DU IT!: NPR does hatchet job on Grayson, uses woman who claims to be Dem but is really Repub

[ddeclue]

to claim she "regrets" voting for him.

Please let them know what you think of their "fact checking process":

To comment on the particular story:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113742203#commentBlock

To provide show feedback:
http://help.npr.org/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=5670&task=ticket

LAK 104810170 Morningstar Irene 32767 F 5 REP

FACT CHECK: IRENE MORNINGSTAR IS A REGISTERED REPUBLICAN.

According to the Florida Voter Registration System as of April of 2009, Ms. Morninstar was NOT a Democrat but was ACTUALLY a registered REPUBLICAN:

LAK 104810170 Morningstar Irene 32767 F 5 REP

LAK=LAKE COUNTY
104810170= Her state voter ID
32767 = her ZIP code
F = FEMALE
5 is her RACE=WHITE (3=black, 4=hispanic, 5=white)
REP is her PARTY = REPUBLICAN

I have redacted her street address and birthdate info here (although she doesn't deserve it for pulling this dirty trick) but can make it available to any NPR reporter who wants it. My source is the Florida Voter Registration System from April of 2009.

NPR needs to correct the error and apologize to Congressman Alan Grayson for not fact checking their interview before going to air with it.

Sincerely,

[Hannah Bell]

1. k/r

goes well with this: "cnn leaves it there"

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

tv news = propaganda, print not much better.

[Fumesucker]

2. What a surprise!!11!

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that NPR would put someone on who was lying about being a "lifelong Democrat"..

[Joe Bacon]

140. NPR = Nothing but Propaganda for Republicans!

I stopped giving to KCRW in Santa Monica when NPR's Nina Tottenberg fabricated lie after lie about Anita Hill. Then they became the biggest cheerleaders for Clinton's impeachment. Screw NPR! Not one nickel for those liars. It's time to stop financing Republican propaganda with taxpayer dollars and cut the cord!

[LisaM]

3. Call into Talk of the Nation

The reporter is its producer.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=2100171

I agree he should have fact checked, but it sounds as if Ms. Morningstar lied to him.

[bjobotts]

102. Then he should go after her for lying to him. BTW....

[bjobotts]

104. BTW...Pat Toomey is a far right wack job and must be kept our of the senate by all means possible

[JNelson6563]

4. I heard that shit this morning.

I can't believe there's anyone in the world who still buys that "I was a lifelong Democrat until this" crap. Only the very most special kind of stupid ever bought this nonsense to begin with.

Julie

[ddeclue]

8. Numbers for calling in to NPR to get them to correct the "error" - DU IT

How to be a Caller on Talk of the Nation
Tips on what to tell the NPR screeners to get on the air

To join the on the air discussion, call: [phone]

NPR Main Number -- [phone]
NPR Main Fax -- [phone]
NPR Communications -- [phone]
NPR Member Services -- [phone]

[defendandprotect]

74. Also should everyone a firm idea of how NPR is being used for Repug-speak . . .!!!

And dirty-tricks -- !!!

[rudy23]

5. I was just about to start a post wondering when the corporate media would start hacking away

They can't let a person like that start rocking the boat. When do they ever let that stand? He's going to get Howard Dean-ed real soon, bank on it. He makes corporate Repubs AND Dems look bad. Too many powerful enemies to let the Grayson train keep trucking along.

[goddess40]

19. Howard Deaned?

What is this supposed to mean?

[ddeclue]

21. as in "Haaaaaaahhh!!!!"

[mopinko]

6. ferfucksakes

i am off to write a nastygram.

[Sal Minella]

11. Nastygram just sent.

I've been a member of two public radio stations for nearly thirty years, and just told them I may haul that to a screeching halt.

Of course my widow's mite compared to what they get from megacorporations may not carry much weight. But I'm hoping my angry note will be added to thousands of others.

[defendandprotect]

75. Why would you still be giving them money????

NPR has been long, long gone --

So has PBS -- more than 20 years since we started calling them "Petroleum Broadcasting" --

Currently my local PBS station here in NJ - NJN - is running repeats of "Bonanza" --

We need to upend the private Corporation for Public Broadcasting and rescue PBS from the

right wing!!

[sendero]

86. Exactly..

... after 17 years of donating to our local affiliate I quit cold in 2002 after getting sick and tired of the right wing bullshit.

Things have gotten a bit better since then but not enough to give them money.

I heard a segment on Grayson this morning and was struck by what they left out. They SUCK. Why the hell would anyone want to Pay a Media Outlet to disseminate propaganda?

[defendandprotect]

93. People have a hard time getting that . . .

the "Beg-A-Thon's" going back so many decades now . . .

Corporation for Public Broadcasting put in by Repugs --

We should license these networks and they should be supported by taxpayer dollars

directly -- same with NPR.

Democrats have to take back the press -- or we're going no where!!!

[appal_jack]

114. I proudly donate to WETS and WNCW

I agree that NPR News itself has tilted hard to the right since at least the (S)election of 2000, and really wasn't great under Clinton before then either. But don't paint all public radio stations with quite such a broad brush. If your local stations are 100% corporate shills, I suggest finding a better one that webcasts, and supporting them. Two I can heartily recommend from firsthand/local experience are:

WETS - Eastern Tennessee State University
WETS does broadcast the same snoozy classical music and NPR-Boring_Edition/All_Things_A_Twitter that all the affiliates do. But they also have some excellent locally-produced Appalachian roots and Celtic music programs, and two amazing info shows: Democracy Now and Inside Appalachia. Now Eastern Tennessee is about as rural southern Appalachian as you can get and we have more than our share of rw nutjobs, so it takes guts to broadcast Democracy Now. And I am sure that the coal companies have no love for the fair and accurate coverage of mountaintop removal mining that Inside Appalachia has provided. Check them out at www.wets.org

WNCW
WNCW has a truly amazing assortment of locally-produced roots music programs: jazz on Saturday mornings, jam-bands on Wednesday nights, Celtic music on Sunday afternoons, dub and reggae, bluegrass, etc., and I could go on longer. They also cover local news and southern Appalachian cultural and environmeental issues pretty well. Check them out at www.wncw.org

-app

[sendero]

139. I understand ..

.... how you value that programming, and not all of the programming on our local affiliate (KERA) is bad. It's just that I hate lies and spin and that's what NPR news has become. I can't support it.

The model they use is just like the (conservative) newspaper here in Dallas and I'm guessing most of the country. All of their news and editorial is slanted right, but they have a "living" or "today" section where all of the "liberal" ideas live. Like - the real world is for conservatives and the fluff is for liberals. Fuck that.

[appal_jack]

166. yup.

I agree completely that we should not be content to have a mild-left vein of wry humor in something like Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me, while the 'hard news' programs are filled with Juan Williams, Cokie Roberts, and representatives from the Heritage Foundation and the Hudson Institute. But I still listen to NPR a bunch (I'm in the car a lot, plus I don't have internet at home). Even the national-level programs produce occasional gems, and as a member, I feel I have a little more leverage to call-out NPR when their biases swing too far rightward.

