I dunno... I think this nation has got a screwy sense of what is "balanced" in the news. Not everything that takes an opposing viewpoint is worth listening to -- and in fact, in a lot of cases, to do so can make you stupider. And I'm sure you're familiar with the Grey Fallacy -- the logical error in assuming that the truth must lie between two opposing sides.

That said, I do think it's healthy for people to understand the other side, even if they don't agree with it. If something resonates with people, there's a reason why, and it's important to recognize and understand that. If you just write people who don't believe the same as you off as stupid and ignorant, you're not going to be able to connect with them, nor will there be a high likelihood of them considering your OWN point of view.

I think counterbalancing NPR with Rush Limbaugh is unlikely to provide you with an intelligent viewpoint, any more than dumping fecal matter in your Wheaties is likely to give you a balanced breakfast.

Now, I can't speak for the station as it was represented 8 or so years ago, but I'd say the breadth of programming on there is pretty well balanced between conservative and liberal viewpoints. The only IMbalance I see there is that you get a lot more of the raving lunacy of the left-wing than you do of the right. You hear more commentaries along the line of "we should pay to provide acupuncture to the homeless" than you do of "nuke Iraqistan, and lower corporate taxes will make jobs for everyone."

But in general, I'd say the programming's pretty balanced -- AND it's one of the only remaining ways to hear intelligent, well-reasoned and -spoken conservatives advance their own points of view.

(Reply) (Thread)

Word.

As an avid NPR listener and supporter, I think your current opinions of the network are pretty well founded, but I do detect a bit more liberalism than you apparently do. If you want proof of that, just listen to them read listener emails. I think they purposefully use that segment to inject opposition into the broadcast, sometimes in a "Hey look we're balanced!" sort of way. I'm not sure I'd do anything differently myself come to think of it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The one place where NPR occasionally falls into the deep right, at least from my perspective, is on financial matters; Marketplace in particular often has commentators that are surprisingly far to the right on various issues of personal and corporate responsibility, free markets, accountability, etc. (And this is 'right' by US standards, notably, not European ones.)

Edited at 2008-04-21 04:15 pm (UTC)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Oh, I am more than familiar with the Grey fallacy. Though it's a bit misapplied in this case. The Grey fallacy is the juvenile assumption that the equal compromise between two views is the best. Where I looking for a balanced range (as in a full-spectrum of views) that I end up using to form my own opinions.

Many news sources purport to be "balanced", as in presenting both sides. But as any sociology student could tell you, we are all biased by our own culture. Therefore, by intentionally engaging both sides you are more likely to have a "balanced" (as in all-encompassing, not as in compromise) report.

As for the poop-soup comment, it's a nice way of brushing things off. Admittedly Rush's representation of the middle-class conservative mindset has drifted quite a bit from the time frame I quote from. I suppose now a days it would be Glen Beck or such. But listen to both what he and say, Keith Olbermann have to say on an issue and you'll get two very compelling view points. And often it gives you a much deeper view into why people hold their opinions.

At least that's been my experience anyway. YMMV.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I'd agree that if you listen to what popular people say, you'll have a good idea of what opinions the people who make them popular are likely to hold. Although even there there are some false assumptions -- a lot of people get listened to just because they're entertaining to listen to, not because many people buy into what they're saying. Ann Coulter may have been popular, but I seriously doubt she was much of a representative of the people, any more than Howard Stern was.

And I don't think listening to extremist pundits brings you closer to the truth. I think it just muddies the issues. If you want to get at what's really going on, find several news sources with a good reputation for objectivity and accuracy. If something sounds phoney or sensationalist, it probably is. Research it. Don't make the mistake of believing that you can find fact somewhere in the sphere of opinion. Neither Olbermann nor Limbaugh are in the business of dispensing fact. To say that either person represents a "side" is to miss the point -- they are listened to simply because they are loud and outrageous, not because they are right, or even representative.

In fact, I think it's precisely this tendency to view people (including ourselves) as being on "sides" that has screwed up politics and the media so badly in this country, but that's a discussion for another day.

