[CaseCom]

Link

Well, it's not the NPR management per se who acknowledged this, but the ombudsman, whose job it is to field complaints and critique the network's performance:

I agree with the listeners who complained about the tone of the interview: Her questions were pointed from the beginning. She went after O'Reilly using critical quotes from the Franken book and a New York Times book review. That put O'Reilly at his most prickly and defensive mode, and Gross was never able to get him back into the interview in an effective way. This was surprising because Terry Gross is, in my opinion, one of the best interviewers anywhere in American journalism. ... I believe the listeners were not well served by this interview. It may have illustrated the "cultural wars" that seem to be flaring in the country. Unfortunately, the interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias.

[macvillage.net]

O'Reilly reserves "final cut" in his interviews (the right to edit the interview, and make the final decision without getting aproval from the other person).

How can this interview be unfair? IIRC NPR has an official policy against "final cut" priviliages.

Questions are questions. All fair game unless the FCC says otherwise.

If NPR cut the tapes as O'Reilly has been known to do... then I could see it being considered unfair.

But what can be unfair about questions or discussion?

Because O'Reilly has true final cut, and utalizes it... his show is considered "entertainment" by many in journalism, not news.

BTW: I'm very much against any self proclaimed news network using "final cut" without the inteviewers approval during the process. IMHO it shouldn't be legal as it misrepresents. Several networks have a show that uses it. It's unethical, and wrong. You can cut a tape to make the person look as good or bad as you want. The interview is worthless unless it's complete.

Several movies will never be shown on network television because the director holds the rights to final cut... and refuses to allow a movie to be cut for time/censors. As a result, no airtime. Even court cases on the issue.

AFAIK NPR doesn't do this "final cut" BS. Hence, I don't see how it could be "unfair" interview.

Of course it will appear different than his show. The questions are attacking him (rather than vice versa), and he can't cut the show to get the effect *he* wants.

Anyone can hold a paintbrush. But everyones end product will be different. Nobody but Picasso can make a Picasso.

Journalism is the same.

[BRussell]

Poor, poor Bill. Another oppressed conservative martyr.

I think Al Franken should write a new book:

Whines and the whining whiners who whine them.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Poor, poor Bill. Another oppressed conservative martyr.

I think Al Franken should write a new book:

Whines and the whining whiners who whine them.

LOL. That was good.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Poor, poor Bill. Another oppressed conservative martyr.

I think Al Franken should write a new book:

Whines and the whining whiners who whine them.

LOL!

well, partisanship aside, if anyone should know how to handle themselves in a hardball interview, its should be a hardball interviewer. The fact that Bill did NOT handle himself well, in spite of how he was interviewed is an indication of his unprofessionalism. If he is going to open himself up for interviews, he should be prepared for any type of question. She rattled him, he was rattled and lost control of the interview.

[Lerkfish]

Further, speaking of professionalism, I'd say this ombudsman was not responding in a very professional manner. If there are retractions to be made for any reason, they need to come from the editorial department and not the ombudman.
The purpose of an ombudsman is to address concerns of viewers, not to unilaterally mediate concerns of the guests. There are other people that do that job.

[zigzag]

I don't feel the least bit sorry for O'Reilly, but I do agree that Gross flubbed it. As I said then, she's just not cut out for this kind of interview, as Gene Simmons also proved. She allowed her polite, liberal sensibilities to interfere in both cases.

That said, O'Reilly behaved childishly. At least Simmons remained cool and stood his ground.

Anyway, I didn't know that NPR had an ombudsman. Somehow I don't think Fox will ever have an ombudsman.

[nvaughan3]

But what can be unfair about questions or discussion?

you dont seem like you understand how interviews work most of the time. questions are not given specifically in advance but there are general areas that will be touched on and the interviewee is told of these so they can have some idea of what to be prepared for. oreilly claims that the questions in the interview were far outside the boundary of what he was told the interview was going to be about.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
you dont seem like you understand how interviews work most of the time. questions are not given specifically in advance but there are general areas that will be touched on and the interviewee is told of these so they can have some idea of what to be prepared for. oreilly claims that the questions in the interview were far outside the boundary of what he was told the interview was going to be about.