The run-up to the Iraq War was particularly disgusting, and I quit donating to any NPR stations between 2002 and 2006. But more recently, I have asked myself. "What if these guys were not on the air?" and decided that they deserve a bit of my cash. I will hold them to their mission as best I can though.

-app

[sendero]

167. Fair..

... enough.

[PavePusher]

157. Hahahahahaha!

Only here at DU could anyone claim with a straight face that "NPR News itself has tilted hard to the right...".

Thanks for the funny of the week!

:rofl:

[appal_jack]

165. Zorra posted (#60, below) a good link from FAIR

Don't take my word for the right-wing bias of NPR, see the FAIR report which Zorra has already posted a link to, but which I will re-post here:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1180

It documents how NPR draws upon the economically-elite and corporate for their guests and perspectives, and also draws from the stables of right wing think tanks for a disproportionate number of guests: "The Heritage Foundation and National Review are important institutions on the right; people affiliated with their counterparts on the left don’t show up on the list of regular NPR commentators."

Call me old-fashioned, but I think that a public radio network should prioritize the perspectives and needs of the PUBLIC. Instead, it gives a disproportionately large platform to an elite and reactionary minority, then asks me to donate to them. While I have already stated that I donate to two local public radio stations, I will continue to demand that they live up to their mission. Unfortunately, even the best of the national-level NPR news and perspective programs (Diane Rehm {particularly on the health-care debate - Single Payer was always marginalized on that program and too-often excluded entirely}, Morning Edition, etc.) have too often fallen short of this mark.

-app

[nyc 4 Biden]

146. The current issue of The Nation has a brilliant piece...

...on how the US can save journalism by properly funding Public Broadcast Media. I thought you might find it interesting.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091012/baker">How to Save the News
by William F. Baker

excerpt:
Total federal support for American public broadcast media in 2007 was about $480 million. That might seem sufficient or even impressive until you compare it with the BBC, which serves a nation with one-fifth the US population but which received the equivalent of $5.6 billion in government money in 2007. When it comes to public media, the United States is decisively outspent by the governments of most other major democracies. Japan, whose population is less than half the size of the United States', spent the equivalent of $6.8 billion for public broadcasting in 2007; Germany, with one-third the size, spent about $11 billion; and Canada, a tenth the size, spent $898 million. Even Denmark and Ireland, with populations smaller than New York City, far outspent the United States per capita, with respective budgets equivalent to $673 million and $296 million.

[Sal Minella]

164. "On The Media" is one of my favorite things to listen to.

It covers stories about newspapers, polling, the innerwebnettubes, etc.

"This American Life" is always interesting, and the host has a distinctly leftward and/or humanist political orientation.

"Living on Earth" covers environmental matters worldwide.

"Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" is a news quiz distinctly libdem in humor.

I want those shows to stay on the air, and as the old Arab proverb goes, Take what you want, and pay for it.

So I tend to get my news from DU and Common Dreams and the BBC, but listen to the radio nearly constantly, and feel I should pay for it. (Don't have TV, don't want TV.)

I gave up completely on Scott Simon several years ago when he delivered his little Saturday morning homily on how wonderful it was that "Life Goes On" after this woman had just delivered a baby in a tree during a flood in Africa. This mother and newborn were stranded in a frigging tree surrounded by floodwaters, and Scott was marveling how wonderful it is, the way life goes on. What a jerk.

[Better Today]

7. NPR is nothing but crap anymore, I've not been able to stomach listening to it for 5 years now.

They are complete tools of the RW BS machine.

[Ajaye]

35. Yes, I've been noticing that lately

I used to find NPR pretty balanced. I never minded the political panel discussions b/c the Republicans were sane and there were always Democratic voices at the table to balance them. Mostly it was "villager" chatter, but at least centrist.

Lately they have been giving one sided air time to right wingnuts. I don't understand why that has occurred.

Every time I turn on NPR I get disgusted. And it always surprises me b/c I used to rely on it for intelligent, balanced coverage.

Just recently I turned it on on a Sat. and there was coverage about the dilemnas that the poor, poor health insurance companies face in trying to cut costs. I mean, seriously, major sympathetic air time going to a representative of a health care company about how it's so awfully hard to figure out how to cut costs. The interviewer was just sucking it all up, getting all oh poor you about it.

It really made me sick. Not one word about profits, waste in administration, executive salaries being cut. No, just about the hard, hard choices that low level administrators have to make. Sort of along the lines of: Gee, hospitalization after major surgery costs a lot of money. How many days do we REALLY have to give these damned insureds? It's such a hard, hard decision, but we have to do what we have to do. We'll give em half a day.

The subject of the interview gave his sad story about having had a head injury while on vacation and the insurance company which he works for and covers him refused to pay for the cost of medical transportation back to his home town during the two weeks of rehab he had to go through after he was stablized. He said, well it would have been nice to have had friends and family there to support me, but you know it would have cost the insurance company so much money to get me there and so I just stayed there 500 miles away from home and did the rehab there. And the company saved a lot of money.

[Doremus]

42. It occurred because BushCo. politicized it in every way they could get away with.

Up to an including burrowing in their moles.

[defendandprotect]

94. Yes, Bush worsened the situation . . . but it's been going on for 20-30 years!!

You have to give some thought not to what they presented that you liked --

but what's been missing all those decades...

The stuff that's gotten us to this point -- !!


How many Forsythe Saga's . . . How many Miss Marple's . . .

and all the other junky "entertainment" in between?

[zoff]

133. Except for ...

Click n Clack The Tappet Bros and Garrison Keillor's Prairie Home Companion. Both shows brought laughter even from my pre-teen son. They're the only programs worth listening to. I stopped listening to Faith Middleton's Food Shmooze show after after a fallacious interview she did with McSame.

[rambler_american]

135. There are some good programs on NPR

Diane Rehm comes to mind. She is as good an interviewer as Rachel, IMHO. If you haven't heard her give it a listen. Good show.

[Captain Hilts]

142. Me either. Cokie Roberts and Juan Williams are corrupt, clueless tools. nt

[MinM]

9. Good catch, ddeclue...

:dem: & R

[ddeclue]

10. She's messing with the wrong people when she messes w/Alan...

Among my many talents and resources:

1) I have the Florida Voter Registration set up for all counties in FL so that I can pull impromptu searches or do voter lists for Dem candidates on demand. I could also do several other states if I wanted to - OH, NC, NV would be easy to add.

2) I also am quite expert at doing OPPO research when people or anonymous groups try to pull "dirty tricks" - I just love to pull off their mask and bust them on it.

:rofl:

[Fumesucker]

12. Well done..

That "lifelong Democrat" thing has turned into a real "tell" hasn't it?

[ddeclue]

16. I just wrote the Lake County DEC chair to ask Lake DEC to help her "correct" her voter registration.

To the Lake County DEC Chair:

Perhaps someone in the Lake County Democratic Executive Committee ought to call her up and offer to help her “correct” her voter registration so that she can actually become the Democrat she claimed on NPR that she has always been:

Thanks,

+ her voter reg info and contact info redacted here..


