Do you listen to NPR? If you do, are you then a liberal?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Skwyre7 @ Jun 6 2007, 07:59 AM) [snapback]456454[/snapback]</div>

I cut it down for space reasons

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ Jun 5 2007, 09:41 PM) [snapback]456240[/snapback]</div>

Because as it has been pointed out reality is based on facts, not opinions. Try to notice next time you listen to NPR how they interview the actual people involved or introduce references in their reporting.

Fox news has basically invented the idea that everything is relative and can only be presented as competing views of people not involved in the issue. Much to the detriment of democracy and reason. There does seem to be a segment of the population that seems to prefer the easier way of pundit spoonfeeding.

 

I listen to NPR frequently, and public radio in general (NPR is often used synonymously for "public radio", but for instance, someone mentioned "This American Life"- a great program, but it's on PRI, not NPR. And "Prairie Home Companion" is distributed by another public radio outlet, APM). Fortunately, there are two public radios stations with good reception where I live, as well as an NPR channel on XM. And, as regular FHOP folks know, I am slightly more than left of center.

NPR actually began in the early 70s as an alternative voice to the corporate media, and was certainly liberal at that time. They were very much a part of the anti (Vietnam) war movement. However, NPR has significantly evolved since then, and today I don’t think it's accurate to say that it has a bias one way or another. If anything, it recent years it has become more corporatized and has gone more to the right (based on commentators, guests, etc.). I think of NPR as the radio equivalent to the NY Times (which I know some also consider part of the "liberal media", but that is not accurate either). For the most part their news reporting is very good. I know that when the hourly news report comes on, it will be factual, and not shouted at me.

Conservatives for years have assailed NPR for its "liberal bias", and have made many attempts to cut funding for public radio and television. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has extensively studied this and concluded that there is no "liberal bias" at NPR. This issue became particularly noteworthy when Bush made conservative appointments to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. CPB is a private non-profit but it is funded by the federal government, and it exists to promote public broadcasting. NPR and PBS, and more so their affiliate stations, depend on CPB for funding. Under Bush, CPB has become very politicized (their current president is a former co-chair of the Republican National Committee) and their former chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson, was forced to resign for misuse of funds and attempts to force conservative programming.

The people who accuse NPR of having a "liberal bias" are likely the same that think that Fox "News really is "fair and balanced". Air America and Pacifica Radio (which I also listen to) are liberal radio; NPR is not.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Jun 6 2007, 10:39 AM) [snapback]456560[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, facts can be quite funny when they collide with your delusion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ Jun 6 2007, 09:04 AM) [snapback]456456[/snapback]</div>

Quite the contrary, I would assume that someone made it using hundred of years of knowledge, passed through the generations...each generation keeping what practices worked the best, and improving on the previous generations knowledge of watchmaking.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ Jun 6 2007, 08:04 AM) [snapback]456456[/snapback]</div>

I would, if like most watches but unlike any living organism it lacked randomly mutating genetic material that would be non-randomly selected to fit the environment through reproductive generation.

The point is this: The "obvious" man made design argument does not apply to the living.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Jun 6 2007, 12:04 PM) [snapback]456573[/snapback]</div>

See A answered the question perfectly!!!!
Just read between the lines and the big words :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Jun 6 2007, 11:10 AM) [snapback]456579[/snapback]</div>

That's the problem. You need the big words.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Jun 6 2007, 12:11 PM) [snapback]456581[/snapback]</div>

"

:blink: :huh:

Lets break this down.

* no where does the O/P make the statement that the watch is a living oganism. :huh:

* no where does the O/P make an argument of man-made design. :huh:

* there is no reason to run off into left field for such a little question. The reply shows us that the replier is attempting to prove how smart he/she is. :wacko: By using big words to show the rest of us little people (neo-cons) just how smart or better than us he/she is, while twisting the question into something other than what was originally asked for...

If you found a working watch in the forest but saw no watchmaker, would you assume no one had made the watch? Its really a simple question.

