NPR/Morning Edition does smear piece on Harry Reid

[smoogatz]

The usual RNC talking points re Reid's dealings with Abramoff clients. The usual insinuations re off-reservation gambling and the Marianas--two positions on which Reid has been entirely consistent. Interviews with Nevada Republican, but no attempt, apparently, to interview Reid. Damn that librul media! Audio now available:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5224894

Shoot them an email and show them the error of their ways.

http://www.npr.org/contact/

[shoelace414]

1. I heard it and was like "wha?"

Especially when they were going over how he "had contact with a Marianas lobbyist" and they were talking about that for about a minute, but ended with "he voted the opposite way the lobbyist wanted"

ok.. so why do you bring it up other than to muddy the waters?

[Roland99]

2. Perhaps it's to *clear* the muddy waters?

[smoogatz]

4. Nope--mostly a recitation of RNC talking points re Reid

"He did the same as us," etc. No refutation from anyone associated w/ Reid. One-sided and misleading.

[Roland99]

10. NPR often does that. They'll report on a story from one side on one day..

then go the other way the next.

They don't often do point/counterpoint on each issue.

[TankLV]

24. Nope - they'll report on the repuke side one day, and move on the next

while "forgetting" to have the TRUTH (Democratic) side qet equal time.

It happens all too frequently, generally.

But they are still just barely better than most of the repuke whore media.

I have the station on practically ALL the time at work.

I was blissfully off work on Monday, so I did not hear this piece.

Therefore, I cannot comment on that specific piece.

Just repeat after me:

NO DEMOCRATS ARE INVOLVED IN THE ABRAMOFF SCANDALS. NOT ONE DEMOCRAT RECEIVED MONEY FROM HIM. NOT ONE. THIS IS STRICTLY A REPUKE SCANDAL.

That's it in a nutshell.

[hollowdweller]

3. You obviously didn't listen to the peice.

[smoogatz]

5. I obviously did. Multiple times.

It left a clear impression that Reid had done "something wrong," IMO. Old tape of Reid not directly addressing the accusation--new tape of Nevada Republican what's his name. It was a not-so-subtle smear piece.

[sendero]

6. I'll have to listen to .

... it when it gets to the archive, I missed it. Another DUers just opened a thread claiming it was good to Reid.

I am familiar with the kind of stuff NPR often does, where they pat you on the back while pissing on your leg and telling you it's raining. Now I hafta hear that piece to see what's up :)

[rurallib]

7. npr version of "balanced reporting"

[Nomen Tuum]

11. NPR = Nothing but Propaganda for Republicans.

I gave up on those liars back when they smeared Clinton every chance they could.

[radio4progressives]

22. National Propaganda for Republicans (what we used to say)

:hi:

[MH1]

15. Well, it was really two-faced.

I listened to it closely and here was my reaction: if you listened closely for facts, it was good for Reid; if you half listened and mostly listened to the quotes from others but not the reporter's analysis (as I believe many do), it hammered Reid. It was like the NPR editors wanted to do a fair report but the rethug manipulators on the editorial staff recognized the value of having the quotes be from the anti-Reid side - more people will pay attention to that then will listen closely to the analysis, which actually supported Reid and hammered the rethugs for trying to twist things.

I don't know if that's a very coherent description...I guess I thought the piece was kind of weird, you know? In that a person could get a totally different takeaway depending on how they listen to the radio.

[Writer]

17. "I guess I thought the piece was kind of weird, you know?..."

"In that a person could get a totally different takeaway depending on how they listen to the radio."

That's how perceptions of bias work, too.

[MH1]

18. Well, to phrase it more specifically....

the piece as a whole could be considered "balanced" perhaps, but if you look at just the quotes, they seemed to be cherry-picked to make the piece sound different - as in anti-Reid - to the casual listener. (As I recall from listening to it this morning...I haven't had a chance to go back and re-listen to it, but I noticed this aspect specifically).

I think a truly balanced piece would have included quotes from both sides, so that it would be balanced even to the casual listener.

I think my use of the word "weird" would be more appropriate to describe the feeling I had at noticing this aspect. Maybe I'm all wet....but the rethugs use of media is pretty effective, and they have definitely put more conservative leaning people into NPR... so I'm just saying that it's possible that this wasn't an accident. Or maybe it was, but the effect is still the same.

[sendero]

19. Oh don't worry..

... I know EXACTLY what you are talking about. That's exactly what I was afraid of, because I've heard them do it so many times.

[mntleo2]

8. LTTE To NPR

I do not listen any longer to your program, but this morning, I got a note from a friend saying..."this is unbelievable, get a load out of this crap from NPR!" Upon listening to what you had to say in your attempts to sound like Fox "news" smearing Democrats for the Abramoff scandal AGAIN, I am again reminded as to WHY I no longer listen to your so-called news. Harry Reid, who has stayed consistent with his positions with the Native gambling and Marianas forced slavery, Reid who even you shills said voted AGAINST what this criminal touted, is somehow implicated that he is also involved? You insisted on dragging his name through this Republican scandal in order to make things LOOK like he is somehow involved, didn't you? I heard a Republican speak on your piece of work, but where was Harry in all this? If Harry Reid decided not to even respond to you, perhaps he knows what many of us know: Morning Edition is just fluff and you are no different than the rest of the corporate media.

Look, perhaps many of your readers are considered enlightened, but many of us see your pap as merely more propaganda. Especially since almost all your CEOs are just Republican lobbyists themselves. They don't care about the responsibility of journalism to inform, they would rather prostitute themselves as they did on the Hill. That you tried to implicate Reid or ANY Democrat in this scandal is just plain stupid. Most informed people know Abramoff refused to even allow Democrats into his corrupted K Street projects.