:rofl:

[elocs]

13. I doubted she was a Democrat when I heard the piece.

NPR never questioned it for a moment.

[ddeclue]

14. and NPR wins a "truthiness" award...

:rofl:

[Qutzupalotl]

33. I had the same reaction.

When she said it's all "just lies", I immediately thought of the teabaggers. She sounds just like them. No specifics, just smears.

[SpiralHawk]

15. NPR sucks now - just a corporate republicon propaganda organ

They have no cred, no honor.

[Festivito]

27. Agreed. I no longer listen to their news. Only music shows. /nt

[wicket]

17. K & R

:kick:

[ddeclue]

18. CLOSER EXAMINATION OF THE VOTER FILE INDICATES SHE'S IN DISTRICT 3 NOT DISTRICT 8

So not only did she not tell the truth about her party affiliation, she also failed to tell the truth about voting for Alan (unless she committed voter fraud to vote for Alan). She is in District 3, Alan is Congressman for District 8.

:rofl:

[bullwinkle428]

30. So she was a bussed-in tea-bagger? This just keeps getting better and better!

I will be listening tomorrow with my ear to the speaker for the entire two hours, just to hear the retraction! (Yeah, that'll happen!)

[ddeclue]

32. Well she probably drove, she lives in the same county it's just that

Florida Congressional districts are hopelessly gerrymandered and many counties have 2, 3 or even 4 Congressional districts. In the case of Lake it has both districts 3 and 8.

[bullwinkle428]

34. Drove there on her Medicare-provided Rascal, I'm guessing...

Yes - I HAD to go there! :rofl:

[ddeclue]

37. HA!

:rofl:

[SpiralHawk]

38. Republicons always seem to lie

funny about that, in a pathetic sort of way.

[defendandprotect]

76. As Newt Gingrich told Bill Clinton . . . "If we told the truth, we'd lose..." -- Right!!!

[Liberal In Texas]

20. Impressive work on your part. K&R n/t

[KansDem]

22. K&R!!!

Excellent work!

I would like to see this story picked up by the other news outlets, like the AP...:woohoo:

[ddeclue]

26. I've forwarded it to several media contacts including at AP...let's see if it gets picked up..

:D

[Caliman73]

23. Good catch

Republicans have no shame and the MSM have no standards!

[Enthusiast]

24. NPR is another representative of

the corporate/monopoly GOP party. Juan Williams is often their token liberal, just like on Fixed Noise. They did a real hatchet job on the health care debates. It is so bad I can hardly listen to it.

[Nikki Stone1]

25. The link keeps timing out for me. Is NPR blocking comments?

?

[ddeclue]

28. I've put out the word to a lot of people - maybe they are slamming NPR with comments right now..

keep trying..

also the other link still seems to be ok and you can also call their telephone numbers as well.

[Liberal In Texas]

39. No, it's just real slow. I had to "try again" twice. n/t

[Ajaye]

29. Why are they running a story which features...

a "lifelong Democrat" kvetching and whining about Rep. Grayson anyway? I mean, I do not recall a single story about any Republican congressperson with the same meme ever being broadcast by NPR or any other "librul" media outlet.

Why is it that "lifelong Democrats" always seem to regret voting Democratic when Democrats act like Democrats and lifelong Republicans always regret voting for Republicans when they act like Democrats? Are we noticing a common theme here? The media seems to focus on people who don't seem to like Democratic policy.

Somehow you never hear about Lifelong Republicans regretting their votes for Republicans who act like Republicans.

I think the whole thing is stupid and has no place in a news analysis piece and certainly no news organization should take at face value the comments of any critic of a politician.

[ddeclue]

31. +1 and welcome aboard DU!

:D

[lpbk2713]

36. Typical

They're ALL full of shit, right up to their eyebrows.

[beac]

40. Done. It makes me sick seeing what NPR has become. " Liberal media," my tattered totebag!

:mad:

[swishyfeet]

41. I'm sorry... I just don't see the hatchet job

Okay, some woman lies to them about her party registration. They're interviewing her outside some civic center... It's a bit much to expect they investigate everyone they shove a microphone in front of.

Let them know they've been duped. Fine. But I'm sure you can get in line behind millions of conservatives who think NPR is far too liberal. As far as I can tell, they are the ONLY information talk radio outside Air America that isn't dominated by right wing gasbags.

I listen to NPR all the time, and while they sometimes have segments I disagree with, they are as balanced a network as you're gonna find.

[ddeclue]

43. Look if I can check her voter registration they can too. They had all night to fact check and edit

the story. They didn't bother. They put up some bogus and derogatory nonsense from a Republican plant through their negligence, laziness or whatever - that's a hatchet job.

As Jon Stewart was pointing out about CNN and their lack of fact checking last night... baaa...baaa...baaaa...

[Techn0Girl]

169. Look if I can check her voter registration they can too. They had all night to fact check and edit

I'm guessing that you never went to college.

When and if you go you find out what a primary source is. I certainly found that out myself when I was working at my Ivy League school newspaper and eventually became editor of it.

When and if you go to college you may learn why:
1. A voter record from APRIL 2009 does not prove anything about someone's voter registration in NOVEMBER 2008.

2. You may also learn why learn why using a generic Internet look up site for addresses does NOT prove where someone lives or lived . You need to go to the source. IN this case, since you are making allegations about someone lying about their party affiliation and residency during the election, you need to go to the voter registration records immediately PRIOR to November of 2008 - not after. Checking Zillow, Wikipedia or Twitter does not count. Get an education and find out why.

That all sounds pretty elitist I know - but I am tired of reactionary ill-informed people parading around their ignorance like it was a badge of honor. Worse when they stir up other ill-informed people to do things which damage our own goals.

NPR is one of the best friends we have. They're not perfect by any means at all - but the nonsense that YOU are spewing to rile people up against them is both uncalled for and completely out of line.

[rhett o rick]

47. Your argument confuses me. NPR uses an interview to make a point. But the interview is false. How

can you call that journalism. They must have interviewed more people but chose to air her interview. Why? They just dont interview people and air whatever is said, they review it and edit and should fact check. Your argument that it was just an honest mistake doesnt hold water.

[ddeclue]

48. Except perhaps that NPR wants to borrow CNN's goat for the night..

:rofl:

Fact checks...we don't need no stinkin' fact checks...

:eyes:

[bread_and_roses]

57. I listen to NPR a lot, and sure seems to me they ARE dominated by RW gasbags

I drive a lot and can't stand commercial radio so I listen to NPR a lot. Sure seems to me that every time I turn on the radio I'm hearing some RW shill or some Corpo-apologist if not the Corpo-crat him/herself fielding T-Ball questions. FAIR did a very illuminating study on NPR a few years ago - still available on-line I'm sure. It's worth taking a read. My guess is that things are no better now, if not WORSE.

Not to mention that they spend more time on their banal "commentaries" and assorted idiotcies and feel-good or "amusing" stories than they do on actual news anymore. And their news features are all to often some clever sound bites, a few personal interviews, and one quote from each side - some quote you've already heard/seen if you either watch MSM or read a lot. Condescending, oh so world-weary Cokie, for instance, blahs at us whatever the days conventional take is among the DC punditry, and gets called an "anylist" for her round-up.

and one final note - they manage to find time everyday for the "Business Report" and the stock market #s, but where is the daily "Labor Report?"