Agreed.

The premise of the interview was that it was going to be about O'Reilly's book. I'm sure he would not have agreed to the interview had he been told the interview was going to be a courtroom-like examination, with Franken's allegations being the so-called 'evidence'.

I find it comedic that others are calling O'Reilly unprofessional. He is obviously a professional, with an impressive resume that will put all those in this lounge to shame. The amateurs are those of us who cannot break out of the ranks here at MacNN.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Agreed.

I find it comedic that others are calling O'Reilly unprofessional. He is obviously a professional, with an impressive resume that will put all those in this lounge to shame. The amateurs are those of us who cannot break out of the ranks here at MacNN.

Going to school doesn't make you professional.

It's how you conduct your profession.

He's a professional entertainer. Not a reporter.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
He's a professional entertainer. Not a reporter.

And Ms. Gross is a liberal partisan, not an objective interviewer .

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
you dont seem like you understand how interviews work most of the time. questions are not given specifically in advance but there are general areas that will be touched on and the interviewee is told of these so they can have some idea of what to be prepared for. oreilly claims that the questions in the interview were far outside the boundary of what he was told the interview was going to be about.

^ that sums it up.

[BRussell]

[Mithras]

I'm
(a) liberal
(b) an NPR member

and I thought the interview was ridiculous on her part. I want to hear her ask some interesting questions, get the subject to speak a bit from his own perspective, and explore some personal background.

Instead she just went after him with one obnoxious question after another. What did she think -- he would be shown to be a fool and we'd all go home thinking, "ha! Terry was right and he was wrong!" I'd rather gain insight into what makes O'Reilly tick, not have some partisan showdown.

In fact, I often find her injecting her (simplistic and naive, IMHO) political beliefs into interviews. I've heard a couple of times now her interview some policy analyst, or person who wrote a book, and ask, "so, do you mean that (liberal ideology) is great, and (conservative ideology) is mistaken and disastrous?" To which the subject replies, "umm, no, that's not what I meant. It's more copmlicated..."

[Face Ache]

I thought this O'Reilly bloke was the king of the unfair interview?

Is this the one where he walked out 58 minutes into an hour long interview and then got two weeks free media coverage out of it?

[boots]

Ok, spacefreak, I'll break rank (but no more than zigzag). I'm a frequent lister, and might even call myself a fan. I do like to hear many sides of an issue - liberal and conservative.

It was a poor interview. The questioning was not of the caliber to which Terry Gross (usually) adheres.

She does much better with the artistic or humanities oriented guests. Policy and politics is not her strong suit.

Mr. O'Reilly is a professional. But he behaved in an unprofessional manner. It was a train wreck. The middle of the interview was both interesting and informative....and was much more in line with her normal interviews.

I will also echo what Lerkfish said: The ombudsman was out of line. If NPR wished to take an official stand, fine. He seems to have stated his personal opinion, however, and that is unprofessional.

[nvaughan3]

isnt that what he is supposed to do? take all things into consideration and then issue his supposedly unbiased opinion?

[boots]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
isnt that what he is supposed to do? take all things into consideration and then issue his supposedly unbiased opinion?

No. It is his job to investigate complaints. If a statement need be issued, it would be from the NPR management, and it would be the official stance of NPR. It sounds like this is just his personal opinion, not the opinion of NPR. It may be a valid opinion, but his statement is outside the boundaries of his job.

[Timo]

Gross and O'Reilly: they can have each other. Blech.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by boots:
No. It is his job to investigate complaints. If a statement need be issued, it would be from the NPR management, and it would be the official stance of NPR. It sounds like this is just his personal opinion, not the opinion of NPR. It may be a valid opinion, but his statement is outside the boundaries of his job.

Further, the complaint has to be between the consumer (viewer) and the company...not between guests and the company.

