creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Brent Bozell
L. Brent Bozell
15 Feb 2012
The Kennedy Has No Clothes

Valentine's Day is probably not the day most people would pick to remember the marriage of John and … Read More.

10 Feb 2012
Another Fleeting Failure For NBC

Super Bowl XLVI was a good football game, marred once again by the bohemian elite at NBC. NBC could have prevented,… Read More.

8 Feb 2012
The Secular Media Vs. Religious Liberty

The Obama administration is waging war on Christianity. Somehow, the networks haven't seen this as newsworthy. … Read More.

National Public Unfairness

Share Comment

There's a huge hole in all of the public discussion about the reimposition of a "Fairness Doctrine" or a return to "localism" on the talk-radio format: What about National Public Radio (NPR)? Liberals would like to "crush Rush" and his conservative compatriots by demanding each station balance its lineup ideologically. But since when has NPR ever felt any pressure to be balanced, even when a majority of taxpayers being forced to subsidize it are center-right?

Why no Fairness Doctrine attention to NPR? It is because those preaching "fairness" on the radio are hypocrites.

Conservatives argue that the media's liberal bias drives people to talk radio for an opposing viewpoint. Limbaugh jokes: "I am the balance." But new numbers from NPR suggest its ratings may be nearly as imposing as Limbaugh's: The cumulative audience for its daily news programs — "Morning Edition" and its evening counterpart, "All Things Considered" — has risen to 20.9 million per week.

It's not just news that's drawing listeners in. Talk-radio programs increasingly have become part of the nationally distributed NPR diet. Indeed, NPR's developing talk-show lineup was an obvious factor in the commercial failure of competing liberal networks like Air America. One could argue that NPR's audience gains came directly in response to liberal desires to vent about Team Bush.

Radio shows like "Fresh Air with Terry Gross" were a regular forum for Bush-bashing authors and experts, especially on the War on Terror and the liberation of Iraq. Gross was memorably upbraided by NPR's ombudsman in 2003 for showing great hostility to Bill O'Reilly, in stark contrast to her giggly rapport with liberal Al Franken. Now NPR is touting that "Fresh Air" was NPR's "first non-drive-time show in public radio to better 5 million weekly listeners" on over 300 stations.

NPR also sounded thrilled at the news that its afternoon show "Talk of the Nation" showed "remarkable gains," up 21 percent to 3.5 million listeners weekly. On Inauguration Day, that show featured NPR Baghdad Bureau Chief Lourdes Garcia-Navarro reporting that Iraqis wished good riddance to President Bush and hoped for change under Barack Obama. She said she had yet to find a single Iraqi who was grateful for the American defeat of Saddam Hussein. She asked many Iraqis: "Did this invasion, do you feel, give you a better life? And across the board, I didn't find one Iraqi who said to me, actually, I'm glad this happened."

Only on NPR does one hear journalism that calmly suspends logic.

The other talk show NPR publicists touted was "Tell Me More," hosted by Michel Martin, a former reporter for ABC.

Martin recently told NPR listeners she is far too similar to Michelle Obama to feel objectively about her, and she thinks Rush Limbaugh is racist, and explains thusly: "Some people hate the federal government because they can't get past the fact that the government switched sides from being a weapon in the violent oppression of black and sometimes brown people, to being one of the tools creating opportunity for them, as well as other people."

NPR regularly airs liberal commentators (like former CBS reporter Daniel Schorr), and its idea of a conservative is David Brooks of the New York Times. A few weeks ago, in one of their regular evening political roundtables with liberal columnist E.J. Dionne, "All Things Considered" anchor Robert Siegel asked Brooks if he, as a moderate, was comfortable with Obama: "Are you getting more or less comfortable or more or less moderate?" Brooks replied candidly: "I'm getting less comfortable. I don't know about my gross ideological disposition these days."

Neither do conservatives, and yet Brooks is the man who's supposed to represent us.

Public broadcasting has been incredibly hostile to anyone who would dare to police it for fairness and balance. Conservatives ought not forget what happened to Kenneth Tomlinson, the former board chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Fur flew when liberals discovered Tomlinson had conducted a private study to determine if PBS and NPR shows tilted to the left. An inspector general's report suggested Tomlinson somehow had violated CPB bylaws, and he was forced to resign.

Liberal congressman John Dingell insisted Tomlinson had "inserted politics" into public broadcasting, and yes, feel free to insert a laugh track at this point.

It's only "inserting politics" when anyone bothers to object to the everyday liberal politics of NPR and PBS. Ever since Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, the nation's taxpayer-funded news outlets have operated free of any real fear that someone would disturb their pattern of putting their big broadcasting thumb on the scale of liberalism.

If NPR's drawing a Limbaugh-sized audience, isn't it time someone started asking why a "Fairness Doctrine" shouldn't apply to them?

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.


Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
Sir;.... I wish I could say in every public and polical dispute, what you are saying for you, rather than you saying for yourself .... That is what I see in Rush, and other right wing ding a lings... They want to beat up the democrats by mis-characterization...They want to make straw dogs, and then kick them down the street...They do not really want the trouble of having a conversation... They do not want a conversation...They do not want dialogue, or reason....They want to say that the other side is beneath having a conversation with; that because they are democrats they are moral defects, lazy, stupid, theiving, taxing traitors... Why not say it to their faces??? Why not give them equal time to refute??? Isn't fair play essential to the American Way????I Might impugn your motives...I would not put it past me...But I will be happy to talk counter to your own words... Which I find easy enough to do because so many so called conservatives are suffering from various errors of predicate.... It is their assumptions going in that are most often flawed... The attempt to introduce opinion as fact, or ad hominem attacks on liberals for being liberal... At such times I am inclined to remember Lincoln's defense of liberalism... But he has served his purpose, and should shut up, and get on the penny... I do not blame you for wanting the airwaves to yourselves... You want to make of it a big echo chamber where all your nonsense reverberates endlessly... I don't buy it... The public airwaves must serve a public purpose, and if the liberals cannot shut up the reactionaries, then the reactionaries should not be able to shut up the liberals just because most of their audience thinks like them, and they own the station...It IS their station...The airwaves are our public property, and should serve the whole nation even when they reach only a few... Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:03 PM
L. Brent Bozo III strikes once again with a barely literate rant. First of all, Congress has shelved The Fairness Doctrine. But what I want to know is how requiring counter-programming or requiring someone on the air with a different point of view censorship? Personally I would love to see a Crossfire like show with say Al Franken and Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow vs Michelle Malkin or L. Brent Bozo v. Keith Olbermann on MSNBC or Phil Donahue v. Bill O'Reilly on Fox, or Rev. Jeremiah Wright v. Rush Limbaugh on during drivetime (granted, that is a lot of noise, but why not take a chance). Oh, that's right, the greatest majority of right-wing pundits would get their rears handed to them because facts don't matter, they run with the Nazi theory of tell a lie often enough and make it big enough soon it will become the truth.
Mr. Bozo, please, go crawl back into your little cave to watch TV and decry how everything is sex and drugs and liberals gone wild, because rational thought is not and will never be a strength to play to.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Dan Counts
Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:41 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
L. Brent Bozell
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Lawrence Kudlow
Lawrence KudlowUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012

30 Jan 2008 McCain vs. Limbaugh

9 Dec 2011 MTV, Both Sleazy and Sour

19 Jan 2007 Saints and Swearing