[verges]

72. I'm curious...

What, exactly, would they report on a daily Labor Report?

[Marr]

126. Why don't you look one up?

Most papers used to have a business section and a labor section. They're two sides of the same coin.

[kenfrequed]

149. Uhm huh?

Most papers do Not have a labor section. They have a business section and the want ads. The news almost never covers labor action properly or labor issues. I have watched and read diligently and 95% of the time they do not cover any of the issues of a strike or contract negotiation problem.

For example when we had a metro transit strike here in St Paul the media decided to cover it as a human interest story. And what was the angle? How local businesses were hurt by the strike and how this might hurt other workers.

[Marr]

162. That's what I was saying-- and your example is perfect.

Papers *used* to have labor sections. They no longer do. The poster I responded to seemed to be wondering what a labor section could possibly be useful for. That strike story is a good example.

By the way, that narrative they ascribed to the strike with a pro-management perspective? It was very deliberately designed and focus-group tested back in the 30's, IIRC. Big business was searching around for a good angle to counter labor strikes with, and that's the one that performed best. It's been repeated ever since, every time a big strike happens. It's always about how labor is 'disrupting our harmonious society'.

[Luminous Animal]

131. They would report on what most of us do for a living.

Or rather, what many of us used to do. They would report on loss of jobs, union organizing, union busting, working conditions, wage trends, job trends, etc.

[Techn0Girl]

64. I'm sorry... I just don't see the hatchet job

"They're interviewing her outside some civic center... It's a bit much to expect they investigate everyone they shove a microphone in front of."

Ahhh... that puts things into an entirely different perspective. If they were doing a live interview with some random woman than the standards of investigation are a bit lower than for a pre-planned interview. That brings a somewhat different light on the event.

Frankly, I'm with you. And since the only evidence of this woman's alleged "lies" are voter records from April '09 - we have no way of knowing whether or not she was indeed registered Republican prior to the election or where she lived prior to the election.

I think there is somewhat of an overreaction here.

Maybe she lied about being a Democrat and voting for Grayson. Maybe she didn't. How can we tell without looking at records prior to the election rather than the '09 records we have been presented with?

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TankLV]

87. Of course you and your fellow repukes don't!!!

Sorry - you ain't foolin' anybody!

And, if you read this thread carefully, WE DO KNOW SHE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A REPUKE! - A LIFELONG REPUKE!!!

Whichi is the OPPOSITE of what she's spewing - just the like REPUKE CRAP you're trying to spew...

[defendandprotect]

95. Which doesn't say much . . .

they are as balanced a network as you're gonna find.

Certainly there is little to be found in the world of our corporate press . . .

so being no quite as bad as Fox or Limbaugh doesn't say much!

[RagAss]

44. NPR sucks the shit out of my ass.

[iamjoy]

45. They Got Another Fact Wrong Too

NPR said the only apology Congressman Grayson had made was to the families of the deceased. That's not true. Grayson wrote a letter to the Anti Defamation League and apologized for using the term "holocaust." For crap's sake, even Fox got that one.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/02/grayson-regrets-holocaust-remark/

[ddeclue]

46. Hi Joy!

:)

[nashville_brook]

49. you know -- i didn't believe her one bit. is she even in his district?

[ddeclue]

51. NOPE - Turns out she's in District 3 - Corrine Brown's district.

:rofl:

Perhaps someone should call the FDLE on her for engaging in voter fraud.

:rofl:

[nashville_brook]

52. hey -- yeah, I just noticed that. man-o-man they better do a retraction.

[MetaTrope]

55. She must have gone voting with Ann Coulter

Perhaps they drove in a caravan from district to district?

[Chef Eric]

50. Thank you for posting this! nt

[BrklynLiberal]

53. Thanks. I sent a note to NPR!!!!!!

[Techn0Girl]

54. DU IT!: NPR does hatchet job on Grayson, uses woman who claims to be Dem but is really Repub

What exactly was the "hatchet job" that was done on Grayson?
What did she say about him?
What factual information about him did she relate that was wrong?

Very nice job on determining that she was some sort of shill - but are you sure that she WAS a shill.
I gather from other posts here that she said that she stated that she was a Democrat who voted for Grayson and then turned Repub - and you found out that she was a registered Repub.

But you don't say when she became a repub. Was it this year (which would be consistent with what I gather she said ) - or was prior to the election - which would make her a liar.

You don't say.

If she registered Repub this year (as the April records that you cite show) than her story is entirely consistent. If she did it prior to the '08 election then she is a liar at best if not an outright shill.

You don't say which. You only cite records after the Nov election. Do you have records before the election that indicate she was a Repub at that time?


Could you possibly do more research and find out?

[ddeclue]

56. I've said all that's necessary. She misrepresented herself two different ways to the interviewer

she doesn't live in his district and she isn't a Democrat.

That totally invalidates her claim TWICE that "she has been a lifelong Democrat who regrets voting for Alan." She's neither a Democrat NOR could she have voted for Alan even if she wanted to do so.

That makes her 200% shill in my book.

Now run along back to FR...

Thanks for playing though.

[Techn0Girl]

58. I've said all that's necessary. She misrepresented herself two different ways to the interviewer

"she doesn't live in his district and she isn't a Democrat.

That totally invalidates her claim TWICE that "she has been a lifelong Democrat who regrets voting for Alan." She's neither a Democrat NOR could she have voted for Alan even if she wanted to do so."

Excuse me, but you cited records, as I mentioned before, that indicate she was a Republican AFTER the election - you cited April '09 records.

Is it not possible that she was a Democrat prior to the election?

Look - verification goes both ways. If you say something than you have to back it up with facts. So far we have no way of knowing whether she was registered Democrat and/or voted for Grayson prior to the election. You have not proven that. You only cited April '09 Records that occurred AFTER the election.

As for her not living in Grayson's district - isn't it possible that she moved after the election? I moved from Southern california to northern after the election myself. We have no way of knowing unless you do your research and obtain records prior to the election - not the '09 records. Now maybe she lied about her address during the election - and maybe she didn't. We have no way of knowing at the moment.

And FWIW - not everyone who disagrees with you is a Republican in disguise.
Look, I am only demanding the same level of research and proof that you are shouting about rather hysterically yourself.

It should not be too much to ask you to adhere to the same standars that you are preaching about.

[ddeclue]

63. That was NOT her claim. She claimed to be a life long Democrat

which indicates she meant up to the present.

And NO she hasn't moved:

According to Zabasearch she's been at her current address AT LEAST since May of 2006:

IRENE Y MORNINGSTAR Born Feb 1945 Get the Dirt Check for Email Address Google
43029 4TH ST Neighborhood & Property Report Record Created: 05/2006
PAISLEY, FL 32767 Confirm Current Phone & Address
Background Check on IRENE Y MORNINGSTAR

Thanks for playing but you don't know what you're talking about.

