NPR's coverage of the new Clinton library

[laura888]

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1957382

I was afraid this would happen...

Despite the fact that Clinton enjoyed higher approval ratings at the end of his presidency than Reagan when Reagan left office, the media can't help but insert the words "controversial" in covering anything having to do with his Clinton's presidency.

I'm fed up!

Here's my letter to NPR (All Things Considered at [e-mail])on the above story (I urge you all to write your own!):

This is regarding your story on Bill Clinton’s new library .

"Despite the fact that Republicans spent most of Clinton’s 8-year presidency (and since!) attempting to smear him, screaming “Monica Lewinsky” at the top of their voices, when Clinton left office he was a more popular president than Reagan when Reagan left office.

I find it extraordinary that the media, including you, NPR, should refrain from an honest appraisal of Reagan (with Iran-Contra and soaring deficits) during last week’s week-long coverage, while you allow the words “controversial” and “Monica Lewinsky” to enter today’s one short story on Clinton.

In the end, I think history will judge Clinton favorably – who balanced the budget and presided over a booming economy. If there’s anyone trying to rewrite history, it’s the republicans. Shame on you for caving in to their hype once again."


[e-mail]

[PinkTiger]

1. NPR strives to seek a balance.

I heard the audio feed today you mention, and I thought it was well balanced and interesting.
It is true that a "counter Clinton library" is being planned, and I thought the words of the founder (can't remember his name) didn't bode well for his motives. He implied that the Clinton Library would be used to promote a race by Hillary Clinton to the White House in 2008, and the way his voice sounded made him sound like an idiot.
I also think it is great that Clinton is not afraid to address the issues of impeachment and Monica Lewinsky in the LIbrary, along with all the positive issues that will be portrayed there.
I have been to Carter's library in Atlanta and was impressed by the information there on all facets of his presidency. This is what a presidential library is for.
I don't think NPR is biased. For example, if you look at commentary regarding Ronald Reagan, I think you will find more negative than positive: (link)
'http://search1.npr.org/search97cgi/s97_cgi?CleanQuery=reagancommentary&ResultTemplate=allow_re_sort.hts&Action=FilterSearch&SortSpec=Date+Desc+Score+Desc&filter=topic_filter.NEW.hts

[laura888]

2. It's probable that NPR is doing its best not to be biased

Thanks for pointing out the stories on Reagan - all of which I was not aware. Perhaps a media watch group might tally the favorable and unfavorable views on Reagan and see how that flies. I would still wager that the favorable would win.

My complaint with NPR is that, as during Clinton's presidency, the voices of republican lunatics (like the guy you mentioned) are getting aired, as an attempt to "balance."

Also, if there is mention of a section in the library about Monica Lewinsky, surely there SHOULD have been mention of sections of Clinton's accomplishments - including a balanced budget, the war in Bosnia, etc. Instead, the section on Monica Lewinsky and impeachment is the only sections that gets mentioned.

Surely, after the disaster that is Bush, the media and others would wake up to the fact that the focus on Lewinsky was absolutely laughable?

[dbt]

3. Media will never wake up about the Lewinsky focus.

To do so would be to reveal their role as enablers in this sorry mess. The Media Borg is no more capable of admitting a mistake than is the bu$h regime.

:freak:
dbt

[PinkTiger]

4. I felt the same way you do at first, but after a careful reading

of the story on the site and after listening to the segment again, I realized that the reporter was doing what reporters are always cautioned to do: get the other side.

The problem with Cllinton stories is, the other side is usually wacko. And I think the focus of the story, on what it is doing for Little Rock's economy and the citizens of Arkansas, was very positive.

[sendero]

6. NPR is not balanced..

... and they have not been since around January of 2002.

Balanced doesn't let the right wing say anything they want without ever having a credible rebuttal aired. Balanced doesn't run routine commentaries by the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the National Review, with nary a liberal think tank to be heard. (although I will admit the think tank commentaries have dropped off lately, probably because they have nothing positive they can say about the current mess they helped create).

NPR has been co-opted and please dont' buy into that 'balance' meme, it is total bullshit.

[WherestheOutrage]

7. NPR not consistent in their efforts toward balanced coverage

I was disapprointed with the second of two parts today, with today's interview with Ken Mehlman. The Q&A were largely softball questions and followed ultimate leading question, inquiring as to whether the Bush campaign would attempt to equate a vote for Kerry as a vote for Al Qaeda. This was a stark juxtaposition with yesterday's Q&A with Kerry's campaign chair, which in my view, consisted of questions which were argumentative and unfair (including the now cliched "medals and ribbons" question).

[underpants]

5. Hmm Clinton is STILL creating jobs huh?

I heard that yesterday. Yes they HAD to mention the controversy didn't they. Of course Clinton controversies are a cottage industry themselves-hate radio for instance.

[neoteric lefty]

8. well I did a search and "controversial" was not in there

I think you are mad about something that is not there in this particular story. Everything in that short story was fact, including the proposed "Counter Clinton" library. You may not like it but it is still there. If you want the media to cover the current Bush fairly then you can't be angry when they cover Clinton pretty fairly which they did IN THIS STORY. The story never said anything about Monica either. I understand you being angry at the media as a whole but this example is pretty poor.

[PinkTiger]

9. The story that ran on the air was different.

It included references to Monica Lewinsky; the reporter asked Skip Rutherford, the Director of the Library, if Monica Lewinsky would be covered, and Rutherford said, yes, but so would many many other things. The library will not just focus on Clinton, but also include items about the presidency in general. It will also include information about the impeachment.
I think the original poster is upset about the tone of the story that ran on the air, but in truth, it was a balanced story.
NPR is not OUR news channel. It is trying to be neutral.
I listen to it every day, and if I felt a bias, I would cease to listen. For the most part, I find it agrees with my liberal views.
Unfortunately, many people, conservatives included, do not understand the nature of news gathering or the manner in which stories have to be written and produced for the legiitamate press. Much of this is caused by the clouding of "press" coverage by "news magazines," which are about as much news as the Star Magazine is news.

[neoteric lefty]

10. oh ok

well I did not hear it but I trust your account.

[laura888]

11. NOPE - If the sections of the library on Monica and the impeachment...

...are named outright, and everything else about Clinton's presidency is wrapped up into a label of "other" - then isn't this a bias?

I mean - if we were to summarize Reagan's presidency in one sentence and say "he did Iran Contra, racked up a deficit and did many other things" I'm positive many people would be upset.

Get my drift?

[PinkTiger]

12. Now,, I did not say that.

What I said was, the reporter asked if Monica Lewinsky and the impeachment would be addressed. Skip said yes, they would, because they happened. But so would so much other information from the Clinton years.
I think you just want to get excited here.