Sure, this guy can have an opinion, and he can even express that opinion, but not in his official capacity. There is a Public Relations office that can issue public statements or NPR management can do so....but you can bet your bippy that the legal department needs to be consulted before either of those happen, especially since Bill has proven he's frivolously sue-happy. The statement, as issued, from the Ombudsman will likely be used AGAINST NPR in a legal proceeding should Bill decide to press it. Therefore, the ombudsman was completely out of line to issue his opinion in an official capapcity.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Sure, this guy can have an opinion, and he can even express that opinion, but not in his official capacity. There is a Public Relations office that can issue public statements or NPR management can do so....but you can bet your bippy that the legal department needs to be consulted before either of those happen, especially since Bill has proven he's frivolously sue-happy. The statement, as issued, from the Ombudsman will likely be used AGAINST NPR in a legal proceeding should Bill decide to press it. Therefore, the ombudsman was completely out of line to issue his opinion in an official capapcity.

If that's the case, then they (NPR) should take away the ombudsman's web section. If he was so out-of-line, and such expression is not in his official capavity, I don't see why NPR continues to publish and host his views.

[boots]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If that's the case, then they (NPR) should take away the ombudsman's web section. If he was so out-of-line, and such expression is not in his official capavity, I don't see why NPR continues to publish and host his views.

There are legitimate reasons for the ombudsman to have a web page. If it was not the official NPR satement, then he should at a minium be reprimanded.

[NYCFarmboy]

We have Freedom of the Press in the USA..., O'Reilly is a big boy..he should get over it.

Everyone knows that NPR is a left wing propaganda ministy...especially Bill O'Reilly. NPR is always this way with anyone whom they view hostile to thier leftest agenda.. but so what... that is their right.

I do enjoy listening to All Things Considered though when I'm out on the road driving around from state to state.

I don't think taxpayers should fund National Public Radio..but thats another subject.

[thunderous_funker]

I'm curious now. What exactly is NPR's agenda? What do they stand for? What do they want Americans to do? How are they accomplishing it?

What should we infer from the diversity of viewpoints of NPR listeners?

[daimoni]

.

[daimoni]

.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Thank you. Exactly.

It always cracks me up how people think NPR is a 24/7 liberal news network.

Uh, yeah. Except for all of the conservative guests and pundits and callers that they have on their programs.

That said, NPR still scares the LIVING HELL out of conservatives. Why? I have no idea why. It really does make no sense. I think they just need a whipping boy. A bogey-man, if you will.

And for that, I love NPR.

its the diversity they fear. They feel everyone should think and feel EXACTLY as they do, in some kind of lockstep.

[CaseCom]

boots and lerk: I'm scratching my head over your contention that an ombudsman should not express an opinion "in his official capacity." What an ombudsman does is investigate complaints against an institution, right? If he can't give his conclusion at the end of said investigation, then what good is having an ombudsman?

I think it's understood that an ombudsman is someone independent of the institution's command structure (despite my somewhat misleading thread title here).

Boots' reply to nvaughan seems to state that it's the ombudsman's job to investigate complaints and then merely present the findings to management, who then decides whether to take action. That kind of ombudsman would seem to be of little worth at all.

The ombudsman with whom I'm most familiar is the one for my local paper, who often gives his opinion, whether it be in agreement with the reader's complaint or not.

And the Washington Post ombudsman, Michael Getler, often issues stinging rebukes of the Post's coverage and editors' decisions.

I don't think the NPR ombudsman crossed the line at all.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Thank you. Exactly.

It always cracks me up how people think NPR is a 24/7 liberal news network.

Uh, yeah. Except for all of the conservative guests and pundits and callers that they have on their programs.

That said, NPR still scares the LIVING HELL out of conservatives. Why? I have no idea why. It really does make no sense. I think they just need a whipping boy. A bogey-man, if you will.

I've always felt that it's as much cultural as political. NPR just has that bi-coastal/multi-cultural/pensive/intellectual/effete/genteel thang goin' on, even when it presents diverse points of view (which it has been bending over backwards to do). This doesn't always jibe well with the sensibilities of those who occupy "blue" country (is it blue or red? I forget). I'm not necessarily blaming them - I often find myself objecting to, among other things, the pretentiousness of a number of NPR personalities. I also think Gene Simmons has a point when he says that NPR could stand to be a little less genteel. But when NPR is good, it's very good.

[einmakom]

The problem with NPR is that they feel they must be the only public radio. Can't stand competition-

Which is why they testified to such in front of Congress and the FCC when the question of Low-Power FM (LPFM) licenses came up:

People like LPFM because it means you can have a small station that broadcasts to serve the community directly.