[Techn0Girl]

66. That was NOT her claim. She claimed to be a life long Democrat

"which indicates she meant up to the present."

Is that what it means or is that what you intrepret it to mean?


"According to Zabasearch she's been at her current address AT LEAST since May of 2006:"

FYI - Zabrasearch still has me living in L.A. . I moved over 4 months ago.

I'm sorry but I am putting you (and hence this thread) on ignore.

This is simply childish hysteria and it's foolish to be a part of it.

You need to on up to the very same standards that you are preaching.

[ddeclue]

67. Her voter file address matches her Zabasearch address -if it is wrong then she is in violation of

Florida law which requires her to change her address in which case I should report her to the FDLE for voter fraud.

Sorry but you are just playing games and don't have any of the facts. I DO.

and you can stop playing semantic games. If I say I am a "life long Democrat" that means EXACTLY what it says - my ENTIRE life which includes THE PRESENT.

Now run along back to FR. You lose.

[Cha]

89. Good, put me on

ignore, too..the way you're denying reality.

[sabrina 1]

124. Well, you can put me on ignore also. Another Rightwingnut

gets caught lying because whenever a Dem with guts refuses to back down, they cannot use facts to defend themselves, so they resort to lies and deception. She's another Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe.

Childish is not being honest about who you are. She has been caught red-handed lying because she cannot refute honestly, what Rep. Grayson has said about Republicans.

A 'life-long Democrat' means just that. If she claims she voted for Rep. Grayson, she was a Democrat in Nov. 2008. Looks like she wasn't, doesn't it?

And why are you so concerned about this deceiver btw?

[kenfrequed]

153. That would be my question

What is the gain in defending someone that has to be lying at least on one if not both counts. She either falsified her statemtent about being a lifelong democrat and/or she falsified voting for Grayson. If she did not live in his district she could not have legally voted for him. If she ever was in her life registered as a repubican, not just happening to vote for a republican here or there, but registered then she could hardly be called a 'life-long democrat.'

[valerief]

59. More goatfuckers! nt

[Zorra]

60. Evidence of NPR's right wing bias from FAIR:

Extra! May/June 2004
How Public Is Public Radio?
A study of NPR’s guest list
By Steve Rendall and Daniel Butterworth
snip--
Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR , and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003 study.

Partisans from outside the two major parties were almost nowhere to be seen, with the exception of four Libertarian Party representatives who appeared in a single story (Morning Edition , 6/26/03).

Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge, individual Republicans were NPR ’s most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance. George Bush led all sources for the month with 36 appearances, followed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (8) and Sen. Pat Roberts (6). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Secretary of State Colin Powell, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and Iraq proconsul Paul Bremer all tied with five appearances each.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1180

NPR: Nationalized Propraganda Radio.

[Kolesar]

62. 2004 is from the bush-era when he put Tomlinson in charge of public broadcasting

All of the media was intimidated by bush/Rove, and especially public broadcasting because they need public funding.

[reprehensor]

61. NPR sucks it.

And this was the clincher for me. It's like radio for lambs on the way to the slaughterhouse.

[Ardent15]

68. So much for NPR being "liberal" nt

[hay rick]

69. Factchecking?

Awesome.

[depakid]

70. National Propaganda Radio at it again

The board needs to be reformed.

[stubtoe]

71. I'll bet an extra large pizza with everything on it that the NPR reporter recruited her.

As in, knowing darned well she was republican, but setting her up anyway as the so-called "disaffected democrat".

NPR is soooo busted.

[defendandprotect]

73. Did you let Grayson's office know . . . ?????

NPR . . . long gone --

In fact, my PBS NJN station here in NJ is running repeats of "Bonanza" -- !!!!

[ddeclue]

78. Already done. They were the first people I notified.

[defendandprotect]

96. I did drop a note into NPR's box . ..

thank you --

:)

[MisterK]

77. Done nt

[Joanne98]

79. Good catch!

[Cha]

80. Wow! I saw this story this morning and

posted NPR's contact number to let them know what we thought of the hatchet job on Grayson but it was not out yet that the woman wasn't even a Dem!

Good detective work, ddeclue.

[ddeclue]

81. I do this sort of thing for Florida Dem candidates from time to time.

I'm really good at OPPO research and voter database work. I sometimes do voter targetting consulting work for Dem candidates I like.

I busted Rich DeVos and friends a few years back on a clever ECO scam they were running to monkey in a Democratic Primary where they ran "pro" ads from an "educational" group called "All Children Matter" for all the weakest Democratic candidates so they could hopefully have one of them to face in the general. We pulled the mask off and busted them though because they got lazy and basically reused their literature down to the art work and copy for different candidates - same crayons, same blackboards, same apples... bwa ha ha.

[Cha]

92. Well, thank you..this is the MO of corporatemedia

& it turns out NPR..not investigating but always ready to have bring on a disingenuous hatchet job on Dems.

[Kablooie]

116. No. This was shoddy work and a mistake but I don't think deliberate.

NPR brought out that Price Waterhouse did not have faith in their insurance cost estimate.

They honestly try to reveal the unbiased truth the way a real reporter is supposed to do.

[Cha]

128. They'll come out with a big fat apology

then?

[zoff]

82. Isn't the NPR Chairman a presidential appointee?

Replacing him with an independent would bring truth if not balance to their broadcasts. This is what I wrote to NPR:

"A real democrat would not make those comments, and they sound like right wing talking points anyway. So a factcheck of Irene Morningstar confirms suspicions. She is a registered republican. Public airwaves cannot be used as a platform for such deceit. Mr. Allen would do well to amend his story. NPR's already fragile reputation is at stake."

It's a bit tame but it does the job of calling them out.

[ddeclue]

83. Thanks! and welcome aboard DU!

:D

[zoff]

132. YaY!

Thank YOU!

[mod mom]

84. gladly done. thanks for providing the contact info.

[johnaries]

85. Don't attack the Reporter if they were lied to.

Frankly, the article seems more pro-Grayson than anti-Grayson.

Despite the attempt to appear to present "both sides". But overall it presents Grayson in a good light;

As a couple of hundred Grayson opponents and supporters jostled with their signs outside the civic center, off to one side, 82-year-old Anna Smith leaned against one of the building's brick walls. She said she would have liked to sit down but forgot to bring her folding chair.
Smith said she was there because she believes it's important to have government involved in health care. She has been sick a lot lately and has had to depend on her family to help pay thousands of dollars in hospital bills — her co-pay under Medicare.
She said she thinks Grayson was telling the truth.
"Because in my case, I would have been dead. If I didn't have my daughter to live with, I would have been dead," she said.

"Listen," Grayson replied. "It's not about — I'll say this vehemently — it is not about people's feelings. It's about saving people's lives. You can say you're insulted or anything else, but in the end, I'm going to vote for the thing that saves people's lives and saves people's money."

And the final "sum-up" line (the most important)of the article is:

As for Grayson, despite his inflammatory style, he says he has no interest in partisan politics. His comments, he says, were intended to spur the debate over health care, and in that, he has been successful (emphasis added).

If an individual lied to a reporter, then I agree that the individual should be "called out". I think it's good that DU has pointed out the error to NPR and I have no doubt that once the lie has been pointed out NPR will do some research and do a retraction.