Basically, I think listening to these people --on either side-- makes you dumber and more poorly-informed. It's about as effective as criticizing a sports team's strategy and playstyle based on their cheerleaders.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I should note here that I'm using the general "you," not giving advice to you personally, Bennie. I don't consider you ill-informed, although we haven't spoken about political matters enough for me to have an opinion there.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

So you ordered the Washington Times for delivery?

Ether way, I can't read comics in the newspaper anymore, since they're too watered down. :(

(Reply) (Thread)

Nah. I'm supporting local. At one point I look at the time, the post and the NYT for possible rags to order. They just didn't jive right.

Maybe I'll toss something like "The Economist" in the mix later.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Yeah, the Washington Times is reportedly "equal opportunity offender." Problem is, it's owned by Reverend Moon and his oddball sect.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Once we bought this house, I subscribed to the paper edition of the Washington Post. There are certain sections that I never look at, but the ones I do look at give me news I couldn't have gotten in any other way. The news I get online just doesn't cover the same kinds of things, and I don't watch TV news anymore. I can't stand to watch CNN or MSNBC or Fox. They're just too stupid.

(Reply) (Thread)

I'm about 30% radio, 30% internet, 20% TV and 20% print.

There's something to be said for print. Seph and I have a continuing discussion on the media and journalism these days. It goes something like this:

The internet is good for the "29 SECONDS AGO: TRAIN EXPLODES FOR NO APPARENT REASON" type headlines, but when it comes to deep analysis of politics or society, we shy away from it for a number of reasons and it sounds like you do too.

The biggest problem Seph and I have with internet news is that anyone can be a reporter. There's no filter. Our expectations for journalists include qualities like credibility, disclosure, objectivity, a command of the English language, etc.

It seems that anyone with an opinion these days is suddenly capable of filling the shoes of a bureau chief or reporter. Surely I'm exaggerating a tad, since you can easily tell a bulletin board post from an article released on a national news website but I still feel my concern is valid. It works in the opposite fashion too. Independent bloggers have some unique insight and excellent information to share such as the case with video games; something typical news outlets either have no desire to report or do it very poorly.

The problem I have is sorting out what to trust and distrust. When it comes right down to it, print media to me seems bit more authentic and trustworthy than some other resources. Is that how you feel?

(Reply) (Thread)

Yes and no. In a lot of ways the explosion of relatively unpolished internet news is a lot like colonial era newspapers were. In it's own unvarnished way it is very cool to see an active free press.

I'm just trying to balance that blend with more in-depth aspects. IMHO the current news outlets are really missing the point by trying to compete with the Internet by offering bite-sized news. What they can do that makes them special is more research and a well thought out argument.

About the only thing it seems that is still trying that are the newspapers.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I personally buy the local paper (well... the local branded version of McClatchy). They've cornered the market on the two largest cities in NC and pretty much own the news here, South Carolina, and in several cities from Fresno to Sacramento).

To counter it, I tend to read US Today, listen to NPR, browse CNN, subscribe to several news feeds, and when I'm feeling like busting a gut hearing how I sound to my friends when I go trolling as a falsed-flagged neo-con, I turn on "The Savage Nation." It's always good for some great head-explody type material.

Most of the 'real time' media outlets (such as TV, Radio, etc) are not news, they're just entertainment. They can only exist by making a clown show of news reporting and people who take them seriously, deserve to.

- krin

(Reply) (Thread)

I subscribe to both the Merc and Chronicle....and get a good dose of different...

MLD

(Reply) (Thread)

This was the Merc. If it turns out I end up reading newspaper regularly, I'll pick up the chronicle too.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Vorlon saying: Understanding is a triple-edged sword. Your side, their side, and the truth.

(Reply) (Thread)

I can do all the Sudoku I want to online for free, and I'd still rather have it in a newspaper. And do it in pen. Unforgiving pen.

A local paper seems an excellent choice; as you have many a resident in that house and can easily pass the paper around, you're going to get good value out of it, no? A worthwhile thing.

Plus, don't discount the value of included sale flyers, coupons, etc in the Sunday edition.

(Reply) (Thread)