If you are not careful, you will become the laughing stock of news like your sister station Fox ~ or perhaps you already have the distinction of being in their league. How disgusting my tax dollars are supporting this pap!

Cat Sullivan

Cat In Seattle

Edited for clarity

[Doctor_J]

20. Why don't you tell them how you REALLY feel, Cat?

:rofl:

:toast:

[msgadget]

9. Not a smear piece

A factual timeline re Reid's efforts to block further Indian casinos that go back to '88. Coincidentally Abramoff's clients wished to block further casinos by their competitors in '02 and '03. They gave Reid money and he took it but he was already for blocking casinos... That's not a smear. And, regarding the Marianos islands, Reid was contacted by lobbyists regarding WHEN the minimum wage laws would go into effect. The guy chuckled about lobbying to him because they were lobbying AGAINST minimum wage laws and would never lobby to him because he was on the side opposite their interests.

The report actually showed how the republicans were twisting these facts against Reid and even though they may appear complicated, Reid has done nothing wrong.

[mntleo2]

12. I did Not Hear what You did, But...

I can see where you are coming from. I listened to it too, and heard just another excuse to use anything possible to make sure doubt about his and other Dem's involvement was kept going. It was subtle, but to me this is what "good" propaganda is all about ~ making sure it is just under the radar so you *think* it is "fair and balanced", when it is just dragging it out to make sure it is kept in the limelight. An old trick in court btw, "We know you are innocent of puposefully pulling the rug out from under Mrs. Smith that time she fell and broke her hip, however her death by falling MIGHT look like you are implicated,..." and that was what I heard.

Maybe I am getting so paranoid that I am hearing it everywhere now, I dunno, lol.
Cat In Seattle

[msgadget]

13. LOL! It's only paranoia when you have no real experience to

back up a suspicion and that's certainly not the case. It does illustrate how suspicious we are of 'news' items, doesn't it?

[hollowdweller]

16. THAT'S what I got out of it also!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

28. I heard it exactly the way you describe it. I thought it was a great

debunking of Republican talking points. In order to debunk something - you have to present what you are debunking. That may be the problem here.

[Writer]

14. I feel very bad for you all.

Always reading right-wing propaganda into everything. I'm sorry the story isn't discussing issues you want to hear. If you write NPR and let them know that you only want to hear bad stories about Republicans and good stories about Democrats, I'm sure they'll listen :sarcasm:

The media aren't all good, but they aren't all bad either. Stop labeling everything that doesn't comport with your beliefs as propagandistic.

[Doctor_J]

21. Having one of Reid's opponents on, while NOT giving Reid a chance

to speak for himself, is the very definition of propaganda.

[Writer]

23. No it's the very definition of bad reporting.

Also - did they ask Reid and he refused to respond or respond in time for the report? Was it necessary to have Reid speak to provide balance? Maybe this wasn't even bad reporting. Maybe this is simply individual members of the public who don't understand their media. Who always subscribe their feelings to whatever news they consume and plug in bias when it doesn't comport to their interests or world view.

How about this: next time you decide to read bias into something, do a little structured content analysis. Break apart the report you're listening to and present precisely HOW its biased. Otherwise you sound like someone who is undereducated in media issues - an angry listener with a bone to pick. Especially when you throw around loaded words like "propaganda" but provide no indication that you understand what that means or how it's delivered.

[RazzleDazzle]

25. Yeah, and don't take into account the fact that the CPB has been

staffed with Bush loyalists, either. No -- that has no bearing on whether an NPR report is "biased" or not.

:sarcasm:

Get real or wake up, Writer.

[Writer]

26. Ahem. Gosh, another petty argument that breeds fire and no light...

And we wonder where "Crossfire" came from?

So tell me - what have you studied on this subject? Do you have a degree in media studies, or anything in relation to that? Do you understand that Tomlinson got kicked out and the show he put on the air moved from PBS to Fox, or do you not read the paper? Have you even written an essay - put this into any greater perspective? Or do you cling so desperately to your chosen obscure newssites that cater only to your viewpoints that you fail to see the big picture?

Or how about CNN? Perhaps you haven't read that CNN has chosen to cast aside competing with Fox for doing hard news? That's from the new news CEO's - Ron Shapiro's - own mouth. He intends to promote news because "good news is good business." You haven't read that? You mean that doesn't sway your little opinion? Oh, I'm so very sorry. :sarcasm:

Who's all wet here? Everyone who doesn't read - who gets pissed off because of unsupported perceptions based on the need to blame the media - and not yourselves - for the party's problems. That's the real issue here - everyone who blames the media are really angry at themselves for their own failings. That's endemic within the American public.

So keep flaming ignorantly. The fact that media literacy is not taught in American schools pretty much makes everyone who hasn't touched the material incompetent in assessing their media. And THAT's why America will fail. Because we refuse to admit that the media might be smarter than we are. And that we need to begin learning about it like we do literature. Only then will they become OUR news media again.

Thank you.

Edit: Because I like good grammar... b****.

[sandnsea]

27. They hired Bennett, Beck and Watts

because they're going to do "hard news". :rofl:

Get a friggin' clue. If you think the media is fair it's only because you believe Republicans have a legitimate point of view, which is quite different than having a message to get out. One's news, the other is advertising. And that's the problem with "media literacy" today, the "journalists" don't know the difference between news and PR. I don't need a "media studies" degree to figure that out.