This is a "good thing".

But I see no reason for the vitriol against the only half-way decent source of anything approaching objective reporting left in our country. Remember, there was an attempt by the RW to "take over" NPR to make them "fair and balanced" just like Fox News that was ultimately rejected. Because NPR is a threat to the RW agenda.

That being said, we should "call them out" whenever they are report a "lie" that was presented to them. While we're at it, they do seem to have a lot of commentaries by RW "think-tanks" such as the Heritage Foundation - probably because there just aren't a lot of Liberal "think-tanks".

Why is that? Why can't we develop multiple message machines like the RW has? Politics is a Message War, and we need to find a way to propagate the message of truth to counteract the RW lies.

We can't depend on NPR or any news media to do it for us. WE have to do it.

[ddeclue]

90. It took me 5 minutes to check the facts.. I suppose that is asking too much of a PROFESSIONAL

reporter?

:crazy:

They deserve my vitriol for being either incompetent or lazy or playing along and not checking the facts.

[johnaries]

99. You did a "fact-check" on one aspect of a long interview.

They have to do a fact check on every aspect of every interview.

BIG difference. Some shit is eventually going to "slip through".

Besides, as I said, when you look at the interview at a whole, Grayson still came out looking good DESPITE the single error.

Don't get me wrong, if NPR or any other reporting agency gets any fact wrong, we should do everything we can to correct it.

BUT, overall, NPR does an excellent job of reporting and they do not deserve the kind of attacks I have seen on this thread.

CNN, yes. CNBC, most of the time. MSNBC, about half the time.

NPR at least TRIES! Correct them when they are wrong. But don't broad-brush them in with the other Corporate Media travesties.

[ddeclue]

100. It is NOT a small detail that "slipped" through. It totally destroys her credibility.

NPR isn't what it used to be 5 years ago my friend and why is he-said she-said journalism "good" journalism? There is an objective truth to be found by FACT CHECKING. Just because someone says something doesn't mean it is at all credible.

[johnaries]

101. Yes, it destroys the SOURCE'S credibility. But not the reporter's IF

you read the rest of the article. You need to look at the whole, and not just one microcosm.

Oh, and BTW, congrats on getting on the front page. Having read many of your posts before I'm sure that's more important to you than the actual TRUTH.

[ddeclue]

103. Oh brother.. the reporter failed to make a very simple fact check that totally changed the validity

of his story.

If he corrects it fine. Let's see.

And the TRUTH matters to me because Alan Grayson is actually a friend of mine and someone on whose campaign I spent a great deal of time working last year.

[johnaries]

111. That's my point. It did NOT change the "validity" of the story.

If you read the rest of the story, it still paints Grayson in a postive light.

As I said before, yes, if there is an error in the story then it is our duty to point it out.

However, to broad-brush an organization such as NPR which does so much good as some on this thread have done based on a single mistake is a RW tactic, and below us as a group.

I'm not calling out you specifically, but some others who have posted on this thread.

NPR, overall, does a pretty good job of presenting the "truth". Every now and then they fuck up. But they at least try and will usually admit to their mistakes. VERY unlike their M$M counterparts.

What, next Jon Stewart will say something you don't like and suddenly you're anti-Semetic?

Some will say I went too far with that analogy, and I will agree. Just as some posters went too far on this thread. My analogy is just as ridiculous as many of those I have seen on this thread.

(NOTE: I apologize to my Jewish friends. I am merely trying to make a point and I picked Jon Stewart because he is the "most trusted reporter in America" - deservedly so - despite the fact he admits he is only a comedian; and the fact that he is open about being Hebrew. It was meant as an honorific to Stewart as an individual and meant as an insult to any who would judge him by his heritage.)

[ddeclue]

113. NO it DOES change the validity of the story.

One half of the "debate" is being offered by a demonstrable liar. So we are supposed to be happy that NPR got half of their story right? I would argue that if one half of the "debate" was a lie then there really wasn't a debate being offered by the reporter.

I'm not broadbrushing anyone, just pointing out the facts.

Sorry if you don't like it.

And don't be ridiculous about Jon Stewart - in fact FACT CHECKING was the very core of his bit last night when he went after CNN. Jon and I are on the same side my friend - the TRUTH.

[swishyfeet]

88. I can't believe so many people are freaking out about this

Just because the OP calls it a "hitpiece" doesn't make it so. Most of the comments above are simply ad hominem attacks - but has anyone explained why it's a hitpiece???

The title of the story is: "Rep. Grayson's 'Die Quickly' Comment Stirs Debate"

If there's to be debate we should probably hear both sides. On one side, they give this woman - who apparently lied about her party affiliation 17 seconds of air time. On the other they give Anna Smith 16 seconds of air in support of Grayson.

Does it matter that the woman lied about being a Democrat? NO! They used her to represent that side of the argument.

The article wraps up with: "As for Grayson, despite his inflammatory style, he says he has no interest in partisan politics. His comments, he says, were intended to spur the debate over health care, and in that, he has been successful."

ZOMG!! It's a hitpiece!!! Jesus people, chill out.

[ddeclue]

91. So LIES deserve equal air time with the truth?

:crazy:

It ABSOLUTELY matters that the woman lied because it goes to motive and credibility.

She has no credibility and deserves ZERO air time.

[swishyfeet]

97. Totally irrelevant.

Private citizens that give some radio guy a 17 second sound bite for a relatively unimportant story do not deserve to have people checking their background. Everyone here would be outraged if FOX news or Freepers did the same to one of us.

Fact is, people here are just falling for what is really a non-story. Sorry.

If I'm wrong, someone PLEASE backup the NPR hate with some legitimate complaints about this piece.

Edit: just noticed I said 17 'minute' before.

[ddeclue]

98. Are you just out of your mind?

OF COURSE - Yes they DO desrve to have their assertions tested.

You don't get to just stand in front of the media and LIE YOUR ASS OFF and get treated like your word is as good as anyone else.

If news stories don't have to be based on THE TRUTH then we might as well all just give up.

[swishyfeet]

105. That's BS

If I call in to "Talk of the Nation" and say I'm a lifelong republican then rail on Rush Limbaugh, should they run a background check on me? Of course not.

NPR was neither approving nor disapproving of Grayson's statements, and her comments did not lead to any false conclusions. Who gives a shit if she fibbed? She's not up for election, she wasn't under oath, she's not obligated to be 100% truthful.

The woman is a private citizen who was asked a question. She was not standing in front of a podium as an elected official, she was not the focus of the story... Grayson was. They were just trying to get both sides.

You're out of your mind if you somehow interpret such a benign story as a hitpiece.

[ddeclue]

106. NOT AT ALL: It was NOT LIVE. It was taped LAST NIGHT.

If you have time to fact check you DO.

They had plenty of time to fact check.

They didn't.

Your premise is totally without merit.

and she voluntarily chose to put her credibility up for public scrutiny by making her statement to the media - especially since she was not telling the truth - if she wanted to be "a private citizen" she had an option - tell the truth or don't say anything.

