Hopefully, that is what you see.

I have no problem with you giving your opinion and position, but I disagree that NPR is liberal, or at least point you to the liberal as in "to develop the general intellectual capacities" as liberal arts.

If you mean "leftist," however, I don't think that is true either, though I realize we're not going to win eachother over on this.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Emerson is hardly an "expert" by any measure. He is a journalist with a very very dodgy record of false statements, plagarism, deeply bias and often just flat out wrong in his "expert" analysis.

Much like the 4th claim that you failed to address...

Last year, without any evidence whatsoever, NPR correspondent David Kestenbaum linked the conservative Traditional Values Coalition, or TVC, to anthrax attacks on Congress.

Kestenbaum then aired a report about anthrax which included the charge that the TVC "had a gripe with Messrs. Daschle and Leahy." The report also discussed the Unabomber and cited Planned Parenthood's allegations that hoaxers sent it white powder in the mail. Said an editorial in the Washington Times, "In essence, NPR was linking the TVC with anthrax hoaxers and a serial killer based solely on the fact it had criticized the senators' position on the prayer."

[thunderous_funker]

The only government money that NPR gets, AFAIK, is from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

CPB is a private non-profit entity which receives an appropriation from Congress that represents about 12% of its annual revenue. Only 1/3 of its budget comes form state, local, and federal monies, the rest is from businesses, subscribers and private donors.

Only a tiny fraction of that budget (of which your precious tax dollars are but an even tinier fraction) go towards producing news programs on NPR.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
So you are prepared to provide evidence contradicting their findings?...

What did they find?

I see nothing that shows what the supposed coverage was, what was said, what makes each guest "pro-Israel" or "pro-Arab" or anti-whatever.

CAMERA does this religiously because that is what they are paid to do--accuse everyone of being anti-Israel or anti-Semeitc. They are a blatant hatchet group.

This private vendetta gainst NPR goes back to the early 90's. This one is from 1993:

After years of vilification, CAMERA last year gained access to National Public Radio's archives, a feat without journalistic parallel, except perhaps The Washington Post's 1982 surrender to Israeli partisans who monitored its news operation during the invasion of Lebanon.

After examining NPR's files, CAMERA announced that scripts of 39 radio programs about the Middle East showed that the views of 43 Arabs and only 22 Israelis had been broadcast. CAMERA didn't report the approximate time allotted to each interviewee, nor did it professionally evaluate the commentaries' timeliness and news value, preferring instead to imply bias on the basis of simple arithmetic.

Last fall, CAMERA devoted four pages of its Media Report to NPR's alleged "pro-Arab bias" and an attack on NPR's Jerusalem reporter, Linda Gradstein, an Israeli national. The attack, entitled "A Study in News Manipulation," has been repeated twice in early 1993.

So this latest "findings" don't mean squat to me or anyone else who is familiar with how CAMERA operates. Very likely, they simply counted the number of Arabs and the number of Israeli's and based their allegations of "bias" on how long they talked, rather than what was actually said.

Does it matter if I give you a thousand links to Palestinian groups who accuse NPR of being a puppet of the Jews? Like this one?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Much like the 4th claim that you failed to address...

Here's what your favorite guy at NPR said about it (the ombudsman):

Anthrax and Christian Conservatives

This campaign involved the anthrax investigation. Reporter David Kestenbaum asked the Traditional Values Coalition, a conservative Christian lobby group, if it was under investigation by the FBI. The TVC has been active in their opposition to Senators Leahy and Daschle over their efforts to remove the phrase "So Help Me God" from the oath used by the senators in their official duties. Senators Leahy and Daschle also received anthrax letters. Kestenbaum wondered if, in this case, two plus two made four. The Coalition denied that it had been questioned by the FBI and was outraged that Kestenbaum even asked the question in the pre-broadcast process of gathering information.

Kestenbaum included that denial in his report on Jan. 22:

Two of the anthrax letters were sent to Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, both Democrats. One group who had a gripe with Daschle and Leahy is the Traditional Values Coalition, which before the attacks, had issued a press release criticizing the senators for trying to remove the phrase "so help me God" from the oath. The Traditional Values Coalition, however, told me the FBI had not contacted them and then issued a press release saying NPR was in the pocket of the Democrats and trying to frame them. But investigators are thinking along these lines...

The Coalition responded by denouncing NPR and launched a vigorous campaign, which at last tally was around 200 e-mails received here. More details can be found at the Traditional Values Coalition Web site.

NPR responded by airing the following statement, read by Bob Edwards on Morning Edition on Wednesday, January 30:

And a story last week about the ongoing anthrax investigation mentioned the Traditional Values Coalition. Reporter David Kestenbaum contacted that group to ask if it had been contacted by the FBI. The TVC said it had not, since there is no evidence that it was or should be investigated. The TVC said it was inappropriate for it to be named on the air. The NPR editors agree.