Just my interpretation & my 2 cents...... B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Jun 6 2007, 11:33 AM) [snapback]456603[/snapback]</div>

I think you want to have your cake and eat it too. Distill a complex subject to a yes or no answer and then prevent discussion about it.

If you are going to make an argument about a subject in a public forum you should expect discussion and criticism of it. And please don't be disingenous. The watch argument is the oldest argument for intelligent design and it was used by you on purpose.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Jun 6 2007, 12:33 PM) [snapback]456603[/snapback]</div>

What is your answer then? Simple answer please.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ Jun 6 2007, 06:04 AM) [snapback]456456[/snapback]</div>

I would crush it under my heel immediately, since it is new, and different, and with no obvious benefit. It could only be of the devil. I'd then keep hunting for the watch maker and try to destroy him as well. No use just killing the spawn of the devil! Crap. Then I'd have to look for his mother.

I'm staying out of the forest. I don't have time for this kind of stuff.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 6 2007, 09:44 AM) [snapback]456522[/snapback]</div>

Stealing from Jeff Foxwothy here, but if you think the NY Times isn't biased, you must be a liberal. I don't know, but when was the last time the NY Times endorsed any national candiate that wasn't a democrat? And how come it tried to completely ignore for as long as possible the scandal where money was embezeled from a youth club to support Air America?

I listen to NPR. I like the fact that they give more than 1 minute to a story and you get a more complete sense of what the story is about. However, I think they have a bias in the selection of what stories they put on. I think most of their reporters try to be balanced, but the stories they select to put on tend to be biased to the left.

 

To answer the original question, I listen to NPR, and am a liberal. (With some libretarian views... but that's another story).

Prius owners as a demographic are positioned solidly in the left, so this is an interesting forum for this discussion. I am glad to see at least one voice of difference, thanks to FormerVWDriver.

Cognative dissonance is an uncomfortable thing. For this reason we seek out view that validate those of our self. However, I believe that this pervasive, closed-minded part of human nature limits our evolution. It is important to engange in intellegent levelheaded discusion with those who posses alternate views.

Unfortunately I have found it difficult to find such levelheaded discusion from media outlets on the right. One of the things that attracts me to NPR is that they use facts, reason and calm discusion to promonte thier viewpoint. Despite this mature approach to reporting, I have no illusions that thier view is unbiased.

Also, worth noting, this intellegent, levelheaded tone lends itself to the smugness that many NPR listers display. This smugness is alienating to many folks with conservative viewpoints, who otherwise may be open to considering alternate worldviews.

Similarly, I find the tone of most right wing media (even beyond Fox "news") to be quite distatesful, but I know there is a huge demographic that loves it. It's a shame that polorizing media outlets are effectively dividing America, and reducing reasonable discusion amongst our citezenry.

But that's just my 2¢.

This is a good question for anti-creationists:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ Jun 6 2007, 08:04 AM) [snapback]456456[/snapback]</div>

But I find it to be an incomplete analogy... let me elaboratet on the qestion, and deliver it back to FormerVWDriver, if he/she cares to respond:

Lets say you found a working watch in the forest, and saw no watchmaker. Later you found evidence of plans to make the watch out of iron, glass and leather, there was also evidence of the history of watchmaking, from rudamentary sundails up to modern atomic clocks. You also found a book about a watchmaker who could make watches apear in 6 seconds, defying all known logic of the universe.

Would you: A) Beleive there was no watchmaker. B) Believe the watchmaker created the watch from parts, perhaps after creating several other similar watches, whose designs contiued to improve on the original creation. C) Believe the watchmaker conjured the watch from thin air, as was written in the good book. D) Think smething else entirely (if so, please elaborate).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Jun 6 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]456649[/snapback]</div>

