Monday, November 06, 2006

NPR: this is balance?

So, whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? Saddam Hussein never had a chance. This makes me sick.

Wanna know what else makes me sick? The manipulation of public opinion about President Hussein by the American press and politicians, who universally refer to him by his first name. Call him Saddam, and you can convince yourself that you're talking about an impetuous child. Call him President Hussein, however, and you have to face the fact that your country illegally invaded a soveriegn nation and illegally deposed its elected leader, so that you could pay $3/gallon for gas allowing Exxon to reap the biggest profits by any company in history -two quarters in a row (and where did those profits come from? Your checkbook). Try publishing a letter to the editor -any editor- in which you call our own loser president, "George." You'll never see your letter printed as written.

I'm not here to defend the guy. I just wish someone in power paid a little more attention to our constitution.

The constitution. "Oh yeah, that."

NPR makes me sick, too. I pay close attention, I do. Maybe you didn't notice, but during the 2004 election, all the NPR talking heads were saying "Oh my gosh! The Republicans are doing so well in the polls! Look at them go!" Who knows how well Republicans were actually doing in the polls: that's not the issue. The point is that NPR focussed on Republican candidates to the detriment of Democratic candidates by leading with Republican-related, Republican-supporting stories, interviews, and campaign ads. I let it go then, even though it made me ill. I presumed that they were highlighting Republican candidates because Republicans were in charge. Fine. Whatever. Hardly seemed like good journalism, but eh, whatever.

Now skip ahead a couple of years. Yeah, it's 2006, election season. By all indications, Democrats seem to be taking the lead in the polls. So you might expect NPR to hold to the same publishing standards, and highlight Democratic candidates and issues, simply because this time the Democrats are leading the polls.

But, no. Not NPR. Check it out for yourself: NPR consistently gives Republican candidates and talking points precendence over Democrats. In the 2006 election cycle, NPR continues to consistently present Republican voices before Democratic voices; they consistently provide Republican candidates with more air time than Democrats in interviews, background stories and ad comparisons, even going so far as to play complete (and vicious) ads from Republicans while 'comparing' them to edited versions of the ads that the given Democratic candidate had to slap together to combat the Republican ad in the first place, in stories about campaign strategies. The other day, I heard a 'comparison' between two Senators, Dick Durbin (D) and Bill Frist (R). Frist isn't even running for office; he's stumping for other candidates. In an odd turn, Durbin was on first, but wasn't really allowed to get a message out because the interviewer kept pressing him with questions about what Democrats would do about the war in Iraq (an issue which is unequivocally the President's problem, not the Senate's). Then Frist came on. The interviewer asked him how he felt about the Democratic agenda, and then proceeded to give him two solid minutes of uninterrupted air time in which Frist essentially gave a stump speech. This is balance?

Missing from NPR this season is any news of dissent among the people: their reporters seem completely unable to locate anyone who is anti-war or anti-George. If you're an NPR listener and a Democrat: there's a reason you feel so alone- It's NPR: Nationalist Party Radio.