NPR likes the monopoly on being the only 'public' radio. This is frustrating, because we keep funding them from our tax dollar- wouldn't be near so bad if their only funding were the contributions they get from pledge drives.

[boots]

Originally posted by CaseCom:
boots and lerk: I'm scratching my head over your contention that an ombudsman should not express an opinion "in his official capacity."

My understanding was that, NPR being a conglomerate - unlike the newspapers - if there was a complaint about a specific show, it was his job to field the complaint, investigate it, and work with the management to correct any problem. But I see your point, and it wouldn't be the first time I had a misimpression. His opinion just smacked of personal feeling, and not professional response. Maybe it was the wording. I would have expected him to have an "official" NPR response to the specific incident, seeing as how it wasn't a conflict with the management itself.

[boots]

Originally posted by einmakom:
The problem with NPR is that they feel they must be the only public radio. Can't stand competition-

Which is why they testified to such in front of Congress and the FCC when the question of Low-Power FM (LPFM) licenses came up:

People like LPFM because it means you can have a small station that broadcasts to serve the community directly.

NPR likes the monopoly on being the only 'public' radio. This is frustrating, because we keep funding them from our tax dollar- wouldn't be near so bad if their only funding were the contributions they get from pledge drives.

That wasn't my take on issue at all. In smaller markets, it's often difficult to get the NPR station clearly because other stations bleed into the local NPR station signal. I can't imagine what it would be like if there were a dozen more stations that could bleed into the signal.

We also AM and shortwave radio that give local access to the airwaves. Around here, the shortwave is mostly spanish language (since there isn't much in the commercial market to fill that need).

The "competition" is there already, you just have to look for it.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CaseCom:
boots and lerk: I'm scratching my head over your contention that an ombudsman should not express an opinion "in his official capacity." What an ombudsman does is investigate complaints against an institution, right? If he can't give his conclusion at the end of said investigation, then what good is having an ombudsman?

I think it's understood that an ombudsman is someone independent of the institution's command structure (despite my somewhat misleading thread title here).

Boots' reply to nvaughan seems to state that it's the ombudsman's job to investigate complaints and then merely present the findings to management, who then decides whether to take action. That kind of ombudsman would seem to be of little worth at all.

The ombudsman with whom I'm most familiar is the one for my local paper, who often gives his opinion, whether it be in agreement with the reader's complaint or not.

And the Washington Post ombudsman, Michael Getler, often issues stinging rebukes of the Post's coverage and editors' decisions.

I don't think the NPR ombudsman crossed the line at all.

the character of the statement is where he crossed the line:

I agree with the listeners who complained about the tone of the interview: Her questions were pointed from the beginning. She went after O'Reilly using critical quotes from the Franken book and a New York Times book review. That put O'Reilly at his most prickly and defensive mode, and Gross was never able to get him back into the interview in an effective way. This was surprising because Terry Gross is, in my opinion, one of the best interviewers anywhere in American journalism. ... I believe the listeners were not well served by this interview. It may have illustrated the "cultural wars" that seem to be flaring in the country. Unfortunately, the interview only served to confirm the belief, held by some, in NPR's liberal media bias.

Instead of addressing reader's concerns, he used it to make very subjective, very personal judgements of the involved parties: note words like: "pointed", "went after", "prickly and defensive", "NPR's liberal media bias".

The purpose of an ombudsman is to mediate problems, not to throw gasoline onto an already raging fire.

Although I agree that ombudsmen can be critical of their editors, I guarantee this goes beyond that. The controversy is a subjective tempest to begin with, and to introduce even more subjectivity is the wrong action to take.

[nvaughan3]

If he can't give his conclusion at the end of said investigation, then what good is having an ombudsman?

Yup!

Lerk just cant stand the truth of what he said. Get out of the kitchen kiddo.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
Yup!

Lerk just cant stand the truth of what he said. Get out of the kitchen kiddo.

LOL!

is that the best you got? pathetic.

[nvaughan3]

Thank you.

[daimoni]

.