You do know that most major newspapers, the New York Times included, have a strict policy of maintaining separation between their editorial boards and news staffs? Political endorsements reflect the view of the paper's editors, but any reputable newspaper will not allow the editor's opinions to influence the reporting of news in any way. I read the Wall Street Journal because their news reporting is among the best of any newspaper, but their editorials are written by right-wing neocons. Yet that does not prevent them from reporting on stories that may not reflect the bias of their editorial board. Say sayonara to that if Rupert Murdoch gets his hooks on them.
"Bias" is subjective and it has to do with the point-of-view and persception of the listener, but all I can say is that I have heard many conservative voices on NPR. So if you really want to determine the answer to that question, I would say read the many analyses (such as the FAIR report I referenced) rather than the anecdotal opinions of a few listeners, me included.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 6 2007, 01:43 PM) [snapback]456690[/snapback]</div>

Ignoring the Air America story is not part of the editorial page. And I don't believe for a second the editorial page (which is what ownership wants it to be) doesn't influence what is in the news section, Wall Street J. included. Not covering a story that they don't like is just as biased as slanting a story. But that wouldn't show up in a report that analyses the news, because it isn't there.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 6 2007, 02:39 PM) [snapback]456680[/snapback]</div>

Holy Mackeral, Burritos. You presume to know more about me than I know about myself. I appear to you (and to others) to be some primitive life form dredged up from the bottom of the ocean, worthy of nothing more from you than categorization, nastiness and uninformed assumptions that somehow relieve your misery, if only briefly.

You also have accused me of things I did not say, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to sort out your confusion. I assume it is part of your hasty analysis and easy pigeonholing of information. If one dog is brown, all dogs are brown. Ditto Christians, conversatives, southerners or whatever target du jour.

If the watch were found in the forest, I would not assume, I would KNOW that it was created by a watchmaker. I would not know whether the watchmaker created the parts by hand or if he used a process (or machinery) to build the parts. That might require the use of science to determine, but it would not negate the reality of the watchmaker.

And sorry to disappoint you, but I believe in dinosaurs and evolution. If science finds it, God made it. He likes to keep things interesting. Like all that stuff dredged up from the ocean floor, God made it and we're just now finding out about it. You may be surprised to know that you don't know everything and never will. God has made more than you have ever dreamed of, even if some of us might wish that He spent a little more time on your powers of reason ;>).

God used evolution to create what we see around us. I do not know the definition of intelligent design, so I will not say that I believe in it. But I do believe that God played an active, interventional role in the creation and continual evolution of the universe and all who inhabit it. I know that God plays an active, interventional role in my life.

Now let's see if I can remember what else I have been accused of that I need to address. (One thing I should be accused of -- quite rightly -- is spending too much time writing answers to people who do not have the ability or desire to consider the merits of what I might have to say, and have, in fact, already decided that there is no merit to what I say because they already know what I think better than I do myself.) Okay. Somebody asked if I believe in the bible.

The bible is the inspired Word of God, preserved and interpretted by fallible human beings. Every time it is read, it is read and interpretted by a fallible human being. That includes me. You understand one part of it by reading other parts. It contains many literary forms that help us to understand the many facets of God, humanity and our relationship with God, as well as his plans for us.

You shortchange yourself and the truth if you read it literally (sort of like if you listen to NPR uncritically). There are two creation stories and two flood stories. Events in Jesus' life do not occur in the same chronological order in the Gospels. This does not mean that they are not true. It means that we are given different accounts in order to broaden our understanding.

God could have created the world in seven days, but he didn't. But what the creation stories tell me is that God created everything and that he said that creation and all within it was good. (The story tells more than that, but I'm not going into that here.) The flood stories tell other truths about judgment, faith and restoration. Was there a person named Noah who built an ark and loaded it with animals? Quite possibly. There is evidence of a flood. Of course he did not load it with two of everything. The bible assumes the reader has some sense (unlike your basic NPR listener).

The bible is not a scientific or historic textbook. It is a gift of much deeper truths and revelations. To understand it requires prayer, study and critical thinking. (Unlike NPR, which is certainly the feeding of the sheep. The soothing tones and smugness are to keep them placidly feeding.)

I have run out of time but I must add one more thing. About big words: Good writers know all the big words; great writers know better than to use them.

If I have not answered all my accusers, I apologize. I don't expect you care, so I'm not going to worry about it.

Does anybody around here do any work?