Andrea Lafferty is the spokesperson for TVC. In an interview with UPI she was not mollified:

That's not an apology and our lawyer says it's not a retraction. Since the correction aired, we have heard from NPR ... they seem to be very scared and they should be. We are still proceeding with legal action because, they are not sorry and we will not allow them to do this to someone else.

NPR management says it has attempted to contact the Traditional Values Coalition to work out a mutually satisfactory statement for broadcast, but so far, the TVC has not responded.

This tactic of non-response might allow the TVC to further its own goals by using NPR as a convenient scapegoat.

Many letters written to the ombudsman would indicate that tactic is working:

Your reporter, David Kestenbaum has issued a story that has no facts -- just innuendos -- trying to link Traditional Values Coalition with the anthrax letters sent to Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. The story was without foundation and should never have been run in the first place. I understand that your organization, however, has refused to issue a retraction or apology.

Denny Eyberg

And from Barry Mann:

Where is the apology? You really should apologize for your irresponsible reporting. I'm tired of defending NPR from the barbs of conservative friends.

In my opinion, the statement was a correction but in the form of a clarification. But while Kestenbaum was right to ask a strong reportorial question in the process of gathering information, the denial should have been enough. There was no journalistic reason for including it in the report.

NPR is known for its vigorous editing to keep the story strong and on point. In this case, the editing process seems to have failed to do its job.

The statement read by Edwards was less than it should have been. NPR still needs to be more nimble and more open about admitting its errors. In the case of the allegations, there should be a time and place where the concerns of the listeners can be addressed. The NPR Web site would be a good starting point.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by petehammer:
I see what you are trying to do, but I think NPR is liberal like liberal education is liberal: open to new ideas. NPR often has all sides of the debate and offers what many percieve to be the best news.

This is how I see it as well - there's a difference between being Liberal with a capital "L" (promoting Liberal political policy) and being liberal-minded (open to alternative viewpoints). There's probably a degree of correlation between the two, but as I said earlier, I think the disconnect between conservatives and NPR is more cultural than political. To many conservatives, the very fact that NPR even covers all those artsy-fartsy foreign movies is an indication that they must be a bunch of beret-wearin' French lovin' multi-cultural liberal queers! And there's probably some truth to that, but it doesn't necessarily mean that NPR's news coverage is biased. It mostly just means that NPR is willing to cover things that the typical mainstream outlet won't. In other words, liberal-minded if not necessarily Liberal. The very fact that NPR might be willing to cover a film about, say, gay issues is enough to give some conservatives fits. If it were up to them, there would be no such coverage, or such coverage would always be accompanied by a condemnation of the gay lifestyle.

A lot of conservatives also forget that it's traditionally the role of the press to challenge the status quo and dig underneath whatever blather a given administration puts out. Any second-guessing of the official line is therefore viewed as liberal bias as opposed to plain old investigative journalism.

I believe it was last year that NPR did a sort of self-test - they interviewed a variety of American Jews and Moslems. To a man, the Jews complained that NPR was hopelessly biased towards the Palestinians, and the Moslems complained that NPR was hopelessly biased towards Israel. This confirmed my impression that NPR more or less covers both sides, but that people consider any coverage of the other side to be an indication of bias.

[Timo]

Originally posted by zigzag:
... but as I said earlier, I think the disconnect between conservatives and NPR is more cultural than political...

Yep. NPR is perceived to be in the same universe as large metropolitan art museums, operas or other cultural monuments (i.e., where ever Susan Stamberg, NPR's special correspondent, is reporting from). NPR is perceived to be a universe where one uses "i.e.," for that matter, William S Buckley notwithstanding. NPR is not perceived to be in the same universe as, say, football, NASCAR or Marlboro Country.

Just perceptions, sure, but people order the world with their perceptions, and get very huffy about their (mental) borders.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Timo:
Yep. NPR is perceived to be in the same universe as large metropolitan art museums, operas or other cultural monuments (i.e., where ever Susan Stamberg, NPR's special correspondent, is reporting from).

Heh, Susan Stamberg, one of my pet NPR peeves. It's precisely because she considers everything she says to be so friggin' special that I can't stand her. I'd like to put a sock in that gushing mouth of hers. But then, I like my delivery on the dry side, so you can't please everybody.

I'd like to see Susan Stamberg cover a monster truck rally and get run over.

[boots]

Originally posted by zigzag:

I'd like to see Susan Stamberg cover a monster truck rally and get run over.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha!


Guess what? Thanksgiving is just around the corner, so we get to be pummeled by her cranberry sauce recipe in a new way...again.

Yeah, she's one I could do without.

[daimoni]

.

[daimoni]

.

[boots]

Ok, serious question.