[Sosa]

So far I've listened to 3/4 of the interview and it has been pretty good. O'Reilly has already insulted Gross several times, stating once that if she didn't understand something she didn't know how to read. However plenty of information is being shared. I would say it is a lot better opportunity for O'Reilly to express his views than he gives his guests.

I think O'Reilly is often a bully in his show. He browbeats people he disagrees with. He doesn't allow them to make their arguments, often interjecting and shutting them up. He is totally biased for his conservative, rightist views.

I often watch his show for a laugh, but I sometimes get angry at how biased the information which comes out is.

Last 1/4:
O'Reilly complaining about an unfair interview! Ha! He is a master at giving biased interviews and totally biased perspectives! "No Spin Zone", "fair and balance" is a joke.

[Mithras]

Does anyone know where I can view O'Reilly's show online? I don't have a TV, but I'm curious.

P.S. A few transcripts indicate to me that he's just an aggressive conservative. None of the transcripts I read show him being a real jerk, but I don't doubt those transcripts are out there.

[boots]

Originally posted by Sosa:
So far I've listened to 3/4 of the interview and it has been pretty good. O'Reilly has already insulted Gross several times, stating once that if she didn't understand something she didn't know how to read. However plenty of information is being shared.....

Taken on the whole, FreshAir is not usually like that. The questions were much more pointed than normal, and there was a clear agenda vis-a-vis the Frankin interview. So the complaints are legit in the context of FreshAir. That doesn't excuse O'Reilly's actions, however. It was unprofessional on his part, and uncharacteristic on Terry's part.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Agreed. You hit the nail on the head. Though I think Gene Simmons could stand to be a little less of an assclown. Especially in that interview.

I've always considered NPR painfully middle-brow. That's both its strength and its weakness. The pretentiousness also gets to me... but what are the domestic alternatives besides other local public, non-commercial stations?

Yes, painfully middlebrow, that pretty much says it, for better and worse.

Simmons is definitely a self-centered a**hole but I confess that, even though I couldn't name a single Kiss song, I thought it was one of the more interesting shows ever. Simmons sort of derailed it by interjecting defensively-toned speeches about his world-view, but instead of exploring that, which is when her show is most interesting, Gross became judgmental. Simmons held his ground and, as silly as it may seem to say admiring things about Gene Simmons, I admired him for it. When she put him down for his crass rock and roll attitudes, he came right back at her. I like Gross but I also rather enjoyed hearing Simmons punch holes in NPR's genteel veneer. It was sort of, well, rock and roll, which I think NPR could use more of.

O'Reilly, on the other hand, just had a hissy fit and went home crying. Gross did a clumsy job but he should have remained calm and explained himself. Like a professional.

The thing that surprises me is that in both cases, Gross does not seem to have anticipated that these guys are not the usual NPR subjects. She doesn't seem to understand that there's a whole world of people who don't give a s*it about NPR's genteel sensibilities.

Anyway, despite its shortcomings, it is, as you say, the best alternative by far.

[spacefreak]

Looks like Demonhood locked the other thread. I don't see why. Oh well, here's more from me:

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Considering the staggering amount of disinformation being spread by the corporate "news" outlets, I'd say it was tax dollars very well spent.

What price do you put on truth?

"Q: Please select what you think is the best description of the relationship between the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein and the terrorist group al-Qaeda." If you selected "A few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq of had contact with Iraqi officials" (which we know to be true), you are considered by this survey as having a misperception.

I find it ridiculous that you feel a single, small-sample survey of 3300 people, its questionable analysis, and its questionable grouping of misperceptions is the truth. Perhaps this is because it fits your agenda. That's fine if it does reinforce your views, but that doesn't make it the truth.

What is true, however, is that $150 million is spent by the taxpayers annually to support an outlet that is deemed liberal by most.

I see Zimphire's point. i just don't know that I am necessarily on board with it. I'm more along these lines - I don't want the government owning or subsidizing any media outlet - liberal, conservative, or whatever (emergency broadcasting service notwithstanding).

I'd be for phasing out funding, perhaps helping NPR become a private entity that could support itself. For a media outlet, and a popular one like NPR, $150 million should not be hard to come by in the private market.