[swishyfeet]

107. SO WHAT?

Every day, on every single TV and radio news show there are reporters getting comments from people on the street.

What percentage of those people should get background-checked to satisfy your high standards?
What percentage of those people DO get background-checked?

My premise is that people are blowing this WAY out of proportion. How can that be totally without merit?

The woman didn't agree with Grayson's comments. Whether or not she's a registered Democrat wasn't the point.

Again, people need to look past the inflammatory OP.

[ddeclue]

108. SO IT WAS CENTRAL TO THE REPORTER'S THESIS.

It totally changes the reader's perception to know that the so called "comments" were being delivered by a Republican voter instead of a Democrat and even more changes their perception when they realize that they've just been lied to.

LIES do not deserve equal time with the TRUTH.

[swishyfeet]

109. Rep. Grayson's 'Die Quickly' Comment Stirs Debate

There's your thesis.

Rep Grayson's comments have ABSOLUTELY stirred debate.
His comments have been aired on every political talk show among the cable news networks.

The reporter's thesis isn't affected in the slightest by this one person's comments.

Answer my question: How many of the thousands of people every week across the country who have a mic stuck in front of their mouth for comments should be background checked?

[ddeclue]

110. And one half of the "debate" is being offered by a liar.

The reporter's thesis falls apart when one entire half of the debate is demonstrated to be offered by someone who is lying about basic facts.

ANY reporter worth their salt verifies the assertions in their story. It's crappy journalism to just hand someone a microphone to say anything they like without fact checking it.

I could stand up and say the earth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese. Should NPR grant equal credence between my assertion and a statement by Neil Armstrong to the contrary? Or should NPR actually FACT CHECK their story before they put out a useless and misleading he-said she-said piece of nonsense?

[swishyfeet]

112. Answer my question

Thousands of random people are asked for comments by reporters each week across the country.

How many should be fact checked?

This woman isn't the official spokesman for the Grayson haters club, she's a nobody. Her opinion doesn't change anything.

She's not "half" the debate, she's a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the debate. One voice among thousands of people presumably poutraged by Grayson.

[ddeclue]

115. I DID: ANYONE who offers assertions for the media gets fact checked by REAL reporters

she made herself a SOMEBODY by lying on camera. She was trying to influence the debate with a lie.

She's HALF the debate as far as the NPR article was concerned and she deserves to be exposed.

[swishyfeet]

118. REAL reporters wouldn't waste their time

digging into the personal life of someone off the street who offers their opinion. When she becomes the voice of the anti-Grayson campaign I'm sure we can expect more.


I'll make you a deal, I'll agree the reporter is not Walter Cronkite if you'll admit this may not be a full-blown "NPR Hit Piece"

[ddeclue]

120. I'm not interested in your deal because you are flat wrong.

I wasn't digging into "the personal life" of "someone off the street" - I was a verifying an assertion offered by someone who voluntarily chose to make it to a reporter using the PUBLIC RECORD.

[Common Sense Party]

117. "Man on the street" interviews have never been subject to fact-checking.

People can and do say whatever the hell they want. Reporters want to get the views of other people and they say what they say.

I'd hazard a guess that it happens on both ends of the ideological spectrum.

[swishyfeet]

119. Finally, some Common Sense

Bless you!

[ddeclue]

121. This was a basic element of the story and needed to be fact checked but wasn't.

They deserve to get busted for it.

[Common Sense Party]

122. "bust" them or let them know someone fudged, but that's not what

reporters typically do. Their job is to get a story out, filled with facts AND opinions.

For exmple, recent LA Times article on the gay rights march on Washington:

Alex Miller, 23, of Ashburn, Va., waved a sign supporting her sister, Sam, 20, a lesbian. "Same womb. Same rights," it said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gays-rally12-2009oct12,0,6043274.story

The reporter, you'll notice, does not take the time to point out and verify that, yes, indeed, Alex Miller IS 23 years of age, that she IS, indeed, from Ashburn, VA, and that her sister IS, indeed, an actual Lesbian names Sam. All of that MAY be true.

Most of the time, when a person shares information with a reporter, it is true. But the reporter reports what people say.

Perhaps some journalism major can quote their textbook with the standards for factchecking every person-on-the-street's every utterance.

[swishyfeet]

123. Do you REALLY think these ubiquitous commenters ever get fact checked?

Really?

NPR also failed to make it clear Grayson lied about Republicans wanting you to die quickly. Let's be honest, they most likely don't want you to die. You and I are both happy to give NPR a pass on that.

I'm also willing to give them a pass for not fact-checking Miss Nobody.

[Fumesucker]

137. If Repubs don't want you to have health care then they indeed do want you to die..

Repubs don't care *what* you have wrong with you, cancer, heart disease, AIDS, ebola, you name it, if you don't have the money or the private insurance they want you to go untreated.

That is basically the official position of the Republican party, you can try to candy coat it but it still is what it is.

Oh, and the "Lifelong Democrat" lie by a Republican attacking Democrats from the right is so common it should immediately raise suspicion in any conscientious reporter.

[iceman66]

150. You're missing the point entirely

The problem is not so much that they didn't 'fact check' the interview, but that they chose to broadcast that particular interview to foster the impression that Democratic voters were abandoning Grayson because he has taken a stand on health care reform. In actuality, nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact that the woman was completely full of shit is just icing on the cake.

[sabrina 1]

125. Can we send this information to Rep. Grayson?

I'm sure he'll make sure it gets lots of publicity.

I read that he is the now the most targeted Democrat by the same gang that targeted ACORN. And it looks like they are using the same tactics to go after him. Lies and deception.

[nikto]

127. ARTIFICIAL HISSYFIT # 89387562918357J

It's what Republicans do.

It's the only thing they don't screw up (except stealing).

[InfiniteThoughts]

129. it's OK with me if there is no PO in the bill ..

... instead i will settle for the following 'compromises':

* Bill includes regulation that mandates that companies spend at least 90% of the premium money on claims. If the claims is less than 90% of premium money, the amount is carried forward to the next year.

(I saw the 2008 Annual statement of United Healthcare. $81 bn in revenue. $6 bn in profit, $63 bn in claim reimbursment and $12 bn in ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. Thus, for every dollar paid towards claims, 10 cents were retained as profit (i am ok with that!) but 20-22 cents were spent on admin expenses. by mandating that companies spend at least 90%, we are imposing a cap for admin, profit, depreciation and interest payment.

* Bill mandates that claim form submitted by doctor has to be uniform across all providers. The industry will be given 180 days from the day the bill becomes law to agree on a format and another 90 days to implement the agreed format.

[eridani]

136. And the shitstains STILL get to deny claims

And no cost controls. The legislation totally sucks, even with an inadequate public option.

[Rex]

130. NPR cheers on the Wall Street thugs every morning.

Barf central.

[anniebelle]

134. We're in the middle of the fall fund drive for our NPR station.

I have given to my NPR station here for the last 25 years, but will not continue this year. Not just this story, but so many, many more I've heard over the last couple of years. Juan Williams is a bad joke and several of their other right-wingers. I was disabled about 15 years ago, so have spent a lot of time with the radio since then and pick up innuendos that smack of right-wing talking points.

