Becuase Everything Else Sucks

Kucinich Wins and Loses NPR’s Post-Debate Analysis

By Manila Ryce
Published Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 2:49 pm
Filed under: US Politics

I don’t expect any more enlightenment from NPR than I do from the cable news networks, so it wasn’t too surprising that Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel had less time to speak during NPR’s Democratic presidential debate than the main three media darlings of the Democratic Party. While NPR may be more reliable than other corporate news sources, I agree with FAIR’s assessment that, “NPR’s guestlist shows the radio service relies on the same elite and influential sources that dominate mainstream commercial news, and falls short of reflecting the diversity of the American public.” In short, NPR is just a more palatable version of the corporate media.

FAIR’s criticism is justified by the following example. Richard Wolffe, a commentator for MSNBC and Senior White House Correspondent for Newsweek, was called on by NPR to give his post-debate verdict. You can listen to his analysis here. While I applaud Wolffe for recognizing that Kucinich had won the debate (who else in the media has ever acknowledged that?) he did so reluctantly and condescendingly. He couldn’t bring himself to say that Dennis won the debate without prefacing it with “I hate to say this BUT…” or “A Kucinich administration doesn’t make any sense to me BUT…“. Rather than offer an objective point of view, the NPR host merely laughs at Wolffe’s backhanded compliments. I’d like to know what is so horrible about Kucinich that makes recognizing him as anything other than a fringe candidate or a kook that sees UFOs an unforgivable sin? Stop apologizing and try to show some journalistic integrity you fucking hacks.

Related Posts

3 Responses to “Kucinich Wins and Loses NPR’s Post-Debate Analysis”

  1. […] Kucinich Wins and Loses NPR’s Post-Debate Analysis I don’t expect any more enlightenment from NPR than I do from the cable news networks, so it wasn’t too surprising that Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel had less time to speak during NPR’s Democratic presidential debate than the main three media darlings of the Democratic Party. While NPR may be more reliable than other corporate news sources, I agree with FAIR’s assessment that, “NPR’s guestlist shows the radio service relies on the same elite and influential sources that dominate mainstream commercial news, and falls short of reflecting the diversity of the American public.” In short, NPR is just a more palatable version of the corporate media.FAIR’s criticism is justified by the following example. Richard Wolffe, a commentator for MSNBC and Senior White House Correspondent for Newsweek, was called on by NPR to give his post-debate verdict. You can listen to his analysis here. While I applaud Wolffe for recognizing that Kucinich had won the debate (who else in the media has ever acknowledged that?) he did so reluctantly and condescendingly. He couldn’t bring himself to say that Dennis won the debate without prefacing it with “I hate to say this BUT…” or “A Kucinich administration doesn’t make any sense to me BUT…“. Rather than offer an objective point of view, the NPR host merely laughs at Wolffe’s backhanded compliments. I’d like to know what is so horrible about Kucinich that makes recognizing him as anything other than a fringe candidate or a kook that sees UFOs an unforgivable sin? Stop apologizing and try to show some journalistic integrity you fucking hacks. […]

    Kucinich Wins & Loses NPR’s Post-Debate Analysis By Manila Ryce « Dandelion Salad
    12/5/07 at 6:40 pm

  2. They would like to support him but they are bought and paid for. Even on NPR…’the left’ the media have been co-opted. It is even worse on the left because we incorrectly assume they will give us balance.

    Sure, they will give us balance if it is something obvious…a storm, an evil corporation (in the singular), a bad bill by a republican…something obvious.

    Nando
    12/5/07 at 10:11 pm

  3. I’ve given up on NPR… this a little off-topic but sort of related to NPR’s bias.

    I watched Judy Woodruff interview two people about the Supreme Court’s current case on Habeas Corpus and she just kept leaning towards the anti-Habeas Corpus guy’s views. The pro-Habeas Corpus was more than certain that the SCOTUS would rule that Gitmo is indeed US sovereign soil and so the Constitution would apply and cover detainees held there, but Ms Woodruff would have done of that. She kept saying, “but if the court DOES rule in favor of President Bush in this case…”

    It was just so f**king blatantly pro-Right, it just made me want to barf!

    What happened to journalists? When did they become so self-important that they feel they MUST express their opinion rather than report the facts. I guess it’s all part of the lack of real education. I remember taking a journalism class in high school and learning how to interview someone. We learned what and how to ask; to get and report the facts and details of the story but above all we learned to keep our opinions OUT of the story. That’s what the Editorial and Commentary sections were for.

    Rowdy
    12/6/07 at 2:22 pm

Leave a Reply

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>