My word for this thread: SYNDICATION

[petehammer]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
What is true, however, is that $150 million is spent by the taxpayers annually to support an outlet that is deemed liberal by most.

I'd be for phasing out funding, perhaps helping NPR become a private entity that could support itself. For a media outlet, and a popular one like NPR, $150 million should not be hard to come by in the private market.

So which is it? $150 mil. isn't a lot of money or it is? On one hand, it's a huge burden to the taxpayers, on the other it's a drop in the hat? Or do you not want to come to terms with support of the arts in America is already incredibly dismal and NPR gets about 7 cents from you yearly?

[Timo]

Originally posted by zigzag:
The thing that surprises me is that in both cases, Gross does not seem to have anticipated that these guys are not the usual NPR subjects. She doesn't seem to understand that there's a whole world of people who don't give a s*it about NPR's genteel sensibilities.

Yep. I can't stand "Fresh Air" and that whole plate of NPR carbohydrates. Very windy and very smug.

Last week's "Prairie Home Companion" had a good bit with a folk singer who had made up a song about how sh*tty NPR had become, with constant fundraising guilt-trips and "Marketplace" babble...heh, it was pretty funny.

Anyway, despite its shortcomings, it is, as you say, the best alternative by far.

Yep.

[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.

2) Public radio shouldn't recieve public funds (tax dollars)

Why? Because it parrots those in power? That would undermine the argument that its "liberal". Or because it criticizes those in power? If it criticizes those in power, what is the harm of recieving government funding?

Is there a principle ivolved or is it simply of matter of you not wanting money going towards something you don't support?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by petehammer:
So which is it? $150 mil. isn't a lot of money or it is? On one hand, it's a huge burden to the taxpayers, on the other it's a drop in the hat? Or do you not want to come to terms with support of the arts in America is already incredibly dismal and NPR gets about 7 cents from you yearly?

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.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
"Q: Please select what you think is the best description of the relationship between the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein and the terrorist group al-Qaeda." If you selected "A few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq of had contact with Iraqi officials" (which we know to be true), you are considered by this survey as having a misperception.

That's not true. It was only counted as a misperception if the person said "Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the Sept. 11 attacks." 20% agreed with that statement. The other misperceptions were very clearly misperceptions too.

The full report is available at http://pipa.org

I find it ridiculous that you feel a single, small-sample survey of 3300 people, its questionable analysis, and its questionable grouping of misperceptions is the truth.[/B]

3300 is a massive sample for a survey of this type. Usually about 1000 people is enough to get a stable set of responses.

I don't think there's anything wrong with this study, for what it did. People who watch different news sources have different beliefs about the war. People who choose "conservative" news are more likely to have biases and misperceptions favoring the war than people who get their news from more liberal outlets.

But I think there are two basic criticisms of the study:
1. You can't make a causal inference from a study like this. You can't say that Fox is making people have these misperceptions because of the information people get from them. It's possible that people who are biased to begin with then choose their news outlets.

2. It would be unfair to conclude that Fox watchers have a greater number of absolute misperceptions than NPR watchers. You can really only say that they have these particular misperceptions. It's very likely that NPR watchers have their own set of misperceptions about the war, but they are misperceptions against the war (e.g., that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat).

[petehammer]

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

On average, sure, but you yourself (unless you are very wealthy) pay 7 cents.

In either case... 50 cents! Oh lordy! I guess I can't get that hershey bar after all!

BBRussel: excellent evenhanded post, just what the thread needed

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Furthermore, I do not want the US government owning or subsidizing media outlets as a matter of principle, irregardless of the outlet's content.

Would that include outlets owned by government contractors?

[Timo]

Originally posted by BRussell:

But I think there are two basic criticisms of the study:
1. You can't make a causal inference from a study like this. You can't say that Fox is making people have these misperceptions because of the information people get from them. It's possible that people who are biased to begin with then choose their news outlets.

2. It would be unfair to conclude that Fox watchers have a greater number of absolute misperceptions than NPR watchers. You can really only say that they have these particular misperceptions. It's very likely that NPR watchers have their own set of misperceptions about the war, but they are misperceptions against the war (e.g., that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat).

C'mon, BRussell, these sound like reasonable objections. Are you sure you posted in the right forum?