[and-justice-for-all]

138. DONE!!! nt

[4_TN_TITANS]

141. I listen to NPR daily at work

and I do not think that they are an 'arm' of the repub party. So they goofed a little on this one, it doesn't begin to compare to Faux's goofs.
I enjoy Neil Conan and Talk of the Nation.

p.s. Only referring to the national broadcast, not my local Nashville NPR.

[Common Sense Party]

152. "NPR = Republicon mouthpiece" is a stunningly juvenile canard

It has no basis in reality.

Some people around here seem to think that if a news organization doesn't cheerlead and promote a Kucinich-style ideology, then they are de facto corporatist, right-wing-controlled propagandists.

Beyond silly.

TOTN is one of the best shows on radio.

[lostnfound]

143. Is there any recording of what was said on NPR?

If it is a story that can be heard again, it might be worthwhile to send this one to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann. There may be even more to the story that what is here -- for example, if the NPR person KNEW it was lies but ran it anyway. Giving NPR the benefit of the doubt on that possibility still leaves them -- at best -- being "hopelessly naiive" that they keep "falling for" this propaganda.

[nyc 4 Biden]

147. Audio Link

The part regarding Irene Morningstar begins at 1:06.

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=113742203&m=113742173">Audio

[MinM]

159. 'Unapologetic' -- 'Rich' -- 'Trial Lawyer'

Gotta love those 'Code Words' that NPR uses in this hit piece. :eyes:

[MannyGoldstein]

144. Anyone Hear Saturday's "This American Life" On NPR?

About how utterly fucked up our health care system is? The best info I've heard on this, at least as good as SiCKO.

Hardly right-wing talking points.

I have no doubt that they'll air a correction on this lying woman. NPR and the NY Times are the closest things we have to truly "fair and balanced" reporting: not perfect, but damned good.

[nyc 4 Biden]

145. done.

my letter to NPR corrections department...


In regards to "Rep. Grayson's 'Die Quickly' Comment Stirs Debate" by Greg Allen:

I am disappointed that NPR was bamboozled by Irene Morningstar who claimed to be a "lifelong Democrat" and now regrets her vote for Rep. Grayson.

A modicum of fact checking would have exposed this huckster for the farce that she is. Readily available voter registration records reveal Morningstar as a registered Republican.

As shown by the opposition's reluctance to put up a candidate against Rep. Grayson, I think the only 'debate' is how the Congressman can use his new found nationwide support to best benefit his constituents.

NPR, please rectify this lapse in factual accuracy or continue to be a pawn of the GOP smear machine.

Best Regards,

Dominic

[bullwinkle428]

148. Listened to all of "Morning Edition" today - NO RETRACTION.

:mad:

[KansDem]

154. I did too--and as you observed: no retraction

At best, NPR's "error" is shoddy journalism, and worst, complicity.

They need to acknowledge their shoddiness or complicity! :grr:

[iceman66]

151. I'm starting to think NPR is even worse than Fox

At least the bias on Fox news is obvious. NPR is more of an insidious evil.

[northernlights]

155. ok I registered and wrote in more than an hour ago

so why am I still the last person to reply.

Get in there and DU this!!!!!

NPR (and its tv twin) have become increasingly rightwing since one of W's cronies was put in charge. They need to understand their role. We need real, impartial public broadcasting -- and journalism -- back.

[unpossibles]

156. typical. LIke the townhall/teabag screamers who yel "listen to those who put you in power"

um, they are - none of you voted for Democrats and you know it. In fact, the teabaggers are trying to prevent our representatives from listening to those of us who voted for them and put them in office.

[mackerel]

158. I thought NPR won a 'truthish' award?

[McCamy Taylor]

160. National Public Republicans!

[12AngryBorneoWildmen]

161. Wow, Mr. ddeclue. No surrender, no retreat.

Would swishyfeet and common sense party think it unnecessary to overnight fact check if the clip was 77 seconds? How about 7 minutes and 17 seconds? Should we never fact check or when do your 'level heads' find it justified? What harm is done by fact checking? And why can't you get it through your heads that this is not a live man on the street interview? This is an example of guilt by omission. Thank you Tenacious D declue.

[Duncan]

163. done.

[Techn0Girl]

168. HEY CLARK KENT - LOOKS LIKE YOUR STORY WAS PICKED UP BY DAILY KOS ...

Oops... my bad looks like it wasn't.
Let me check Huffington Post... nope, not there
How about Crooks and Liars ? ..... ahhhh, nope.
TPM? Nope
Media Matters? No, not there either.
Keith or Rachel?? Nope. Nope.

In fact no one is reporting this story except the Gambling magazine that you also posted it in.
http://www.gamblingiq.com/forum/politics-religion/35583.htm

Do you know why no one else has caught on to your incredible story? No one at ALL?
Global left-wing conspiracy to suppress your mad investigative journalism skillz perhaps?
Nope.

It's because YOU MADE IT UP!
It's a non-story.
No one's touching it because there's no factual basis for anything that you have said. They are just suppositions that exist in your own mind backed up by evidence that would be laughed out of a first year journalism class.

So some woman on some impromptu outdoor interview on NPR says she was a Democrat in November and you bring out voter records from APRIL 2009 to prove she isn't? What's up with that ? April 2009 ? Really?? And you're unable and unwilling to produce the records prior to November to show whether she is lying or not. Because that would be I suppose , you know...too much work?

The woman claims to have been registered in Grayson's district and as "proof" that she is not you offer an address from some generic Internet look-up site that may or may not have her correct address on it and certainly has no legal responsibility to do so. Oh and by the way "Brenda Starr" I have different mailing and residence addresses. You SHOULD have gone back and obtained voting records for her h=district from PRIOR to the Nov 08 election because only THOSE would have proven where she was registered to vote and for what party she was registered.

But instead of doing all that you comically revel in your ignorance and proclaim "Well it only took me 5 minutes to look this stuff up! OF COURSE it took you five minutes It took you five minutes because
you did an incompetent job of it. This is why REAL journalists get paid big bucks and you get to sit home in your PJ's and make a post. Big, BIG difference. It's harder than it looks and it takes more than 5 minutes time to do.

And because you're on the internet, where hysteria is king,you managed to attract 100+ other people with dubious critical thinking skills to upvote you.

Allow me to clue you in Sherlock - this hasn't been picked up by anyone else AT ALL because the story exists only in your own mind and most people can see that.

And you managed to get undoubtedly several DUers to waste their time chastising one of the greatest media resources that we actual Progressives have always had - for nothing. No real reason at all You should work for the Right because you've done their job for them admirably well - clap...clap...clap. I salute you Sir! Well done.

Sometimes I don't know what does us more harm - hysterical off the wall Right wing nutjobs or hysterical off the wall people in our own party.

[MinM]

170. Mea culpa???

Has 'Morning Edition' apologized to Grayson yet? I'm getting tired of holding my breath. :sarcasm:

It's ironic since in the hit piece they made a point that Grayson was "unapologetic". As if he had something to apologize for. :eyes: