Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Seems like NPR: national public radio, aka baby pabulum, should be called No Public Resource.

 

Seems like they just regurgitate. Like reporting there aren't any indicators to point at the economy getting better or worse; is this BS or am I senile or both?

 

Anyone like BBC or Democracy Now or? Any suggestions?

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

bbc ain't much better (though i do enjoy their weather forecasts for london "grey cloud" "white cloud" "sunny intervals" etc) - npr is like democracy: frequently lame, but all the alternatives are shittier.

Posted (edited)

Larry, yes, if NPR lacks the analysis you so desire, Democracy Now is probably right down your alley. Or should I say, right up your ass.

Edited by E-rock
Posted
Seems like NPR: national public radio, aka baby pabulum, should be called No Public Resource.

 

Seems like they just regurgitate. Like reporting there aren't any indicators to point at the economy getting better or worse; is this BS or am I senile or both?

 

Anyone like BBC or Democracy Now or? Any suggestions?

 

Too bad they don't do LARGE print, Old, er Lucky Larry!

Posted

Democracy Now is the better alternative to NPR, which keeps mouthing conservative talking points (government/corporate are the majority of view points on NPR). BBC is no better than NPR. Al Jazeera is better but somehow cannot find a cable provider to carry their programming ... There are european news programs available on cable but it demands spending money and usually the command of another language. Otherwise there is the internet, like the Real News Network, etc..

Posted
Democracy Now is the better alternative to NPR, which keeps mouthing conservative talking points (government/corporate are the majority of view points on NPR). BBC is no better than NPR. Al Jazeera is better but somehow cannot find a cable provider to carry their programming ... There are european news programs available on cable but it demands spending money and usually the command of another language. Otherwise there is the internet, like the Real News Network, etc..

 

Speaking of kooks...

Posted

Most every time I see an Al Jazeera report on the web I am impressed by the quality and diversity of the information. It is typically miles better than anything you'd have on US corporate media. It's not even close. But I am not sure why I 'd have to justify my opinion to hick-boy who needs to pull his head out of his ass.

Posted
we should ask him.

 

hey jb!

 

queuing up stream of shrill, invective-strewn drivel in 3...2...1...

 

That's rich to read the vituperative monosyllabic idiot complain about insults when 99% of his posts are meant to be insulting.

Posted

Hey I use to link to the Hamas website so that you wouldn't have to get your propaganda directly instead of the watered down versions provided by Al Jazeera. (or NPR or Juan Cole or....) I stopped because Fairweather directed one of his thuggist/repressive posts at my behavior. I caved under the pressure of his boot on my throat.

Posted

here come the right wing trolls, although our goon friend is right on message today: "the deviants are commies and they are terrorists!" He is getting ready for the new McCarthyist witch hunt.

Posted
here come the right wing trolls, although our goon friend is right on message today: "the deviants are commies and they are terrorists!" He is getting ready for the new McCarthyist witch hunt.

 

Well I tried to search for the thread where FW called me out on my Hamas link but found another thread instead. Reaidng the thread I couldn't help bu laugh out loud at some of the posts. Check 'em out and smile:

 

you are especially a rightwing goon who thinks he can intimidate others by making outlandish accusations in public.

 

oh my god! he now tells me he doesn't like the vitriol! poor little PP who can't just tell lies (what a euphemism) about someone without feeling the vitriol! just not fair ... .

 

 

you may not be intimidated by someone lying on the internet about your stance on trivial matters like terrorism, but i do! .

 

 

i can't believe you are really this clueless. you can decide for yourself what image you want to give to people who read you. i firmly intend to be in control of the image i project and not leave it to liars like PP. whether you like it or not isn't really relevant. .

 

 

chicken shit liar! and to think this dude is a mod on this board. creepy!

 

 

we all have to live up to expectations ... all of us! .

 

 

wait till someone calls you seriously a molester and we'll see how much of a champion you are. .

 

 

that's about your speed! after all, you'd still be trading jokes about feces and testicles with trask & co if you had your way. .

 

Throw one of the quotes into the search engine and read the entire thread!

 

Posted

NPR has really gotten awful. It's flagship programs, All Things Considered and Morning Edition, seem to be running about 15% hard news and analysis and 85% fluff. There's more sports, more stories on Dancing With The Stars, etc. more technology (free advertising), more lameass "commentary" than ever before. Their guests are invariably wonks from the usual center-right thinktank suspects rarely, if ever, balanced. It's not really clear if there's any boots on the ground journalism going on at all.

Posted

around 70% of NPR sources are government/corporation. Only 7% are from public interest organizations/associations. The public in NPR is the 20% random testimony of people picked on the street (i.e. without a coherent message). Data is my recollection of study done by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.

Posted

check out PP all proud of my responses to his years worth of his best impersonation of a McCarthyite goon harassing left wingers. Is PP totally moronic or really that far to the right?

Posted
around 70% of NPR sources are government/corporation. Only 7% are from public interest organizations/associations. The public in NPR is the 20% random testimony of people picked on the street (i.e. without a coherent message). Data is my recollection of study done by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.

 

"public interest organizations/associations" are just as biased as "government/corporation" - with an agenda. Also, it's interesting (some would say "lame") how you lump together the latter two.

Posted

That's a good study. Even setting its issues with sources aside (and that's a huge aside), the news to fluff ratio on NPR has deteriorated considerably and falls in line with the race to capture the lowest common denominator that's happening across the board. It's impossible to take it seriously anymore.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...