A couple people have identified the difference between Liberal (political agenda usually aligned with the Democratic party) and liberal (as in liberal arts education, i.e. a liberal sprinkling of knowledge).

In my mind, there does seem to be a correlation between the two. It isn't absolute, I know, but how conjoined are the two ideas? Can we really separate them? Or are these issues that are too tightly tied together to extricate?

I particularly like to hear from Spacefreak and spliffdaddy (if they're still checking this thread).

What do you see as conservative ideals as opposed to Conservative ideals? (There should be a corollary to the "L" vs "l" idea, right?)

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by boots:
What do you see as conservative ideals as opposed to Conservative ideals? (There should be a corollary to the "L" vs "l" idea, right?)

Counterexample: environmental issues.

Liberals are conservative of the environment.
Conservatives are liberal on use/abuse of the environment.

But, then, if you look at the ideas themselves, it lines up:

Liberals promote new ideas on how to manage environmental resources.
Conservatives promote old ideas on how to manage environmental resources.

BG

[thunderous_funker]

Wanted to share an interesting editorial on the issue:

Here's One Cut NPR Can Afford to Make
by John Nichols

National Public Radio is an imperfect but exceptionally necessary part of the American media landscape. For any democracy to function, it needs strong public broadcasting networks. And while NPR is not nearly so well-financed or so intellectually adventurous as it should be, the network merits more praise than criticism.

Much of what ails NPR has to do with what it lacks in staff. The network has been starved financially for far too long. But that doesn't mean that all cuts are inappropriate. For instance, NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dworkin definitely needs to look for a new line of work.

That was obvious when this arbiter of approved behaviors attacked "Fresh Air" host Terry Gross for asking television personality Bill O'Reilly a couple of tough questions .

O'Reilly is the host of the Fox News Channel's "O'Reilly Factor," as well as a nationally syndicated radio program. Despite the fact that he is on Fox, O'Reilly is not a Rush Limbaugh clone. He makes rare deviations from the network's slavish adherence to the Bush White House's talking points, takes a few think-for-yourself stands and puts together a program that gets high ratings because it's fast-paced and interesting.

About the only thing that is really off-putting about O'Reilly is his whining. He whines when guests disagree with him, he whines when comedian Al Franken points out his mistakes of fact and style, he whines when he is not treated as the king of cable. So it should hardly come as any surprise that he whined about Terry Gross' mildly challenging interview with him on Oct. 8.

After facing a round of questioning that was inspired by Franken's dissection of his television persona and background, O'Reilly told Gross, "This is basically an unfair interview designed to try to trap me into saying something that Harper's magazine can use. And you know it. And you should be ashamed of yourself. And that is the end of this interview."

It was all good theater. And anyone who has watched O'Reilly's program knew he would turn his huffing performance into fodder for his ceaseless campaign against public funding for NPR. In other words, it was a mildly entertaining moment that made for some good radio; nothing more.

Unfortunately, NPR ombudsman Dworkin decided to join O'Reilly's attack on Gross, declaring that, "Listeners were not well served by this interview. Unfortunately, the interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal bias."

Talk about whiners! Dworkin and other members of the NPR hierarchy are so rattled by criticism from right-wing media pundits that they now criticize the network's own presenters for not treating conservative-leaning guests with kid gloves.

Dworkin's criticism of Gross for the "crime" of asking tough questions does far more damage to NPR than O'Reilly ever could. Instead of complimenting Gross for hosting an aggressively hostile guest, Dworkin took her to task for failing to conduct a vapid celebrity interview.

When veteran interviewers get the message that they are not supposed to ask the questions they think appropriate - either to avoid criticism from ideologues or to thwart threats of funding cuts from NPR's enemies in Congress - the pressure to soften the edges and narrow the discourse increases.

The last thing America needs is another broadcast network that refuses to ask tough questions and instead practices stenography to the famous and powerful.

[clarkgoble]

Conservatives are liberal on use/abuse of the environment.

Not all conservatives are liberal on that point. Many feel that there should be strong environmental regulations but are upset at the way property rights are often ignored while doing this. For instance if I have a large acreage I depend upon for my livelihood and a group can come in and tell me I can't use it because some species was discovered that is wrong. Unless compensation is given.

[mr. natural]

Posted by clarkgoble:

For instance if I have a large acreage I depend upon for my livelihood and a group can come in and tell me I can't use it because some species was discovered that is wrong. Unless compensation is given.

Compensation is usually granted.

But it also depends on what exactly one wants to do with the property.

If you plan on selling it out to make a huge Real Estate profit and the incoming developer plans on irrevocably altering the property so that it infringes upon the existence of a designated endangered species, your compensation is likely to suffer.

Too bad, but that's the way it goes to spare Creation.

[ZackS]

Edit: Uhh, wrong window.